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

His father died in 1753, and in 1754- he went into orders; and through the interest of the earl of “Holdernesse, whose patronage he had obtained, he was preferred to be one of the king’s chaplains, and received about the same time the living of Aston. The reputation he had acquired by the odes of his” Elfrida,“encouraged him to publish, in 1756, four compositions of that class on <c Memory, Independency, Melancholy, and the Fate of Tyranny,” which were not received with favour or kindness. Both ridicule and legitimate criticism seem to have been employed on this occasion to expose the wanton profusion of glittering epithets, and the many instances of studied alliteration scattered over these odes. Colman and Lloyd, who were now beginning to look for satirical prey, published two excellent parodies Oh one of them, and on one of Gray’s. His praise of Andrew Marvell, and attack on bishop Parker, produced about the same time a dull letter of cet>sure, which probably gave him less uneasiness than the cool reception of his “Odes,” by those who then dispensed the laonours of literary fame. On the death of Gibber, he was proposed to succeed him as poet laureat; but, instead of an offer of this place, an apology was made to him by lord John Cavendish, that “being in orders, he was thought merely on that account, less eligible for the office than a layman.*' The notice of this circumstance in his life of W. Whitehead is followed by a declaration of his indifference.” A reason so politely put, I was glad to hear assigned; and if I had thought it a weak one, they who know me, will readily believe that I am the last man in the world who would have attempted to controvert it.“The probability, indeed^ is that Mr. Mason would not have thought himself honoured bv the situation, if compelled to fulfil its duties; for though by his mediation the office was tendered to Gray, it was” with permission to hold it as a mere sinecure."

The severity exercised on his “Odes” deprived him of no fame but what he amply recovered by the publication of “Caractacus”* in 1759, another dramatic poem on the plan of the ancients, and possessing all the beauties and defects of the former, with more poetry and passion, yet with touches of nature, which, although sometimes spoiled by useless expletives, are in general just, natural, and affecting. Gray bestows high praise on the chorusses of this drama, particularly that beginning “Hark heard ye not yon footstep dread, &c.” Notwithstanding the objections of the critics, Caractacus continued to be read with interest, and the author was not the only person who thought that with some alterations, under the inspection of a connoisseur in stage-effect, it might become an acting-play. Accordingly it was performed on Covent-garden theatre ia 1776, and received with considerable applause; but it obtained no permanent rank on the stage, and it was thought that the alterations which made it more dramatic, made it less poetical. Some years after it was again brought into public notice by a translation into Greek from the pen of the late unfortunate rev. G. H. Glasse, who proved himself by this effort one of the first writers of Greek poetry in England.

In 1762, Mason published “Three Elegies,” which are elegant, tender, and correct beyond the productions of any of his contemporaries. These, with all his former pieces, except the “Isis” and the “Installation Ode,” were collected into one volume, and published in 1764, with a beautiful dedicatory sonnet to his patron the earl of Holdernesse. Why he omitted “Isis” from this collection is not very evident. We have, indeed, his own authority that he never would have published it, if a surreptitious copy had not found its way to the press; but, although he omitted it now, he reprinted it in the third volume of his poems, published in 1796, when his sentiments on political topics were more perfectly in unison with those held at Oxford. MV. Mant, in his life of Mr. T. Warton, informs us that several years after he had written this elegy, he was coming into Oxford on horseback; and as he passed over Magdalen Bridge (it was then evening), he turned to his friend, and expressed his satisfaction, that, as it was getting dusk, they should enter the place unnoticed. His friend did not seem aware of the advantage. “What!” rejoined the poet, “do you not remember my Lsis?” This may be reckoned an instance of the “harmless and comical vanity” which Gray attributed to him when at college. But a more singular omission occurs in this volume, in the “Ode to a Water Nymph:” this formerly concluded with a handsome compliment to lord Lyttelton, both as a poet and as a speaker in the senate, which was now removed, and a favourite description substituted. In the same year his majesty presented our author to the canonry and prebend of Driffield in the cathedral church of York, together with the precentorship of that church, vacant by the promotion of Dr. Newton to the bishopric of Bristol.

Against the author of these unprovoked attacks, our author betrayed no immediate resentment; and when he speaks of Churchill’s abuse of his friend Whitehead, disdains to recollect that he had been the object of the same malignity. His principal residence about this time was at Aston, where he displayed his taste in improving the grounds and scenery near his parsonage-house, and was yet more assiduous in discharging the duties of his clerical function. In Sept. 1765, he married Miss Sherman, daughter of William Sherman, esq. of Kingston upon Hull, a very amiable lady with whom his happiness was but short. Throughout the greater part of their connection, he had little intermission from the misery of watching the progress of consumption, which terminated her life, in 1767, at Bristol, whither he had been advised to remove her in hopes of recovery. The lines he wrote on this occasion need no recommendation to a feeling heart, nor would it be easy to discover a poem, which conveys more quick sympathy, in the whole range of elegiac poetry.

In 1772, he published the first book of his “English Garden,” a work in which Mr. Warton says “didactic poetry is brought to perfection, by the happy combination of judicious precepts with the most elegant ornaments of language and imagery.” This opinion is quoted, not only because it appears to be just, but because it proves that Mr. Warton entertained a very high opinion of Mason as a poet, although there did not exist so much cordiality of friendship as could have been wished between men who were certainly among the ornaments of literature in their day. The usual objections to didactic poetry are undoubtedly in force against this specimen; yet the “English Garden” was read with avidity and approbation. The subject was more familiar and interesting than those of former poems of instruction, and it afforded him more frequent opportunities to introduce rural imagery, and those descriptions which give scope to a poetical imagination. Yet the approbation of his friends did not flatter him into carelessness and precipitation. He appears to have been one of the few authors who are desirous to retain the fame they have acquired. The remaining books of the “English Garden” were published at periods sufficiently distant to admit all the niceties of polish and frequent correction. Book II. appeared in 1777, book III. in 1779, and book IV. in 1782.

During some of these intervals he executed a very important task, which devolved on him in consequence of the death of his friend Gray. This justly-celebrated poet gratified him by a visit at Aston in 1770, and after his return to Pembroke-hall, was seized with the gout in his stomach, which proved suddenly fatal. Mason hastened to Cambridge to pay the last duties of friendship, but arrived too late for the funeral, which had been conducted by Dr. Brown, master of Pembroke-hall, who was appointed jointexecutor. To Mason, Gray left the sum of 500l. with all his books, manuscripts, musical instruments, medals, &c. and Mason undertook to write his life, and to publish such of his manuscripts as might appear to be worthy of his high character in the literary world. In his biography he chose to deviate from the usual plan, by adopting one which seemed to present more advantages. Objections have been made to it, because the biographer seldom appears either as the narrator or the critic, but it must be allowed that the whole is rendered more interesting, and that the attention of the reader being constantly fixed on the principal character, he is enabled to form a more impartial opinion than if he had perused no evidence but the assertions of the biographer. The plan has since been followed in the cases of Johnson, Cowper, sir William Jones, Mrs. Carter, and Dr. Beattie and where lives of equal importance to literary curiosity are to be recorded, which cannot be often, it appears to be not only the most engaging species of minute biography, but also the most impartial.

The “Memoirs of Gray” were published in 1775, in aa elegant quarto volume, including an edition of his poems, with additions, and a series of his correspondence illustrative of those particulars of education, genius, opinion, and temper, which, insignificant as they may often appear, are all that form the life of a scholar. In executing this task, Mr. Mason has been accused of partiality; but his partiality appears to be more in intention than proof. Some things he may have omitted, and others are certainly thrown into shade; but, by exhibiting so much of his friend’s correspondence, he has laid him more open to public inspection than could have been done by any species of narrative. So much may be known of Gray from this volume, that probably very little is concealed which was necessary to be told; and accordingly we find that it has been appealed to with equal confidence by Gray’s enemies and by liis admirers.

In 1779, he published his political creed in the shape of an animated “Ode to the Naval Officers of Great Britain,” written immediately after the trial of admiral Kepjjel in February of that year. Although attached to a retired life, he became tired of forbearance, when the disappointments of the American war had incited the whig party to discover the more distant or latent sources of national misfortune, and to propose remedies by which Britain should be always, prosperous, and always victorious. He was already one of those who thought the decision of parliament on the Middlesex election, a violation of the rights of the people; and when the counties began, in 1779, to associate for parliamentary reform, he took an active part in assisting their deliberations, and wrote several patriotic manifestos, which raised him as high in the opinion of his own party, as they degraded him in the eyes of the other. He is even said to have given so much offence at court, that he found it convenient to resign his chaplainship. It appears, however, by the poems he wrote in his latter days, that the fever of reform bad abated, and that his cure, which was begun by Mr. Fox’s India bill, was afterwards completed by the French revolution. His “Ode to Mr. Pitt,” published in 1782, expresses the sanguine hopes he entertained of the virtues and talents of that young statesman. When be prepared this ode for a new edition in 1795, he altered the last line from

Among Mr. Mason’s accomplishments, his taste for painting was perhaps not inferior to that he displayed for poetry; and it has been thought that his judgment was more uniformly correct in the former than in the latter. His “Translation of Du Fresnoy’s Art of Painting,” which appeared in 1783, was begun, as he informs us, in his early years, with a double view of implanting in his memory the principles of a favourite art, and of acquiring a habit of versification, for which purpose the close and condensed style of the original seemed peculiarly calculated, especially when considered as a sort of school exercise. The task, however, proved so difficult, that it was long laid aside for original composition, and his translation would have never been made public, if sir Joshua Reynolds had not requested a sight of it, and offered to illustrate it by a series of notes. This induced him to revise the whole with such scrupulous care, that it may be considered, in a great measure, as the production of his mature talents, and whether perused as an original or a translation, is certainly not inferior to his most favourite works. In the poetical address, however, to sir Joshua Reynolds, he has not been thought so happy; and some inaccuracies of rhyme may be objected to a translation which is generally elegant and faithful. How much its value was enhanced to the artist, and to the connoisseur, by the annotations of sir Joshua Reynolds, is too obvious to be noticed.

His last separate publication of the poetical kind was a “Secular Ode in Commemoration of the Glorious Revolution,” 1688, and appeared when men of all parties joined in festal meetings to celebrate the restoration and establishment of English liberty. In the same year he condescended to be the biographer and editor of the poems of his friend William Whitehead, esq. Of his life of Whitehead some notice will be taken hereafter. Neither his subject nor his materials could furnish such memoirs as he has given of Gray, but it is interesting in an inferior degree, and would not have detracted much from his fame as a biographer, had he suppressed his splenetic notice of Dr. Johnson, and shewn that he had preserved that simplicity of character, and those generous feelings, which Gray once attributed to him. He appears to have been equally mistaken in a pamphlet which he published about this time, animadverting on the government of the York Lunatic Asylum; but the mistake was rather of the head than the heart, for he was a cordial and liberal supporter of that institution, and was betrayed into a degree of intemperance of remark by excess of zeal for its prosperity. Of his general humanity, or what he has termed *' moral patriotism," he afforded during this year an eloquent proof in a discourse delivered in York cathedral on the subject of the African slave trade. He was one of the first who contributed to expose the infamy of that trade, and to invigorate those remonstrances which have at length been heard with effect.

In 1795, he published a judicious, comprehensive, and elegant “Essay, historical and critical, on English Church Music.” This work embraces so many subjects connected with the decorous administration of public worship as to deserve much more attention than has yet been bestowed upon it. His answer to Mr. Thomas Warton’s objections to metrical psalmody is not the least valuable part; and the spirit and intelligence which he displays on this subject do credit to him, both as a poet and a divine. His knowledge of music was very accurate, and he is said to have composed a Te Deum, a hymn, and other pieces for the choir of York. The improvement, if not the invention of the piano forte is also attributed to him in an elaborate article on that subject, inserted in Dr. Gleig’s supplement to the “Encyclopedia Britannica*.”

His death, although he had reached his seventy-second year, was not the consequence of age. His health was yet more robust than most men enjoy at that advanced period, and his faculties had undergone no perceptible alteration, when he received a hurt in stepping into a carriage, which, producing a mortification, terminated his life on the 7th of April, 1797. A monument has been since erected to his memory in Westminster abbey, adjoining to that of Gray, with a short Latin inscription. The countess Harcourt also erected an urn to his memory in the flower-garden at Nuneham, with an inscription celebrating his “simple manners, piety, and steady friendship.” A yet higher tribute of respect has been paid by his friend Mr. Gisborne in some elegant verses. The opinion of so good a man as Mr. Gisborne is entitled to confidence, and there is no reason to doubt that Mason deserved the praise be has given him; nor, considering the general and acknowledged frailty of human nature, will this panegyric suffer by the few

in the Cyclopædia, "was not only an accompaniment of a consummate orexcellent poet and able divine, but a ganist. As prec-n' or of the cathedral

dilettante painter and musician; and of York, it is to be feared, be has stript

performer on the harpsichord; had History of our Church Music,' and,

fined taste, and was a very good judge character of our ecclesiastical compoof modern rnnsu but his ideas of re- sers, in his 'Copious Collection of

it to Calvinistical psalmody. He Bible, and Liturgy, which have been

wished for nothing but plain counter- set to Music, and sung as Aiuhems in.

point in the se: vices and full anthems, the Cathedral and Collegiate Churches

and dull and dry harmony in the vo- of England. To wh ch is prefixed a

luntaites, without melody, accent, or critical and historical Essay on Cathemeasure; and he preferred the me- dral Music.' Printed at York in 1782." chanical execution of a barrel organ in exceptions which, in truth and justice to the merits of others, his contemporaries, may be offered.

Mr. Mason’s life appears to have been principally devoted to the duties of his profession, occasionally relieved by the cultivation of the fine arts. His associates, at least in the latter part of his life, were few. He had the misfortune to survive the greater number whose friendship he had cultivated in his early years, and he was not ambitious *t>f new connections. This brought on him the imputation of that pride, or distance of manner, which is ascribed to men of unsocial habits. But Mason’s heart was not inaccessible, and his friendships were inviolable. The simplicity, hdwever, attributed to him in his young days by Gray, and the patience with which lord Orford informs us, he heard his faults, did not accompany him through life. On the publication of Gray’s life, he was ready to allow that “twenty-five years had made a very considerable abatement in his general philanthropy” and by philanthropy he seems here to mean a diffidence of opinion on matters of literature, and an -unwillingness to censure acknowledged merit. It can have no reference to philanthropy in the more general acceptation of the word, for he was to the last, liberal, humane, and chai-itaWe. What it really means, indeed, we find in the work just alluded to. The contemptuous notice of Waterland, Akenside, and Shenstone, which he did not suppress in Gray, he employed himself with more harshness whenever he could find an opportunity to attack the writings of Dr. Johnson. The opinion this great critic pronounced on Gray may be probably, quoted as the provocation, and great allowance is to be made for the warmth and zeal with which he guards the memory of his departed friend. But surely one of his notes on Gray’s Letters may be here fairly quoted against him. “Had Mr. Pope disregarded the sarcasms of the many writers that endeavoured to eclipse his poetical fame, as much as Mr. Gray appears to have done, the world would not have been possessed of a Dunciad; but it would have been impressed with a more amiable idea of its author’s temper.” Nor was his prosecution of Murray, for taking about fifty lines from his works of Gray into an edition which that bookseller published, much to the credit of his liberality, especially as he refused to drop the prosecution, when requested to name his own terms of compensation. Such httlenesses are to be regretted in a maa who was the friend of genius and literature, whose circumstances placed him far above want, and whose regular discharge of the duties of piety and humanity bespoke an ambition for higher enjoyments than fame and wealth caa yield. Of his regard for sacred truth, and the respect due to it, he exhibited a proof in a letter to lord Orford on his lordship’s childish epitaph on two piping bullfinches, to which he received an answer that was probably not very satisfactory.

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

Mason’s correctness is almost proverbial, and his ambition undoubtedly was to be equally correct and elegant: yet his style must often lead the reader to question his judgment, and to wonder that he could not see what every one else saw. That a man with so many endowments as a scholar, a critic, and an admirer of the simplicity of the ancients, should have fallen so frequently into a style ornamented with a finical profuseness, would be sufficiently remarkable, if his decorations had readily presented themselves; but, when we see him so frequently pausing for an epithet that incumbers what it cannot illustrate, when we see him more attentive to novelty than strength of imagery, and above all, taxing his memory to produce repeated alliterations, we are forced to conclude that judgment is not always consistent, or that in some men it occasionally exists independent of true taste. With these exceptions, however, few indeed of the modern poets in our collections deserve a higher rank than Mason, as a lyric and descriptive poet, nor has he given any finished piece to the world from which examples of excellence may not be quoted.

It is now necessary to advert to a series of poems which have been added to Mr. Mason’s works in the late edition of the English poets. The author of the “Heroic Epistle” was long concealed from the world, and for reasons which are obvious; but the poem had merit enough to be ascribed to the best living satirists, to Mason, Walpole, Hayley, Cowper, Anstey, and others. It appears, however, to be now universally given to Mason. Mr. Thomas Warton was of opinion that “it might have been written by Walpole and buckram 'd by Mason.” Mr. Malone, in a note on this opinion, which occurs in Boswell’s Life of Johnson, says, “It is now known that the Heroic Epistle was written by Mason.” Mr. Mant, in his life of Warton, informs us that when it was first published, Warton ascribed it to Mason, and endeavoured to confirm his opinion by internal evidence. Mason heard of this, and sent to him a letter in 1777, published by Mr. Mant, in which he professes to expostulate with him for raising a report merely from critical conjecture. "I have been told that you have pronounced me very frequently in company to be the author of the Heroic Epistle to sir William Chambers, and I am told too, that the premier himself suspects that I am so upon your authority. Surely, sir, mere internal evidence (and you can possibly have no other) can never be sufficient to ground such a determination upon, when you consider how many persons in this rhyming age of ours are possessed of that knack of Pope’s versification, which constitutes one part of the merit of that poem, and as to the wit, humour, or satire, which it contains, no part of my writings could ever lead you, by their analogy, to form so peremptory a judgment. I acquit you, however, in this procedure of every, even the slightest degree of ill nature; and believe that what you have said was only to show your critical acumen. I only mention it that you may be more cautious of speaking of other persons in like manner, who may throw such anonymous bantlings of their brain into the wide world. To some of these it might prove an essential injury; for though they might deserve the frown of power (as the author in question certainly does), yet I am persuaded that your good nature would be hurt if that frown was either increased or fixed by your ip$e dixit.

“To say more on this trivial subject would betray a solicitude on my part very foreign from my present feelings or inclination. My easy and independent circumstances make such a suspicion sit mighty easy upon me; and the minister, nay the whole ministry, are free to think what they please of a man, who neither aims to solicit, nor wishes to accept, any favour from them.”

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

, an excellent Frencn miniature painter, was horn at Paris in December 1687, and died in September 1767. He preserved his liveliness and gaiety to his death. His religion was that of the protestant communion, but so averse was he to the interference of any principle but fair conversion, that he dismissed a Roman catholic servant who had long served him faithfully, because he wished to change his religion to please him. Being questioned about his mode of thinking, he answered, “I serve God, and 1 feel myself so free, as to depend on nothing upon earth except my own exertions.” The collection of prints from the great gallery and other apartments at Versailles, were copied from the originals of Le Brun, by Massac, and engraved by the best artists under his inspection.

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

Several critical dissertations by Massieu upon classical antiquity are inserted in “The Memoirs of the academy of inscriptions.” His “Oration” at his reception into the Frencli academy is printed in the collections of the academy. He had the care of an edition of the “New Testament” in Greek, printed at Paris in 1715, in 2 vols. 12mo. He had also the care of M. de Tourreil’s works, published at Paris in 1722, in 2 vols. 4to. De Tourreil desired Massieu, on his death-bed, to give the public his translation of Demosthenes, which that author did very faithfully; and added to it some of his “Opuscula,” with a preface of his own.

, an eminent French preacher, was born in 1663, the son of a notary at Hieres in Provence In 1681, he entered into the congregation, of the Oratory, and wherever he was sent gained all hearts by the liveliness of his character, the agreeableness of his wit, and a natural fund of sensible and captivating politeness. These advantages, united with his great talents, excited the envy of his brethren, no less than the admiration of others, and, on some ill-founded suspicions of intrigue, he was sent by his superiors to one of their houses in the diocese of Meaux. The first efforts of his eloquence were made at Vienne, while he was a public teacher of theology; and his funeral oration ou Henri de Villars, archbishop of that city, was universally admired. The fame of this discourse induced father de la Tour, then general of the congregation of the Oratory, to send for him to Paris. After some time, being asked his opinion of the principal preachers in that capital, “they display,” said he, “great genius and abilities; but if I preach, I shall not preach as they do.” He kept his word, and took up a style of his own, not attempting to imitate any one, except it was Bourdaloue, whom, at the same time, the natural difference of his disposition did not suffer him to follow very closely. A touching and natural simplicity is the characteristic of his style, and has been thought by able judges to reach the heart, and produce its due effect, with much more certainty than all the logic of the Jesuit Bourdaloue. His powers were immediately distinguished when he made his appearance at court; and when he preached his first advent at Versailles, he received this compliment from Louis XIV. “My father,” said that monarch, “when I hear other preachers, I go away much pleased with them; but whenever I hear you, I go away much displeased with myself.” On one occasion, the effect of a discourse preached by him “on the small number of the elect,” was so extraordinary, that it produced a general, though involuntary murmur of applause in the congregation. The preacher himself was confused by it; but the effect was only increased, and the pathetic was carried to the greatest height that can be supposed possible. His mode of delivery contributed not a little to his success. “We seem to behold him still in imagination,” said they who had been fortunate enough to attend his discourses, “with that simple air, that modest carriage, those eyes so humbly directed downwards, that unstudied gesture, that touching tone of voice, that look of a man fully impressed with the truths which he enforced, conveying the most brilliant instruction to the mind, and the most pathetic movements to the heart.” The famous actor, Baron, after hearing him, told him to continue as he had began. “You,” said he, “have a manner of your own, leave the rules to others.” At another time he said to an actor who was with him “My friend, this is the true orator; we are mere players.” Massillon was not the least inflated by the praises he received. His modesty continued unaltered; and the charms of his society attracted those who were likely to be alarmed at the strictness of his lessons. In 1717, the regent being convinced of his merits by his own attendance on his sermons, appointed him bishop of Clermont. The French academy received him as a member in 1719. The funeral oration of the duchess of Orleans in 1723, was the last discourse he pronounced at Pans. From that time he resided altogether in his diocese, where the mildness, benevolence, and piety of his character, gained all hearts. His love of peace led him to make many endeavours to conciliate his brethren of the Oratory and the Jesuits, but he found at length that he had less influence over divines than over the hearts of any other species of sinners. He died resident on his diocese, Sept. 28, 1742, at the age of 79. His name has since been almost proverbial in France, where he is considered as a most consummate master of eloquence. Every imaginable perfection is attributed by his countrymen to his style. “What pathos” says one of them, “what knowledge of the human heart What sincere effusions of conviction What a tone of truth, of philosophy, and humanity! What an imagination, at once lively and well regulated Thoughts just and delicate conceptions brilliant and magnificent; expressions elegant, select, sublime, harmonious; images striking and natural; representations just and forcible; style clear, neat, full, numerous, equally calculated to be comprehended by the multitude, and to satisfy the most cultivated hearer.” What can be imagined beyond these commendations? Yet they are given by the general consent of those who are most capable of deciding on the subject. His works were published complete, by his nephew at Paris, in 1745 and 1746, forming fourteen volumes of a larger, and twelve of a smaller kind of 12mo. They contain, 1. A complete set of Sermons for Advent and Lent. 2. Several Funeral Orations, Panegyrics, &c. 3, Ten discourses, known by the name of “Le petit Care'me.” 4. “Ecclesiastical Conferences.” 5. Some excellent paraphrases of particular psalms Massillon once stopped short in the middle of a sermon, from defect of memory; and the same happened from apprehension in different parts of the same day, to two other preachers whom he went to hear. The English method of readitfg their discourses would certainly have been very welcome to all these persons, but the French conceive that all the fire of eloquence would be lost by that method: this, however, seems by no means to be necessary. The most striking passages and beauties of Massiilon’s sermons were collected by the abbe de la Porte, in a volume which is now annexed as a last volume to the two editions of his works; and a few years ago, three volumes of his “Sermons” were translated into English by Mr. William Dickson.

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

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.

As the editions of Dell in 1761, and Davies in 1779, will probably be heard of no more, it is unnecessary to point out their many errors and imperfections. Massinger has at length found in Mr. Gifford an editor, who has completely revived his fame, in the closet at least, and whose well-known learning and taste, it has been justly said, are accompanied, on this occasion, with that genuine spirit of research, that acuteness and accuracy which happily detect and rectify many gross mistakes of former editors, and admirably explain the customs, manners, and language of the poet’s time. This, which is perhaps the most correct edition of any of our ancient poets, was published in 180.5, 4 vols. 8vo, and so completely answered the public expectation, that a second edition was called for in 1813.

, an enterprizing botanist, was born at Aberdeen, in North-Britain, in 1741, and after coming to London, probably in pursuit of employment as a gardener, in which capacity he was known to Mr. Aiton, the superintendant of Kevv gardens, he was sent in 1771 or 1772 to the Cape of Good Hope. That country had been, for near a century, celebrated as a mine of botanical riches, which had scarcely reached our gardens but through the medium of those of Holland. This deficiency, however, in our supply of curious plants, was little felt while Mr. Masson continued at the Cape, and the Dutch appear not to have restrained his inquiries or acquisitions. He was allowed to travel many hundred miles up the country, and having amply effected the purpose of his mission, he was, in 1776, ordered to explore the Canary islands, the Azores, Madeira, and part of the West-Indies, especially the island of St. Christopher. In this he employed about five years more, and returned to England in 1781.

During his stay at the Cape, he entered into a correspondence with Linnæus. Having discovered a bulbous plant of a new genus, he was not only laudably ambitious of botanical commemoration in its name, but he was particularly anxious, as appears by one of his letters, to receive this honour from no less a hand than that of his illustrious correspondent. This indeed, his learned biographer remarks, was the unicum prteinium, the only reward to which he aspired for all his labours. That he sought no pecuniary advancement, the extreme slenderness of the stipend which could be obtained for him, and his disregard of such objects at all times, abundantly evinced. He obtained the honour to which he aspired. The specimen of Massonia in the herbarium of Linnæus, named by his own trembling hand near the close of his life, proves that the name had his sanction, though it appears to have beea originally suggested by Thunberg, in whose company Masson botanized for two years at the Cape. In 1783, he visited Portugal and Madeira, and returned to the Cape of Good Hope in 1786, where, inconsequence of the knowledge he had already acquired, it was settled, in consultation with his able adviser, sir Joseph Banks, that his travels should now be restrained to within forty miles of the Cape town. In 1795, Mr. Masson returned to England, and spent two years there among his botanical friends, after which he was sent to explore such parts of North America, under the British government, as appeared most likely to produce new and valuable plants; and his success was equal to the expectations that had been formed. Newplants, of interesting characters and properties, sprang up under his steps, and it seemed probable that much practical knowledge was likely to result from his discoveries, but he did not live to reap or to communicate more than a foretaste of these advantages. He died about Christmas, 1805, in the sixty-fifth year of his age, at Montreal, in Canada. He was a man of a mild temper, persevering in his pursuits, even to a great enthusiasm. Of great industry; which his specimens and drawings of fish, animals, insects, plants, and views of the countries he passed through, evince. And though he passed a solitary life, in countries distant from society, his love of natural history never forsook him. In 1796 he published a splendid work on the genus Stapelia, consisting of a thin folio volume, with forty-one coloured plates of as many species, almost entirely non-descript, accompanied by descriptions.

