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

, of Dijon, one of the most learned and curious antiquaries of his time, was born in 1564, and died in 1634, at the age of seventy. His principal works are, 1. “Medals, Coins, and ancient Monuments of the emperors of Rome,” folio. 2. " Illustrious Medals of the ancient emperors and empresses of Rome,' 7 4to. They are both written in French, and are not much esteemed, according to the Diet. Hist.; but Moreri says that all modern antiquaries speak of them with the highest praise (grands eloges).

, a Jesuit, was born at Lyons in 1633. Besides his skill in the ancient languages, and acquaintance with the classic authors, he had a particular talent for heraldry, and for the arrangement and marshalling of all splendid ceremonies, such as canonizations, &c. so that his plans for those occasions were sought with great avidity. The fertility of his imagination constantly displayed itself in an incredible variety of inscriptions, devices, medals, and other ornaments. He travelled in Italy, Flanders, Germany, and England; and in all places gained improvement and amusement. His memory was so prodigious, that, in order to try it, Christina queen of Sweden, pronounced in his presence at Lyons, and had written down, 300 unconnected words, the strangest she could think of, and it is said that he repeated them all exactly in the same order. This wonderful memory supplied him with an inexhaustible fund of anecdotes; and he spoke Greek and Latin with as much facility as French. He died Jan. 31, 1705, being then seventy-four. His works that remain are, 1. “History of Louis the Great, by medals, emblems, devices, &c.” 2. “Consular History of the city of Lyons,” 1693, folio. 3. Several small treatises on devices, medals, heraldry, &c. particularly his “Methode de Blason,” an edition of which was published at Lyons, in 1770, 8vo, with many additions to the original work. 4. “La Philosophic des Images,” 1694, 12mO, with several others of smaller consequence, which are all enumerated by Niceron.

, an able Italian mathematician in the seventeenth century, concerning whose birth there is no trace, studied mathematics under Cavalieri, to whom the Italians ascribe the invention of the first principles of the infinitesimal calculus. Mengoli was appointed professor of “mechanics” in the college of nobles at Bologna, and acquired high reputation by the success with which he filled that post. His principal works are, “Geometriae SpeciosgR Elementa” “Novae Quadrature Arithmetics, sen de additione Fractionum” “Via regia ad Mathematicas ornata” “Rerrazzione e paralasse Solare” “Speculation! de Musica;” “Arithmetics rationalis Elementa” “Arithmetica realis.” Of these Dr. Burney notices his “Speculationi di Musica,” a desultory and fanciful work, published at Bologna, 1670. An account of this treatise was given in the Phil. Trans, vol. VIII. No. c. p. 6194, seemingly by Birchensha. The speculations contained in Mengoli’s work are some of them specious and ingenious; but the philosophy of sound has been so much more scientifically and clearly treated since its publication, that the difficulty of finding the book is no great impediment to the Advancement of music. He was still living in 1678.

, a celebrated modern painter, was born at Aussig in Bohemia, in 1726. His lather was painter to Augustus 111. king of Poland, and he, observing the talents of his son for the same art, took him to Rome in 1741. After studying about four years, the young painter returned to Dresden, where he executed several works for Augustus with uncommon success. But his greatest patron was Charles III. king of Spain, who having, while only king of Naples, become acquainted with Mengs and his merits, in 1761, within two years after his accession to the throne of Spain, settled upon him a pension of 2000 doubloons, and gave him an house and an. equipage. Mengs, nevertheless, did not go to Spain, but resided chiefly at Rome, where he died in 1779. The labours of his art, grief for the loss of a most beautiful and amiable wife, and the injudicious medicines of an empiric, his countryman, who pretended to restore his health, are said to have occasioned his death. His character was very amiable, with no great fault but that which too commonly attends genius, a total want of reconomy; so that, though his profitsin various ways,forthe last eighteen years of his life, were very considerable, he hardly left enough to pay for his funeral. In his address, he was timid and aukward, with an entire ignorance of the world, and an enthusiasm for the arts, which absorbed almost all his passions. He left five daughters, and two sons, all of whom were provided for by his patron the king of Spain. He was an author as well as a painter, and his works were published at Parma in 1780, by the chevalier d'Azara, with notes, and a life of Mengs, in 2 vols. 4to, which were translated into English, and published in 2 vols. 1796, 8vo. They consist chiefly of treatises and letters on taste, on several painters, and various subjects connected with the philosophy and progress of the arts. They were partly translated into French, in 1782, and more completely in 1787. All that is technical on the subject of painting, in the work of his friend Winckelman, on the history of art, was supplied by Mengs. He admired the ancients, but without bigotry, and could discern their faults as well as their beauties. As an artist, Mengs seems to have been mostly admired in Spain. In this country, recent connoisseurs seem disposed to under-rate his merit, merely, as it would appear, because it had been over-rated by Azara and Winckelman. The finest specimen of his art in this country is the altar- piece of All Souls Chapel, Oxford. The subject of this picture is our Saviour in the garden it consists of two figures in the foreground, highly finished, and beautifully painted. It was ordered by a gentleman of that college whilst on his travels through Spain; but being limited to the price, he was obliged to choose a subject of few figures. This gentleman relates a singular anecdote of Mengs, which will further show the profundity of his knowledge and discernment in things of antiquity. While Dr. Burney was abroad collecting materials for his History of Music, he found at Florence an ancient statue of Apollo, with a bow and riddle in his hand: this, he considered, would be sufficient to decide the long-contested point, whether or not the ancients had known the use of the bow. He consulted many people to ascertain the certainty if this statue were really of antiquity; and at last Mengs was desired to give his opinion, who, directly as he had examined it, without knowing the cause of the inquiry, said, “there was no doubt but that the statue was of antiquity, but that the arms and fiddle had been recently added.” This had been done with such ingenuity that no one had discovered it before Mengs; but the truth of the same was not to be doubted.