, a reformed minister, who died in Holland about 1750, was originally of France, but fled into England to enjoy that liberty in religion which his country refused him, and was employed as tutor in bishop Burnet’s family. In 1710 he travelled with his pupils, through Holland, and thence to France and Italy, according to Saxius, though we doubt whether the bishop had at that time any sons so young as to be only beginning their education. Be this as it may, he soon became known in. the literary world, and we should suppose must have often resided in Holland, as most of his publications were printed there. The first we can trace with certainty is his “Jani templum Christo nascente reseratum, seu Tractatus Chronologico-historicus vulgarem refellens opinionem existimantium, pacem toto terrarum orbe sub tempus Servatoris natale stabilitam fuisse,” &c. Rotterdam, 1700, 4to and 8vo. We are also indebted to him for, 1. “Histoire critique de la Republique des Lettres, from 1712 to 17 17,” in 15 vols. 12mo. 2. “Vitae Horatii, Oviciii, et Plinii junioris,” 3 vols. small 8vo, and printed abroad, though dedicated to Englishmen of rank: the first at Leyden, 1708, to lord Harvey; the second at Amsterdam, 1708, to sir Justinian Isham; the third at Amsterdam, 1709, to the bishop of Worcester. These lives are drawn up in a chronological order, very learnedly and very critically; and serve to illustrate the history, not only of these particular persons, but of the times also in which they lived. In the “Life of Horace,” Masson found occasion to interfere with M. Dacier; who, however, defended his own opinions, and prefixed his defence to the second edition of his Horace. 3. “Histoire de Pierre Bayle & de ses ouvrages,” Amsterdam, 1716, 12mo. This at least is supposed to be his, though at first it was given to M. la Monnoye. Many other critical dissertations by Masson are enumerated by Saxius.

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

The marriage of Charles IX. of France with Elizabeth, daughter of the emperor Maximilian, being celebrated in 1570 at Mezieres, Masson, who was present, wrote an elegant description of it, which was published the same year in 8vo, and was the first thing from which he derived literary reputation. He then resolved to apply to the law, and with this vie<v went to Angers to study under the celebrated Baudouin, or Balduinus. After two years he returned to Paris, and became librarian to the chancellor de Cheverney, a lover of literature, in which place he continued ten years. In 1576 he was made an advocate of parliament; yet never pleaded more than one cause, which however he gained with universal applause. The rest of his life appears to have been devoted to study, and when the troubles of France were at an end, he married the sister of a counsellor in parliament, with whom he lived thirty-four years, but had no children. The infirmities of age attacked him some time before his death, which happened Jan. 9, 1611. Rewrote, 1. “Annals of France,” a good work, the best edition of which is, 1598, 4to. 2. “Eulogies on illustrious Men,” 1656, 8vo. 3. “A Description of France by its Rivers,” 1685, 8vo. 4. “An Account of the French Bishoprics,” 8vo. “De Episcopis Urbis,” 4to, a history of the popes; and several other works, which discover great genius and learning. “Vita Joannis Calvini,” 4to, a well-written work, is also ascribed to him by some, and, by others, to James Gillot. The above-mentioned are all in Latin. His friend, M. de Thou, has written his life, which is prefixed to his Eulogies.

, a very learned Benedictine, of the congregation of St. Maur, was born at S. Owen de Macelles, in 1665. He is chiefly known for the new edition of St. Irenceus, which he published in 1710, fol. Gr. & Lat. He consulted, for that purpose, several manuscripts, which had never been examined; and made new notes and learned dissertations, prefixed to the work. The first of these dissertations is employed upon the person, character, and condition of Irenoeus, and sets forth particularly the writings and tenets of the heretics he encountered; the second enlarges further upon the life, actions, martyrdom, and writings of this saint; and the third relates his sentiments and doctrine. But, although this edition is reckoned better and more correct than any which had appeared before it, Salomon Deyling published a work at Leipsic in 1721, in order to expose the unfair representations Massuet had made of the opinions of Irenocus. Massuet was afterwards engaged to write a continuation of the acts and annals of the saints of the order of St.Benedict and accordingly he published a fifth volume. He died, aged 50, Jan. 19, 1716, after having written and published several other works.

, or perhaps Masters (Thomas), a poet and historian, was the son of the rev. William Master, rector of Cote near Cirencester in Gloucestershire. He was first educated at the grammar-school of Cirencester, and afterwards at Winchester-school, from which he entered New college, Oxford, as a probationer fellow in 1622, and was admitted perpetual fellow in 1624. He took his degrees in arts, that of M. A. in 1629, and being in orders, was in 1640 admitted to the reading of the sentences. At this time he was considered as a man of great learning, well-versed in the languages, and a good poet and preacher. There are no other circumstances recorded of his life, except his connection with lord Herbert of Cherbury, whom he assisted in some of his writings. He died of a putrid fever in 1643, and was buried in the outer chapel of New-college. Lord Herbert honoured his memory with a Latin epitaph, which is among his lordship’s poems, but was not inscribed on the place of his burial. His poems were in Latin and Greek: 1. “Mensa Lubrica,” Oxon. 1658, 4to, second edition. This is a poem in Lat. and English, describing the game of shovel-board. 2. “Movorfotpnta ei$ mv TsXfi<r7s alavgutriv,” a Greek poem on the passion of Christ, which was translated into Latin by Mr. Jacob of Merton-college, and into English by Cowley, and published at Oxford, 1658, 4to. His other Latin productions were, an oration delivered in New-college; “Iter Boreale,” “Carolus Redux,” “Ad regem Carolum,” &c. We have termed him a historian from his having given lord Herbert great assistance in his “Life of Henry VIII.” He also had a share in the Latin translation of his lordship’s book “De Veritate.” He had accumulated a great mass of historical information and authorities from the public records; Wood speaks of having four thick volumes in folio of these, “lying by him,” but does not mention whether his own property or borrowed. Dr. Fiddes, however, informs us, in the introduction to his “Life of Wolsey,' 7 that in his time Mr. Master’s” diligent and faithful collections“were in the library of Jesus-college, Oxford. He adds that” Lord Herbert appears to be indebted for good part of his history to those collections."

, a divine and antiquary, probably a relative of the preceding, was the great-grandson of sir William Masters of Cirencester, in Gloucestershire. His father, William, was a clergyman, who among other livings, held that of St. Vedast, Foster-lane, London, where the subject of this article was born in 1713. He was admitted of Corpus-Christi college, Cambridge, in 1731, took his degree of B. A. in 1734, that of M. A. in 1738, and that of S. T. B. in 1746. He also obtained a fellowship of the college, and was tutor from 1747 to 1750. In 1752 he was chosen a fellow of the society of antiquaries, and was presented by Corpus college, in 1756, to the rectory of Landbeach in Cambridgeshire. He was also presented to the vicarage of Linton, which he resigned for that of Waterbeach in 1759; but this last he afterwards, by leave of the bishop of Ely, resigned tr his son. In 1797 he resigned, by consent of the respective colleges, the living of Landbeach to one of his sons-in-law, the rev. T. C. Burroughs, but continued to reside there. He was in the commission of the peace for the county of Cambridge. He died at Landbeach July 5, 1798, in his eightythird year.

As a divine he published only one sermon, “The Mischiefs of faction and rebellion considered,” preached at Cambridge in 1745. He is chiefly known, as an antiquary, by his valuable “History of the College of Corpus-Christi,” &.c. 1753, 4to, the most complete account ever published, of any college in either university, and upon the best plan, that which includes the lives of the principal members, as well as the foundation and progress of the college. We have been too much indebted to this work not to bear this testimony to its satisfactory information and accuracy. Mr. Masters, however, was less fortunate in prefixing to this publication a plan and elevation of the intended new building, which he claimed the merit of designing, although it really belonged to that excellent architect James Essex. Mr. Masters also published a Section and Ichnography of Pythagoras’ s school at Cambridge, with the seal of Mertoncollege, Oxford, to uhich it belongs. To the Archseologia he contributed “Remarks on Mr. Walpole’s Historic Doubts,” who answered them with no small display of vanity and arrogance; “An account of stone coffins found near Cambridge castle;” and of “an ancient painting on glass, representing the pedigree of the Stewart family.” In 1784 he published “Memoirs of the Life and Writings of the late rev. Thomas Baker, B. D. of St. John’s-college, from the papers of Dr. Zachary Grey, with a Catalogue of his ms Collections,” Cambridge, 8vo; and in 1790 “A Catalogue of the several pictures in the public library and respective colleges of the university of Cambridge,” 12mo. His last work was, “A short account of the parish of Waterbeach, in the diocese of Ely, by a late Vicar,” 1795, 8vo, with a slight sketch of Denny abbey; but of this only a small number were given as presents. Mr. Masters, from certain peculiarities of temper, appears to have been frequently at variance with his literary friends, of which instances may be found in our authorities.

, the first of a family of nonconformist divines, of considerable reputation both in the new and old world, was born at Lowton, in the parish of Winwick, in Lancashire, in 1596. After some education at Winwick-school, he was, in 1611, at the early age of fifteen, appointed master of a public school at Toxteth-park, near Liverpool, where, as Wood says, “he was converted to godliness.” In 1618, however, he was admitted a student of Brazenose college Oxford, where his stay must have been short, as the same year we are told he preached his first sermon at Toxteth, having been ordained by Dr. Morton, bishop of Chester, and chosen minister of that place. Here he officiated until 1633, when he was suspended for nonconformity; and although this suspension was soon taken off, his prejudices against the church establishment became so strong, that he was again suspended, and then determined to seek the kind of church-government which he fancied the most pure, in New England. The year after his arrival there, in 1635, he was chosen minister of a congregation newly formed at Dorchester, where he remained until his death April 22, 1669, in the seventy-third year of his age. He was the author of one or two pious treatises, but of more respecting church government. He had four sons, Samuel, Nathanael, Eleazer, and Increase, who all imbibed their father’s principles, and became sufferers for nonconformity. Of these, the eldest and youngest seem entitled to some notice.

, eldest son of the preceding, was born in Lancashire in 1626, and going with his father to New England in 1635, was educated at Harvard-college, of which he became the first fellow who took a degree there. In 1650 he returned to England, spent some time at Oxford, where and at Cambridge he again took his degrees, was chaplain of Magdalen-college, and often a preacher at St. Mary’s. He then went with the English commissioners to Scotland, and preached at Leith for two years. He returned to England in 1655, and having visited Ireland with Henry Cromwell, and Drs. Harrison, Winter, and Charnock, he was made senior fellow of Trinity-college, and became a favourite preacher. Wood says that though he was reckoned a congregational man, and a high nonconformist, yet he was moderate in his behaviour to the episcopals, when it was in his power to hurt them. When the lord deputy gave him and others a commission for displacing the episcopal ministers in Munster, he declined it, as he did afterwards in Dublin, giving as a reason that “he was called into the country to preach the gospel, and not to hinder others from doing it.” Soon after the restoration, he was suspended for preaching against the revival of the liturgy, on which he returned to England; but when the Bartholomew act took place, removed again to Dublin, where for some time he preached to a small congregation in his own house, until the laws against nonconformity obliged him to desist. He died Oct. 26, 1671. He published various tracts relative to the controversies of the times; and after his death appeared a course of sermons that were very popular, entitled “The Figures and Types of the Old, Testament explained and improved,” Dublin, 1683, 4to. He also wrote a pamphlet against Greatrakes, the noted quack but, says Calamy, he was not allowed to publish it, such a favourite was Greatrakes at that time.

, youngest son of the preceding, was born at Dorchester, in NewEngland, in 1635, and studied at Harvard college, where he took his degree of B. A. in 1656. In the following year he arrived in England, and thence went to Ireland, and joined his brother. He then entered himself of Trinity college, in which he pro-' ceeded M. A. in 1658, having performed the necessary exercises with great applause, and was offered a fellowship in that institution; but, finding the climate unfavourable to his health, returned to England, and officiated for some time as minister, in the place of Mr. Howe, at Great Torrington, in Devonshire. In 1659, he became chaplain to colonel Bingham, governor of the island of Guernsey, and preached every Sunday, as well before the garrison, as in the town of Peter-le Port. After the restoration, as he could not conform, he sailed for New England, where he was chosen minister to the New church at Boston. Shortly after this, he married the daughter of Mr. John Cotton, once a gentleman of considerable eminence in England, but then an exile on account of his non-conformity, and minister at Boston. In 1664, Mr. Mather was ordained to the pastoral office, the duties of which he performed through life with credit to himself, and highly esteemed by his people. In 1683, when king Charles II. required the inhabitants of New England to surrender their charter, Mr. Mather attended at a meeting of the freemen of Boston, and by his zealous persuasions determined them to reject a motion for that purpose unanimously; and this spirited measure had considerable influence in prevailing on the country in general to imitate the example set by the Bostonians. Upon the publication of king James’s second declaration for liberty of conscience, some of the ministers of New England, and their churches, drew up addresses of thanks to him for the benefits which they enjoyed in consequence of it, and Mr. Mather embarked for England April 7, 1688, for the purpose of presenting them. He was favourably received at court, and laid before the king the state of the country. While he continued in England, the revolution took place, and he was consulted by the new administration on many political topics, particularly on an attempt to obtain the re-settlement of the Massachusetts colony, upon their chartered foundation, by an act of parliament, which was frustrated by its dissolution. He at length obtained from his majesty a new charter, containing the whole of the old one, with the addition of new and more ample privileges. Having rendered this important service to his fellow citizens, he set sail for America in 1692, and on his return he received the public thanks of the house of ^representatives for his faithful and zealous endeavours to benefit his country. He now returned to his labours in the church, and at Harvard college, of which he was chosen president in 1684, and also created doctor of divinity. He died in 1723, at the age of 84. He was author of many theological tracts, of which his biographer gives a list of above eighty among which are, “A brief History of the war with the Indians in New England” of “An Essay for the recording of illustrious Providences, wherein an account is given of many remarkable and memorable events which have happened in this last age, especially in New England” of “A Discourse on Comets;” “A Discourse concerning Earthquakes,” &c.

, son to the preceding Increase Mather, and the most eminent of the family, was born Feb. 12, 1663, at Boston, where he was educated at school till he was twelve years old. By this time he had made an uncommon progress in the Greek and Latin languages, and even entered on the Hebrew; so that he was then, young as he was, admitted into Harvard-college, where he took his first degree at sixteen, and his second at nineteen. When about seventeen years old, he undertook the tuition of several young gentlemen, composed for their use catechetical systems of the several sciences, and continued this employment for seven years with great success. He had from infancy an impediment in his speech, which seeming incurable, he laid aside all thoughts of the ministry, and applied himself to the study of medicine; but having at length, by persevering in a deliberate mode of speaking, got rid of the impediment, he returned to the study of divinity. He began to preach in 1680, and in May 1684, became the minister of Boston- in the diligent discharge of which office, and in writing books, he spent his life. As an instance of his piety and diligence, his biographer informs us that in one year he composed and published fourteen books, and kept sixty fasts and twenty-two vigils. He applied himself also to the study of modern languages, the French and Spanish particularly; and, in his forty-fifth year, made himself so far master of the Iroquois Indian tongue, that he wrote and published treatises in it. In short he became so considerable a person in Boston, that he was several times consulted by the magistrates upon affairs of state; and more than once quelled riots, merely by the force of his persuasions. For the public good, he there planned and promoted several excellent societies, particularly a society for suppressing disorders; a society for reforming manners; and a society of peace-makers, whose professed business it was to compose differences, and prevent law-suits. He published also a proposal for an evangelical treasury, in order to build churches, distribute books of piety, relieve poor ministers, &c. His fame was not confined to his own country; for, in 1710, the university of Glasgow in Scotland sent him a diploma for the degree of doctor in divinity; and, in 1714, the royal society of London chose him one of their fellows. He was farther honoured by an epistolary correspondence with several persons of eminent character for piety and learning; and, among others, the lord-chancellor King. After a laborious and well-spent life, he died on the 13th of Feb. 1728, being the day after he had completed his 65th year.

He is said to have published during his life 382 pieces, many of them indeed but small, as single sermons, essays, &c. yet several of larger size. Among these were “Magnalia Christi Americana,” or “An Ecclesiastical History of New-England, from its first planting in 1620 to 1698,” folio. “The Christian Philosopher,” 8vo. “Ratio disciplines fratrum Nov-Anglorum,” that is, “The reason of the discipline of the brethren in New-England.” “Directions to a candidate for the ministry.” “Psalterium Americanum,” or “American psalter,” &c. But the most remarkable of all his works was that in which, like Glanville, he defended the reality of witchcraft. This is entitled “The wonders of the invisible world; being an account of the trials of several witches, lately executed in New-England, and of several remarkable curiosities therein occurring. Together with, 1. Observations upon the nature, the number, and the operations of the devils. 2. A short narrative of a late outrage committed by a knot of witches in Swedeland, very much resembling, and so far explaining that under which New-England has laboured. 3. Some counsels directing a due improvement of the terrible things lately done by the unusual and amazing range of evil spirits in New-England. 4. A brief discourse upon those temptations, which are the more ordinary devices of Satan. By Cotton Mather. Published by the special command of his excellency the governor of the province of Massachusets-Bay in New-England.” Printed first at Boston in New-England, and reprinted at London, in 1693, 4to.

It may perhaps appear surprizing that a man so highly praised by his biographers for learning, judgment, and piety, should not only give credit to, but assistance in the propagation of, such falsehoods and absurdities as were followed by the inhuman execution of several innocent persons. But whoever looks into his most useful work, his “Ecclesiastical History of New England,” will discover what his more recent biographers have suppressed, an uncommon degree of enthusiasm in his mind, on the most ordinary occurrences. Neal, only, speaks impartially on this shocking subject. He observes that those suspected wizzards and witches “were convicted on very slender evidence,” a necessary consequence of their being tried at all, for what but the most slender evidence could be expected in the case of a crime which it was impossible to commit? Neal also allows, that there is some unfairness in the report of the trials by Mather: for, when he has given the depositions of the witnesses against the prisoners at large, he passes over their defence in general terms, and leaves the reader in the dark, and incapable of judging the merits of the cause. Yet upon such evidence twenty-eight persons received sentence of death, of whom nineteen were executed. They all suffered without the least acknowledgment of their guilt, laying their blood at the door of false witnesses. But neither integrity of manners, nor the strongest protestations of innocence with their dying breath, were sufficient to move compassion, or stop the tide of the people’s zeal against those unhappy persons at this time. Nor, says Neal, were these all who were in danger of their lives: there were then a hundred and fifty more in prison, and above two hundred under accusation. The worst part of this affair, however, as far as respects the conduct of our author, is, that no stop was put to these murders until the pretended sufferers, by witchcraft, began to accuse some of his relations, and the relations of the governor himself. “It was time then,” says Neal, “to make a stand,” and it is curious to observe how easily this stand appears to have been made for the very next sessions, out of fifty-six who were accused, three only were found guilty, whom the governor pardoned; and at length both judge and jury publicly acknowledged their error, and a phrenzy abated which had lasted about fifteen months, and struck all Europe with astonishment. As to Dr. Mather, his apology does little credit to his understanding; for the only thing which appears to have affected him was the great number of the persons accused, and the quality of some of them. These circumstances, he says, gave just ground to suspect some mistake; but he appears to have retained his former belief in the existence and practice of witchcraft, as we may infer from many parts of his History of New England. Let us not, however, press this accusation too far. Let us recollect, that it was not until the 10th George II. that the laws against witchcraft in this country ceased to be a disgrace to our statute-book; and that the rev. John Brown of Haddington, the eminent divine among the sect of Seceders in Scotland, and their principal tutor, published a very few years ago, as a ground of lamentation, that the British parliament had “repealed the penal statutes against witchcraft”

, an eminent artist, was born at Antwerp, in 1460, and for several years followed the trade of a blacksmith or farrier, at least till he was in his twentieth year. Authors vary in their accounts of the cause of his quitting his first occupation, and attaching himself to the art of painting, some attributing it to his falling in love with the daughter of a painter; others to the accidental sight of a piece of art. Whatever may have been his motive, it is certain that he appears to have had an uncommon talent: his manner was singular, not resembling the manner of any other master; and his pictures were strongly coloured, and carefully finished, though somewhat dry and hard. By many competent judges it was believed, when they observed the strength of expression in some of his compositions, that if he had been acquainted with the great masters of the Roman school, he would have proved one of the most eminent painters of the Low Countries. But he only imitated ordinary life, and seemed more inclined, or at least more qualified, to imitate the defects than the beauties of nature. Some historical compositions of this master deserve commendation particularly a Descent from the Cross, which is in the cathedral at A ntwerp, justly admired for the spirit, skill, and delicacy of the whole. Sir Joshua Reynolds says there are heads in this picture not excelled by Raphael. But the most remarkable and best known picture of Matsys, is that of the Two Misers in the gallery at Windsor, which has been engraved. Of this there is a duplicate at Hagley, the seat of lord Lyttleton. Matsys died in 1529, aged sixty-nine. — He had a son, John Matsys, who was born at Antwerp, and became his father’s disciple. He painted in the same style and manner, but not with a reputation equal to his father; though many of his pictures are sold to unskilful purchasers, for the paintings of Quintin. His most frequent subject was the representation of misers counting their gold, or bankers examining and weighing it, very common occurrences when Antwerp was in her glory.

, an English historian, who flourished, according to some, in 1377; while Nicolson thinks he did not outlive 1307, was a Benedictine of the abbey at Westminster, and thence has taken his name. From the title of his history, “Flores historiarum,” he has often been called Florilegus. His history commences from the foundation of the world, but the chief object of which is the English part. It is entitled, “Flores Historiarum, per Matthoeum Wesmonasteriensem collecti, prsecipue de Rebus Britannicis, ab exordio mundi, usque ad annum 1307,” published at London in 1567, and at Franckfort in 1601, both in folio. It is divided into six ages, butis comprised in three books. The first extends from the creation to the Christian aera; the second, from the birth of Christ to the Norman conquest; the third, from that period to the beginning of Edward the Second’s reign. Seventy years more were afterwards added, which carried it down to the death of Edward III. in 1377. He formed his work very much upon the model and plan of Matthew Paris, whom he imitated with great care. He wrote with so scrupulous a veracity/ that he is never found to wander a tittle from the truth; and with such diligence, that he omitted nothing worthy of remark. He is commended also for his acuteness in tracing, and his judgment in selecting facts, his regularity in the method or his plan, and his skill in chronological computations. He is, on the whole, except by bishop Nicolson, very highly esteemed, as one of the most venerable fathers of English history.

, an eminent English prelate, was the son of John Matthew, a merchant of Bristol, and born in that part of the city which lies in Somersetshire, in 1546. He received the first rudiments of learning in the city of Wells, and at the age of thirteen became a student in the university of Oxford, in the beginning of 1558-9. In Christ Church college he took the degree of bachelor of arts, Feb. 11, 1563, and in June 1566, was made master of arts; about which time he entered into holy orders, and was greatly respected for his learning, eloquence, conversation, friendly disposition, and the sharpness of his wit. On the 2nd of November 1569, he was unanimously elected public orator of the university; which office he filled with great applause. In 1570, he was made canon of the second stall in the cathedral of Christy-church, and November 28 following was admitted archdeacon of Bath. In 1571, he petitioned for his degree of bachelor of divinity, but was not admitted to it for two years. In 1572, he was made prebendary of Teynton-Regis with Yalmeten in the church of Salisbury; and in July following was elected president of St. John’s college, Oxford: at which time, being in high reputation as a preacher, he was appointed one of the queen’s chaplains in ordinary. On December lOth, 175S, he was admitted bachelor of divinity; and next year, May 27, proceeded doctor. On the 14th of June, 1576, being archdeacon at Bath, he was commissioned by archbishop Grindal, with some others, to visit the church, city, and deanry of Bristol. In the same year, he was made dean of Christ-church; and then obtained, from the pen of Camden, the distinguished character of " Theologus praestantissimus/' Camden adds, that learning and piety, art and nature, vied together in his composition. Sir John Harrington is also full of his praises, and even Campian the Jesuit speaks highly of his learning and virtues.

In 1579, he served the office of Vice-chancellor of the university. At a convocation held in 1580, archbishop Grindal being then under the queen’s displeasure, it was agreed, that our prelate, then dean of Christ-church, should, in the name of that assembly, draw up an humble address to her majesty, for the archbishop’s restitution; but it was not favourably received. June 22, 1583, he was collated to the precentorship of Salisbury; and Sept. 3 following, was made dean of Durham, being then thirtyseven years of age, on which he resigned his precentorship. From this time, says Le Neve, to the twenty-third Sunday after Trinity in 1622, he kept an account of all the sermons he preached, the place where, the time when, the text what, and if any at court, or before any of the prime nobility; by which it appears, that he preached, while dean of Durham, seven hundred and twenty-one; while bishop of Durham five hundred and fifty; and while archbishop of. York, to the time above mentioned, seven hundred and twenty-one; in all one thousand nine hundred and ninety-two sermons; and among them several extempore. This prelate, adds Le Neve, certainly thought preaching to be the most indispensible part of his duty; for in the diary before quoted, wherein, at the end of each year, he sets down how many sermons he had preached at the end of 1619, “Sum. Ser. 32, eheu! An. 1620, sum. ser. 35, eheu! An. 1621, sore afflicted with a rheume and coughe diverse months together, so that I never could preach until Easter-daye. The Lord forgive me!” On the 28th of May, 1590, he was inducted to the rectory of Bishopwearmouth, co. Durham; and in 1595, April 13, was consecrated bishop of Durham, and resigned Bishopwearmouth.

Our prelate was much engaged in political matters: Strype gives a letter of his, dated April 9, 1594, whilst dean of Durham, to lord Burleigh, touching Bothwell’s protection; in which he says, “I pray God the king’s protestations be not too well believed, who is a deep dissembler, by all men’s judgement that know him best, than is thought possible for his years.” Such was the character he gave of the prince who was shortly to come to the throne of England. In 1596, commissioners were appointed by the queen to treat with Scotland, and redress grievances on the borders: the English commissioners were the bishop of Durham, sir William Bowes, Francis Slingsby, esq. and Clement Colmer, LL.D. The place of convention was Carlisle, and many months were spent on that duty; but the good effect of their assiduous application to the work of peace was much retarded, and almost rendered abortive, by the outrages repeatedly committed on the eastern and middle marches. The first article of this treaty, however, says Ridpath, in his “Border History,” does honour to the character of the prelates of the church, one of whom stood first in the list of commissioners from each nation. In this article it was resolved, “that the sovereigns of each king should be addressed, to order the settlement of ministers at every border-church, for the sake of reforming and civilizing the inhabitants, by their salutary instructions and discipline: and for this purpose, the decayed churches should be repaired: and for the safety of the persons of their pastors, and due respect to be paid them in the discharge of their offices, the principal inhabitants of each parish should give security to their prince.”

Notwithstanding the unfavourable opinion he had formed of king James VI. when that monarch was on his journey to take possession of the throne of England, our prelate met him at Berwick, and preached a congratulatory sermon before him. He was also at the Hampton -court conference, in January 1603, of which he gave an account at large to archbishop Button. On the 26th of July, 1606> he was translated to York, and enjoyed that dignity till March 29, 1628, on which day he died, at Cawood, and was buried in our lady’s chapel, at the east of York cathedral, with a very prolix Latin epitaph inscribed on his tomb. He married Frances Barlow, daughter of Barlow bishop of Chichester, who was first married to Matt. Parker, son of Matthew Parker, archbishop of Canterbury. She has also a monument in York cathedral, the inscription upon which is too remarkable to be omitted. “Frances Matthew, first married to Matt. Parker, &c. afterwards to Tobie Matthew, that famous archb. of this see. She was a woman of exemplary wisdom, gravity, piety, beauty, and indeed all other virtues, not only above her sex, but the times. One exemplary act of hers, first devised upon this church, and through it flowing upon the country, deserves to live as long as the church itself. The library of the deceased archbishop, consisting of about 3000 books, she gave entirely to the public use of this church: a rare example that so great care to advance learning should lodge in a woman’s breast; but it was the less wonder in her, because herself was of kin to so much learning. She was the daughter of Will. Barlow, bp. of Chichester, and in k. Henry VIII.'s time ambassador into Scotland, of the ancient family of the Barlows in Wales. She had four sisters married to four bishops, one to Will. Whickham, bishop of Winchester, another to Overton bp. of Coventry and Litchf. a third to Westphaling bp. of Hereford, and a fourth to Day, that succeeded Whickham in Winchester; so that a bishop was her father, an archbishop her father-in-law; she had four bishops her brethren, and an archbishop her husband.” She died May 10, 1629, in the seventy-sixth year of her age.

By this lady he had three sons, Tobias, John, and Samuel; of whom he once said to lord Fairfax, who inquired why he appeared so pensive: “My lord,” said the archbishop, “I have great reason of sorrow with respect to my sons. One of them has wit and no grace, the other grace but no wit, and the third neither grace nor wit.” Lord Fairfax replied, “Your grace’s case is sad, but not singular: I am also disappointed in my sons. One I sent into the Netherlands, to train him up as a soldier, and he makes a tolerable country-justice, but is a mere coward at fighting: my next I sent to Cambridge; and he proves a good lawyer, but is a mere dunce at divinity; and my youngest I sent to the inns of court; and he’s good at divinity, but nobody in the law.”

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.

Notwithstanding Dr. Matthew was so industrious a preacher, it is rather singular that we have nothing of his in print, except his “Concio apologetica contra Campianum,” 1581 and 1638, 8vo. Fuller has since printed a long letter, which was written by him in the name of the convocation, respecting archbishop Grindal’s suspension; and Dr. Parr another to Usher. Dr. Smith has also printed a letter of his to Catnden, and Strype a remarkable one concerning the Hampton-court conference. In Mr. Lodge’s “Illustrations,” are a few of his letters; and probably many more, as well as Mss. of other kinds, are among the archives of the cathedral at York, to which, as already mentioned, his widow gave his library.

, eldest son of the preceding, and a very singular character, was born at Oxford, in 1578, while his tather was dean of Christ church; and matricuJated in 1589, when only eleven years of age. He was the year after admitted student, and by the advantage of quick parts, and a good tutor, he soon acquired considerable distinction as an orator and disputant. After taking his degrees in arts, he left England in 1605, for such improvement as travelling could confer, and made himself a master of some foreign languages. This journey, however, was much against his father’s inclination, who expressly forbade his going to Italy, suspecting probably what happened when he broke his word and went to that country, where he was converted to popery by the celebrated Jesuit Parsons, to the great grief of his father, who was theu in so distinguished a station in the church. He himself informs us that the first impressions made upon him arose from the devout behaviour of the rustics in the churches abroad, and from being convinced of the reality of the liquefaction of the blood of St. Januarius at Naples; but that his complete conversion was reserved for father Parsons, who gave him to read Mr. William Reynolds’ s “Reprehension of Dr. Whitaker,” which he esteemed the most valuable work on wit and humour he had ever seen. It affords, however, no very favourable idea of Mr. Matthew’s conversion, that it was begun by an imposture, and perfected by wit and humour.

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.

In 1623, the king conferred the honour of knighthood upon him, and he was frequently and always favourably received at court. In Charles I.'s reign he was invited by the earl of Strafford, when appointed lord lieutenant of Ireland, to accompany him thither, which gave just alarm to some of the council, who probably suspected that his insinuating manners were a cloak to hide his zeal for the advancement of the Romish church in England. Wood, who speaks more favourably of him than he deserves, doubts his being in holy orders; but Dodd, an unquestionable authority in this point, mentions the attestations of various persons who had heard him say mass; and there seems every reason to suppose that he was a spy from the church of Rome. His character being probably understood in this light, when the rebellion broke out he left his country, and joined the Jesuits at Ghent, where he died Oct. 13, 1655.

Although politics were his favourite pursuit in England, he affected the reputation of a man of universal genius, and certainly possessed many accomplishments. In his lighter hours he was a poet, a painter, and a man of gallantry. Lord Orford informs us that he made a portrait of the Infanta; and the famous character of Lucy Percy, countess of Carlisle, inserted by Fenton in his notes on Waller, was the production of his pen, and printed first in his volume of “Letters.” His excellent constitution required but few hours sleep, which he frequently took in a great chair, and rising by break of day, he used to dip his head in cold water. He was then fresh as the morning, and in spirits to write panegyrics upon lady Carlisle, or to pursue whatever else was started by his volatile genius. He was often, adds Granger, a spy upon such companies as he was admitted into upon the footing of an agreeable companion; and with the most vacant countenance would watch for intelligence to send to Rome. He affected much to whisper in public, and often pretended to disclose, when he was only attempting to obtain secret intelligence.

His published works are, 1. “The Life of St. Teresa,” 1623, 8vo. 2. “St. Augustine’s Confessions,” translated, 1624, 8vo. 3. “The Penitent Banduto, or the History of the Conversion and Death of the most illustrious Lord Signor Troilo Savelli, a baron of Rome,” 1625, 1663, 8vo. 4. “A collection of Letters made by sir Tobie Matthews, kt. with a character of Lucy, countess of Carlisle,” Lond. 1660, 8vo. These were properly made by sir Tobie, as many of them appear fictions; but others are real and curious. There are also some of his letters in the “Cabala” and the “Scrinia Sacra.” The following are attributed to him, but probably not printed: “A Cabinet of Rich Jewels;” Benefit of Washing the Head every Morning;“”The History of the Times," left imperfect.

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

, an eminent physician, and medical botanist, and the son of a physician, was born at Sienna, in Tuscany, in 1501; and educated first at Venice; and afterwards at Padua. The law was his original destination, which he exchanged for the study of medicine, and having obtained his degree at Padua, returned to Sienna, where he speedily acquired extensive practice. For some reasons, however, he varied his places of abode, and practised at Home, at Anania, and at Gorizia, where, as well as at Anania, he was extremely beloved, of which he had here a singular proof: a fire having consumed all his furniture, the people flocked to him the next day, with presents of goods and money, that made him richer than before, and the magistrates advanced him a year’s salary. After a residence of twelve years at Gorizia, he accepted an invitation from Ferdinand, king of the Romans, to take the office of physician to his son, the archduke Ferdinand. He was greatly honoured at the imperial court, and in 1562 was created aulic-counsellor to the emperor Ferdinand. Afterwards Maximilian II. prevailed upon his brother to part with him, and made him his first physician. Finding, however, the weight of age pressing upon him, Matthiolus took leave of the court, and retired to a life of repose at Trent, where he soon after died of the plague, in 1577.

He left several works: 1. “Dialogns de Morbi Gallici curatione,” printed in the collection of Luisinus. 2. “Apologia versus Amatum Lusitanum,” Venice, in 1558. $. “Epistolarum Medicinalium, Libri V.” Prague, 1561. 4-. “Disputatio adversus viginti Problemata Melchioris Guilandi,” Ven. 1563. 5. “Opuscula de Simplicium Medicamentorum Facultatibus secundum genera et loca,” ibid. 1569; which is a compendium of vegetable materia medica. His “Epistolse” also relate chiefly to the virtues of plants, and their mode of exhibition.

The great work, however, by which this physician acquired his fame and honour, was his commentary on the writings of Dioscorides, printed at Venice in 1548, in the Italian language, and soon twice reprinted. He afterwards published it in the Latin language, and with the addition of small cuts, in 1554, with the title of “Commentarii in sex Libros P. Dioscoridis,” &c. Numerous editions, in Latin, enlarged and improved, were afterwards given; and the work was also many times reprinted in Italian, and in French and German translations by different persons. The best edition is that of Venice, 1565, folio, with large plates. This work, with all its imperfections, must be allowed to have contributed much to lay the foundation of botanical science; but, as Eloy remarks, the multitude of editions and versions of it eviuces the penury of the age in botanical books. An edition of all his works was published by Caspar Bauhin, with the addition of more than three hundred figures, at Basle, in 1598, folio, which was reprinted in 1674.

, a Spanish poet, was born at Oropesa in New Castile, in 1663. His poetical essays were published in 1682, in one volume, 4to. This fortunate commencement encouraged the young poet; but it gained himjnvoluntarily, as he was an ecclesiastic, the affections of a lady of great beauty and high rank. In order to retire from this temptation, he went to Rome, where he was received a member of the Arcadi; and Innocent XII. delighted with his talents, appointed him dean of Alicant. At that place he died,. Dec. 18, 1737, being then 74 years old. His letters and Latin poetry, published at Madrid in 1735, in 2 voh. 12mo, prove that he was gifted both with facility of writing and with imagination.

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

In order to make himself known, in 1750 he began to publish, in French, an account of the productions of the English press, printed at the Hague, under the name of the “Journal Britannique.” This humble, though useful labour, says Gibbon, “which had once been dignified by the genius of Bayle, and the learning of Le Clerc, was not disgraced by the taste, the knowledge, and the judgment of Maty; he exhibits a candid and pleasing view of the state of literature in England during a period of six years (Jan. 1750 December 1755); and, far different from his angry son, he handles the rod of criticism with the tenderness and reluctance of a parent. The author of the ‘ Journal Britannique’ sometimes aspires to the character of a poet and philosopher: his style is pure and elegant; and in his virtues, or even in his defects, he may be ranked as one of the last disciples of the school of Fontenelle.” This Journal, whatever its merits, answered the chief end he intended by it, and introduced him to the acquaintance of some of the most eminent literary characters in the country he had made his own; and it was to their active and uninterrupted friendship, that he owed the places he afterwards possessed. In 1758, he was chosen fellow, and, in 1765, on the resignation of Dr. Birch (who died a few months after, and made him his executor), secretary to the Royal Society. He had been appointed one of the under-librarians of the British Museum at its first institution in 1753, and became principal librarian at the death of Dr. Knight in 1772. Useful in all these posts, he promised to be eminently so in the last, when he was seized with a languishing disorder, which, in 1776, put an end to a life uniformly devoted to the pursuit of science, and the offices of humanity. His body being opened, the appearances which presented themselves were thought so singular as to be described before the Royal Society by Dr. Hunter, whose account is inserted in vol. LXVII. of the Philosophical Transactions.

He was an early and active advocate for inoculation; and when there was a doubt entertained that one might have the small-pox after inoculation a second time, tried it upon himself, unknown to his family. He was a member of the medical club (with the doctors Parsons, Templeman, Fothergill, Watson, and others), which met every fortnight in St. Paul’s church-yard. He was twice married, viz. the first time to Mrs. Elizabeth Boisragon; and the second to Mrs. Mary Deners. He left a son and three daughters. A portrait of Dr. Maty, by his own order, was engraved after his death by Bartolozzi, to be given to his friends; of which no more than 100 copies were taken off, and the plate destroyed. He had nearly finished the “Memoirs of the Earl of Chesterfield” which were completed by his son-in-law Mr. Justamond, and prefixed to that nobleman’s Miscellaneous Works, 1777, 2 vols. 4 to.

, 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.

, a noted political adventurer, and well known about sixty years ago, as the editor of the Brussels Gazette, was born at Rouen in 1721. He took the habit of a capuchin in 1740, but broke through his religious engagements as soon as he found them incompatible with his inclinations, and determined to seek that fortune in foreign countries which he could no longer hope for in France. Of his future proceedings we have two accounts; the one, that he eloped with a nun, professed himself a protestant, and came to Brussels, where he obtained the protection of M. Kinschot, resident of the States, by whose means he got safe to Holland. Here a Saxon count falling in love with his nun, carried her with him to Dresden, and, at the same time recommended Maubert to a Saxon nobleman in that city, as preceptor to his sons. The other account, not the more true for being his own, conducts him in a more honourable manner, to the office of tutor to the young count de Rutowski, while he had also obtained an introduction to count Bruhl. The father of his pupil being an inveterate enemy of count Bruhl, had engaged with some friends to ruin him, and found Maubert by no means reluctant to assist in the plot. He accordingly drew up a deduction of grievances, which gained him the applause and confidence of the party, and greatly flattered his ambition. The plot being discovered, however, Maubert was arrested at the hotel de Rutowski, and irv a few weeks was sent to the fortress of Konigstein, where, he says, he was treated handsomely, allowed even luxuries, provided with books, and the liberty of walking and visiting in the fortress, with no other guard than a subaltern officer. Of his release we have also two accounts; the one, that it was accomplished by interest, the other by fraud. This was not the only prison, however, which he had occasion to visit and escape from; the rest of his life forms a series of adventures, more fit for a romance than any other species of narrative, and consists of the vicissitudes to which he was exposed by selling his talents, such as they were, to the best bidder, and writing on the side of that nation or government which paid him best.

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 translator, and in some degree a poet, was born at Noyon, in 1619, and for a time followed the profession of an advocate but being disgusted with the lavi r went into the church, where he became an abbe, and canon of the cathedral of Rheims. In that city he died in 1708, at the age of ninety. His works consist chiefly of translations, which are written in a pure, but not an animated style. The principal of them are these: 1. “The Philippics of Demosthenes.” 2. “The Euthydemus, and the greater Hippias of Plato.” 3. Some Orations of Cicero. 4. “The Rationarium Temporum of father Petau,” 1683, 3 vols. 12mo. 5. “Sanderus’s History of the English Schism,” 1678, 2 vols. 12mo. 6. “The Lives of cardinal Pole and Campeggio.” 7. “The Homilies of St. Chrysostom, addressed to the people of Antioch.” Maucroix was intimately connected with Boileau, Racine, and particularly with La Fontaine; in conjunction with whom, he published in 1685, a collection of their miscellaneous works, in 2 vols. 12mo. In 1726 were published, “Les nouvelles Oeuvres de Maucroix,” among which are some poems, more remarkable for a certain natural style, than for brilliancy of imagination.

, a divine of some eminence in France, was born at Vire in Normandy, in 1634. He at first taught the learned languages in the society to which he belonged, and afterwards was employed entirely in preaching, and in missions. He produced also several useful works, and died at Paris, Jan. 19, 1709. His principal productions are, 1. “A Treatise on Religion, against the Atheists, the Deists, and the new Pyrrhonians,” written in French; the best edition is that of 1698. 2. “A translation of the Psalms, in French verse,” of no great excellence. 3. “Miscellanies,” among which is some poetry, of various merit. 4. Excellent analyses of most of the tooks of the New Testament, in 8 vols. 12mo. These still maintain their character. 5. “Meditations for an ecclesiastical retreat of ten days,” 12mo. 6. “A Disserta.­tion on the Gout,” 12mo, 1689. Father Mauduit was candid as a scholar, and exemplary as a minister.

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

, a celebrated French mathematician and philosopher, was born at St. Malo in 1698, and at first educated there. In 1714 he studied in the college of La Marche, at Paris, where he discovered a strong inclination for mathematics. He fixed, however, on no profession until he arrived at his twentieth year, when he entered into the army, and during the space of five years in which he remained in it, pursued his mathematical studies with great vigour. In 1723 he was received into the royal academy of sciences, and read his first performance, a memoir upon the construction and form of musical instruments. When he commenced his travels, his first visit was to England, and during his residence at London he became a zealous admirer and follower of Newton. His next excursion was to Basil in Switzerland, where he formed a friendship with the celebrated John Bernouilli and his family, which continued till his death. At his return to Paris he applied himself to his favourite studies with greater zeal than ever. And how well he fulfilled the duties of an academician, may be seen in the Memoirs of the academy from 1724 to 1744; where the most sublime questions in the mathematical sciences, received from his hand that elegance, clearness, and precision, so remarkable in all his writings. In 1736 he was sent to the polar circle to measure a degree of the meridian, in order to ascertain the figure of the earth; in which expedition he was accompanied by Messrs. Clairault, Camus, Monnier, Outhier, and Celsus, the celebrated professor of astronomy at Upsal. This business rendered him so famous, that on his return he was admitted a member of almost every academy in Europe.

In 1740 Maupertuis had an invitation from the king of Prussia to go to Berlin; which was too flattering to be refused. His rank among men of letters had not wholly effaced his love for his first profession, that of arms. He followed the king to the field, but at the battle of Molwitz was deprived of the pleasure of being present when victory declared in favour of his royal patron, by a' singular kind of adventure. His horse, during the heat of the action, running away with him, he fell into the hands of the enemy; and was at first but roughly treated by the Austrian hussars, to whom he could not make himself known for want of language; but, being carried prisoner to Vienna, he received such honours from the emperor as never were effaced from his memory. Maupertuis lamented very much the loss of a watch of Mr. Graham’s, the celebrated English artist, which they had taken from him; the emperor, who happened to have another by the same artist, but enriched with diamonds, presented it to him, saying, “the hussars meant only to jest with you: they have sent me your watch, and I return it to you.”

He went soon after to Berlin; but as the reform of the academy which the king of Prussia then meditated was not yet mature, he repaired to Paris, where his affairs called him, and was chosen in 1742 director of the academy of sciences. In 1743 he was received into the French academy; which was the first instance of the same person, being a member of both the academies at Paris at the same time. Maupertuis again assumed the soldier at the siege of Fribourg, and was pitched upon by marshal Coigny and the count d'Argenson to carry the news to the French king of the surrender of that citadel. Maupertuis returned to Berlin in 1744, when a marriage was negociated and brought about by the good offices of the queen mother, between our author and mademoiselle de Borck, a lady of great beauty and merit, and nearly related to M.de Borck, at that time minister of state. This determined him to settle at Berlin, as he was extremely attached to his new spouse, and regarded this alliance as the most fortunate circumstance of his life.

In 1746 Maupertuis was declared, by the king of Prussia, president of the royal academy of sciences at Berlin, and soon after by the same prince was honoured with the order of merit. However, all these accumulated honours and advantages, so far from lessening his ardour for the sciences, seemed to furnish new allurements to labour and application. Not a day passed but he produced some new project or essay for the advancement of knowledge. Nor did he confine himself to mathematical studies only: metaphysics, chemistry, botany, polite literature, all shared his attention, and contributed to his fame. At the same time Jie had, it seems, a strange inquietude of spirit, with a dark atrabilious humour, which rendered him miserable amidst honours and pleasures. Such a temperament did not promise a pacific life; and he was in fact engaged in several quarrels. One of these was with Koenig the professor of philosophy at Franeker, and another more terrible with Voltaire. Maupertuis had inserted in the vohime of Memoirs of the Academy of Berlin for 1746, a discourse upon the laws of motion; which Koenig was not content with attacking, but attributed to Leibnitz. Maupertuis, stung with the imputation of plagiarism, engaged the academy of Berlin to call upon him for his proof; which Koenig failing to produce, his name was struck out of the academy, of which he was a member. Several pamphlets were the consequence of this measure and Voltaire, for some reason or other, engaged in the quarrel against Maupertuis, although they had been apparently upon the most amicable terms. Voltaire upon this occasion exerted all his wit and satire against him; and upon the whole was so much transported beyond what was thought right, that he found it expedient in 1753 to quit the court of Prussia. Our philosopher’s constitution had Jong been considerably impaired by the great fatigues of various kinds in which his active mind had involved him; though, from the amazing hardships he had undergone in his northern expedition, most of his bodily sufferings may be traced. The intense sharpness of the air could only be supported by means of strong liquors; which helped but to lacerate his lungs, and bring on a spitting of blood, which began at least twelve years before he died. Yet still his mind seemed to enjoy the greatest vigour; for the best of his writings were produced, and most sublime ideas developed, during the time of his confinement by sickness, when he was unable to occupy his presidial chair at the academy. He took several journeys to St. Malo during the last years, of his life, for the recovery of his health: and though he always received benefit by breathing his native air, yet still, upon his return to Berlin, his disorder likewise returned with greater violence. His last journey into France was undertaken in 1757; when he was obliged, soon after his arrival there, to quit his favourite retreat at St. Malo, on account of the danger and confusion which that town was thrown into by the arrival of the English in its neighbourhood. From thence he went to Bourdeaux, hoping there to meet with a neutral ship to carry him to Hamburgh, in his way back to Berlin; but, being disappointed in that hope, he went to Toulouse, where he remained seven months. He had then thoughts of going to Italy, in hopes a milder climate would restore him to health but finding himself grow worse, he rather inclined towards Germany, and went to Neufchatel, where for three months he enjoyed the conversation of lord Marischal, with whom he had formerly been much connected. At length he arrived at Basil, October 16, 1758, where he was received by his friend Bernoulli and his family with the utmost tenderness and affection. He at first found himself much better here than he had been at Neufchatel: but this amendment was of short duration; for as the winter approached, his disorder returned, accompanied by new and more alarming symptoms. He languished here many months, during which he was attended by M. de la Condamine; and died in 1759, at sixty-one years of age.

The works which he published were collected into 4 volumes, 8vo, published at Lyons in 1756, where also a new and elegant edition was printed in 1768. These contain the following works: 1. Essay On Cosmology. 2. Discourse on the different Figures of the Stars. 3. Essay on Moral Philosophy. 4. Philosophical reflections upon the Origin of Languages, and the signification of words. 5. Animal Physics, concerning Generation, &c. 6. System of Nature, or the formation of bodies. 7. Letters on various subjects. 8. On the progress of the Sciences. 9. Elements of Geography. 10. Account of the expedition to the Polar Circle, for determining the figure of the Earth; or the measure of the Earth at the Polar Circle. 11. Account of a Journey into the heart of Lapland, to search for an ancient Monument. 12. On the Comet of 1742. 13. Various Academical Discourses, pronounced in the French and Prussian academies. 14. Dissertation upon Languages. 15. Agreement of the different Laws of Nature, which have hitherto appeared incompatible. 16. Upon the Laws of Motion. 17. Upon the Laws of Rest. 18. Nautical Astronomy. 19. On the Parallax of the Moon. 20. Operations for determining the figure of the Earth, and the variations of Gravity. 21. Measure of a Degree of the meridian at the Polar Circle.

Beside these works, Maupertuis was author of a great multitude of interesting papers, particularly those printed in the Memoirs of the Paris and Berlin academies, far too numerous here to mention; viz. in the Memoirs of the academy at Paris, from 1724 to 1749; and in those of the academy of Berlin, from 1746 to 1756.

, grandson of the count de Pontchartrain, who was minister under Louis XIV. was born in 1701, anJ obtained an appointment of secretary at court so early as 1715. He was superintendant of the king’s household in 1718, and of the marine in 1723. In 1738 he was appointed minister of state, and was in all situations full of genius, activity, and sagacity. Being exiled to Bourges in 1749, by the intrigues of a lady very powerful at court, he made no secret of the manner in which he felt that change. “The first day,” said he, “I was piqued, the second I was contented.” When he arrived at the place of his exile, he talked in a lively manner of the dedications he should lose, and of the disappointments of the authors who had wasted their fine phrases upon him. He continued to amuse himself with the pleasures of society, and enjoyed the invariable esteem of many Valuable friends, and of the public. Being recalled to the ministry in 1774, by Louis XVI. who treated him with unbounded confidence, he disdained to revenge any former neglect oy ill offices, and lived rather with the ease of a rich private gentleman, than with the ostentation of a minister. His views of objects were rapid, yet were generally considered as profound; though in recommending the conduct which France pujsued with respect to America, at the time of the revolt of that country, he certainly laid the foundation for the destruction of the French monarchy. He was, however, a man of much public spirit, and one who contributed not a little to the improvement of the French marine. His correspondence was a model of precision, expressing much meaning in very few words. He died at the age of eighty, Nov. 21, 1781. He left some curious “Memoirs,” of which there are three editions, published in 1790 and 1792, 4 vols. 8vo, by the editor Soulaire.

, an eminent French accoucheur, was born at Paris, where he applied with great industry to the study and practice of surgery, for many years, especially in the great hospital, the Hotel-Dieu. He had already acquired there so much experience in the obstetrical department before he commenced public practice, that he rose almost at once to the head of his profession. His reputation was farther increased by his writings, and maintained by his prudent conduct and acknowledged skill during a series of years; after which he quitted practice entirely, and retired into the country, where he died Oct. 17, 1709, at an advanced age. His works, which are more useful for the facts than the reasoning they contain, are, 1. “Traite des Maladies des Femmes grosses, et de celles qui sont accouchées,” Paris, 1688, 4to, which has been often reprinted, and translated into Latin, as well as into most' of the modern European languages. 2. “Aphorismes touchant l'Accouchement, la Grossesse, et les Maladies des Femraes,” ibid. 1694, a summary of the preceding. 3. “Observations sur la Grossesse et l'Accouchement des Femmes, et sur leurs Maladies, et celles des Enfans nouveaux ne*s,” ibid. 1695, 4to. This may be considered as a second volume of the first treatise. 4. “Dernieres Observations sur les Maladies des Femmes . grosses et accouchées,” 1708, ibid. 4to which contains an additional collection of cases. The whole of these works were collected and reprinted together after his death, in 1712, and subsequently, with figures.

, a celebrated Italian mathematician, was born in 1494 at Messina, where he afterwards taught mathematics with great success. In that employment he was particularly admired, for the astonishing clearness with which he expressed himself, making the most difficult questions easy, by the manner in which he explained them. He had a penetrating mind, and a prodigious memory. He was abbe of Santa Maria del Porto, in Sicily; but, as mathematicians in his time were generally supposed to be able to read the stars, he could not resist the temptation of assuming to himself such powers; and delivered some predictions to don Juan of Austria, for which, as he happened to guess rightly, he obtained the credit of being a prophet, besides considerable rewards. He died July 21, 1575, at the age of eightyone. His principal works are, 1. An edition of the “Spherics of Theodosius,” 1558, folio. 2. “Emendatio et restitutio Conicorum Apollonii Pergasi,” 1654, folio. 3. “Archimedis monumenta omnia,” 1685, folio. 4. “Euclidis phenomena,” Rome, 1591, 4 to. 5. “Martyrologium, 1566, 4to. 6.” Sinicarum rerum Compendium.“7. Also, in 1552,” Rimes,“in 8vo. He published also, 8.” Opuscula Mathematica,“1575, 4to. 9.” Arithmeticorum libri duo," 1575. These, with a few more, form the list of his works, most of which are upon subjects of a similar nature.

, a counsellor in the parliament of Toulouse, where he was born in 1580, and afterwards president of the court of aids at Montpelier, died in 165O, at the age of seventy, with the reputation of being one of the best Greek scholars of his time. We have by him some notes on Harpocration, Paris, 1614, 4to. 2. Some remarks on a treatise on mountains and rivers, attributed to Plutarch. 3. And some “Opuscula,” which display him in the light of a judicious critic.

, born at Beaune in 1654, became auditor of the chamber of accounts at Paris, and member of the academy of inscriptions. He was beloved as a man, and esteemed as a scholar, and even as a poet ranks among those writers of mediocrity who occasionally produce some happy effusions. His poems are scattered in the “Mercure,” and various other collections. He published also a translation of Petau’s “Rationarium Temporum,” in 4 vols. 12 mo; and was author of many learned and acute dissertations in the Memoirs of the academy of belles lettres. He died in 1737, at the age of eighty-three.

, There are two saints of this name, of whom some notice may be taken; the oldest Maximus, of Turin, so called because he was bishop of that city in the fifth century, was eminent for his learning and piety. Many of his “Homilies” remain, some of which bear the name of St. Ambrose, St. Augustin, and Eusebius of messa, in the Library of the fathers. The other St. Maximus was an abbot, and confessor in the seventh century, born of an ancient and noble family at Constantinople. He warmly opposed the heresy of the Monothelites, and died in prison, August 13, 662, in consequence of what he had suffered on that occasion. We have a commentary of his on the books attributed to St. Dionysius the Areopagite, and several other works, which father Combesis published, 1675, 2 vols. folio; and they are also in the Library of the fathers.