, or Menin, a most celebrated German orientalist, was born in Lorraine, then subject to the emperor, in 1623; and for copiousness of learning, elegance of genius, and profound knowledge of languages, particularly those of the East, proved undoubtedly one of the principal ornaments of the age in which he lived. He studied at Rome under Giattino. When he was about thirty, his love of letters induced him to accompany the Polish ambassador to Constantinople, where he studied the Turkish language under Bobovius and Ahmed, two very skilful teachers. So successful was he in this study, that when he had been there only two years, the place of first interpreter to the Polish embassy at the Porte was promised to him. When the place became vacant, he was accordingly appointed to it, and obtained so much credit by his conduct, that, after a time, he was sent for into Poland, and again sent out with full powers as ambassador to the Porte. For his able execution of this office, he was further honoured, by being naturalized in Poland, on which occasion he added the Polish termination of ski to his family name, which was Menin. Being desirous afterwards to extend his sphere of action, he went to the court of the emperor, as interpreter of oriental languages, in 1661. Here also, as in other instances, his talents and behaviour obtained the highest approbation; on which account he was not only sent as interpreter to several imperial ambassadors at the Porte, but was entrusted in many important and confidential services, and, in 1669, having paid a visit to the holy sepulchre at Jerusalem, was made one of the knights of that order. After his return to Vienna he was advanced to further honours; being made one of the counsellors of war to the emperor, and first interpreter of oriental languages. He died at Vienna, at the age of seventy-five, in 1698. His great work, 1. The “Thesaurus linguarum orientalium,” was published at Vienna, in 1680, in 4 yols. folio: to which was added, in 1687, another volume, entitled “Complenaentum Thesauri linguarum orientalium, seu onomasticum Latino-Turcico-Arabico-Persicum.”* The former volumes having become extremely scarce, partly on account of the destruction of a great part of the impression in the siege of Vienna by the Turks in 1683, a design was formed some time ago in England of reprinting the work, by a society of learned men, among whom was sir William Jones. But as this undertaking, probably on account of the vast expenee which must have been incurred, did not proceed, the empress queen, Maria Theresa, who had heard of the plan, took it upon herself, and with vast liberality furnished every thing necessary for its completion. In consequence of this, it was begun to be splendidly republished at Vienna in 1780, with this title, “Francisci a Mesgnien Meninski Lexicon Arabico-Persico-Turcicum, adjecta ad singulas voces et phrases interpretatione Latina, ad usitatiores, etiam Italica,” and has been completed in four volumes, folio. In this edition, say the editors, the Lexicon of Meninski may be said to be increased, diminished, and Amended. Increased, because many Arabic and Persian words are added, from Wankuli and Ferhengi, the best Arabic and Persic Lexicographers whom the East has produced; and, from Herbelot, are inserted the names of kingdoms, cities, and rivers, as well as phrases in common use among the Turks, &c. diminished, because many useless synonyma are omitted, which rather puzzled than assisted the student; as well as all the French, Polish, and German interpretations, the Latin being considered as sufficient for all men of learning amended, with respex?t to innumerable typographical errors which, from a work of this naturej Ho care can perhaps altogether exclude, Brunei remarks, however, that this edition does not absolutely supplant the preceding, as the grammar and onomasticon are not reprinted in it. There is a Vienna edition of the grammar, entitled “Institutiones linguae Turcicae,” 1756, in quarto, two vols. in one; but the onomasticon must still be sought in the original edition. The other works of Meninski were occasioned chiefly by a violent contest between him and J. B. Podesta, in which much acrimony was employed on both sides. These it is hardly worth while to enumerate, but they may all be seen in the account of his life from which this article is taken. It should be observed however, that, in 1674, Podesta published a book entitled “Prodromus novi linguarum Orientalium collegii, jussu Aug. &c. erigendi, in Univ. Viennensi” to which Meninski opposed, 2. “Meninskii Antidotum in Prodromum novi ling*, orient collegii, &c.” 4to. But such was the credit of his antagonist in the university, that soon after there came out a decree, in the name of the rector and consistory, in which that antidote of Meninski’s is proscribed and prohibited, for six specific reasons, as impious and infamous. Meninski was defended against this formidable attack by a friend, in a small tract, entitled “Veritasdefensa, seu justitia causae Dn. F. de M. M. [Meninski] contra infame decretum Universitatis Viennensis, anno 1674, 23 Novernbris, &c. ab Amico luci exposita, anno 1675,” in which this friend exposes, article by article, the falsehood of the decree, and exclaims strongly against the arts of Podesta. This tract is in the British Museum. Podesta was oriental secretary to the emperor, and professor of those languages at Vienna but is described in a very satirical manner by the defender of Meninski “Podesta, natura Semi-Italus, statura nanus, caecutiens, balbus, imo bardus repertus, aliisque vitiis ac stultitiis plenus, adeoque ad discendas linguas Orientales inhabilis.” A list of the works of Podesta, is, however, given by the late editors of Meninski.