, usually called Maximus Tyrius, to distinguish him from several other Maximuses of antiquity, though chiefly distinguished by his eloquence, has obtained some degree of celebrity as a philosopher. According to Suidas, he lived under Commodus; according to Eusebius and Syncellus, under Antoninus Pius, in the second century; perhaps he flourished under Antoninus, and reached the time of Commodus, in both whose reigns he is said to have made a journey to Rome, but spent his life chiefly in Greece. We have extant of Maximu> Tyrius forty-one “Dissertations, upon various arguments;” a manuscript copy of which was first brought out of Greece into Italy by Janus Lascaris, and presented to Lorenzo de Medici. From this copy a Latin translation was made, and published by Cosmus Paccius, archbishop of Florence, in 1519. The work was then published in Greek by Henry Stephens, in 1557 in Greek and Latin by Daniel Heinsius, in 1607 byJ. Davies, of Cambridge, in 1703; by Markland in 1740, 4to; and by Reiske, in 1774, 8vo. The French have two good translations by Formey, 1764, and by Dounous, 1802. Isaac Casaubon, in the epistle dedicatory of his “Commentaries upon Persius,” calls Maximus Tyrius “mellitissimus Platonicorum;” and Peter Petit (in his “Misc. Observat.” lib. i. c. 20.) represents him as “auctorem imprimis elegantem in Philosophia, ac disertum.” He has spoken a good deal of himself in his thirtyseventh dissertation, and seemingly in a style of panegyric. Upon this account his editor Davies has accused him of vanity, but Fabricius has defended him by observing, that Davies did not sufficiently attend to Maximus’s purpose in speaking thus of himself; “which was,” he says, “not at all with a view of praising himself, but to encourage and promote the practice of those lessons in philosophy, which they heard from him with so much applause.” These dissertations are for the most part written upon Platonic principles, but sometimes lean towards scepticism.

, 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.

, esq. an English poet and historian, was descended of an ancient, but somewhat declining family, in Sussex; and born at Mayfield in that county, as it is supposed, in 1594. His father purchased Mayfield in 1597, and was knighted at Whitehall, July 3, 1603. His son Thomas was instructed in classical literature in the neighbourhood, and Sept. 11, 1609, entered a fellow-commoner of Sidney college, in Cambridge, where, in 1612, he took a bachelor of arts degree, but never proceeded farther in academical advancement. He removed afterwards to London, and was admitted a member of Gray’s Inn, Aug. 6, 1615; but his genius leading him to pursue the belles-lettres, and especially the muses, he concerned himself very little with the law. In 1616 he succeeded to the estate of Mayfield, which he sold next year. He gained an acquaintance with several eminent courtiers and wits of those times, as sir Kenelm Digby, sir Richard Fanshaw, sir John Suckling, sir Ashton Cockaine, Thomas Carew, Endymion Porter, Ben Jonson, and others: and his reputation was such, that he obtained the countenance of Charles I. and his royal consort; at whose particular recommendation and desire he undertook and published several of his poetical works. In particular, while he resided at court, he wrote the five following plays 1 “The Heir, a comedy, acted in 1620,” and printed in 1633. 2. “Cleopatra, a tragedy,” acted in 1626, printed in 1639. 3. “Antigone, the Theban princess, a tragedy,” printed in 1631. 4. “Agrippina, empress of Rome, a tragedy,” printed in 1639. 5. “The Old Couple, a comedy,” 1651. The second and last of these are reprinted in Dodsley’s Collection. Two other plays have been ascribed to May, namely, “The old Wives Tale,” and “Orlando Furioso;” but Langbaine says he “never saw the first;” and for the latter he assures the reader, “it was. printed long before Mr. May was born, at least before he was able to guide a pen.”

Besides these plays, we have several translations of his from some Latin authors, and other original compositions also in verse. Among the former are, “Virgil’s Georgics,” with annotations, published in 1622; to which are subjoined, selected epigrams from Martial; but he acquired most reputation by his translation of “Lucan’s Pharsalia,” and his own continuation of that poem to the death of Julius Caesar, both in Latin and English. The translation of the Pharsalia was first printed in 1627, and the continuation of it in English in 1630. The Latin continuation of it was printed at Leydenin 1640, 12mo, under this title, “Supplementum Lucani, libri viii. Authore Thoma Maio, Anglo:” to which edition are prefixed Latin commendatory poems to him by Boxhornius, Nicholas Heinsius, sir Richard Fanshaw, and others. It is certainly much to this author’s honour, that his Latin “Supplement” was reprinted several times after with some good editions of Lucan abroad; and, it is probable, that his character would not have stood so low with posterity as it does at present, if certain political deviations afterwards had not made him obnoxious to the party which at length prevailed. Dr. Johnson preferred the Latin poetry of May to that of Cowley and Milton; an opinion which Mr. Thomas Warton controverts*. He was concerned also in the translation of two books written by the celebrated Scotch wit John Barclay, namely, his “Argenis,” and “Icon animorum.” Among his original compositions are, “The reign of king Henry II. written in seven books, by his majesty’s command, a poem: to which is added, in prose, The description of Henry II. with a short survey of the changes of his reign; also, The single and comparative characters of Henry and Richard, his sons,” 1633, 8vo. In 1635 he published, by the king’s special command also, an historical poem in seven books, entitled “The victorious reign of Edward Jh.” On these compositions some recent critics, especially Mr. Headley, have bestowed high praise; but we cannot think their merit very conspicuous, unless in detached parts.

Some of his works, we see, were written at the command of Charles I. and almost all of them were dedicated to his majesty, which seems to indicate rather a close connection between the king and the poet: yet May, on the,

tylist, and was sufficiently accom- archetype, which, it may be presumed,

His skill is in parody; and he was breaking out of the civil wars, joined himself very heartily to the parliament. Fuller gives a reason for this when he says that “some disgust at court was given to, or taken by him, as some would have it, because his bays were not gilded richly enough, and his verses rewarded by king Charles according to expectation.” Others, as Phillips and Winstanley, say more particularly, “that his desertion from the court was owing to his being disappointed of the place of queen’s poet, to which sir William Davenant, his competitor, was preferred before him;” and Clarendon seems to have suggested this opinion. Whatever was the cause, it is certain that he threw himself under the protection, and into the service of the parliament; and recommended himself so effectually to them, as to be appointed their secretary and historiographer. Agreeably to the duties of this last office, he published, in 1647, “The History of the Parliament of England, which began Nov. 3, 1640; with a short and necessary view of some precedent years,” folio. The first book of this history begins with short characters of queen Elizabeth and king James, passing through the former part of king Charles’s reign, to 1641; and the last ends with a narrative of the first battle of Newbury, in 1643. He afterwards made an abstract of this history, and a continuation of it to the death of king Charles I. in Latin, in 16^-9; and then an English translation of it, entitled “A Breviary of the History of the Parliament of England,” 1650, 8vo. Echard calls this history, “one of the genteelest and handsomest libels of those times.” Granger is of opinion that there is more candour in this history than the royalists were willing to allow him, but less elegance than might have been expected from the pen of so polite and classical a scholar. Warburton’s praise of this work is perhaps of more value. In a letter to Dr. Hurd he says, “May’s History of the Parliament is a just composition, according to the rules of history. It is written with much judgment, penetration, manliness, and spirit. And with a candour that will greatly increase your esteem, when you understand that he wrote by order of his masters the parliament. It breaks off (much to the loss of the history of that time) just when their armies were new modelled by the self-denying ordinance”

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

, a Lutheran divine, was born at Leipsic in 1650. He was deeply skilled in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin languages, and was a professor, first at Wittemburg, then at Hamburgh, and afterwards at Stetin in Pomerania, where he became the general superintendant of the churches of that province. Fabricius dedicated the first edition of his “Bibliotheca Latina” to him at Hamburgh in 1696; which Saxius says is the only thing he knows to his honour; but why Saxius speaks thus slightingly of him does not appear. He himself published, 1. in 1697, “De fide Baronii et Bellarmini, ipsis Pontificiis ambigua,” “on the faith of Baronius and Bellarmin, which is suspicious even to the Papists,” printed at Amsterdam, in 8vo. 2. A “Bibliotheca Biblica,” in which he examines the characters of the various authors, Jewish, Roman Catholic, and Protestant, who have commented upon the Bible. The best edition of this work was printed at Rostock, in 1713, 4to. 3. A treatise on the manner of studying the Scripture, 4to. 4. A treatise “de Osculo pedum Pontificis Romani;”" on kissing the Pope’s foot, now become scarce, Leipsic, 1714, 4to. 5. Many dissertations on important passages in the Bible. Mayer died in 1712. His learning was undoubtedly great, but is not thought to be set off to advantage by his style, which is dry and harsh.

, one of the greatest astronomers and mechanics of the last century, was born at Maspach in the duchy of Wirtemberg, in 1723. He taught himself mathematics, and at the age of fourteen designed machines and instruments, which was his father’s profession, with the greatest dexterity and justness. These pursuits did not hinder him from cultivating the belles lettres: he acquired the Latin tongue, and wrote it with elegance. In 1750, the university of Gottingen chose him for their mathematical professor; and every year of his short, but glorious life, henceforward was marked with some considerable discoveries in geometry and astronomy. He published several works on those sciences, that are all reckoned excellent; and some are inserted in the second volume of the “Memoirs of the University of Gottingen.” His labours seem to have exhausted him; for he died worn out in 1762.

His table of refractions, deduced from his astronomical observations, very nicely agrees with that of Doctor Bradley; and his theory of the moon, and astronomical tables and precepts, were so well esteemed, that they were rewarded by the English Board of longitude, with the premium of three thousand pounds, which sum was paid to his widow after his death. These tables and precepts were published by the Board of longitude in 1770. Besides these, he published, 1. “A new and general method of resolving all Geometrical Problems, by geometrical lines,” printed at Eslingen, 1741, in 4to. 2. “A Mathematical Atlas, in which all mathematical science is comprised in sixty tables,” Augsburg, 1748, folio. 3. “Account of a Lunar Globe constructed by the Cosmographical Society of Nuremberg, from new observations,” 1750, 4to. All these were written in German. He published also many very exact maps. A first volume of his works in folio was published. at Gottingen in 1775.

, 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.

His works, which contain some valuable facts and observations, not, however, unmixed with erroneous doctrines and superstitions, were published by Dr. Joseph Brown, at London, in 1701, fol. divided into two books. The first contains his “Consilia, epistolrc, & observationes” the second his “Pharmacopoeia, variteque medicamentorum formulae.” At the beginning of the book is placed the author’s portrait, such as it was in his 82d year, and under the print are words to this purpose: “Theo. Turquet. de Mayerne, knight, by birth a Frenchman, by religion a Protestant, and by dignity a baron; in his profession, a second Hippocrates: and, what has very seldom happened to any but himself, first physician to three kings; in erudition unequalled; in experience second to none; and, as the result of all these advantages, celebrated far and near.”

The library at the college of physicians was partly given to that society by sir Theodore Mayerne. Granger says, that some valuable papers by him, written in elegant Latin, are in Ashmole’s Museum, and that they were read by Dr. Smyth, an eminent physician of Oxford, who informed him that they contain many curious particulars, show the state of physic in the reign of Charles I. and the first invention of several medicines. Lord Orford, in his “Anecdotes of Painting,” says that the famous Petitot owed the perfection of his colouring in enamel to some chemical secrets, communicated to him by sir Theodore Mayerne.

, a French poet, and one of the forty of the French academy, was the son of a counsellor of the parliament of Toulouse, and born in 1582. He was secretary to queen Margaret, and pleased the court of that princess by his wit and gaiety. Noailles, the ambassador to Rome, took him with him in 1634-; and pope Urban VIII. was very much pleased with him. Returning to France, he made his court to the great, but was too sanguine in the expectations he formed from them; which lead in general to disappointment. This was his case. He commended cardinal Richelieu, in order to obtain something; and abused him for giving him nothing. He had the same success at the court of Anne of Austria; and, after a variety of disappointments, he retired to his province, where he died in 1646. He wrote songs, odes, epigrams, some of them rather licentious, and a poem, entitled, “Philander,” &c. Malherbe says of him, and it has generally been allowed, that his verses were well turned, but wanted force.

, a learned English lawyer, the eldest son of Alexander Maynard, esq. of Tavistock, in Devonshire, was born thereabout 1602. In 1618 he entered as a commoner of Exeter college, Oxford, where, as we have often seen in the case of gentlemen of the law, he took only one degree in arts, and then went to the Middle Temple. After the usual routine of study he was called to the bar, and in 1640 obtained a seat in parliament for Totness. The part he took in the political contests of the day, procured him to be appointed one of the managers of the evidence against the earl of Strafford, and that against archbishop Laud. Yet in 1644 he was appointed, with Bulstrodte Whitlocke, at the particular desire of the lord chancellor of Scotland, and other commissioners from that kingdom, to consult with them and general Fairfax concerning the best method of proceeding against Cromwell as an incendiary between the two kingdoms. He was also one of the laymen nominated in the ordinance of the Lords and Commons to sit with the assembly of Divines, whose object was to establish the presbyterian form of church government in England. Notwithstanding this, we find him in 1647 opposing the violence of the parliament-army, for which he and serjeant Glynn were sent to the Tower; and when the parliament voted that no more addresses should be sent to the king, he told them that by such a vote they dissolved themselves. He even went farther, and after being secluded from his seat in the House of Commons for two months, he broke in among them, and pleaded for the life of the king with such strength of reasoning, that Cromwell several times demanded that he should be brought to the bar of the House.

His abilities, or that charm with which an independent mind never fails to conciliate its enemies, seem to have preserved him while thus apparently “serving two masters;” for in 1653, he was by writ called to the rank of serjeant at law; and in May of the same year was made, by patent, Cromwell’s serjeant. Here, too, his love of justice predominated, and he zealously pleaded the cause of a merchant of London, who had the boldness to oppose paying a tax imposed by Oliver without the consent of parliament. For this Oliver sent serjeant Maynard, serjeant Twysden, and counsellor Wadham Wyndham, to the Tower; nor were they released without making submission in some form or other. Maynard was afterwards continued serjeant to Richard Cromwell during his short period of usurpation.

Notwithstanding these many compliances with the parliamentary and Oliverian interest, his conduct must, upon the whole, have appeared in a favourable light to Charles II. as, immediately after the restoration, he was called again to be serjeant at law, in June 1660, and made the king’s serjeant Nov. 9 following, to which his majesty added the honour of knighthood. He was also nominated to be one of the judges, but did not chuse to give up his practice, which is said to have been very lucrative, for an office which at that time depended on the king’s pleasure. Whitlocke tells us that as far back as 1647 he got in one circuit seven hundred pounds, which was thought to be a larger sum than any of the profession had ever got before. Whitlocke indeed gives this as a report, but there is no doubt that his practice was most extensive, and his knowledge in law universally acknowledged.

In 1661 he was chosen member of parliament for Beralston in Devonshire, and soon after, disliking the measures of the king’s ministers, engaged in opposition to them. He appears also to have sat, either for Beralston or Plymouth, in every parliament until the revolution. In 1679-80, he was one of the committee appointed to manage the evidence against William Viscount Stafford, impeached of high treason for being concerned in the popish plot. He was afterwards a member of the convention which brought about the revolution, and was active in promoting that event, ably supporting the parliamentary vote that the king had abdicated, and that the throne was thereby vacant.“He was now about eighty-seven years old, yet possessed his original vigour of understanding. Burnet has recorded a bon mot of his, on his first waiting on the prince of Orange, afterwards William III. which has been often repeated to his praise. On the prince noticing his great age, and that he had outlived all the men of the law of his time, Sir John Maynard replied, that” he had like to have out-lived the law itself, if his highness had not come over." The old serjeant had forgot that he had once seen the law as near its dissolution as ever it was in king James’s time.

In March 1689, sir John was appointed one of the lords commissioners of the great seal of England, and next year was chosen member of parliament for Plymouth; but being now very infirm, he resigned his commissioner’s place, and returned to his house at Gunnersbury, near Ealing, where he died Oct. 9, 1690. He was thrice married. Elizabeth, his first wife, was buried at Ealing in 1654-5. Jane, his second wife (daughter of Cheney Selherst, esq. and relict of Edward Austen, esq.) was buried there in 1668. His last wife, who was daughter of Ambrose Upton, canon of Christ- church, Oxford, and relict of sir Charles Vermuyden, survived him many years, and died in 1721, being then the widow of Henry earl of Suffolk.

Serjeant Maynard was esteemed a very able advocate, and has been called the best old book lawyer of his time. All parties, says Mr. Lysons, seem to have been willing to employ him, and he seems to have been equally willing to be employed by all. Some of his reports and speeches have been printed. There is also a report of his of a very singular case of murder, in “The Works of the Learned,” for August 1739, communicated by Dr. Rawlinson. Bishop Warburton has not inaptly characterised serjeant Maynard by a comparison with Whitlocke. They were both lawyers of family, and in the long parliament; both of the presbyterian faction; both learned and eminent in their profession; moderate, sage, and steady. So far they agreed. In this they differed: Maynard had strong parts with a serious modesty; Whitlocke was weak and vain: and by these defects only, more self-interested. A sense of honour made Maynard stick to the presbyterian faction, and to fall with them; but, as he had much phlegm and caution, not, like Hollis and Stapleton, to fall for them. So that he was never marked out by the independents for their first sacrifices. On the contrary, Whitlocke forsook his party in distress but as he had the other’s moderation, it was by slow and gentle degrees and so, as it happened, decently. Maynard, by adhering steadily, but not violently, to the party he set out with, was reverenced by all and had he not been more intent on the affairs of his profession, than on public business, might have become considerable by station. “He went,” adds Warburton, “through the whole reign of Charles and James II. with the same steady pace, and the same adherence to his party; but by his party, 1 rather mean presbytery for the sake of civil liberty, than to civil liberty for the sake of presbytery.”

, an English poet and divine, was born at Hatherlagh in Devonshire, in 1604. He received his education at Westminster-school; and was afterwards removed to Christ-church in Oxford, when he was about twenty. He took his bachelor and master of arts degrees in the regular way; and then, entering into holy orders, was presented by his college to the vicarages of Cassington, near Woodstock, and of Pyrton, near Watlington in Oxfordshire. He became, says W T ood, “a quaint preacher, and a noted poet;” and, in the latter capacity, distinguished himself by the production of two plays, entitled “The City Match,” a comedy; and “The Amorous War,” a tragi-comedy. When the rebellion broke out, and Charles I. was obliged to keep his court at Oxford, to avoid being exposed to the resentment of the populace in London, where tumults then prevailed, Dr. Mayne was one of those divines who were appointed to preach before his majesty. In 1646, he was created a doctor of divinity; and the year after, printed a sermon at Oxford, “Against false prophets,” upon Ezek. xxii. 26. which occasioned a dispute between him and the memorable antagonist of Chillingworth, Mr. Cheynell. Cheynell had attacked his sermon from the pulpit at St. Mary’s in Oxford; and several letters passed between them, which were published by Dr. Mayne the same year, in a piece entitled “A late printed sermon against false prophets vindicated by letter from the causeless aspersions of Mr. Francis Cheynell; by Jasper Mayne, D. D. the misunderstood author of it.” Mayne having said, in one of his letters to Cheynell, that “God, upon a true repentance, is not so fatally tied to the spindle of absolute reprobation, as not to keep his promise, and seal merciful pardons;” Cheynell animadverted upon him in the following terms: “Sir, Reprobatio est tremendum mysterium. How dare you jet upon such a subject, at the thought of which each Christian trembles? Can any man repent, that is given up to a reprobate mind and impenitent heart? And is not every man finally impenitent, save those few to whom God gives repentance freely, powerfully, effectually? See what it is for a man to come from Ben Jonson or Lucian, to treat immediately of the high and stupendous mysteries of religion. The Lord God pardon this wicked thought of your heart, that you may not perish in the bond of iniquity and gall of bitterness. Be pleased to study the ixth chapter to the Romans.” The same year Mayne published also another piece, entitled, “OXAOMAXIAj or, the people’s war examined according to the principles of scripture and reason, in two of the most plausible pretences of it. ID answer to a letter sent by a person of quality, who desired satisfaction.” In this piece he examines, first, how far the power of a king, who is truly a king, not one only in name, extends itself over subjects; secondly, whether any such power belongs to the king of England; and, thirdly, if there does, how far it is to be obeyed, and not resisted. The conclusion he draws is, that the parliamentary resistance to the king was rebellion. We cannot be surprized if a man of such principles was deprived of his studentship at Christ-church, in 1648, and soon after of both his livings. During the time of the usurpation, he was chaplain to the earl of Devonshire, and consequently became the companion of the celebrated Hobbes, who then attended his lordship; but, as Wood informs us, Mayne and he did not agree well together. At the restoration he not only recovered both his livings, but, for his services and attachment to the royal cause, was promoted to a canonry of Christ-church, and made archdeacon of Chichester, and chaplain in ordinary to his majesty, which preferments he held to the time of his death, Dec. 6, 1672. He was interred in the choir at Christ-church, where a monument was erected for him, at the charge of his executors, Dr. Robert South, and Dr. John Lamphire. By his will he left 500l. towards the re-building of St. Paul’s cathedral, and lOOl each to both of his livings. Though very orthodox in his opinions, and severe in his manners, he is said to have been a most facetious and pleasant companion, and a great joker. Of this last, Langbaine gives an instance which affords no very pleasing specimen of Mayne, either as a serious or a jocular man. Langbaine says that he had a servant, who had long lived with him; to whom he bequeathed a trunk, “with something in it,” as he said, “which would make him drink after his death.” The doctor dying, the servant immediately paid a visit to the trunk; but instead of a treasure, or at least a valuable legacy, which he expected, he found Only a red herring.

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.

After his return from France, he was made one of the commissioners of the customs, in which office he distinguished himself by his skill and fidelity. Of the latter, Oldmixon gives a remarkable instance, in his treatment of a person who solicited to be a tide-waiter. This man, understanding that Mr. May 11 waring had the best interest at the board of any of the commissioners, with the lords of the treasury, left a letter for him with a purse of fifty guineas, desiring his favour towards obtaining the place for which he applied. After that, he delivered a petition to the board, which was read, and several of the commissioners spoke on the subject; upon which Mr. Maynwaring took out the purse of fifty guineas, and the letter, and told them, that, “as long as he -could help it, that man should never have this nor any other place.” In the beginning of queen Anne’s reign, he was made auditor of the imprests, by the lord -treasurer Godolphin, an office worth 2000l. per annum in a time of business. In the parliament which met in 1705, he was chosen a burgess for Preston in Lancashire. He died at St. Alban’s, Nov. 13, 1712, leaving Mrs. Oldfield, the celebrated actress, his executrix. This lady had lived with him as his mistress, and by her he had a son, named Arthur Maynwaring. He divided his estate, which did not amount to much more than 3000l. equally between that child, Mrs. Oldfield, and his sister. He published a great number of compositions in verse and prose, which gained him credit and reputation. Sir Richard Steele dedicated to him the first volume of the Tatler. Even his adversaries could not deny him merit. Thus the Examiner, his antagonist in politics, allowed that he wrote with “a tolerable spirit, and in a masterly style.” He was severely reflected upon for his will, particularly by the “Examiner;” in answer to which, there came out a paper, two months after his death, in defence of him; and this defence was in a few days followed by another, in a letter to a friend, supposed to be written by Robert Walpole, esq. In 1715 Mr. Oldmixon published “The Life and Posthumous Works of Arthur Maynwaring, esq. containing several original pieces and translations, in prose and verse, never before published,” 8vo, dedicated to sir Robert Walpole, of whom Mr. Maynwaring was a firm adherent, and, according to Mr. Coxe, the first who predicted the figure that statesman would one day make. This volume contains many curious particulars of the political history of the times; but, like all Oldmixon’s writings, must be read with caution.

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

, 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.

The cardinal de Richelieu was induced from these services to conceive an esteem for him, while Barberini was equally attached to him, and prevailed upon Urban VIII. to make him keeper of the seals. He went in 1634 to Avignon, in quality of vice- legate, and to France in that of nuncio extraordinary, where he acquired a profound knowledge of state affairs, and with much art cultivated at the same time, the friendship of Richelieu, and the good-will of Louis XIII. In compliment to the nomination of this monarch, the pope added him to the number of cardinals in 1641. When Richelieu died, the same king made Mazarin his minister of state, and one of the executors to his will. In these departments, he took upon him the administration of affairs, during the minority of Louis XIV. and the regency of the queen Anne of Austria. The dawnings of his power were attended with the happiest success; and the good fortune of the king’s armies was to our cardinal a source of much national applause. But these advantages were very soon succeeded by the murmurs of an oppressed people, and the envious combination of the great nobles, who were jealous of his high advancement. Hence arose the civil wars in 1649, and the three following years; and the dissatisfaction becoming more general, it was insisted upon, that he should be dismissed from the royal presence. Mazarin, who knew how necessary it was for him to retire, demanded that he might take his leave; and immediately departed from the kingdom. He was stili so conscious of fortune’s always attending him, that he mentioned even this event as one of the chief incidents contributing to his greatness; and although decrees were issued out against him, his fine library was sold, and a price was fixed upon his head, he contrived to quell this fury with most astonishing dexterity. He even was enabled to return to court, and with a double share of power; and so mutable is popular opinion, that many who once had been his bitterest enemies, were now become his warmest friends. After this, he continued to render the state many important services, the chief of which was the obtaining of peace between France and Spain: for this purpose, he went in person to hold a conference with the Spanish minister, don Louis de Haro, in 1659. The successful termination of this affair, was followed by the king’s marriage, with the Infanta. The continual application of Mazarin to business brought on a very dangerous iUness: he was at that time at the Louvre, but gave orders to be carried to Vincennes, where he died March 9, 1661, aged 59. When sensible of his danger, he began to feel scruples concerning the wealth which he had heaped together, and his confessor plainly told him that restitution was necessary for his salvation. He gave the whole to the king, in the hope that, as was the case, his majesty would restore it to him. His wealth is said to have amounted to eight millions sterling, all collected in a time of war, or national commotion. The king paid the highest honours to his memory. His body was magnificently entombed in the college usually called after his name, but sometimes by that of “the four nations,” having been designed as a place of education for the youth of the four conquered nations.

Mazarin had a brother and two sisters. His letters have been published; thirty-six of them made their appearance at Paris in 1691; and, in 1693, a second volume came out, containing seventy-seven more: the whole was reprinted in two parts in 1694. These letters are not arranged in the order of their dates; but this error was amended in a later edition, published (as the title-page informs us) at Amsterdam, by Zachary Chatelain, in 1745, in 2 vols. 12mo. For this we are indebted to the care of the abbe“d'Alainval; but this edition is rendered more valuable than the others, being augmented by more than fifty letters, which had never before appeared, and which are all placed in their just order. The title of this work is,” Letters of cardinal Mazarin, containing the Secrets of the Negociations concerning the Pyrenean Peace, and the Conferences which he had on that subject with Don Louis de Haro, the Spanish minister; the whole enriched with historical Notes." The character of Mazarin has been compared with that of Richelieu, but unjustly. In Mazarin’s there was nothing amiable or great, and his ambition was too nearly allied to avarice to command respect.

, an Italian philologer and antiquary, was born in 1684, at Santa Maria, a village near Capua. He was ordained priest in 1709, and became professor of the Greek and Hebrew languages in the archiepiscopal seminary at Naples. In 1711 he was made a canon of Capua: and successively theological professor at Naples, and royal interpreter of the Holy Scriptures. He is said through humility to have refused the archbishopric of Rossano, which was offered to him by the king. He died in 1771. Mazoclu wrote many works, particularly on the subjects of ancient inscriptions, and of medals. He published, 1. “Commentarium in mutilum Campanioe Atnphitheatri titulum, aliasque nonnullas Inscriptiones,” Neapoli, 1727, 4to. This was afterwards inserted into Poleni’s New Thesaurus of Greek and Roman antiquities. 2. “Ad Bernardum Tanuccium Epistola de dedicatione sub ascia,” Neap. 1739, 8vo. 3. “Commentarium in vetus marmoreuin S. Neap. Eccles. Calendarium,” Neap. 1744, 4to, and several other detached dissertations of this kind; besides one in Italian, on the origin of the Tyrrhenians, published in the third volume of the academy of Cortona. Also, 4. “Notes on the New Testament.” 5. “Dissertations on the Poetry of the Hebrews.” 6. “Antiquities of the Campagna of Rome.” He left besides in manuscript, a book on the origin of the city of Capua.