, a Cynic, and a disciple of the second Menedemus before mentioned, was a native of Gadara in Palestine. His writings were chiefly of a ridiculous kind, and very satirical; so much so, that Lucian, himself no very lenient satirist, calls him in one passage “the most barking and snarling of all the Cynic dogs.” For this reason he is introduced into two or three of Lucian’s dialogues, as a vehicle for the sarcasms of that author. It appears, that the satires of Menippus were written in prose, with verses occasionally intermixed; for which reason the satires of Varro, who wrote in the same style, were called Menippean; and the same title, that of “Satyre Menippe'e,” was given, for the same reason, to a famous collection, written in France against the faction of the league; in which compositions Pierre le Roy, Nicolas Rapin, and Florent Chretien, bore a principal share. Varro himself lias been therefore called Mtnippeus, and sometimes Cynicus Romanus. Menippus was imitated also by his countryman Meleager, of whom an account has been given before. It is said by Laertius, that Menippus, having been robbed of a large sum of money, which he had'amassed by usury, hanged himself in despair. The same author mentions some of his works, of which, however, no part is now extant. He had been originally a slave, but purchased his freedom, and procured himself to be made a citizen of Thebes.

a celebrated seaman, traveller, and poet, the third son of Andrew Mennes, esq. of Sandwich in Kent, was born there March 1, 159S. He was educated at Corpus Christ! college, Oxford, where he distinguished himself by his literary acquirements; and afterwards became a great traveller, and well skilled in naval architecture. In the reign of James I. he had a place in the Navy-office, and by Charles i. was appointed its comptroller. In the subsequent troubles he took an active part, both military and naval, in favour of his royal master: and being a vice-admiral, in 1641 was knighted at Dover. In 1642, he commanded the Rainbow: but was afterwards displaced from his services at sea for his loyalty, and was implicated in the Kentish insurrection in favour of the king in 1648. After the Restoration he was made governor of Dover-castle, and chief comptroller of the navy, which he retained till his death. In 1661 he was appointed commander of the Henry, and received a commission to act as vice-admiral and commander in chief of his majesty’s fleet in the North Seas. He died Feb. 18, 1670-1, at the Navy-office in Seething-lane, London, with the character of an honest, stout, generous, and religious man, whose company had always been delightful to the ingenious and witty. He was buried in the church of St. Olave, Hart-street, where a monument and inscription were erected over his grave, and are there still. Wood says he was the author of a poem entitled “Epsom Wells,” and several other poems scattered in other men’s works. What can with most certainty be attributed to him are contained in a volume entitled “Musarum Deliciae, or the Muses Recreation,” second edit. 1656, 12mo. The celebrated scoffing ballad on sir John Suckling, “Sir John got him an ambling nag,” &c. was written by Mennes. The poems in this volume are the joint compositions of sir John Mennes and Dr. James Smith.

, surnamed Simon, or Simonson, was the founder of a sect called from him Mennonites. He was born at Witmarsum, in Friesland, in 1505. He was at first a Romish priest, and a notorious profligate, and resigned his rank and office in the Romish church, and publicly embraced the communion of the anabaptists. He died in 1561, in the duchy of Holstein, at the country-seat of a certain nobleman, not far from the city of Oldesloe, who, moved with compassion by a view of the perils to which Menno was exposed, and the snares that were daily laid for his ruin, took him, with certain of his associates, into his protection, and gave him an asylum. He began to propagate his opinions in 1636, and had many followers, whose history may be found in Mosheim. They split afterwards into parties, but the opinions that are held in common by the Mennonites, seem to be all derived from this fundamental principle, that the kingdom which Christ established upon earth is a visible church or community, into which the holy and just alone are to be admitted, and which is consequently exempt from all those institutions and rules of discipline, that have been invented by human wisdom, for the correction and reformation of the wicked. This principle, indeed, was avowed by the ancient Mennonites, but it is now almost wholly renounced; nevertheless, from this ancient doctrine, many of the religious opinions, that distinguish the Mennonites from all other Christian communities, seem to be derived: in consequence of this doctrine, they admit none to the sacrament of baptism, but persons that are come to the full use of their reason; they neither admit civil rulers into their communion, nor allow any other members to perform the functions of magistracy; they deny the lawfulness of repelling force by force, and consider war, in all its shapes, as unchristian and unjust: they entertain the utmost aversion to the execution of justice, and more especially to capital punishments; and they also refuse to confirm their testimony by an oath. Menno’s writings, in Dutch, were published in 1651, folio.

, a native of Pavia, was born in 1532, and acquired such skill in the law, that he was surnamed the. Baidus and the Bartholus of his age. He taught law in Piedmont, at Pisa, at Padua, and lastly at Pavia. Philip II. king of Spain, appointed him counsellor, afterwards president of the council at Milan. He died Aug. 10, 1607, aged seventy-five, leaving, “De recuperanda possessione, de atiipiscenda possessione,” 8vo; “De Praesumptionibus,” Geneva, 1670, 2 vols. folio; " De Arbitrariis Judicum quaestionibus, et causis Consiliorum/' folio, and other valuable works.

, son of the preceding, born in 1576, at Pavia, entered among the Jesuits at the age of seventeen, and died at Rome, February 4, 1656, aged eighty, leaving, “Institutions, political and ceconomical,” taken from the Holy Scriptures a good treatise “On the Hebrew Republic” and a “Commentary on the Bible,” the best edition of which is by Pere Tournemine, a Jesuit, 1719, 2 vols. folio. All the above are in Latin.

, was a prince of the Russian empire, deeply concerned in the politics of his time. The general opinion of the origin of Menzikoff is, that his father was a peasant, who had placed him at Moscow with a pastry-cook, and that he carried little pies about the streets, singing as he went. In this situation, he was seen by the emperor Peter, who, pleased with the wit and liveliness which on examination he found in him, took him about his person, and thus opened the way to his fortune. Others, however, say, that his father was an officer in the service of the czar Alexis Michaelowitz, and that, as it was not extraordinary for gentlemen to serve in the stables of the czar, Menzikoff was there employed as one of the head grooms, and that in this situation his talents were noticed by the czar, and his advancement begun. Whatever may in this respect be true, it is certain that when he had begun to attend the emperor, he soon made himself agreeable, and finally necessary to that prince, whose projects he seconded with great address; and, having studied several languages, was able to be useful in various situations. Being appointed to the government of Ingria, his services in that situation obtained him the rank of prince, with the title of major-general in the army. He signalized himself in Poland in 1708 and 1709; but in 1713, he was accused of peculation, and condemned to pay a fine of three hundred thousand crowns. The czar, however, remitted the fine, and having received him again into his favour, sent him with a command into the Ukraine in 1719, and ambassador to Poland in 1722. When the czar died, in 1725, Menzikoff had already contrived the means of continuing and increasing his own power. He was aware of the design of Peter, to give his throne to his empress Catherine, and therefore to secure her gratitude, MenzikofF prepared all parties to acquiesce in this arrangement. Catherine was not insensible of her obligations to him, and agreed that her son, afterwards Peter II. should marry the daughter of Menzikoff, which she made an article in her will. At her death in 1727, the prince being then under twelve years, Menzikoff was also one of the regency appointed by her will, and the most active member in it.

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

Menzikoff had a very strong attachment to Peter I. and to his maxims for civilizing the Russian nation. He was affable and polite towards strangers, that is, to all who were submissive, and not ambitious of eclipsing him in wit, or other talents. His inferiors, in general, he treated with gentleness, and never forgot a service rendered to him. His courage was incontestible, and proved on many trying occasions. His friendship, when once fixed, was steady and zealous. On the other hand, his ambition was boundless; he could not bear a superior, or an equal; much less a rival in any quality or advantage. He was not destitute of wit; but for want of an early polish it was rather coarse. His avarice was insatiable, and led him into several difficulties, even with his indulgent master Peter I.; and when he was disgraced, he was found to possess the value of three millions of roubles, in jewels, plate, and money, besides his vast estates. There are many features of resemblance between Menzikoff and Wolsey, not only in his rise from a low origin, but more particularly in the imprudence, haughtiness, and ostentation, which accelerated his fall.