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

, a nonconformist divine of the seventeenth century, was descended from a reputable family in Buckinghamshire, where he was born in 1629. Of his early life no account has been preserved, and the first notice we have of him, is as possessing the living of Great Brickhiil in his native county. In Jan. 1658 he was appointed by Oliver Cromwell, to the cure of the new chapel at Shadwell, from which he was ejected for non-conformity in 1662. In 1663 he resided in Worcester-house, at Stepney, where he brought up a family of thirteen children, one of whom was the illustrious subject of our next article, and alone sufficient to give celebrity to the name of Mead. When a temporary liberty was granted to the dissenters, Mr. Mead returned from Holland, where he had resided some time; and in 1674 the spacious meetinghouse at Stepney was erected for him, the four large pillars of which were presented to him by the States of Holland, as was frequently related by one of his successors. In 1683, he was accused of being concerned in the Ryehouse plot, for which lord Russel and others were executed; but after an examination before the privy council, in the presence of Charles II. he vindicated his innocence in a manner so satisfactory, that his majesty himself ordered him to be discharged. He died at Stepney, Oct. 16, 1699, aged seventy. He published some sermons and pious tracts, the most popular of which are his, I. “Almost Christian.” 2. “The good of early obedience.” 3. “The Young Man’s Remembrancer,” &c.

, a most distinguished physician, whose abilities and eminence in his profession, united with his learning and fine taste for those arts which embellish and improve human life, long rendered him an ornament, not only to his own profession, but to the nation and age in which he lived, was born at Stepney, Aug. 11, 1673, and received the early part of his education under his father, the subject of the preceding article, who, with the assistance of Mr. John Nesbitt, superintended the education of his large family. In 1688, he was placed under the care of Mr. Thomas Singleton and in 1689 under Grsevius, at Utrecht. His eldest brother had been a pupil of this professor, and recommended Richard to him as a modest young man, who had made some progress in good literature. In 1692 he removed to Leyden, xvhere he attended for three years the lectures of Herman and Pitcairn, and applied himself most successfully to the study of physic. This last named professsor was seldom very communicative out of college, yet Mr. Mead found the art of recommending himself so far to his good graces, that he drew from him several observations, which he afterwards introduced in his writings, but never without acknowledging to whom he was indebted for them. He there also formed an intimacy with Boerhaave, with whom he afterwards maintained the most friendly intercourse through life. Mr. Mead’s eldest brother, Samuel, having projected a visit to Italy, in company with David Polhill, esq. and Dr. Thomas Pellet, afterwards president of the college of physicians, invited our student to make a fourth, which was indeed the summit of his wishes, for he had already contracted that taste which distinguished him in after-life, and which he hoped to gratify in a country abounding with objects of the first curiosity. Nor was he unprepared to make the necessary inquiries. At Florence he asked to see the Mensa Isiaca, but not being able to obtain any information about it, he desired leave to search for it in a lumber-room over the gallery; where he found this valuable piece of antiquity, buried in rubbish, and for many years given over as lost. He took his degree of doctor of philosophy and physic at Padua, Aug. 16, 1695; and passed sorne time afterwards at Naples and Rome. On his return, about Midsummer 1696, he settled in the very house where he was born; married Ruth, the daughter of Mr. John Marsh, merchant of London; and practised in his profession there for seven years with great success. In 1702 he published his “Mechanical Account of Poisons.” These essays, however justly esteemed on their first appearance, did their author still more honour in the edition he published of them more than forty years afterwards, as he then had the candour to retract some opinions too hastily advanced. In 1703 he communicated to the Royal Society, an analysis of Dr. Bonomo’s discoveries, relative to the cutaneous worms that generate the itch, which was inserted in the Philosophical Transactions of that year. The original letter of Bonomo to Redi was published in Italian, in 1687; and Dr. Mead met with it in his travels in Italy. This, with his “Account of Poisons,” produced him a place in the Royal Society in 1704; and in 1706, he was chosen one of their council, and in 1717 a vice-president. He was also chosen physician to St. Thomas’s hospital, May 5, 1703, when he removed from Stepney to Crutched Friars where having resided seven years, he removed into Austin Friars; and about the same time was appointed by the company of surgeons to read the anatomical lectures in their hall.

In 1704, appeared his treatise “De imperio solis ac lunae in corpore humano, et morbis inde oriundis.” The influence of the sun and moon upon human bodies, which had been admitted by all antiquity, and seemed founded upon incontestable phenomena, appeared to him to be deducible from the theory of attraction, lately established by sir Isaac Newton. Dr. Mead therefore attempted to show, that periodical influences were produced on the living body, as upon the tides of the sea and the atmosphere. Of this work he published an enlarged edition in 1748; and whatever may be thought of the system, it contains many observations of importance in medical practice.

Dr. Mead’s reputation now greatly increased his business, and recommended him to the patronage of the most eminent of the faculty. In 1707 he had the degree of M. D. conferred on him by the university of Oxford, by diploma. On the last illness of queen Anne, he was called in consultation, two days before her death. Cautious and reserved as physicians usually are on such occasions, Dr. Mead, either more discerning or more bold, no sooner saw the queen than he declared her in immediate danger; and when he found his brethren demur on this opinion, he said it would be sufficient to send to Hanover an account of the present symptoms, by which the physicians of that court would immediately perceive that, before the account came to them, the queen would be no more. Having opened his mind freely on this subject to his friend and protector Dr. Radcliffe, the latter made use of that friendship to excuse his own attendance. Radcliflfe surviving the queen but three months, Mead removed to his house, and resigned his office in St. Thomas’s hospital.

Dr. Mead was not more to be admired for the qualities of his head than to be loved for those of his heart. Though he was himself a zealous whig, yet party principles did not prevent his attachment to men of merit, by whatever denomination they might happen to be distinguished. Thus he was intimate with Garth, with Arbuthnot, and with Freind. Of his connexion with, and liberal conduct to, the latter, we have already given an account (vol. XV. p. 112, 113). Dr. Mead, however, amidst so many excellent qualities, was not without resentments equally steady. That against Woodward was certainly carried to a length highly exceptionable; as we find by Mead’s preface to his treatise on the small pox, it had not subsided twenty years after Woodward’s death. The first quarrel between Mead and Woodward was of a personal kind, but in what it originated we know not. Mead felt it, however, in such a manner, that he went to Woodward’s lodgings to demand satisfaction; and meeting him at Gresham college, under the arch in the way from the outer court to the green court, he drew his sword, and bid Woodward defend himself, or beg pardon, which, it is supposed, he did. This rencontre is recorded in the view of the college, prefixed to Ward’s “Lives of the Gresham Professors,” in which Woodward is represented kneeling, and laying his sword at the feet of his antagonist. Mead was the friend and patron of Ward, which may account, although it cannot well excuse, his introducing and perpetuating a foolish circumstance so foreign to the nature of his work.

Dr. Mead was admitted fellow of the college of physicians, April 9, 1716; and executed the office of censor in 1716, 1719, and 1724. In 1719, on an alarm confirmed by the fatal plague at Marseilles, the lords of the regency directed Mr. Craggs, then secretary of state, to apply to Dr. Mead, to give the best directions for preventing the importation of the plague, or stopping its progress. His opinion was approved; and quarantine directed to be performed. Of his “Discourse concerning Pestilential Contagion,” no less than seven editions were printed in 1720; the eighth, which appeared in 1722, and again in 1743, was enlarged with many new observations, and translated into Latin by professor Ward, as the first edition had been by Mr. Maittaire. This discourse is said to have greatly hurt his practice, fora time at least, not for medical, but political reasons, as it was suspected to be intended to prepare the way for barracks, &c. at a time when the nation was extremely jealous of a standing army. By order of the prince of Wales, Dr. Mead assisted, Aug. 10, 1721, at the inoculation of some condemned criminals; and the experiment succeeding, the two young princesses, Amelia and Caroline, were inoculated April 17, 1722, and had the distemper favourably.

As Dr. Mead was ever anxious to support the honour of his profession by his liberal' conduct, and by associating with it the character of a friend and patron of learning, he took an opportunity to assert its dignity in his “Harveian Oration,” read before the college in October 1723, and afterwards published. In this oration he endeavoured to shew, that the profession was exercised by several families of distinction among the Romans; and he annexed to it a dissertation on some coins, which had been struck at. Smyrna, in honour of physicians. This publication was the origin of a controversy, which was begun by Dr. Conyers Middleton, and in which Mead was supported by his friend professor Ward, of the Gresham college. Dr. Middleton, with much erudition, undertook to prove the servile condition of the Roman physicians. The controversy was carried on in a manner honourable to both parties; and Dr. Middleton, in a subsequent work on Greek and Egyptian antiquities, spoke of Dr. Mead in terms of great respect.

On the accession of George II. to the throne in 1727, Dr. Mead was appointed physician in ordinary to his majesty, and had afterwards the satisfaction of seeing his two sons-in-law (Dr. Wilmot and Dr. Nicholls) his associates in the same station.

Busied as Dr. Mead was in the duties of his profession, he never lost sight of the interests of literature, and was most liberal in the promotion of it. Mr. Carte, the historian, who, on account of political suspicions, had retired to France in 1722, having employed himself there in collecting materials for an English translation of Thuanus, Dr. Mead quickly perceived that this plan might be enlarged. He looked on this country as too disinterested to desire to possess this foreign treasure alone, and was willing England might do for Thuanus more than France itself, by procuring for all Europe the first complete edition of this excellent history. He therefore remunerated Carte for the pains he had taken, and employed Mr. Buckley, as an editor equal to the task, whose three letters written in English to Dr. Mead, contain many curious particulars concerning the history itself, and the plan of this new edition. These letters were translated into Latin by professor Ward, and prefixed to the splendid edition of Thuanus, published in 1733, in 7 vols. folio.

Without the interposition of Dr. Mead, Mr. Button’s invention, to draw foul and corrupted air from ships ancl other close places, by the means of fire, would have probably been neglected and lost; but, being thoroughly convinced of the advantages of this method, he determined to support it, and accordingly engaged the lords of the admiralty to order a trial of the new machine to be made, at which he and several members of the Royal Society attended. He also not only presented a memorial to that learned body, in which he demonstrated its simplicity and utility, but at the expence of 200l. caused a model of it to be made in copper, which he deposited in their museum. At length, after ten years’ solicitation, he obtained of the lords of the admiralty an order to Mr. Sutton, to provide all the ships in his majesty’s navy with this useful machine; and a drawing, with a description, being published in 1749, Dr. Mead added his “Treatise on the Scurvy,” in which he ascribed that fatal disease to moisture combined with putridity.

Being arrived at the time of life when retirement becomes necessary, he declined the presidentship of the college of physicians, which was offered him in October 1744, and now employed his leisure in revising his former, and composing new works. He had, so early as 1712, communicated to Dr. Freind his opinions respecting the importance of purgatives in the secondary fever of small-pox, upon which subject Dr. Freind published a letter in 1719. But it was not till 1747, that Dr. Mead printed his treatise “De Variolis et Morbillis,” which contains many valuable observations on both these diseases, and also strong recommendations of the practice of inoculation. To this treatise, which was written in a pure Latin style, he subjoined a translation of Rhazes’s commentary on the Smallpox, into the same language, a copy of which be had obtained from Leyden, through the assistance of his fellowstudent Boerhaave, with whom he had maintained a constant correspondence. In 1749 he published his “Medicina Sacra, seu de Morbis insignioribus qui in Bibliis memorantur,” 8vo. The object of this work was to shew that the diseases, mentioned in the Bible, were explicable on natural grounds and in this he particularly attempted to prove that the daemoniacs mentioned in the gospel were only insane, or epileptic persons. His last work, a summary of the experience of his professional life, was published in 1751, under the title of “Monita et Praecepta Medica,” 8vo. This little volume was almost purely practical, consisting of detached observations on a variety of diseases and medicines, many of which have stood the test of subsequent experience: it was frequently reprinted, and was translated into English, under his inspection, by Dr. Stack.

This was the last, and perhaps the most useful, of all his works, which have been since collected and published in 1762, 4to. He died on Feb. 16, 1754; and on the 23d he was buried in the Temple church, near his elder brother Samuel, whose property he had inherited, and to whose memory the doctor had caused an elegant monument to be placed, with his bust, and a suitable inscription, by Dr. Ward. To Dr. Mead there is no monument in the Temple; but an honorary one was placed by his son in the north aile of Westminster-abbey. Over the tomb is the doctor’s bust; at his right hand a wreathed serpent, darting its tongue, and on his left several books. Below the bust are his arms and crest. The inscription to this was also written by Dr. Ward.

Dr. Mead was twice married. By his first lady, whom we have mentioned, he had ten children (of whom three survived him, two daughters married to Dr. Wilmot and Dr. Nicholls, and his son Richard, heir to his father’s and uncle’s fortunes): by the second lady, Miss Anne Alston, sister to sir Rowland Alston of Odell in Bedfordshire (whom he married in 1724), he had no issue. Dr. Mead raised the medical character to a higher dignity than ever was known in this or any other country. During almost half a century he was at the head of his profession, which is said to have brought him in one year upwards of seven thousand pounds, and between five and six for several years. The clergy, and in general all men of learning, were welcome to his advice; and his doors were open every morning to the most indigent, whom he frequently assisted with money; so that, notwithstanding his great income, he did not die very rich. He was a most generous patron of learning and learned men, in all sciences, and in every country; by the peculiar munificence of his disposition, making the private gains of his profession answer the end of a princely fortune, and valuing them only as they enabled him to become more extensively useful, and thereby to satisfy that greatness of mind which will transmit his name to posterity with a lustre not inferior to that of the most distinguished characters of antiquity. To him the several counties of England, and our colonies abroad, applied for the choice of their physicians. No foreigner of any learning, taste, or even curiosity, ever came to England without being introduced to Dr. Mead; and he was continually consulted by the physicians of the continent. His large and spacious house in Great Ormond street became a repository of all that was curious in nature or in art, to which his extensive correspondence with the learned in all parts of Europe not a little contributed. The king of Naples sent to request a collection of all his works; presented him with the two first volumes of signor Bajardi, and invited him to his own palace: and, through the hands of M. de Boze, he frequently had the honour of exchanging presents with the king of France. He built a gallery for his favourite furniture, his pictures, and his antiquities. His library, as appears by the printed catalogue of it, consisted of 6592 numbers, containing upwards of 10,000 volumes, in which he had spared no expence for scarce and ancient editions. It was at that time mentioned as remarkable, although it will not be thought so now, that many of his books sold for much more than they had cost him. The sale of the whole amounted to 5500l. His pictures also were chosen with so much judgment, that they produced 3417l. 11s. about six or seven hundred pounds more than he gave for them; and the total amount of his books, pictures, coins, &c. &c. was 16,069l. 8s. Md. Nor did he make this great collection for his own use only, but freely opened it to public inspection. Ingenious men were sure of finding at Dr. Mead’s the best helps in all their undertakings; and scarcely any thing curious appeared in England but under his patronage. By his singular humanity and goodness, “he conquered even Envy itself;” a compliment which was justly paid him in a dedication, by the editor of lord Bacon’s Works, in 1730. But the most elegant compliment he received, or couid receive, was in the dedication written by Dr Johnson for Dr James, which we have inserted in vol. XVIII. art. James. Dr. Johnson once said of Dr. Mead, that “he lived more in the broad sunshine of life than almost any man.” He constantly kept in pay a great number of scholars and artists of all kinds, who were at work for him or for the public. He was the friend of Pope, of Halley, and of Newton; and placed their portraits in his house, with those of Shakspeare and Milton, near the busts of their great masters, the ancient Greeks and Romans. A marble bust of Dr. Harvey, the work of an excellent artist, from an original picture in his possession, was given by him to the college of physicians: and one of Dr. Mead, by Roubillac, was presented to the college in 1756, by the late Dr. Askew. A portrait of him was etched by Pond, another by Richardson; a mezzotinto by Houston, from a painting of Ramsay; and an engraved portrait by Baron. There was also a medal of him struck in 1773, long after his decease, by Lewis Pingo.

Among the many characteristic anecdotes of Dr. Mead, which have been published, one is, that he never took a fee of any clergyman, except of Mr. Robert Leake, fellow of St. John’s college, Cambridge; who, falling into a valetudinarian state, dabbled rather too much with the writings, and followed too closely some of the prescriptions, of the celebrated Dr. Cheyne. Being greatly emaciated in a course of time, by keeping too strictly to that gentleman’s regimen, misapplying perhaps his rules, where the case required a different treatment, his friends advised him to apply to Dr. Mead; which he did, going directly to London to wait on the doctor, and telling him that “he had hitherto observed Cheyne’s directions, as laid down in his printed books.” Mead (a proud man and passionate), spoke with contempt of Cheyne and his regimen. “Follow my prescriptions,” said he, “and I will set you up again.” Mr. Leake submitted; and beginning to find some benefit, he asked the doctor every now and then, whether it might not be proper for him to follow at the same time such and such a prescription of Cheyne; which Mead took ill. When the well-meaning patient was got pretty well again, he asked the doctor what fees he desired or expected from him. “Sir,” said the physician, “I have never yet, in the whole course of my practice, taken or demanded any the least fee from any clergyman. But since you have been pleased, contrary to 'what I have met with in any other gentleman of your profession, to prescribe to me, rather than to follow my prescriptions, when you had committed the care of your recovery tomy skill and trust, you must not take it amiss, nor will, I hope, think it unfair, if I demand ten guineas of you.” The money, though not perhaps without some little reluctance, was paid down. The doctor at the sa.ne time told Leake, “You may come to me again, belore you quit London.” He did so; and Mead returned to him six guineas out of the ten which he had received.

, an English critic, was born in Staffordshire in 1697, and was educated at Mertoncollege in Oxford, of which he became a fellow. In 1732, hepublished notes on Milton’s Paradise Regained, and in the following year was promoted to a canonry in the church of Worcester. He was author of several small tracts, containing critical remarks on the English poets; and his notes were not neglected by the late bishop Newton, in publishing his edition of Milton He was greatly esteemed by the learned in general, and died at Worcester in 1769, aged 72. Dr. Newton thus speaks of him in his preface to the Paradise Regained. After enumerating the assistance given by friends, he adds, “I had the honour of all these for my associates and assistants before, but I have been farther strengthened by some new recruits, which were the more unexpected, as they were sent me by gentlemen with whom. I never had the pleasure of a personal acquaintance. The Rev. Mr. Meado-vcourt, canon of Worcester, in 1732 published a critical dissertation, with notes, upon the Paradise Regained, a second edition of which was published in 1748; and he likewise transmitted to me a sheet of his manuscript remarks, wherein he hath happily explained a most duficult passage in Lycidas, better than any man had done before him” The passage alluded to is the 160th line of that poem, in which Mr Mtad.nvcourt explained the words “Bellerus,” and “Bayonu’s hold.” He was author also of eleven printed sermons, which are enumerated in Cooke’s Preacher’s Assistant.

, an Irish physician and poet, was born at Ormond, about the close of the sixteenth century, in the county of Tipperary, and educated at Oxford. Wood doubts this, because he could find no record of his matriculation or degrees; but in one of his writings he styles himself “lately a member of the university of Oxford,” and it is probable that he took his medical degrees there, as immediately on his leaving Oxford, he settled in his own country, and soon attained the highest eminence in his profession. He was living in 1620, but the time of his death is not specified in our authorities. He wrote a heroic poem, in Latin, on the earl of Ormond and Ossory, entitled “Ormonius, sive illust. herois et Domini D. Thomse Butler, &c. prosapia, &c.” printed at London in 1615, 8vo, % with an English version by William Roberts, Ulster king at arms. He wrote also some medical treatises, of which one only was published, on hereditary disorders, “Pathologia hereditaria generalis, &c.” Dublin, 1619, 12mo. It was afterwards reprinted with the works of his son Edmund Meara, London, 1665, and Amsterdam, 1666, 12mo. This son, a graduate of Oxford, practised both in Ireland and England, was a member of the college of physicians of London, and resided for some time at Bristol. He died about 1680, and had a short controversy with Dr. Lower, occasioned by Meara’s publishing an “Examen Diatribae Thomae Willisii, de Febribus,” London, 1665, 8vo. Lower answered it by a “Vindicatio Diatribae Willisii,” written with much controversial bitterness.

, a very able French mathematician and astronomer, was born at Laon in 17 44, where his father was an architect, and at one time a man of considerable property. At an early age he discovered a strong inclination for mathematical pursuits, and while he was under the instruction of his tutors, corresponded with Lalande, whom he was desirous of assisting in his labours. In 1772, Mechain was invited to Paris, where he was employed at the depot of the marine, and assisted M. Darquier in correcting his observations. Here his merit brought him acquainted with M. Doisy, director of the depot, who gave him a more advantageous situation at Versailles. At this place he diligently observed the heavens, and, in 1774, sent to the Royal Academy of Sciences “A Memoir relative to an Eclipse of Aldebaran,” observed by him on the 15th of April. He calculated the orbit of the comet of 1774, and discovered that of 1781. In 1782, he gained the prize of the academy on the subject of the comet of 1661, the return of which was eagerly expected in 1790; and in the same year he was admitted a member of the academy, and soon selected for the superintendance of the Connoissance des Tems. In 1790, M. Mechain discoveredhis eighth comet, and communicated to the academy his observations on it, together with his calculations of its orbit. In 1792 he undertook, conjointly with M. Delambre, the labour of measuring the degrees of the meridian, for the purpose of more accurately determining the magnitude of the earth and the length of a metre. In the month of June 1792, M. Mechain set out to measure the triangles between Perpignan and Barcelona; and notwithstanding that the war occasioned a temporary suspension of his labours, he was enabled to resume and complete them during the following year. He died on the 20th of September 1805, at Castellon de la Plana, in the sixty-second year of his age. Lalande deplores his loss as that of not only one of the best French astronomers, but one of the most laborious, the most courageous, and the most robust. His last observations and calculations of the eclipse of the sun on the llth of February, are inserted in the Connoissance des Tems for the year 15; and he also published a great many in the Ephemerides of M. Bode, of Berlin, which he preferred to a former work after Lalande became its editor. A more extensive memoir of his labours may be seen in Baron von Zach’s Journal for July 1800, and Lalande’s History of Astronomy for 1804.

, a learned -English divine, was born in 1586, of a good family, at Berden, in Essex. When he was about ten years old, both he and his father fell sick of the small pox; which proving mortal to the father, the son fell under the care of a Mr. Gower, to whom his mother was soon after married. He was sent to school first to Hoddesdon, in Hertfordshire, and then to Wethersfield, in Essex. While he was at this last school, going to London upon some occasion, he bought “Bellarmine’s Hebrew Grammar” and though his master, who had no skill in that language, told him it was a book not fit fof him, yet he studied it with so much eagerntss, that in a little time he attained considerable skill in Hebrew. In 1602, he was sent to Christ’s-college, in Cambridge; where, although he had an uncommon impediment in his speech, which would not suffer him to shew himself to advantage, he was soon distinguished for his abilities and learning. Not long after his entrance upon philosophical studies, he became disquieted with scepticism: for, meeting with a book in a fellow-student’s chamber, either “Sextus Empiricus,” or some other of the Pyrrhonic school, he began, upon the perusal of it, to move strange questions to himself, and even to doubt whether the To Ilav, the whole frame of things, as it appears to us, were any thing more than a mere phantasm, or imagination; and, till his principles were settled, his life, as he professed, was utterly without comfort.

By the time he had taken the degree of master of arts, which was in 1610, he had made such progress in all kinds of academical study, that he was universally esteemed an accomplished scholar. He was an acute logician, an accurate philosopher, a skilful mathematician, an excellent anatomist, a great philologer, a master of many languages, and a good proficient in history and chronology. His first public effort was an address that he made to bishop Andrews, in a Latin tract “De sanctitate relativa;” which, in his maturer years, he censured as a juvenile performance, and therefore never published it. That great prelate, however, who was a good judge and patron of learning, liked it so well, that he not only was the author’s firm friend upon an occasion that offered soon after, but also then desired him to be his domestic chaplain. This Mede very civilly refused; valuing the liberty of his studies above any hopes of preferment, wnd esteeming that freedom which he enjoyed in his cell, so he used to call it, as the haven of all his wishes. These thoughts, indeed, had possessed him. betimes: for, when he was a school-boy, he was invited by his uncle, Mr. Richard Mede, a merchant, who, being then without children, offered to adopt him for his son, if he would live with him: but he refused the offer, preferring, as it should seem, a life of study to a life of gain.

He was not chosen fellow of his college till after he was master of arts, and then not without the assistance of his friend bishop Andrews: for he had been passed over at several elections, on account of a groundless suspicion which Dr Cary, then master of the college, afterwards bishop of Exeter, had conceived of him, that “he looked too much towanis Geneva;” that is, was inclined to the tenets of that church. Being made fellow, he became an eminent and faithful tutor. After he had well grounded his pupils in classics, logic, and philosophy, his custom was to set every one his dnily task; which he rather chose, than to confine himself and them to precise hours for lectures. In the evening they all came to his chamber; and the first question he put to each was, “Quid dubitas? What doubts have you met with in your studies to-day?” For he supposed, that to doubt nothing and to understand nothing was the same thing. By this method he taught the young men to exercise their reasoning powers, and not acquiesce in what they learn mechanically, with an indolence of spirit, which prepares them to receive implicitly whatever is offered them. In the mean time he was appointed reader of the Greek lecture of Sir Walter Mildmay’s foundation; an office which he held during the remainder of his life. While at college, he was so entirely devoted to study that he made even the time he spent in his amusements serviceable to his purpose. He allowed himself little or no exercise but walking; and often, in the fields or college garden, would take occasion to speak of the beauty, distinctions, virtues, or properties, of the plants then in view: for he was a curious florist, an accurate herbalist, and thoroughly versed in the book of nature. The chief delight he took in company was to discourse with learned friends; and he used to spend much time with his worthy friend Mr. William Chappel, afterwards provost of Trinity-college, Dublin, and bishop of Cork and Ross, a man of great learning, and who had a high regard for Mr. Mede.

He was a curious inquirer into the most abstruse parts of learning, and earnestly pursued the knowledge of those things which are most remote from the vulgar track. Among other things, he spent no small pains and time in sounding the depths of astrology, and consumed much paper in calculating the nativities of his near relations and fellow-students but this was in his juvenile years, and he afterwards discovered the absurdity of such employment He applied himself to the more useful study of history and antiquities, particularly to those difficult sciences which made the ancient Chaldeans, Egyptians, and other nations so famous; tracing them, as far as he could have any light to guide him, in their oriental schemes and figurative expressions, as likewise in their hieroglyphics; not forgetting to inquire also into the oneirocritics of the ancients, because of the affinity which he conceived they might have with the language of the prophets. He was a curious and laborious searcher into antiquities relating to religion, Pagan, Jewish, Christian, and Mahometan: to which he added other attendants, necessary for understanding the more difficult parts of Scripture.