, an Italian poet, was born at Florence in 1646, of poor and humble parents. Notwithstanding the disadvantage of his circumstances, he began his studies under Miglioraccio, and pursued them with ardour; till, being noticed for his talents by Vincentio SaU viati, he, was removed from the difficulties of poverty, received into the house of that patron, and encouraged to indulge his genius in writing. In 1674, he inscribed a volume of poems to Cosmo III. of Medicis, but obtained Do great approbation from that depraved man. In 1679, he published a book, entitled “Construzione irregolare della linga Toscana;” on the irregular construction of the Tuscan language; and, in the following year, a volume of lyric poems, by way of illustrating his own precepts. His first patron seems now to have deserted him, or not to have afforded him sufficient support, for we find hirn at this period, after several disappointments, and particularly that of not obtaining a professorship at Pisa, venting his discontent in twelve satires. These, however, were not published in his life, but given to a friend, Paulo Falconeri. When they did appear, they went through several editions. In 1685, Menzini obtained the notice and patronage of Christina queen of Sweden, whom he celebrated in Latin as well as in Italian. Under her protection he lived at Rome, and enjoyed the best period of his life. It was at this period, in 1688, that he published his “Arte Poetiea,” which he dedicated to cardinal Azzolini. Being always more or less in want, owing to mismanagement, he contrived by these dedications to lay some of the chief nobility of his country under contribution: but he did not so succeed with cardinal Atestini, who received his dedication of “II Paradiso terrestre,” without granting him any remuneration. As he had a wonderful vein of ready eloquence, one of his resources was that of composing sermons for preachers who were not equally able to supply themselves. To this there is an allusion in one of the satires of his con<­temporary Sectanus.

We are told, by his biographer Fabroni, that being not a little in awe of the satirical talents of that writer, he had cultivated his kindness with no little anxiety; and thus, it may be supposed, obtained this compliment. He was now appointed by the pope, canon of St. Angelo in Piscina; and continued to publish several works, in Latin as well as in Italian as, “Orationes de morum, philosophise, humanarumque literarum studiis, et de Leonis X. P. M. laudtbus.” But his Latin compositions did not so well satisfy the learned as those he produced in his own language; and their criticisms led him to write and publish a tract, “De poesis innocentia, et de literatorum hominum invidia.” This, however, was prior to the present period, as it bears date in 1675. He published now a poetical version of the Lamentations of Jeremiah, in Italian, which was so much approved by pope Clement XI. that he ordered it to be distributed to the cardinals in passion-week. Menzini was admitted a member *of the society of Arcadi, under the name of Euganius, under which we have seen him mentioned by the satirist: and being also admitted of the academy Delia Crusca, he was very anxious to have his verses cited in their dictionary, as authority. In this he could not prevail, except after a time for his satires, in which he had revived some classical Italian expressions then growing obsolete. In 1731, however, long after his death, and in the fourth edition of that vocabulary, all his Italian works were admitted, as affording classical citations. Towards the end of life he became dropsical, and died at the age of fifty-eight, in 1704. He left the fortune of a poet, his works only, which he bequeathed to a friend and they were in 1730 1734, published collectively, in 4 vols. 8vo, the contents of which are recited by Fabroni. An edition of his “Art of Poetry” has lately been published by Mr. Mathias, perhaps the most accomplished Italian scholar and critic in this kingdom. His satires were published with Salvini’s notes, in 1759, 8vo, and with those of Rinaldo Maria Bracci, at Naples in 1763, 4to.

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

Mercati wrote in Italian, at the request of his patron pope Gregory, a work “On the Plague, on the Corruption of the Air, on the Gout, and on Palsy,” Rome, 1576, 4to; and likewise a “Dissertation on the Obelisks of Rome,” 1589, 4to. But he is principally remembered for his description of the subjects of natural history, particularly of mineralogy, contained in the museum of the Vatican, which was formed under the auspices of Gregory XIII. and Sixtus V. and was afterwards totally dispersed. He was about to prepare engravings of the principal subjects, when his disease, which terminated his life, interrupted his progress. His manuscript came into the hands of Carlo Dati of Florence, where it remained till the time of Clement XI. who purchased it, and caused it to be splendidly edited by Lancisi, his first physician, in 1717, at Rome, under the title of “Metallotheca, opus posthumnm authoritate et mnnificentia dementis XI. Pont. Max. e tenebris in lucem eductum opera & stud. J. M. Lancisi Archiat. Prat, illustratum,” folio. An “Appendix ad Metallothecam” was published in 1719.

Besides his father and grandfather, both men of learning and eminence in their day, there was a Louis Mercati, a physician of the same century, whose medical and surgical works were printed in 1605, and often reprinted, but are not now held in much esteem.

, an eminent geographer and mathematician, was born in 1512, at Ruremonde in the Low Countries. He applied himself with such industry to the sciences of geography and mathematics, that it has been said he often forgot to eat and sleep. The emperor Charles V. encouraged him much in his labours; and the tluke of Juliers made him his cosmographer. He composed and published a chronology; a larger and smaller atlas; and some geographical tables besides other books in philosophy and divinity. He was also so curious, as well as ingenious, that he engraved and coloured his maps himself. He made various maps, globes, and other mathematical instruments for the use of the emperor; and gave the most ample proofs of his uncommon skill in what he professed. His method of laying down charts is still used, which bear the name of “Mercator’s Charts;” also a part of navigation is from him called Mercator’s Sailing. He died at Duisbourg in 1594, at eighty-two years of age.

, a celebrated ecclesiastical author of the fifth century, St. Augustine’s friend, who wrote against the Nestorians and Pelagians, died about the year 451. All his works, which are in Labbe’s Councils, and in the library of the Fathers, were published in 1673, by Gamier, a Jesuit, with long Dissertations, 2 torn, in one volume, folio. M. Baluze published a new edition of them at Paris, 1684, 8vo.

, an eminent mathematician and astronomer, whose name in High-Dutch was Kauffman, was born about 1640, at Holstein in Denmark. From his works we learn, that he had an early and liberal education, suitable to his distinguished genius, by which he was enabled to extend his researches into the mathematical sciences, and to make very considerable improvements: for it appears from his writings, as well as from the character given of him by other mathematicians, that his talent rather lay in improving, and adapting any discoveries and improvements to use, than invention. However, his genius for the mathematical sciences was very conspicuous, and introduced him to public regard and esteem in his own country, and facilitated a correspondence with such as were eminent in those sciences, in Denmark, Italy, and England, In consequence, some of his correspondents gave him an invitation to this country, which he accepted; and he afterwards continued in England till hi death. In 1666 he was admitted F. R. S. and gave frequent proofs of his close application to study, as well as of his eminent abilities in improving some branch or other of the sciences. But he is charged sometimes with borrowing the inventions of others, and adopting them as his own, and it appeared upon some occasions that he was not of an over-liberal mind in scientific communications. Thus, it had some time before him been observed, that there was an analogy between a scale of logarithmic tangents and Wright’s protraction of the nautical meridian line, which consisted of the sums of the secants; though it does not appear by whom this analogy was first discovered. It appears, however, to have been first published, and introduced into the practice of navigation, by Henry Bond, who mentions this property in an edition of Norwood’s Epitome of Navigation, printed about 1645; and he again treats of it more fully in an edition of Gunter’s works, printed in 1653, where he teaches, from this property, to resolve all the cases of Mercator’s sailing by the logarithmic tangents, independent of the table of meridional parts. This analogy had only been found to be nearly true by trials, but not demonstrated to be a mathematical property. Such demonstration seems to have been first discovered by Mercator, who, desirous of making the most advantage of this and another concealed invention of his in navigation, by a paper in the Philosophical Transactions for June 4, 1666, invites the public to enter into a wager with him on his ability to prove the truth or falsehood of the supposed analogy. This mercenary proposal it seems was not taken up by any one; and Mercator reserved his demonstration. Our author, however, distinguished himself by many valuable pieces on philosophical and mathematical subjects. His first attempt was, to reduce astrology to rational principles, which proved a vain attempt. But his writings of more particular note, are as follow: 1. “Cosmographia, sive Descriptio Cceli & Terrse in Circulos, qua fundamentum sterniter sequentibus ordine Trigonometric Sphericorum Logarithmicse, &c. a” Nicolao Hauffman Holsato,“Dantzic, 1651, 12mo. 2.” Rationes Mathematics subductse anno 1653,“Copenhagen, 4to. 3.” De Emendatione annua Diatribae duae, quibus exponuntur & demonstrantur Cycli Soiis & Lunce,“&c. 4to. 4.” Hypothesis Astronomica nova, et Consensus ejus cum Observationibus,“Lond. 1664, folio. 5.” Logarithmotechnia, sive Method us construendi Logarithmos nova, accurata, et facilis; scripto antehac communicata anno sc. 1667 nonis Augusti; cui nunc accedit, Vera Quadratura Hyperbolae, & inventio summae Logaritbmorum. Auctore Nicolao Mercatore Holsato e Societate Regia. Huic etiam jungitur Michaelis Angeli Riccii Exercitatio Geometrica de Maximis et Minimis, hie ob argument! praestantiam & exemplarium raritatem recusa,“Lond. 1668, 4to. 6.” Institutionum Astronomicarum libri duo, de Motu Astrorum communi & proprio, secundum hypotheses veterum & recentiorum praecipuas deque Hypotheseon ex observatis constructione, cum tabulis Tychonianis, Solaribus, Lunaribus, Lunae-solaribus, & Rudolphinis Solis, Fixarum &*quinque Errantium, earumque usu prajceptis et exemplis commonstrato. Quibus accedit Appendix de iis, quae uovissimis temporibus coelitus innotuerunt,“Lond. 1676, 8vo. 7.” Euclidis Elementa Geometrica, novo ordine ac methodo fere, demonstrata. Una cum Nic. Mercatoris in Geometriam Introductione brevi, qua Magnitudinum Ortus ex genuinis Principiis, & Ortarum Affectiones ex ipsa Genesi derivantur," Lond. 1678, 12mo. His papers in the Philosophical Transactions are, 1. A Problem on some Points of Navigation vol. I. p. 215. 2. Illustrations of the Logarithmo-technia vol. Hi. p. 759. 3. Considerations concerning his Geometrical and Direct Method for finding the Apogees, Excentricities, and Anomalies of the Planets; vol. V. p. 1168. Mercator died in 1594, about fifty-four years of age.