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

, a celebrated citizen of Florence, born in that city iii 1389, was the eldest son of John de Metlici, the founder of his illustrious family. 4i The maxims,“says Mr. Roscoe,” which, m iformly pursued, raised the house of Medici to the splendour which it afterwards enjoyed, are to be found in the charge given by this venerable old man on his death-bed to his two sons “I feel,” said John de Medici, “that I have lived the time prescribed me. I die content; leaving you, my sons, in affluence and in health, and in such a station, that while you follow my example, you may live in your native place honoured and respected. Nothing affords me more pleasure than the reflection that my conduct has not given offence to any one; but that, on the contrary, I have endeavoured to serve all persons to the best of my abilities. I advise you to do the same. With respect to the honours of the state, if you would live with security, accept only such as are bestowed on you by the laws, and the favour of your fellow-citizens; for it is the exercise of that power which is obtained by violence, and not of that which is voluntarily conferred, that occasions hatred and violence.” At the death of this venerable man, in 1428, Cosmo had already obtained distinction both in the political and commercial world. In 1414, when the pope, John XXIII., was summoned to attend the council of Constance, he chose to be accompanied by Cosmo de Medici, among other men of eminence, whose high characters might countenance his cause. On the death of his father, Cosmo succeeded to the influence possessed by him as head of that powerful family, which rendered him the first citizen of the state, though without any superiority of rank or title, and his conduct being marked by urbanity and generosity to all ranks, he acquired numerous and zealous partizans. Such was the influence of his family, that while the citizens of Florence fancied they lived under a pure republic, the Medici generally assumed to themselves the first offices of the state, or nominated such persons as they esteemed fit for those employments. Cosmo exerted this influence with great prudence and moderation; yet, owing to the discontent of the Florentines, with the bad success of the war against Lucca, a party arose, led on by Rinaldo de' Albizi, which, in 1433, after filling the magistracies with their own adherents, seized the person of Cosmo, and committed him to prison, and he was afterwards banished to Padua for ten years, and several other members and friends of the Medici family underwent a similar punishment. He was received with marked respect by the Venetian government, and took up his abode in the city of Venice. Within a year of his retreat, Rinaldo was himself obliged to quit Florence; and Cosmo being recalled, he returned amidst the acclamations of his fellow-subjects. Some victims were offered to his future security, and the gonfaloniere who had pronounced his sentence, with a few others of that party, were put to death. Measures were now taken to restrict the choice of magistrates to the partizans of the Medici, and alliances were formed with the neighbouring powers for the avowed purpose of supporting and perpetuating the system by which Florence was from that time to be governed. The manner in which Cosmo employed his authority, has conferred upon his memory the greatest honour. From this time his life was an almost uninterrupted series of prosperity. The tranquillity enjoyed by the republic, and the satisfaction and peace of mind which he experienced in the esteem and confidence of his fellow-citizens, enabled him to indulge his natural propensity to the promotion of science, and the patronage and encouragement of learned men. The richest private citizen in Europe, he surpassed almost all sovereign princes in the munificence with which he patronized literature and the fine arts. He assembled around him some of the most learned men of the age, who had begun to cultivate the Grecian language and philosophy. He established, at Florence, an academy expressly for the elucidation of the Platonic philosophy, at the head of which he placed the celebrated Marsilius Ficinus. He collected from all parts by means of foreign correspondences, manuscripts of the Greek, Latin, and Oriental languages, which formed the foundation of the Laurentian library nor was he less liberal in the encouragement of the fine arts. During the retirement of his latter days, his happiest hours were devoted to the study of letters and philosophy, and the conversation of learned men. He also endowed numerous religious houses, and built an hospital at Jerusalem for the relief of distressed pilgrims. While the spirit of his government was moderate, he avoided every appearance of state which might excite the jealousy or discontent of the Florentines; and therefore, byway of increasing his interest among them, restricted the marriages of his children to Florentine families: By such wise measures, and the general urbanity of his behaviour to all orders of men, he attained the title of “Father of his country,” which was inscribed on his tomb. He died Aug. 1, 14-64, aged seventyfive years, deeply lamented by the citizens of Florence.

, grandson of the preceding, was born Jan. 1, 1448. From his earliest years he gave proofs of a vigorous mind, which was carefully cultivated, and exhibited many traits of that princely and liberal spirit which afterwards procured him the title of “Magnificent.” In polite literature he cultivated poetry, and gave some proofs of his talents in various compositions. At the death of Cosmo, on account of the infirmities of his father Peter de Medici, he was immediately initiated into political life, although then only in his sixteenth year. He was accordingly sent to visit the principal courts in Italy, and acquire a personal knowledge of their politics and their rulers. In 1469 his father died, leaving his two sons Lorenzo and Julian heirs of his power and property; but it was Lorenzo who succeeded him as head of the republic. Upon the accession of Sixtus IV. to the papal throne, he went, with some other citizens, to congratulate the new pope, and was invested with the office of treasurer of the holy see, and while at Rome took every opportunity to add to the remains of ancient art which his family had collected. One of the first public occurrences after he conducted the helm of government, was a revolt of the inhabitants of Volterra, on account of a dispute with the Florentine republic; by the recommendation of Lorenzo, means of force were adopted, which ended in the sack of the unfortunate city, an event that gave him much concern. In 1472, he re-established the academy of Pisa, to which he removed in order to complete the work, exerted himself in selecting the most eminent professors, and contributed to it a large sum from his private fortune, in addition to that granted by the state of Florence. Zealously attached to the Platonic philosophy, he took an active part in the establishment of an academy for its promotion, and instituted an annual festival in honour of the memory of Plato, which was conducted with singular literary splendour. While he was thus advancing in a career of prosperity and reputation, a tragical incident was very near depriving his country of his future services. This was the conspiracy of the Pazzi, a numerous and distinguished family in Florence, of which the object was the assassination of Lorenzo and his brother. In the latter they were successful; but Lorenzo was saved, and the people attached to the Medici collecting in crowds, putto death or apprehended the assassins, whose designs were thus entirely frustrated, and summary justice was inflicted on the criminals. Salviati, archbishop of Pisa, was hanged out of the palace window in his sacerdotal robes; and Jacob de Pazzi, with one of his nephews, shared the same fate. The name and arms of the Pazzi family were suppressed, its members were banished, and Lorenzo rose still higher in the esteem and affection of his fellow-citizens. The pope, Sixtus IV. who was deep in this foul conspiracy, inflamed almost to madness by the defeat of his schemes, excommunicated Lorenzo and the magistrates of. Florence, laid an interdict upon the whole territory, and, forming a league with the king of Naples, prepared to invade the Florentine dominions. Lorenzo appealed to all the surrounding potentates for the justice of his cause; and he was affectionately supported by his fellow-citizens. Hostilities began, and were carried on with various success through two campaigns. At the close of 1479, Lorenzo took the bold resolution of paying a visit to the king of Naples, and, without any previous security, trusted his liberty and his life to the mercy of a declared enemy. The monarch was struck with this heroic act of confidence, and a treaty of mutual defence and friendship was agreed upon between them, and Sixtus afterwards consented to a peace. At length the death of Sixtus IV. freed him from an adversary who never ceased to bear him ill-will; and he was able to secure himself a friend in his successor Innocent VIII. He conducted the republic of Florence to a degree of tranquillity and prosperity which it had scarcely ever known before; and by procuring the institution of a deliberative body, of the nature of a senate, he corrected the democratical part of his constitution.

Lorenzo distinguished himself beyond any of his predecessors in the encouragement of literature and the arts: and his own productions are distinguished by a vigour of imagination, an accuracy of judgment, and an elegance of style, which afforded the first great example of improvement, and entitle him, almost exclusively, to the honourable appellation of the “restorer of Italian literature.” His compositions are sonnets, canzoni, and other lyric pieces, some longer works in stanzas, some comic satires, and jocose carnival songs, and various sacred poems, the latter as serious as many of the former are licentious. Some of these pieces, especially those of the lighter kind, in which he imitated the rustic dialect, became extremely popular. His regard to literature, in general, was testified by the extraordinary attention which he paid to the augmentation of the Laurentian library. Although the ancestors of Lorenzo laid the foundation of the immense collection of Mss. contained in this library, he may claim the honour of having raised the superstructure. If there was any pursuit in which he engaged more ardently and persevered in more diligently than the rest, it was that of enlarging his collection of books and antiquities: for this purpose he employed the services of learned men, in different parts of Italy, and especially of his intimate friend and companion Poiitian, who took several journeys in order to discover and purchase the valuable remains of antiquity. “I wish,” said Lorenzo to him as he was proceeding on one of these expeditions, “that the diligence of Picus and yourself would afford me such opportunities of purchasing books that I should be obliged even to pledge my furniture to possess them.” Two journeys, undertaken at the instance of Lorenzo, into the east, by John Lascar, produced a great number of rare and valuable works. On his return from his second expedition, he brought with him two hundred copies, many of which he had procured from a monastery at mount Athos; but this treasure did not arrive till after the death of Lorenzo, who, in his last moments, expressed to Politian and Picus his regret that he could not live to complete the collection which he was forming for their accommodation. On the discovery of the invaluable art of printing, Lorenzo was solicitous to avail himself of its advantages in procuring editions of the best works of antiquity corrected by the ablest scholars, whose labours were rewarded b5 T his munificence. When the capture of Constantinople by the Turks caused the dispersion of many learned Greeks, he took advantage of the circumstance, to promote the study of the Greek language in Italy. It was now at Florence that this tongue was inculcated under the sanction of a public institution, either by native Greeks, or learned Italians, who were their powerful competitors, whose services were procured by the diligence of Lorenzo de Medici, and repaid by his bounty. “Hence,” says Mr. Roscoe, “succeeding scholars have been profuse of their acknowledgments to their great patron, who first formed that establishment, from which, to use their own classical figure, as from the Trojan horse, so many illustrious champions have sprung, and by means of which the knowledge of the Greek tongue was extended, not only through all Italy, but through France, Spain, Germany, and England; from all which countries numerous pupils attended at Florence, who diffused the learning they had there acquired throughout the rest of Europe.”

The services of Lorenzo to the fine arts were not less conspicuous than those which he rendered to letters, by augmenting his father’s collection of the remains of antient taste and skill. It is not, however, on this account only that he is entitled to the esteem of the professors and admirers of the arts. He determined to excite, among his countrymen, a good taste, and, by proposing to their imitation the remains of the ancient masters, to elevate their views beyond the forms of common life, to the contemplation of that ideal beauty which alone distinguishes works of art from, mere mechanical productions. With this view he appropriated his gardens in Florence to the establishment of an academy for the study of the antique, which he furnished with a profusion of statues, busts, and other relics of art, the most perfect in their kind that he could procure. The attention of the higher rank of his fellow-citizens was incited to these pursuits by the example of Lorenzo; that of the lower class by his liberality. To the latter he not only allowed competent stipends, while they attended to their studies, but appointed considerable premiums as rewards of their proficiency. To this institution, more than any other circumstance, Mr. Roscoe ascribes the sudden and astonishing proficiency which, towards the close of the 15th century, was evidently made in the arts, and which, commencing at Florence, extended itself to the rest of Europe. In 1488, his domestic comfort was much impaired by the loss of his wife; and after that his constitution appears to have given way, and in April 1492, he sunk under the debilitating power of a slow fever, and expired in the fortyfourth year of his age. For his general character, as well as the history of his "age, we must refer to the very interesting work from which this brief account has been taken.

, 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.

, a very learned lawyer and pensionary of Rotterdam was born at Leyden in 1722; of his early history, pursuits, &c. our authorities give no account, nor have the bibliographers of this country, to whom he is so well known, supplied this deficiency. All we know is, that he died December 15, 1771, in the forty-ninth year of his age, after a life spent in learned research and labour, which produced the following works: 1. “De rebus mancipi et nee mancipi.” Leyden, 1741, 4to. 2. “Specimen calculi fluxionalis,” ibid. 1742, 4to. 3. “Specimen animadversionum in Cazi institutiones,” Mantuae Carpetunorum (i. e. Madrid), reprinted with additions by the author, at Paris, 1747, 8vo. 4. “Conspectus novi thesauri juris civilis et canonici,” Hague, 1751, 8vo. This conspectus was immediately followed by the work itself. 5. “Novus Thesaurus juris civilis,” &c. 1751—1753, 7 vols. folio; a book of high reputation, to which his son John added an eighth volume, in 1780. 6. “Conspectus OriginumTypographicarum proxime in lucem edendarum,” 1761, 8vo. This prospectus is very scarce, as the author printed but a very few copies: it is however in demand with collectors, as containing some things which he did not insert in the work itself. The abbé Gouget published a French translation, with some additions, in 1762. The entire work appeared in 1765, under the title of, 7. “Origines Typographic^,” Hague, 2 vols. 4to. An analysis of this valuable work was dratvn up by Mr.Bowyer, and printed in “The Origin of Printing, in tsvo Essays, 1. The substance of Dr. Middleton’s Dissertation on the origin of printing in England. 2. Mr. Meerman’s account of the first invention of the art,” 1774, 8vo. This volume was the joint composition of Messrs. Bowyer and Nichols. Meerman’s partiality to Haerlem, as the origin of printing, was attacked with much severity by Heinecken, who being a German, betrayed as much partiality to Mentz and Strasburgh. It seems, however, now to be agreed among t) pographical antiquaries, that Heinecken paid too little attention to the claims of Haerlem, and Meerman infinitely too much. The dissertation of the latter, however, has very recently been reprinted in France, by Mons. Jansen, with useful notes, and a catalogue of all the books published in the Low Countries during the fifteenth century.

, a French historian, of Irish extraction, as his name sufficiently denotes, was born in 1721 at Salle in the Cevennes. He addicted himself very early to letters, and the' history of his life is only the history of his publications. He produced in 1752, 1. “The origin of the Guebres, or natural religion put int;o action.” This book has too much of the cast uf modern philosophy to deserve recommendation, and has now become very scarce. 2. In 1755 he published “Considerations on the Revolutions of Arts,” a work more easily to be found; and, 3. A small volume of “Fugitive Pieces” in verse, far inferior to his prose. In the ensuing year appeared, 4. His “Memoirs of the Marchioness de Terville, with the Letters of Aspasia,” 12rno. The style of these memoirs is considered as affected, which, indeed, is the general fault prevalent in his works. In his person also he is said to have been affected and finical; with very ready elocution, but a mode of choosing both his thoughts and expressions that was rather brilliant than natural. His style, however, improved as he advanced in life. In 1759 he gave the world a treatise on, 5. “The origin, progress, and decline of Idolatry,” 12mo; a production in which this improvement in his mode of writing is very evident. It is still more so in his, 6. “Picture of modern History,” “Tableau de THistoire moderne,” which was published in 1766, in 3 vols. 12mo. Hts chief faults are those of ill- regulated genius, which is very stronglyapparent in this work it is eloquent, full of those graces of elocution, and richness of imagination, which are said to have made his conversation so peculiar but it becomes fatiguing from an excessive ambition to paint every thing in brilliant colours. He speaks of every thing in the present tense, and he embellishes every subject with images and allusions. He died Jan. 23, 1766, before this most considerable of his works was quite ready for publication. He was married, and his wife is said to have been a woman who in all respects did honour to the elegance of his taste. All his writings are in French.

, is the name of several learned men, who were Germans. John-Henry Meibomius was a professor of physic at Heimstadt, where he was born in 1590, and was afterwards first physician at Lubeck, where he died in 1655. He was the author of several learned works on medical subjects, such as “Jusjurandum Hippocratis,” Gr. & Lat. 1643, 4to “De usu flagrorum in re medica,” Leyden, 1639, &c. &c. He is known in the literary world by a work published at Leyden in 1653, 4to, and entitled, “Maecenas, sive de C. Cilnii Maecenatis vita, moribus, & rebus gestis,” in which he seems to have quoted every passage from antiquity, where any thing is said of Maecenas; but having employed neither criticism nor method, he cannot claim any higher merit than that of a mere collector.

, son of the former, was born at Lubeck in 1638; and after laying a proper foundation in literature at home, went in 1655 to the university of Heimstadt, where he applied himself to philosophy and medicine. Afterwards he went to study under the professors at Groningen, Franeker, and Leyden; and upon his return to Germany, projected a larger tour through Italy, France, and England, which he executed; he contracted an acquaintance with the learned wherever he went; and took a doctor of physic’s degree in 1663, as he passed through Angers in France. He was offered a professorship of physic at Heimstadt in 1661: but his travelling scheme did not permit him to take possession of it till 1664. This, and the professorships of history and poetry, joined to it in 1678, he held to the time of his death, which happened in March, 1700. Besides a great number of works relating to his own profession, he published, in 3 vols. folio, in 1688, “Scriptores rerum Germanicarnm,” a very useful collection, which had been begun, but not finished, by his father.

, a very learned man, of the same family as the preceding, was born in 1611. He devoted himself to literature and criticism, but particularly to the learning of the ancients; as their music, the structure of their galleys, &c. In 1652 he published a collection of seven Greek authors, who had written upon ancient music, to which he added a Latin version by himself. It was entitled “Antiques Musicae auctores septem Greece et Latine, Marcus Meibomius restituit ac Nods explicavit.” Amst. The first volume contains: I. Aristoxeni Harmonicorum Elementorum, libri iii. II. Euclidis Introductio Harmonica. III. Nichomachi Geraseni, Pythagorici, Harmon. Manuale. IV. Alypii Introductio Musica. V. Gaudentii Philosophi Introductio Harmonica. VI. Bacchii Senioris Introductio Artis Musicae. The second volume: Aristidis Quintiliani de Musica, libri iii. Martiani Capellse de Musica, liber ix. This, says Dr. Burney, is the most solid and celebrated of his critical works, in which all subsequent writers on the subject of ancient music place implicit faith. It is from these commentaries on the Greek writers in music, particularly Alypius, that we are able to fancy we can decipher the musical characters used by the ancient Greeks in their notation; which, before his time, had been so altered, corrupted, disfigured, and confounded, by the ignorance or negligence of the transcribers of ancient Mss., that they were rendered wholly unintelligible.

Meibomius, after this learned and elegant publication, was invited to the court of the queen of Sweden, to whom be had dedicated it; but this visit was not followed by the most pleasing consequences. Having by his enthusiastic account of the music of the ancients, impressed this princess with similar ideas, the younger Bourdelot, a physician, and his rival (as a classical scholar) in the queen’s favour, instigated her majesty to desire him to sing an ancient Grecian air, while Naudet, an old Frenchman, danced a la Grec to the sound or his voice. But the performance, instead of exciting admiration, produced loud bursts of laughter from all present; which so enraged Meibomius, that seeing the buffoon Bourdelot in the gallery among the scoffers, and having no doubt but that it was he who, with a malicious design, had persuaded her majesty to desire this performance, immediately flew thither, and exercised the pugilist’s art on his face so violently, without being restrained by the presence of the qneen, that he thought it necessary to quit the Swedish dominions before he could be called to an account for his rashness; and immediately went to Copenhagen, where being well received, he fixed his residence there, and became a professor at Sora, a Danish college for the instruction of the young nobility. Here too he was honoured with the title of aulic counsellor, and soon after was called to Elsineur, and advanced to the dignity of Architesorie, or president of the board of maritime taxes or customs; but, neglecting the duty of his office, he was dismissed, and upon that disgrace quitted Denmark'. Soon after, he settled at Amsterdam, and became professor of history in the college of that city; but refusing to give instructions to the son of a burgomaster, alleging that he was not accustomed to instruct boys in the elements of knowledge, but to finish students arrived at maturity in their studies, he was dismissed from that station. After quitting Amsterdam, he visited France and England; then returning to Holland, he led a studious and private life at Amsterdam till 1710 or 1711, when he died at near 100 years of age.

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

, a German writer on philosophical subjects, was born in 1718, at Ammendorff, near Halie in Saxony. He appeared first as an author in 1745, when he published, in German, 1. His “Representation of a Critic,” being his delineation of the character of a perfect critic. In the same year he produced, 2. “Instructions how any one may become a Modern Philosopher,” 8vo. We have a translation in this country, called “The Merry Philosopher, or Thoughts on Jesting,” published in 1764, from the German of Meier, but whether a translation of the last- mentioned work, we know not. It is a very dull performance. Whatever merit might belong to his works on philosophical and critical subjects, they were peculiarly his own, for he was not master of the learned languages. Yet his work on the elements of all the polite arts, was received by his countrymen with no inconsiderable approbation. It is entitled, 3. “Introduction to the elegant arts and sciences;” and was printed at Halle, in 8vo, 1748—1750; and republished, in three parts, in 1754—1759. J. Matthew Gesner, however, in his “Isagoge,” is frequently severe against this, author, and particularly derides his form of Æsthetics, which had been much applauded. Meier died in 1777.

, an ancient Latin writer, was born in the province of Boctica in Spain, and flourished in the first century, in the reign of the emperor Claudius. His three books of “Cosmography, or De situ Orbis,” are written in a concise, perspicuous, and elegant manner; and have been thought worthy of the attention and labours of the ablest critics. Isaac Vossius gave an edition of them in 1658, 4to, with very large and copious notes, in which he takes frequent occasion to criticize “Salmasius’s Commentaries upon Solinus.” James Gronovius published “Mela,” in 1658, 12mo, with shorter notes; in which, however, as if he resented Vossius’s treatment of Sahnasius, he censures his animadversions with some degree of severity. To this edition of Mela, is added, “Julii Honorii oratoris excerptum cosmographioe,” first published from the manuscript; and “Æthici Cosmographia.” Vossius answered the castigations of Gronovius, in an “Appendix to his Annotations,” 1686, 4to; but, dying the same year, left his manes to be insulted by Gronovius, in another edition of Mela immediately published, with illustrations by medals. In this last edition by Gronovius, are added five books, “De geographia,” written by some later author; by Jornandes, as Fabricius conjectures. Perhaps one of the best editions of Pomponius Mela, is that by Reynolds, printed at Exeter in 1711, 4to, illustrated with 27 maps, and which was reprinted at London, 1719 and 1739, and at Eton, 1761 and 1775, 4to. The last edition, collated with many Mss. is that by C. H. Tzschuckius, printed at Leipsic, 1807, 7 vols. 8vo.

, whom the common consent of all ecclesiastical historians has placed among the most eminent of the reformers, was born at Bretten, in the Palatinate upon the Rhine, Feb. 16, 1497. His family name, Schwartserd, in German, means literally black earth, which, according to the custom of the times (as in the case of Oecolampadius, Erasmus, Chytraeus, Reuchlin, c.), was exchanged for Melancthon, a compound Greek word of the same signification. His education was at first chiefly under the care of his maternal grandfather Reuter, as his father’s time was much engrossed by the affairs of the elector Palatine, whom he served as engineer, or commissary of artillery. He first studied at a school in Bretten, and partly under a private tutor, and gave very early proofs of capacity. He was afterwards sent to Pfortsheim, a city in the marquisate of Baden, where was a flourishing college, and here he became known to the celebrated Reuchlin, to whom it would appear he was distantly related, and who assisted him in learning the Greek language. Probably by his advice, Melancthon went to the university of Heidelberg, where he was matriculated on Oct. 13, 1509. Such was his improvement here that his biographers inform us he was admitted to his bachelor’s degree, although under fourteen years of age, and that he was intrusted to teach the sons of count Leonstein. Yet, notwithstanding his extraordinary proficiency, he was refused his degree of master on account of his youth; and, either disappointed in this, or because the air of Heidelberg did not agree with his constitution, he left that university in 1512, and went to Tubingen, where he resided six years. Baillet has with much propriety classed Melancthon among the enfans celebres, or list of youths who became celebrated for early genius and knowledge. It is said that while at Heidelberg he was employed in composing the greatest part of the academical speeches, and Baillet adds, that at thirteen he wrote a comedy, and dedicated it to Reuchiin. With such capacity and application he could not fail to distinguish himself during his residence at Tubingen, where he studied divinity, law, and mathematics, and gave public lectures on the Latin classics, and on the sciences. About this time Reuchiin had made him a present of a small edition of the Bible, printed by Frobenius, in reading which, we are told, he took much delight. In 1513 he was created doctor in philosophy, or master of arts, and had attracted the notice of Erasmus, who conceived the highest hopes of him “What hopes, indeed,” he said about 1515, “may we not entertain of Philip Melancthon, who though as yet very young, and almost a boy, is equally to be admired for his knowledge in both languages What quickness of invention what purity of diction what powers of memory what variety of reading what modesty and gracefulness of behaviour!”

In 1518, Frederic elector of Saxony, on the recommendation of Reuchiin, presented him to the Greek professorship in the university of Wittemberg; and his learned and elegant inauguration speech was highly applauded, and removed every prejudice which might be entertained against his youth. Here he read lectures upon Homer and part of the Greek Testament to a crowded audience, and here also he first formed that acquaintance with Luther, then divinity professor at Wittemberg, which was of so much importance in his future life. He became also known to Caroiostadt, one of Luther’s most zealous adherents in opposing the corruptions of popery, and who was at this time archdeacon of Wittemberg. Finding that, some of the sciences had been taught here in a very confused and imperfect manner for want of correct manuals, or text-books, he published in 1519 his “Rhetoric,” which was followed by similar works on “Logic” and “Grammar.” In the above-mentioned year (1519) he accompanied Luther to Leipsic, to witness that conference which Luther had with Eckius (see Luther, vol. XXL p. 507), andjoined so much in the debate as to give Eckius a very unpleasant specimen of his talents in controversy. From this time Melancthon became an avowed supporter of the doctrines of the reformation.

In 1520, Meiancthon read lectures on St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans, which were so much approved by. Luther, that he caused them to be printed for the good of the church, and introduced them by a preface. In the following year, hearing that the divines of Paris had condemned the works and doctrine of Luiher by a formal decree, Meiancthon opposed them with great zeal and force of argument, and affirmed Luther’s doctrine to be sound and orthodox. In 1527 he was appointed by the elector of Saxony, to visit all the churches within his dominions. He was next engaged to draw up, conjointly with Luther, a system of laws relating to church government, public worship, the ranks, offices, and revenues of the priesthood, and other matters of a similar nature, which the elector promulgated in his dominions, and which was adopted by the other princes of the empire, who had renounced the papal supremacy and jurisdiction. In 1529 he accompanied the elector to the diet at Spire, in which the princes and members of the reformed communion acquired the denomination of Protestants, in consequence of their protesting against a decree, which declared unlawful every change that should be introduced into the established religion, before the determination of a general council was known. He was next employed by the protestant princes assembled at Cobourg and Augsburgh to draw up the celebrated confession of faith, which did such honour to his acute judgment and eloquent pen, and is known by the name of the Confession of Augsburgh, because presented to the emperor and German princes at the diet held in that city in June 1530. The princes heard it with the deepest attention: it confirmed some in the principles they had embraced, and conciliated those who from prejudice or misrepresentation, had conceived more harshly of Luther’s sentiments than they deserved. The style of this confession is plain, elegant, grave, and perspicuous, such as becomes the nature of the subject, and such as might be expected from Melancthon’s pen. The matter was undoubtedly supplied by Luther, who, during the diet, resided at Cobourg; and even the form it received from the eloquent pen of his colleague, was authorized by his approbation and advice. This confession contains twentyeight chapters) of which twenty-one are employed in representing the religions opinions of the protestants, and the other seven in pointing out the corruptions of the church of Rome. To the adherents of that church it could not therefore be acceptable, and John Faber, afterwards bishop of Vienne in Dauphine“, with Eckius and Cochlaeus, were selected to draw up a refutation, to which Melancthon replied. In the following year he enlarged his reply, and published it with the other pieces that related to the doctrine and discipline of the Lutheran church, under the title of” A Defence of the Confession of Augsburgh."

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.

His time was now chiefly employed in conferences and disputes about religion. In 1539, there was an assembly of the protestant princes at Francfort, concerning a reformation; and another in 1541, at Worms, where there happened a warm dispute between Melancthon and Eckius respecting original sin. But, by the command of the emperor, it was immediately dissolved, and both of them appointed to meet at Reinspurg; where Eckius proposing a sophism somewhat puzzling, Melancthon paused a little, and said, “that he would give an answer to it the next day.” Upon which Eckius represented to him the disgrace of requiring so long a time; but Melancthon replied, that he sought not his own glory, but that of truth. In 1543 he went to the archbishop of Cologne, to assist him in introducing a reformation into his diocese but without effect. He attended at seven conferences in 1548 and was one of the deputies whom Maurice, elector of Saxony, was to send to the council of Trent, in 1552. His last conference with the doctors of the Romish communion was at Worms, in 1557. He died at Wittemberg, April 19, 1560, in his sixty-third year; and was buried near Luther, in the church of the castle, two days after. Some days before he died, he wrote upon a piece of paper the reasons which made him look upon death as a happiness; and the chief of them was, that it “delivered him from theological persecutions.” Nature had given him a peaceable temper, which was but ill-suited for the time in which he lived. His moderation greatly augmented his uneasiness. He was like a lamb in the midst of wolves. Nobody liked his mildness it looked as if he was lukewarm and even Luther himself was sometimes angry at it. It was, indeed, considering his situation, very inconvenient; for it not only exposed him to all kinds of slander, but would not suffer him to “answer a fool according to his folly.” The only advantage it procured him, was to look upon death without fear, by considering, that it would secure him from the “odium theologicum,” the hatred of divines, and the discord of false brethren. He was never out of danger, but might truly be said, “through fear, to be all his life-time subject to bondage.” Thus he declared, in one of his works, that he “had held his professor’s place forty years without ever being sure that he should not be turned out of it before the end of the week.”

He married a daughter of a burgomaster of Wittemberg in 1520, who lived with him till 1557. He had two sons and two daughters by her; and his eldest daughter Anne, in 1536, became the wife of George Sabinus, one of the best poets of his time. His other daughter was married, in 1550, to Caspar Peucer, who was an able physician, and very much persecuted. Melancthop was a very affectionate father; and there is an anecdote preserved of him, which perfectly agrees with his character for humility. A Frenchman, it is said, found him one day, holding a book in one hand, and rocking a child with the other; and upon his expressing some surprise, Melancthon made such a pious discourse to him about the duty of a father, and the state of grace in which the children are with God, “that this stranger went away,” says Bayle, “much more edified than he came.” Melchior Adam relates a curious dialogue which passed between his son-in-law Sabinus, and cardinal Bembus, concerning Melancthon. When Sabinus went to see Italy, Melancthon wrote a letter to cardinal Bembus, to recommend him to his notice. The cardinal laid a great stress upon the recommendation; for he loved Melancthort for his abilities and learning, however he might think himself obliged to speak of his religion. He was very civil therefore to Sabinus, invited him to dine with him, and in the time of dinner asked him a great many questions, particularly these three “Wliat salary Melancthon had what number of hearers and what he thought concerning the resurrection and a future state” To the first question Sabinus replied, “that his salary was not above 30O florins a year. 1” Upon hearing this, the cardinal cried out, “Ungrateful Germany to value at so low a price so many labours of so great a man.” The answer to the second was, “that he had usually 1500 hearers.” “I cannot believe it,” says the cardinal: “I do not know an university in Europe, except that of Paris, in which one professor has so many scholars.” To the third, Sabinus replied, “that Melancthon’s works were a full and sufficient proof of his belief in those two articles.”— “I should think him a wiser man,” said the cardinal, “if he did not believe any thing about them.”

Melancthon was a man in whom many good as well as great qualities were wonderfully united. He had great abilities, great learning, great sweetness of temper, moderation, contentedness, and other qualities, which would have made him very happy in any other times but those in which he lived. He never affected dignities, honours, or riches, but was rather negligent of them too much so, in the opinion of some, considering he had a family and his son-in-law Sabinus, who was of a more ambitious disposition, was actually at variance with him upon this subject. Learning was infinitely obliged to him on many accounts; on none more than this, that he reduced almost all the sciences, which had been taught before in a vague irregular manner, into systems. We have mentioned that he compiled compendiums for the use of his scholars; and also a treatise “On the Soul, 11 the design of which was, to free the schools from the nugatory subtleties and idle labours of the scholastics, and to confine the attention of young men to useful studies. He industriously ransacked the writings of the ancients, to collect from them, in every branch of learning, whatever was most deserving of attention. Mathematical studies he held in high estimation, as appears from his declamation De Mathematicis Disciplinis,” On Mathematical Learning,“which will very well repay the trouble of perusal. In philosophy he followed Aristotle as, in his judgment, the most scientific and methodical guide, but always in due subordination to Revelation, and only so far as was likely to answer some valuable purpose.” I would have no one,“says he,” trifle in philosophising, lest he should at length even lose sight of common sense; rather let him be careful both in the study of physics and morals, to select the best things from the best sources."

If the particular cast of Melancthon’s mind be considered, it will not be thought surprising, that in philosophy he preferred a moderate attachment to a particular sect, to any bold attempt at perfect innovation. Though he possessed a sound understanding and amiable temper, he wanted that strength and hardiness of spirit, which might have enabled him to have done in philosophy, what Luther did in religion. He therefore chose rather to correct the established mode of philosophising, than to introduce a method entirely new. If it be a just occasion of regret, that in consequence of the natural gentleness, and perhaps timidity, of his temper, he proceeded no further, it ought not to be forgotten, that while religion was much indebted to his cool and temperate, but honest exertions, philosophy was not without obligation to him, for the pains which he took to correct its eccentricities, and adorn it with the graces of eloquence.

Melancthon made use of the extensive influence, which his high reputation, and the favour of the reigning elector of Saxony, gave him in the German schools, in which he was considered as a kind of common preceptor, to unite the study of the Aristotelian philosophy with that of ancient learning in general. And he was much assisted in the execution of this design, by the labours of many learned protestants of the Germanic schools from Italy and Great Britain, who brought with them an attachment to the Peripatetic system, and, wherever they were appointed public preceptors, made that system the basis of their philosophical instructions. From Wittemberg, Tubingen, Leipsic, and other seminaries, conducted after the manner which was introduced by Melancthon, many learned men arose, who, becoming themselves preceptors, adopted the same plan of instruction, which from Melancthon was called the Philippic method; and thus disseminated the Peripatetic doctrine, till at length it was almost every where taught in the German protestants schools, under the sanction of civil and ecclesiastical authority. Considering the distractions of his life, and the infinity of disputes and tumults in which he was engaged, it is astonishing, how he could find leisure to write so many books. Their number is prodigious, insomuch that it was thought necessary to publish a chronological catalogue of them in 1582. They are theological, moral, and philosophical; some, however, relate to what is usually denominated the belles lettres, and others are illustrative of various classical authors. The most complete edition was published by the author’s son-in-law, Jasper Peucer, 1601, in 4 vols. fol.

, a Greek epigrammatic poet, and the first collector of the epigrams that form the Greek Anthologia, was the son of Eucrates, and is generally considered as a native of Gadara in Syria, where he chiefly lived; but, according to Harles, was born rather at Atthis, an inconsiderable place, in the territory of Gadara. The time in which he lived has been a subject of controversy. Vavassor, in some degree, with the consent of Fabricius, and Reiske, in his Notitia Poetarum Anthologicorum, p. 131, contend, that he lived under Seleucus VI. the last king of Syria, who began to reign in olym. 170. 3. A. C. 96. This is confirmed by an old Greek scholiast, who says, ἤχμασεν ἐπὶ Σελεύχ τᾶ ἐσχάτα. “He flourished under Seleucus the last.” Saxius accordingly inserts his name at the year abovementioned. Some would carry him back to the 148th olympiad, A. C. 186, which, however, is not incompatible with the other account; and Schneider would bring him down to the age of Augustus, from a supposed imitation of an epigram of Strato, who lived then. But, as it may equally be supposed that Strato imitated him, this argument is of little validity. One of his epigrams in praise of Antipater Sidonius, seems to prove that he was contemporary with him (Epig. cxxiii*. ed. Brunck.) and another, in which he speaks of the fall of Corinth as a recent event, which happened in olym. 158. 4. may be thought to fix him also to that time. As he calls himself Kokuetw, or aged, in one of his compositions, there will be no inconsistency between these marks, and the account of the scholiast.

In his youth, Meleager lived chiefly at Gadara, and imitated the style and manner of Menippus, who had lived before him in the same city. He afterwards resided at Tyre; but in his old age, on account of the wars which then ravaged Syria, he changed his abode to the island of Cos, where he died. In the Anthologia are extant three epitaphs upon this poet, two of which, at least, are supposed to have been written by himself. Of one there can be no doubt from internal evidence, “N<roj spot,” &c.

There was a Cynic of Gadara, of the name of Meleager, whom some confound with this poet, and others distinguish; it seems very unlikely that this elegant writer was a Cynic. Meleager formed two collections of Greek verses, under the name of Anthologia - t one, it is melancholy to say, was entirely dedicated to that odious passion of the Greeks, which among us it is a shame even to mention. To this infamous collection was prefixed a poem, still extant, in which the youths whose beauty was celebrated, are described as flowers. A poet named Strato, increased this collection, and prefixed to it his own name: but Agathias and Planudes, to their honour, rejected this part altogether, and formed their collections from the second Anthologia of Meleager, which consisted of compositions entirely miscellaneous. On this the present collections of Greek epigrams are founded. The poems of Meleager in Brunck’s edition, amount to 129, the greater part of which are epigrams. They display great elegance of genius, and do as much honour to the collection, as most of those which it contains. Lord Chesterfield’s indiscriminate censure of the Greek epigrams, must be the result of mere ignorance, since many of them are of the highest elegance. He had seen, probably, a few of the worst, and knew nothing of the rest. Of the epigrams of Meleager, many are truly elegant, but those numbered, in Brunck’s Analecta, 50, 51, 52, 55, 57, 58, 61, 63, 109, 111, 112, and several others, have beauty enough to rescue the whole collection from the unjust censure of the witty, but not learned earl.

, bishop of Lycopolis in Thebais, who is known in church history as the chief of the sect of Mdctiansy was convicted of sacrificing to idols, during the Dioclesian persecution, and imprisoned and degraded by a council held by Peter, bishop of Alexandria. Upon his release, Meletius caused a schism about the year 301, separating himself from Peter, and the other bishops, charging them, but particularly Peter, with too much indulgence in the reconciliation of apostates. By the council of Nice, A. D. 325, he was permitted to remain in his own city, Lycopolis, but without the power either of electing, or prdaining, or appearing upon that account either in the country or city; so that he retained only the mere title of bishop. His followers at this time were united with the Arians. Meletius resigned to Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, the churches over which he had usurped superiority, and died some time after. When he was dying, be named one of his disciples his successor,- Thus the schism began again, and the Meletians subsisted as far as the fifth century, but were condemned by the first council of Nice.

, a philosopher of Samos, of the Eleatic sect, who flourished about the year 444 B. C. was a disciple of Parmenides, to whose doctrines he closely adhered. He was likewise a man of political wisdom and courage, which gave him great influence among his countrymen, and inspired them with a high veneration for his talents and virtues. Being appointed by them to the command of a fleet, he obtained a great naval victory over the Athenians. As a philosopher, he maintained that the principle of all things is one and immutable, or that whatever exists is one being that this one being includes all things, and is infinite, without beginning or end that there is neither vacuum nor motion in the universe, nor any such thing as production or decay, that the changes which it seems to suffer, are only illusions of our senses, and mere appearances; and that we ought not to lay down any thing positively concerning the gods, since our knowledge of them js so uncertain. Dr. Cudworth, in his *' Intellectual System," has opposed these opinions.

, an ancient Christian father, was bishop of Sardis in Asia, and composed several works upon the doctrine and discipline of the church; of which we have nothing now remaining but their titles, and some fragments preserved by Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical Hist, book IV. The most valuable of these is part of an humble petition, which he presented to the emperor Marcus Antoninus; in which he beseeches him, “to examine the accusations which were brought against the Christians, and to stop the persecution, by revoking the edict which he had published against them.” He represents to him, that “the Roman, empire was so far from being injured or weakened by Christianity, that its foundation was more firmly established, and its bounds considerably enlarged, since that religion had taken footing in it;” that “the Christian religion had been persecuted by none but the worst emperors, such as Nero and Domitian that Adrian and Antoninus had granted privileges in its favour and that he hoped from his clemency and goodness, that they should obtain the same protection of their lives and properties from him.” This petition was presented, according to Eusebius, in the year 170; but other authors give it the date of 175 or 177, and Dupin 182. Melito died before the pontificate of Victor, probably about the year 192, as we learn from a letter of Polycrates to that pope, where he speaks of Melito as of a man dead, and in the following terms: “What shall I say of Melito, whose actions were all guided by the operations of the Holy Spirit? who was interred at Sardis, where he waits the resurrection and the judgment.” He passed, it seems, for a prophet in his day; that is, for a man inspired by God; according to the testimony of Tertullian, as Jerome represents it. The same Tertullian observes also, that he was an elegant writer and a good orator; which, however, it would not be easy to discover from the fragments that remain of him.

, a French engraver and designer, particularly celebrated for a mode of engraving peculiar to himself, and of his own invention, that of forming a whole head by one line of the graver, swelling it in various places to produce the shades. A head of our Saviour, formed of one spiral line, beginning at the tip of the nose, is his most famous work in this style. There are also portraits by him, of pope Clement VIII. and of the marquis Justiniani, and a set of the Justiniani gallery, all of which are highly esteemed. Charles II. was desirous of inviting him to settle in England; but an attachment to his country, and a happy marriage in it, fixed him at home. He was born at Abbeville in 1601, and died at Paris in 1688.

, a learned and worthy bencher of LincolnVinn, was born in 1666. In conjunction with Mr. Peere Williams, Mr. Melmoth was the publisher of “Vernon’s Reports,” under an order of the court of chancery. He had once an intention of printing his own “Reports;” and a short time before his death, advertised them at the end of those of his coadjutor Peere Williams, as then actually preparing for the press. They have, however, not yet made their appearance. But the performance for which he justly deserves to be held in perpetual remembrance, is, “The Great Importance of a Religious Life.” It is a singular circumstance that the real author of this most admirable treatise should never have been publicly known until mentioned in the Anecdotes of Bowyer. It was ascribed by Walpole in his “Royal and Noble Authors,” to the first earl of Egmont. Of this work Mr. Melmoth’s son says, in the short preface which accompanies it, that “It may add weight, perhaps, to the reflections contained in the following pages, to inform the reader, that the author’s life was one uniform exemplar of those precepts, which, with so generous a zeal, and such an elegant and affecting simplicity of style, he endeavours to recommend to general practice. He left others to contend for modes of faith, and inflame themselves and the world with dndless controversy; it was the wiser purpose of his more ennobled aim, to act up to those clear rules of conduct which Revelation hath graciously prescribed. He possessed by temper every moral virtue; by religion every Christian grace. He had a humanity that melted at every distress; a charity which not only thought no evil, but suspected none. He exercised his profession with a skill and integrity, which nothing could equal, but the disinterested motive that animated his labours, or the amiable modesty which accompanied all his virtues. He employed his industry, not to gratify his own desires no man indulged himself less not to accumulate useless wealth no man more disdained so unworthy a pursuit it was for the decent advancement of his family, for the generous assistance of his friends, for the ready relief of the indigent. How often did he exert his distinguished abilities, yet refuse the reward of them, in defence of the widow, the fatherless, and him that had none to help him In a word, few have ever passed a more useful, not one a more blameless life y and his whole time was employed either in doing good, or in meditating it. He died on the 6th day of April, 1743, and lies buried under the cloister of Lincoln’sinn chapel.” This passage is repeated in a short tract entitled “Memoirs of a late eminent Advocate,” published in 1796, in which the character of his father is rather -more unfolded. We learn from this tract, that Mr. Melmoth “from early youth performed the paiuful but indispensable duty of communing with his own heart, with the severest and most impartial scrutiny.” This appears by a copy of a letter from some eminent casuit, whom he had consulted respecting certain religious scruples. He was afterwards perplexed respecting taking the oaths at the revolution, which happened when he had the prospect of being admitted to the bar. On this occasion he consulted the celebrated Mr. Norris of Bemerton, and a correspondence took place, part of which is* published in the “Memoirs.” It is probable that he was at last convinced of the lawfulness of the oaths, as he was called to the bar in 1693. There are other letters and circumstances given in these “Memoirs,” which tend to raise the character of Mr. Melmoth as a man of sincerity and humility, not, however, perhaps, unmixed with what may now be reckoned a degree of superstitious weakness.

, son of the above, by his second wife, was born in 1710. Of his early history little is known. He probably received a liberal education, although we do not find that he studied at either university. He was bred to the law, as appears by his being appointed a commissioner of bankrupts in 1756, by sir John Eardley Wilmot, at that time one of the commissioners of the great seal, and an excellent discerner and rewarder of merit. The greater part of Mr. Melmoth’s life, however, was spent in retirement from public business, partly at Shrewsbury, and partly at Bath, where he was no less distinguished for integrity of conduct, than for polite manners and elegant taste. He first appeared as a writer about 1742, in a volume of “Letters” under the name of Fitzosborne, which have been much admired for the elegance of their language, and their just and liberal remarks on various topics, moral and literary. In 174-7 he published “A Translation of the Letters of Pliny,” in 2 vols. 8vo, which was regarded as one of the best versions of a Latin author that had appeared in our language. In 1753, he gave a translation of the “Letters of Cicero to several of his Friends, with Remarks,” in 3 vols. He had previously to this, write ten an answer to Mr. Bryant’s attack, in his Treatise on the Truth of the Christian Religion, on his remarks on Trajan’s Persecution of the Christians in Bithynia, which made a note to his translation of Pliny’s Letters. He was the translator likewise of Cicero’s treatises “De Amicitia” and “De Senectute,” which were published in 1773 and 1777. These he enriched with remarks, literary and philosophical, which added much to their value. In the former he refuted lord Shaftesbury, who had imputed it as a defect to Christianity, that it gave no precepts in favour of friendship, and Soame Jenyns, who had represented that very omission as a proof of its divine origin. The concluding work of Mr. Melmoth was a tribute of filial affection, in the Memoirs of his father, which we have already noticed. After a long life passed in literary pursuits, and the practice of private virtue, Mr. Melmoth died at Bath, March 15, 1799, at the age of eighty-nine. He had been twice married first to the daughter of the celebrated Dr. King, principal of St. Mary’s- hall, Oxford, and secondly to Mrs. Ogle. The author of “The Pursuits of Literature” says, “Mr. Melmoth is a happy example of the mild influence of learning on a cultivated mind; I mean that learning which is declared to be the aliment of youth, and the delight and consolation of declining years. Who would not envy this fortunate old man, his most finished translation and comment on Tully’s Cato? Or rather, who would not rejoice in the refined and mellowed pleasure of so accomplished a gentleman, and so liberal a scholar” Dr. Warton, in a note on Pope’s works, mentions his translation of Pliny as “one of the few that are better than the original.” Birch, in his Life of Tillotson, had made nearly the satae remark, which was the more liberal in Birch, as Melmoth had taken' great liberties with the style of Tillotson. To Mr. Melmoth’s other works we may add a few poetical efforts, one in Dodsley’s Poems (vol. I. p. 216, edit. 1782), entitled “Of active and retired life;” and three in Pearch’s poems (vol. II.) “The Transformation of Lycou and Euphormius;” a Tale,“in p. 149; and Epistle to Sappho.”

, called Melozzo of Foiii, flourished about 1471, and was probably the scholar of Ansovino da Forli, a pupil of Squarcione. The memory of Melozzo is venerated by artists as the inventor of perspective representation and true foreshortening on arched roofs and ceilings, of what the Italians style “di Sotto in Sti;” the most difficult and most rigorous branch of execution. A tolerable progress had been made in perspective after Paolo Uccelio, by means of Piero della Francesca, an eminent geometrician, and some Lombards; but the praise of painting roofs with that charming illusion which we witness, belongs to Melozzo. Scannelli and Orlandi relate, that, to learn the art, he studied the best antiques; and, though“born to affluence, let himself as servant and colour-grinder to the masters of his time. Some make him a scholar of Piero della Francesco: it is at least not improbable that Melozzo knew him and Agostino di Bramantino, when they painted in Rome for Nicolas V. towards 1455. Whatever be the fact, Melozzo painted on the vault of the largest chapel in Ss. Apostoli, an Ascension, in which, says Vasari, the figure of Christ is so well foreshortened, that it seems to pierce the roof. That picture was painted for cardinal Riario, nephew of Sixtus IV. about 1472 and at the rebuilding of that chapel, was cut out and placed in the palace of the Quirinal, 1711, where it is still seen with this epigraphe” Opus Melotii Foroliviensis, qui summos fornices pingendi artem vel primus invenit vel illustravit.“Some heads of the apostles were likewise sawed out and placed in the Vatican. His taste on the whole resembles that of Mantegna and the Padouati schools more than any other. The heads are well formed, well coloured, well turned, and almost always foreshortened; the lights duly toned and opportunely relieved by shadows which give ambience and almost motion to his figures on that space; there is grandeur and dignity in the principal figure, and the lightsome drapery that surrounds him; with finish of pencil, diligence, and grace in every part. It is to be lamented, that so uncommon a genius has not met with an exact historian, of whom we might have learned his travels and labours previous to this great work painted for Riario. At Forli, they shew, as his work, the front of an apothecary’s shop, painted in arabesque, of exquisite style, with a half-length figure over the door pounding drugs, very well executed. We are informed by Vasari, that Francesco di Mirozzo da Forli painted before Dosso, in the villa of the dukes of Urbino, called L'lmperiale; we ought probably to read Melozzo, and to correct the word in the text, as one of that writer’s usual negligences, of which Vasari gives another instance in Marco Palmegiani, of Forli, whom he transforms to Parmegiano; a good and almost unknown artist, though many of his works survive, and he himself seems to have taken every precaution not to be forgotten by posterit3 T inscribing most of his altar-pieces and oil-pictures with Marcus pictor Foroliviensis, or, Marcus Palmasanus P. Foroliviensis pinsebat. Seldom he adds the year, as in two belonging to prince Ercolani, 1513 and 1537. In those, and in his works at Forli, we recognise two styles. The first differs little from the common one of Quattrocentist’s, in the extreme simplicity of attitude, in the gilding, in minute attention, and even in anatomy, which extended its researches at that time seldom beyond a S. Sebastian, or a S. Jerome. Of his second style the groups are more artificial, the outline larger, the proportions grander, but the heads perhaps less varied and more mannered. He used to admit into his principal subject others that do not belong to it thus in the crucifix at St. Agostino, in Forli, he placed two or three groups in different spots in one of which is S. Paul visited by S. Anthony in another, S. Augustine convinced, by an angel, of the absurdity of his attempt to fathom the mystery of the Trinity; and in those small figures he is finished and graceful beyond belief. Nor is his landscape or his architecture destitute of charms. His works abound in Romsagna, and are met with even in Venetian galleries: at Vicenza there is, in the palace Vicentini, a Christ of his between Nicodemus and Joseph; an exquisite performance, in which, to speak with Dante,” il morto par morto e vivi i vivi.

, 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.

Upon his arrival in Scotland, in 1561, he was admitted a, privy-counsellor and gentleman of queen Mary’s bedchamber; and was employed by her majesty in her most important concerns, till her unhappy confinement at Lochleven; all which he discharged with an exact fidelity; and from his own account there is reason to think that, had she taken his advice, many of her misfortunes might have been avoided. He maintained a correspondence in England in favour of Mary’s succession to the crown of that kingdom; but upon the discovery of her unhappy partiality for Bothwell, after her husband’s murder, he ventured upon the strongest remonstrances with her, which she not only disregarded, but communicated them to Both well, in consequence of which Melvil’s endeavours were fruitless, and he was himself obliged to escape from Bothwell’s fury. He was, however, afterwards regarded by the four successive regents in a special manner, and trusted by them with negociations of the greatest moment; though, after the queen’s imprisonment, he had ever adhered to her son. When James came to the government, Melvil was especially recommended to him by the queen, then a prisoner in England, as one most faithful, and capable of doing him service: and was made by his majesty a member cf his privy council, of his exchequer, and a gentleman of his chamber. He always continued in favour and employment; and the king would gladly have taken him into England, at the death of Elizabeth, promising him considerable promotion: but sir James, now advanced in years, and desirous of retirement from business, begged his majesty to excuse him. He thought it right, however, to pay his duty to his majesty, and accordingly went to England: and then returning to his own house, he died soon after, in 1606.

His “Memoirs” were accidentally found in the castle of Edinburgh, in 1660, somewhat imperfect, and injured by time and civil confusion. They passed thence into the hands of sir James Melvil of Halhill, the author’s grandson, from whom the editor George Scott received them, and published them in 1683, in folio, under this title, “The Memoirs of sir James Melvil, of Halhill, containing an impartial account of most of the remarkable affairs of state, during the last age, not mentioned by other historians: more particularly relating to the kingdoms of England and Scotland, under the reigns of queen Elizabeth, Mary queen of Scots, and king James: in all which transactions the author was personally and publicly concerned. Now published from the original manuscript.” There is an epistle to the reader, prefixed by the editor, from which we have" made this extract. It is remarkable, that nobody knew how these memoirs came to be deposited in the castle of Edinburgh, or when they were so: and also, that they were preserved almost entire, in a place which could not secure the public records of the kingdom from the rude incursions of civil discord. Notwithstanding some mistakes, owing to the advanced age of the writer^ they are much esteemed, and have been reprinted both in French and English.

, called, from his great learning, the Varro of his times, was born at Angers, Aug. 15, 1613. He was the son of William Menace, the king’s advocate at Angers; and discovered so early an inclination to letters, that his father was determined to spare no cost or pains in his education. He was accordingly taught the belles lettres and philosophy, in which his progress fully answered the expectations of his father, who, however, thought it necessary to divert him from too severe application, by giving him instructions in music and dancing; but these were in a great measure thrown away, and he had so littie genius for music, that he never could learn a tune. He had more success in his first profession, which was that of a barrister at law, and pleaded various causes, with considerable eclat, both in the country, and in the parliament of Paris. His father had always designed him for his profession, the law, and now resigned his place of king’s advocate in his favour, which Menage, as soon as he became tired of the law, returned to him. Considering the law as a drudgery, he adopted the vulgar opinion that it was incompatible with an attention to polite literature. He now declared his design of entering into the church, as the best plan he could pursue for the gratification of his love of general literature, and of the company of literary men; and soon after he had interest to procure some benefices, and among the rest the deanery of St. Peter at Angers. In the mean time his father, displeased at him for deserting his profession, would not supply him with the money which, in addition to what his livings produced, was necessary to support him at Paris. This obliged him to look out for some means of subsistence there, independent of his family; and at the recommendation of Chapelain, a member of the French academy, he was taken into the family of cardinal de Retz, who was then only coadjutor to the archbishop of Paris. In this situation he enjoyed the repose necessary to his studies, and had every day new opportunities of displaying his abilities and learning. He lived several years with the cardinal; but having received an affront from some of his dependants, he desired of the cardinal, either that reparation might be made him, or that he might be suffered to depart. He obtained the latter, and then hired an apartment in the cloister of Notre Dame, where he held every Wednesday an assembly, which he called his “Mercuriale.” Here he had the satisfaction of seeing a number of learned men, French and foreigners; and upon other days he frequented the study of Messieurs du Puy, and after their death that of Thuanus. By his father’s death, which happened Jan. 18, 1648, he succeeded to an estate, which he converted into an annuity, for the sake of being entirely at leisure to pursue his studies. Soon after, he obtained, by a decree of the grand council, the priory of Montdidier; which he resigned also to the abbe de la Vieuville, afterwards bishop of Rennes, who procured far him, by way of amends, a pension of 4000 livres upon two abbeys. The king’s consent, which was necessary for the creation of this pension, was not obtained for Menage, till he had given assurances to cardinal Mazarin, that he had no share in the libels which had been dispersed against that minister and the court, during the troubles at Paris. This considerable addition to his circumstances enabled him to prosecute his studies with more success, and to publish la great many works, which he generally did at his own expence. The excessive freedom of his conversation, however, and his total inability to suppress a witty thought, whatever hiight be the consequence of uttering it, created him many enemies; and he had contests with several men of eminence, who attacked him at different times, as the abbe d'Aubignac, Boileau, Cotin, Salo, Bohours, and Baillet. But all these were not nearly so formidable to him, as the danger which he incurred in 1660, by a Latin elegy addressed to Mazarin; in which, among his compliments to his eminence, it was pretended, that he had satirized a deputation which the parliament had sent to that minister. It was carried to the grand chamber by the counsellors, who proposed to debate upon it; but the first president, Lamoignon, to whom Menage had protested that the piece had been written three months before the deputation, and that he could not intend the parliament in it, prevented any ill consequences from the affair. Besides the reputation his works gained him, they procured him a place in the academy della Crusca at Florence; and he might have been a member of the French academy at its first institution, if it had not been for his “Requete des dictionnaires.” When the memory of that piece, however, was effaced by time, and most of the academicians, who were named in it, were dead, he was proposed, in 1684, to fill a vacant place in that academy, and was excluded only by the superior interest of his competitor, M. Bergeret: there not being one member, of all those who gave their votes against Menage, who did not own that he deserved the place. After this he would not suffer his friends to propose him again, nor indeed was he any longer able to attend the academy, if he had been chosen, on account of a fall, which had put his thigh out of joint; after which he scarcely ever went out of his chamber, but held daily a kind of an academy there. In July 1692, he began to, be troubled with a rheum, which was followed by a defluxion on the stomach, of which he died on the 23d, aged seventy- nine.