, a major in the army, and a very elegant and accomplished scholar, was the son of a private gentleman in Aberdeenshire, who, having joined the Highland army in the year 1745, retired to France after the battle of Culloden, where he resided till his death. His son, who was born Feb. 27, 1734, was educated at Marischal college, Aberdeen, and afterwards went to reside with his father at Paris. There he spent his time in elegant society, and devoted his leisure hours to the cultivation of letters, and thus acquired those polished manners, and that taste for study, by which he was ever after so highly distinguished. He possessed, too, a very high degree of elegant and chastised wit and humour, which made his company to be universally sought after by those who had the happiness of his friendship or acquaintance.

On the death of his father, he returned to Scotland, and soon afterwards entered into the army at the commencement of the seven-years war, during the greatest part of which he served in Germany under prince Ferdinand of Brunswick, and was in one of the six British regiments of infantry, that gained such reputation for their gallantry at the memorable battle of Minden. The regiment in which he afterwards served, being reduced at the peace of Paris, he returned to Aberdeen, where he married Miss Katherine Douglas, sister to the present lord Glenbervie, a beautiful and accomplished woman, with whom he lived many years in much happiness. In order to fill up the vacant hours of his then unemployed situation, he devoted his time chiefly to books, and, in particular, recommenced the study of the Greek language (of which he had acquired the rudiments at college) with such assiduity, that his intimate friend, Dr. Beattie, was of opinion there were not six gentlemen in Scotland, at that time, who knew Greek so well as major Mercer. Then it was likewise, that by attention to the purest models of antiquity, he corrected that partiality for French literature, which he had strongly imbibed by his early habits of study at Paris.

Not long after, he again entered into the army, in which he continued to serve till about 1772, when he had arrived at the rank of major; but he then quitted the profession, and only resumed a military character when he held a commission in a regiment of fencibles (militia) during the American war. On the return of peace, he retired with his family to Aberdeen, where he continued chiefly to reside during the rest of his life. An acquaintance had first taken place between him and Dr. Beattie, on his return to Aberdeen after the seven years’ war; and as their taste in books, and their favourite studies, were in some respects entirely similar, a lasting friendship ensued, which proved to both a source of the highest enjoyment. Of this we have many interesting proofs in sir William Forbes’s “Life of Beattie.”

Major Mercer’s acquaintance with books, especially of poetry and belles lettres, both ancient and modern, was not only uncommonly extensive, but he himself possessed a rich and genuine poetical vein, that led him, for his own amusement only, to the composition of some highly finished lyric poems. These he carefully concealed, however, from the knowledge of his most intimate friends; and it was with much difficulty that his brother-in-law, lord Glenbervie, at length could prevail on him to permit a small collection to be printed, first anonymously, afterwards with his name; the latter edition, with the title of “Lyric Poems. Bv James Mercer, esq. Second edition, with some additional poems,” 1804, 12mo. These beautiful poems possess much original genius, and display a taste formed on the best classic models of Greece aud Rome, whose spirit their author had completely imbibed, especially that of Horace, who seems to have been the model whom he had proposed to himself for his imitation.

In 1802 major Mercer had the misfortune to lose his wife, after a long course of severe indisposition, during which he had attended her with the most anxious assiduity. Of this loss, indeed, he may be said never to have got the better, and he survived her little more than two years. He had long been in a very valetudinary, nervous state, till at last his constitution entirely failed: and he expired without a struggle or a pang, Nov. 18, 1804, in the seventyfirst year of his age. Besides possessing no ordinary share of knowledge both of books and men (for in the course of his military life especially, he had lived much in society of various sorts), and being one of the pleasantest companions, he was a man of much piety, strict in the observance of all the ordinances of religion, and of high honour in every transaction of life.