He composed several works, which had much reputation in their day 1. “Origines de la langue Franchise,” 1650, 4to a very valuable work, reprinted in folio after his death, in 1694, enlarged by himself, but this has sunk under the much improved edition by Jault, Paris, 1750, 2 vols. fol. 3. “Miscellanea,” 1652, 4to; a collection of pieces in Greek, Latin, and. French, prose as well as verse, composed by him-at different times, and upon different subjects; among which is “La requete des dictionnaires,” an ingenious piece of raillery, in which he makes all the dictionaries complain that the academy’s dictionary will be their utter ruin, and join in an humble petition to prevent it. It was not written from the least malignity against the academy, but merely to divert himself, and that he might not lose several bon mots which came into his head upon that occasion. He suppressed it for a long time; but at last it was stolen from him, and published by the abbé Montreuil, without his knowledge, and prevented him, as we have observed, from obtaining a place in the academy, at its first institution; which made de Monmor say, “that he ought to be obliged to be a member, on account of that piece, as a man, who has debauched a girl, is obliged to marry her.” 3. “Osservazioni sopra TAminta del Tasso,” 1653, 4to. 4. “Diogenes Laertius Graece et Latine cum commentario,” Lond. 1664, in folio. Menage published his first edition at Paris, in 8vo, 1662, and sent it to bishop Pearson in London, who wrote him a complimentary letter of thanks, which is inserted in the London edition, which is now a rare and expensive book. Meibom’s edition of 1692 contains Menage’s annotations, &c. 5. “Poemata,” 1656, 12mo. They were often reprinted; and what is remarkable, his Italian poetry has been said to be esteemed even in Italy, although Menage could not speak two wordsin Italian. Baretti, however, condemns without mercy the Italian verses both of Menage and lleignier. MorhohY pretends that he has borrowed greatly from the Latin poems of Vincent Fabriciusj and several have accused him of plundering the ancients. We ought not, perhaps, to omit here, tbat having, according to the custom of poets, chosen mademoiselle de la Vergne, afterwards countess de la Fayette, for his poetical mistress, he gave lieu in Latin, inadvertently we may suppose, the name of Laverna, the goddess of thieves and this gave occasion to the following epigram:

6, “Recueil des Eloges faits pour M. le cardinal Mazarin,” 1666, folio. 7. “Origine delta Lingua Italiana,” 1669, foL He undertook this work only to shew the academy della Crusca, that he was not unworthy of the place with which they had honoured Inm. Dr. Burney says that in his *' Dictionnaire Etymologique de la Langue Franchise,“and in his” Origine della Lingua Italiana,“curious inquirers after the musical language of the middle ages wilt find more information than in any other lexicons or philosophical works with which we are acquainted, except lathe Glossarium of Ducange. 8.” Juris civilis amcenitates,“Paris, 1677, 8vo, reprinted with a preface by J. G. Hoffmann, Francfort, 1737, 8vo. 9.” Les poesies de Malherbe, avec des notes,“1666,” 8vo, reprinted more than once. Io. “Observations sur la Langue Francois,” 1675, and 1676,“in 2 vols. 12mo. 11. Histoire de Sable, contenant les seigneurs de la ville de Sable, jusqu‘a Louis I, due d’Anjou et roy de Sicile; premiere partie,” 1686, folio. He was very much prejudiced in favour of this history, and was engaged in the second part at his death. In the “Menagiana,” he is represented as saying, that it is an incomparable book that one may find every thing in it; and that in every page there are many learned observations?; kut the public have not been of this opinion. 12. “Historia mulierum philosopher urn,” Lugd. 1690, 12mo. This is reprinted in Meibom’s Diogenes Laertius. 13. <* AntiBailiet,“1690: a criticism of the” Jugemens des Sgavans“of M. Baillet, who in that work had spoken of Menage in a manner that displeased him. 14.” Menagiana," not published till after his death, and printed at first in one volume, afterwards in two. But M. de la Monnoye published an edition with great additions, at Paris, 1715, in 4 rols. 12mo. This is a very amusing collection, but will admit of abridgment without any injury to the memory of Menage.

Menage was possessed of a most tenacious memory, which he retained, except during a short interval, to a great age. Among his “Poems” is one addressed to the goddess of memory, petitioning her to restore to him her former favours; and another, in which he pours forth his gratitude for the welcome return. This uncommon talent of memory made Menage a very agreeable companion tQ the ladies, in whose company he took "delight, and for whose amusement he repeated, with great readiness and humour, all the anecdotes, verses, &c. which he thought would entertain the company.

, one of the most celebrated of the ancient Greek poets, was born at Athens in the year 342 before the Christian aera. He was educated in the school of Theophrastus the peripatetic, Aristotle’s successor, and began to write for the stage at the early age of twenty, when his passions seem to have been no less forward and impetuous than his genius. His attachment to the fair sex, and especially to his mistress Glycera, is upon record, and was vehement in the extreme; several of his epistles to that celebrated courtezan, written in a very ardent style, were collected and made public after his decease; his genius, however, is thought to have been a greater recommendation to Glycera’s favour, than his personal merit, which has not been represented as favourable to his addresses, although he is said to have added the recommendations of luxurious dress and manners. His intrigues, however, are of little importance compared to the fame he acquired as one, if not the principal, of the authors of the comedy, which if it possessed less wit and lire than the old, was superior to it in delicacy, regularity, and decorum, came nearer to nature,and to what we conceive of the legitimate drama. Among his contemporaries, who wrote upon this reformed plan, were Philemon, Diphilus, Apollodorus, Philippides and Posidippus; and from many fragments which remain, it appears that they were not Only bold declaimers against the vice and immorality of the age they lived in, but that they ventured upon truths and doctrines in religion totally irreconcileable to the popular superstition and idolatries of the heathen world; and therefore, says Cumberland, or rather Bentley, we cannot but admire at the extraordinary toleration of their pagan audiences.

By the lowest account Menander wrote eighty plays; but some authorities more than double them, an improbable number to have been composed by a poet who died at the age of fifty, or very little after; whatever their number, it has been thought that morality, taste, and literature, scarcely ever suffered more irreparably than by the loss of them. A few fragments only remain, which, says Warton, ought “to be as highly prized by the curious, as was the Coan Venus, which Apelles left imperfect and unfinished.” Terence is supposed to have copied all his comedies from Menander, except the “Phormio” and “Hecyra;” and therefore from him we are enabled to form some idea of Menander’s manner. His general character we must still take from his contemporaries, or immediate successors; for all that we can deduce from his fragments will not raise him to the high rank to which he belongs* Some of these are excellent morals, and some of a more elevated cast, but the greater part are of a morose, gloomy, and acrimonious character.

We have many testimonies to the admiration in which he was held during his life-time. Pliny informs us that the kings of Egypt and Macedon gave a noble testimony to his fiierit, by sending ambassadors to invite him to their courts, and even fleets to convey him; but that Menander preferred the free enjoyment of his studies to the promised favours of the great. Yet the envy and corruption of his countrymen sometimes denied his merit the justice athome, which it found abroad; for he is said to have won but eight prices, though he wrote at least fourscore, if not, according to some accounts, above an hundred plays. Philemon, aeontemporary and much inferior dramatic poet, by the partiality the judges, often disappointed him of the prize; which made Menander once say to him, “Tell me fairly, Philemon, if you do not blush when the victory is decreed to you against me” The ancient critics have bestowed the highest praises on Menander, as the true pattern of every beauty and every grace of public speaking. Quintilian declares that a careful imitation of Menander only will enable a writer to comply with all the rules in his Institutions. It is in Menander, that he would have his orator search for copiousness of invention, an elegance of expression, and especially for that universal genius, which is able to accommodate itself to persons, things, and affections. Menander’s wonderful talent at expressing nature in every condition, and under every accident of life, gave occasion to that extraordinary question of Aristophanes the grammarian: “O Menander and Nature, which of you copied your pieces from the other’s work” And Ovid has made choice of the same excellency to support the immortality he has given him:

Menander was drowned in the harbour of Piraeus, in the year 293 B. C. according to some accounts, which make him only forty-nine years of age, but others, as we have noticed, think he was a little above fifty. His tomb, in the time of Pausanias, was to be seen at Athens, in the way from Piraeus to the city, close by the honorary monujnent of Euripides. The fragments and sentences of Menander were first collected by Morel, 153, Paris, and again edited by Henry Stephens, Grotius, &c. but the best edition is that by Le Clerc at Amsterdam, in 1709. To which the “Etnendationes” of Phileleutherus Lipsiensis,“that is, Dr. Bentley, the” Infamia emendationuni,“JLeiden, 1710, by J. Gronovius, and” Philargyrius Cantabrigiensis," by De Pauw, must be considered as indispensable supplements, although it is somewhat difficult to collect the four.

, better known by the name of Marsilius of Padua, the place of his birth, was one of the most celebrated philosophers and lawyers of the 14th century. He was educated at the university of Orleans; was afterwards made counsellor to the emperor Louis of Bavaria; and wrote an apology entitled “Defensor pacis,” for that prince, in 1324. In this extraordinary work, for such at that time it might well be deemed, he boldly maintained that the pope ought to submit to the emperor, not only in temporal affairs, but also in what regards the outward discipline of the church. He described in strong colours, the pride, the luxury, and other irregularities of the court of Rome; and shewed at large, that the pope could not, by divine right, claim any powers or prerogatives superior to those of other bishops. John XXII. at that time filled the papal chair, and was so provoked at this doctrine of Marsilius, as well as his manner of propagating it, that he issued out a long decree, in which he endeavoured to refute it, and by which he excommunicated the author, in 1327. Dupin relates, that on this book being translated into French without the author’s name, pope Gregory XL complained of it to the faculty of divinity at Paris when the faculty declared, by an authentic act, that none of their members had any hand in that translation and that neither Marsilius of Padua, nor John de Jande, who was likewise thought to have been concerned in the work, belonged to their body. Besides the “Defensor pacis, seu de re imperatoria et pontifica, adversus usurpatam Romani Pontificis jurisdictionem, libri tres,” Marsilius wrotea treatise entitled “De translatione imperil” and also another, “De jurisdictione imperial! in causis matrimonialibus.” He died at Monternalto, in 1328; and, however his memory may have been honoured elsewhere, was ranked at Rome among the heretics of the first class.

, a French magistrate and antiquary, was one of several authors of the name of Menard who obtained considerable reputation in France. Claude, who was born in 1582, had a situation in the magistracy of Angers (lieutenant de la prevote), and was distinguished for his knowledge and virtue. Having had the misfortune to lose his wife towards the latter end of his career, he quitted the world, became an ecclesiastic, and led a very austere life. He was passionately attached to the study of antiquities, and rescued from oblivion several curious pieces. He died Jan. 20, 1652, at the age of seventytwo. He published, 1. “Joinville’s History of St. Louis,” 1617, 4to, with notes full of erudition and judgment. 2. “The two books of St. Austin against Julian,” which he discovered in the library at Angers. 3. “Researches concerning the body of St. James the greater,” who, as is pretended, was buried in the collegiate church of Angers. The credulity of this casts some shade upon his other works. It is also heavily written. 4. “History of Bertrand du Gueschiin,” 1618, 4to. The learning of this author was great, but his style was heavy and bad.

, a writer on the history of the saints, was born at Paris in 1587, and became a Benedictine of the congregation of St. Maur, among whom he was one of the first who applied severely to study. He died Jan. 21, 1644, at the age of fifty-seven. We have by him, 1. “Marty rologium San m ordinis S. Benedicti,” 1629. 2. “Concordia Regularum,” a comparison of the life of St. Benedict, with the rules of his order. 3. “Sacramentarium Sancti Gregorii Magni,” 1642, 4to. 4. “Diatriba deunico Dionysio,” 1643, 8vo. All these works display a taste for research, and a talent for sound criticism. He found the epistle of St. Barnabas, in an ancient-Aanuscript, in the abbey of Corbie.

, a counsellor in the presidial court at Nismes, was born at Tarascon, in 1706, and died in 1767. He lived chiefly at Paris, and employed himself in the study of history and antiquities, and in writing books, which, though approved for their learning, did not rescue him from the inconveniences of poverty. They are these: 1. “The civil, ecclesiastical, and literary History of the city of Nismes,” 7 vols. 4to, published in 1750, and the following years. This work has no fault but that of prolixity. 2. “Mceurs et Usages cles Grecs,” 1743, 12mo, a small and useful compilation. 3. “The Amours of Calisthenes and Aristoclea,” 1766, 12mo, a novel, in which the author has skilfully painted the manners of Greece. 4. “A collection of fugitive pieces, illustrative of French history,” 3 vols. 4to, published in 1748. The materials were communicated to him by the marquis d'Aubais. There was also a chronologer, named Peter Menard, who died the first year of the last century a James Menard, a lawyer of the sixteenth century and one or two more of interior note.

, a celebrated rabbi, not un-: known in this country, was born in Portugal about 1604. His father, Joseph Ben Israel, a rich merchant, having suffered greatly both in person and property, by the Portuguese inquisition, made his escape with his family into Holland, where this son was educated, under the rabbi Isaac Uriel, and pursued his studies with such diligence and success, that at the age of eighteen he was appointed to succeed his tutor as preacher and expounder of the Talmud in the synagogue of Amsterdam, a post which he occupied with high reputation for many years. He was not quite twenty-eight years of age when he published in the Spanish language the first part of his work entitled “Conciliador:” of which was published a Latin version, in the following year, by Dionysius Vossius, entitled “Conciliator, sive de Convenientia Locorum S. Scriptune, quas pugnare inter se videntur, opus ex vetustis et recentioribus omnibus Rabbinis magna industria ac fide congestum;” a work which was recommended to the notice of biblical scholars by the learned Grotius. The profits of his situation as preacher and expounder, being inadequate to the expences of a growing family, he engaged with his brother, who was settled at Basil, in mercantile concerns; and also set up a printing-press in his own house, at which he printed three editions of the Hebrew Bible, and a number of other books. Under the protectorate of Cromwell he came over to England, in order to solicit leave for the settlement of the Jews in this country, and actually obtained greater privileges for his nation than they had ever enjoyed before in this country; and in 1656 published an “Apology for the Jews,” in the English language, which may be seen in vol. II. of the “Phcenix,” printed from the edition of 1656. At the end of it in the Phoenix is a list of his works, published, or ready for the press. He likewise informs us that he had at that time printed at his own press, above sixty other books, amongst which are many Bible^ in Hebrew and Spanish, &e. He died at Amsterdam about 1659. The rabbi was esteemed as well for his moral virtues as for his great learning, and had been long in habits of correspondence and intercourse with some of the most learned men of his time, among whom were the Vossii, Episcopius, and Grotius. The following are his principal works independently of that already noticed: 1. An edition of the Hebrew Bible, 2 vois. 4to, 2. The Talmud corrected, with notes. 3. “De Resurrectione Mortuorum.” 4. “Esperanza de Israel,” dedicated to the parliament of England in 1650: it was originally published in Spanish, and afterwards translated into the Hebrew, German, and English, one object of which is to prove that the ten tribes are settled in America. Of his opinions in this some account is given in the last of our references.

, in Latin Menckenius, a learned German writer, was born of a good family at Oldenburg, in Westphalia, in 1644. He cultivated his first studies in his native place; and at seventeen went to Bremen, where he applied himself to philosophy. He stayed there one year, and removed to Leipsic, where he was admitted master of arts in 1664; and afterwards visited the other universities, Jena, Wittemberg, Groningen, Franeker, Utrecht, Leyden, and Kiel. Upon his return to Leipsic, he applied himself for some time to divinity and civil law. In 1668 he was chosen professor of morality in that university; and, in 1671, took the degree of licentiate in divinity. He discharged the duties of his professorship with great reputation till his death, which happened in 1707. He was five times rector of the university of Leipsic, and seven times dean of the faculty of philosophy. He published several works; many of his own, and some of other people. The edition of sir John Marsham’s “Canon Chronicus,” at Leipsic, in 4to, and a new edition of “Camden’s Annals of queen Elizabeth,” were procured by him. But his most considerable work, and what alone is sufficient to perpetuate his name, is the “Acta eruditorum” of Leipsic, of which he was the first author, and in which he was engaged till his death. When he had formed that design, he began a correspondence with the learned men of all nations, in order to inform himself of what passed in the republic of letters. For the same purpose he took a journey to Holland, and thence to England. He afterwards formed a society of several persons of eminent abilities, to assist him in the work, and took all proper measures to render it lasting. The elector of Saxony contributed, by his generosity, to the success of the design. The first volume was published at Leipsic, in 1682, in 4to. Our author continued to publish, with the assistance of colleagues, every year a volume while he lived, with supplements from time to time, and an index once in ten years. His share ends with the thirtieth volume.

, the son of the preceding, was born at Leipsic, April 8, 1674, and was admitted master of arts in that university in 1694. He spent some time there in the study of divinity, and then travelled into Holland and England. The reputation of his father, and his own great merit, procured him access to all the men of learning in the places through which he passed. He spent one year in his travels; and immediately upon his return to Leipsic in 1699, was appointed professor of history. His first intention was to have fixed himself to divinity; but he quitted it soon after for the law, in which he succeeded so well that he received the degree of doctor in that faculty at Halle, in 1701. After this he returned to Leipsic, to continue his lectures in history, by which he gained great reputation as well as by his writings. Frederic Augustus, king of Poland, and elector of Saxony, conceived so high an esteem for him, that in 1708 he appointed him his historiographer. In 1709 he became counsellor to that king; and, in 1723, aulic counsellor. His health began to decline early in life, and he died April 1, 1732, aged fifty-eight. He had been chosen, in 1700, fellow of the royal society of London, and some time after of that of Berlin.

The books he wrote were very numerous, and very learned; one of which, in particular, had it been as well executed as planned, would have been very curious and entertaining. Its title is the following: “De Charlataneria eruditorum declamationes duae; cum notis variorum. Accessit epistola Sebastiani Stadelii ad Janum Philomusum, de circumforanea literatorum vanitate, Leipsic, 1715,” 8vo. It has been said that there never was a worse book with a better title. It has, however, been translated into French, and is entitled “De la Charlatanerie des par M. Mencken: avec des remarques critiques de differens auteurs, Hague,” 1721, in Bvo. Mencke’s design here was to expose the artifices used by false scholars to raise to themselves a name; but, as he glanced so evidently at certain considerable persons that they could not escape being known, some pains were taken to have his book seized and suppressed: which, however, as usual, made the fame of it spread the faster, and occasioned editions to be multiplied. In 1723 he published at Leipsic, “Bibliotheca Menckeniana,” &e. or, “A catalogue of all the books and manuscripts in all languages, which had been collected by Otto and John Mencke, father and son.” Mencke himself drew up this catalogue, which is digested in an excellent method, with a design to make his library, which was very magnificent and valuable, public: but in 1728 he thought proper to expose it to sale and for that purpose published catalogues, with the price of every book marked. Mencke had a considerable share in the “Dictionary of learned men,” printed at Leipsic, in German, in 1715, folio, the plan of which he had formed, and furnished the persons employed in it with the principal materials, and wrote the articles of the Italians and English. He continued the <c Acta eruditorum," as he had promised his father upon his death-bed, for twenty-five years, ancl published 33 volumes, including the supplements and the indexes.

, a Jewish philosophical writer, was born at Dessau, in Anhalt, in 1729. After being educated under his father, who was a schoolmaster, he devoted every hour he could spare to literature, and obtained as a scholar a distinguished reputation; but his father ber ing unable to maintain him, he was obliged, in search of labour, or bread, to go on foot, at the age of fourteen, to Berlin, where he lived for some years in indigence, and frequently in want of necessaries. At length he got employment from a rabbi as a transcriber of Mss, who, at the same time that he afforded him the means of subsistence, liberally initiated him into the mysteries of the theology, the jurisprudence, and scholastic philosophy of the Jews. The study of philosophy and general literature became from this time his favourite pursuit, but the fervours of application to learning were by degrees alleviated and animated by the consolations of literary friendship. He formed a strict intimacy with Israel Moses, a Polish Jew, who, without any advantages of education, had become an able, though self-taught, mathematician and naturalist. Hg very readily undertook the office of instructor of Mendelsohn, in subjects of which he was before ignorant; and taught him the Elements of Euclid from his own Hebrew version. The intercourse between these young men was not of long duration, owing to the calumnies propagated against Israel Moses, which occasioned his expulsion from the communion of the orthodox; in consequence of this he became the victim of a gloomy melancholy and despondence, which terminated in a premature death. His loss, which was a grievous affliction to Mendelsohn, was in some measure supplied by Dr. Kisch, a Jewish physician, by whose assistance he was enabled to attain a competent knowledge of the Latin language. In 1748 he became acquainted with another literary Jew, viz. Dr. Solomon Gumperts, by whose encouragement and assistance he attained a general knowledge of the living and modern languages, and particularly the English, by which he was enabled to read the great work of our immortal Locke in his own idiom, which he had before studied through the medium of the Latin language. About the same period he enrolled the celebrated Lessing among his friends, to whom he was likewise indebted for assistance in his literary pursuits. The scholar amply repaid the efforts of his intructor, and soon became his rival and his associate, and after his death the defender of his reputation against Jacobi, a German writer, who had accused Lessing of atheism. Mendelsohn died Jan. 4, 1785, at the age of fifty-seven, highly respected and beloved by a numerous acquaintance, and by persons of very different opinions. When his remains were consigned to the grave, he received those honours from his nation which are commonly paid to their chief rabbies. As an author, the first piece was published in 1755, entitled “Jerusalem,” in which he maintains that the Jews have a revealed law, but not a revealed religion, but that the religion of the Jewish nation is that of nature. His work entitled “Phaedon, a dialogue on the Immortality of the Soul,” in the manner of Plato, gained him much honour: in this hepresents the reader with all the arguments of modern philosophy, stated with great force and perspicuity, and recommended by the charms of elegant writing. From the reputation which he obtained by this masterly performance, he was entitled by various periodical writers the “Jewish Socrates.” It was translated into French in 1773, and into the English, by Charles Cullen, esq. in 1789. Among his other works, which are all creditable to his talents, he wrote “Philosophical Pieces;” “A Commentary on Part of the Old Testament;” “Letters on the Sensation of the Beautiful.”

, a cardinal, archbishop of Seville, and afterwards of Toledo, chancellor of Castille and Leon, was born at Guadalajara, in 142S, of an ancient and noble family. He made a great progress in the languages, in civil and canon law, and in the belles lettres. His uncle, Walter Alvarez, archbishop of Toledo, gave him an archdeaconry in his church, and sent him to the court of John II. king of Castille, where his merit soon, acquired him the bishopric of Calahorra. Henry IV. who succeeded John, trusted him with the most important affairs of state; and, besides the bishopric of Siguença, procured a cardinal’s hat for him from Sixtus IV. in 1473. When Henry died the year after, he named cardinal Mendoza for his executor, and dignified him at the same time with the title of the cardinal of Spain. He did great services afterwards to Ferdinand and Isabella, in the war against the king of Portugal, and in the conquest of the kingdom of Granada over the Moors. He was then made archbishop of Seville and Toledo successively; and after governing some years, in his several provinces, with great wisdom and moderation, he died Jan. 11, 1495. It is said that in his younger days he translated “Sallust,” “Homer’s Iliad,” “Virgil,” and some pieces of “Ovid.”

, an Augustine friar of the province of Castille, was chosen by the king of Spain to be ambassador to the emperor of China, in 1584. He was made bishop of Lipari in Italy in 1593, bishop of Chiapi in New Spain in 1607, and bishop of Propajan in the West Indies in 1608. He wrote “A History of China,” in Spanish, which has been translated into several languages. A general idea of it may be taken from the mere title of the French translation, published at Paris, in 1589, which runs thus “The history of the great kingdom of China, in the East Indies, in two parts the first containing the situation, antiquity, fertility, religion, ceremonies, sacrifices, kings, magistrates, manners, customs, laws, and other memorable things of the said kingdom; the second, three voyages to it in 1577, 1579, and 1581, with the most remarkable rarities either seen or heard of there; together with an itinerary of the new world, and the discovery of New Mexico in 1583.”

, a Greek philosopher, was a native of Eretria in the island of Euboea, who, going to study at Athens, became first a hearer of Plato, and then of Xenocrates; but, not being satisfied with their doctrines, went over to the Cyrenaic philosopher Parsebates, and by him was led to the Megarensian Stilpo. Here, being delighted by the free manner of his new master, he learned to despise all scholastic forms and arts. He had now become so famous by his studies, that his countrymen, who at first had held him in no estimation, now voluntarily committed to him the direction of the state, with a large stipend; and he in return was able to render them essential services by the credit in which he stood with the kings of Macedon. After a time, however, he was exposed to the attacks of envy, that usual concomitant of greatness; and, "being accused of a design to betray his country, died of grief at the imputation. He died in the year 284 B. C. in the reign of Alexander the Great; and the masters under whom he studied mark sufficiently the earlier period of his life.

Menedemus was of a strong constitution, acute and penetrating in understanding; in dispute he was vehement, Lut in his manners gentle. He was fond of convivial meetings; but it was those in which philosophy, not luxury, presided. His most intimate friend and fellowstudent was Asclepiades, whose steadiness of regard was highly honourable to b9th. After the death of Menedemus, his countrymen erected a statue to his memory. Some sarcastically called him the Eretrian Bull, from the gravity of his countenance. Being told one day, that it is a great felicity to have whatever we desire, “Yes,” said he, “but it is a much greater to desire nothing but what we have.”

was a Cynic philosopher, rather of a later period, just before that sect sunk into disrepute, and that of the Stoics under Zeno rose out of its ruins. It is probable that the extravagance of this very man contributed very materially to bring his sect into disrepute; for he went about, says Diogenes Laertius, dressed like a fury, and saying that he was sent by the infernal gods, to report to them the transgressions of men. His dress was a long black robe, reaching to his feet; a scarlet girdle; a large Arcadian cap, with the twelve signs of the zodiac embroidered on it; tragic buskins, a vast beard, and a strong ashen staff in his hand. Laertius says that he was a pupil of Colotes of Lampsacus, of whom, however, he gives no particular account. Others make him the disciple of Echecles an Ephesian, another Cynic. Suidas, by mistake, applies to Menippus the extravagant dress here attributed to Menedemus. Menippus, however, was a disciple of Menedemus.