, a learned bibliographer and miscellaneous writer, familiarly known in France by the title of the abbe de St. Leger, was born at Lyons, April 1, 1734. He entered when young, into the congregation of St. Genevieve, of which he became librarian, at the time that the learned Pingre, his predecessor in that office, went to observe the transit of Venus. In 1764, when Louis XV. visited this library, he was so much pleased with Mercier’s intelligent manner of displaying its treasures, that he appointed him abbe of St. Leger at Soisson, a preferment which then happened to be vacant Mercier often travelled to Holland and the Netherlands to visit the libraries and learned men of those countries, and was industriously following his various 'literary pursuits, when the revolution interrupted his tranquillity, and reduced him to a state of indigence. This he could have borne; but the many miseries he witnessed around him, and particularly the sight of his friend the abbe Poyer dragged to the scaffold, proved too much for his constitution. He continued to linger on, however, until May 13, 1799, when death relieved him. He was a man of great learning and research, as his works evidently shew, and in his private character, social, communicative, and amiable. His works are, 1. “Lettre sur la Bibliographic de Debure,” 1763, 8vo. 2. “Lettre a M. Capperonier,” on the same subject, which was followed by a third, printed in the “Journal de Trevoux.” 3. “Lettre sur le veritable auteur du Testament Politique du cardinal de Richelieu,” Paris, 1765, 8vo. 4. “Supplement a l‘Histoire de l’imprimerie de Prosper Marchand,” 1765, 4to, reprinted with additions, &c. 1771. 5. “Lettre sur la Pucelle D'Orleans,” 1775. 6. “Dissertation sur Pauteur du livre de PImitation de Jesus-Christ.” 7. “Notice du livre rare, intitule* Pedis Admirandte, par J. d'Artis.” 8. “Notice de la Platopodologie d'Antoine Fiance, medecin de Besangon,” a curious satire by Fiance. 9. “Lettre a un ami, sur la suppression de la Charge de Bibliothecaire du roi en France,” (Paris), 1737, 8vo. 10. “Notice sur les tornbeaux des dues de Bourgogne.” 11. '“Lettres sur differentes editions rares du 15 siecle,” Paris, 1785, 8vo, particularly valuable for Italian books. 12. “Observations surPEssai d'un projet de Catalogue de Bibliotheque.” 13. “Description* d'une giraffe vue a Fano.” 14. “Notice raisonnée des ouvrages de Gaspard Schott, Jesuite,” 1785, 8vo. 15. “Bibliotheque de Romans traduits du Grec.” 1796, 12 vols. 12mo. 16. “Lettre sur le projet de decret concernant les religieux, proposee a PAssemblee Nationale par M. Treilhard,” 1789, 8vo. 17. “Lettre sur un nouveau Dictionnaire Historique portatif en 4 vols. 8vo.” This, wbich appeared in the *' Journal de Trevoux," contains a sharp critique upon the first volumes of Cbaudon’s Dictionary. Mercier bestowed great pains in correcting and improving his copy of this work, which fell in the hands of thcs editors of the last edition of the Diet. Hist. Mercier was frequently employed in the public libraries; and those of Soubise and La Valliere owe much of their treasures to his discoveries of curious books. He was also a frequent writer in the Journal de Trevoux, the Journal des S9avans, the Magazin Encyclopedique, and the Annee Litteraire. He left some curious manuscripts, and manuscript notes and illustrations of many of his books.

, or Mercerus, a celebrated philologer, uas a native of Usez in Languedoc. He was bred to. the study of jurisprudence, which he quitted for that of the learned languages, Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and Chaldee; and in 1549, succeeded Vatablus in the professorship of Hebrew in the royal college at Paris. Being obliged to quit the kingdom during the civil wars, he retired to Venice, where his friend Arnoul du Ferrier resided as French ambassador; but returned with him afterwards to France, and died at Usez, his native place, in 1572. He was a little man, worn by excess of application, but with a voice which he could easily make audible to a large auditory. His literature was immense, and among the proofs of it are the following works: 1. “Lectures on Genesis, and the Prophets,” Geneva, 1598, folio. 2. “Commentaries on Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Canticles,” 1573, 2 vols. folio, which have been much esteemed. 3. “Tables of the Chaldee Grammar,” Paris, 1550, 4to. These are all written in Latin. He was considered as inclined to Calvinism. His son Josiah Le Mercier, an able critic, who died December 5, 1626, published an excellent edition of “Nonnius Marcellus;” notes on Aristae ­netus, Tacitus, DictysCretensis, and Apuleius’s book “De Deo Socratis,” and an “Eulogy,” on Peter Pithon; some of his letters are in Goldast’s collection. Salmasius was his son-in-law.

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

Mercuriali was a voluminous writer, as the following catalogue of his works will evince. He was a learned commentator on Hippocrates, and edited a classified collection of his works. Like the learned of his age, however, he was bigotted to the doctrines of the ancients, and fond of hypothetical reasoning, to the disparagement of sound observation; and he strongly imbued his pupils with the same erroneous principles. His first publication was a tract entitled “Nomothesaurus, seu Ratio lactandi Infantes.” His second, the work “De Arte Gymnastica,” before-mentioned. 3. “Variarum Lectionum in Medicinse Scriptoribus et aliis, Libri iv.” Venice, 1571. 4. “De Morbis Cutaneis, et omnibus corporis humani Excrementis,” ib. 1572. 5. “Tractatus de Maculis pestiferis et Hydrophobia,” Basle, 1577. 6. “De Pestilentia in universum, proesertim vero de Veneta et Patavina,” Venice 1577. 7. “Hippocratis Opera Grsece et Latine,” ibid. 1578. 8. “De Morbis Muliebribus Praelectiones,” Basle, 1582. 9. “De Morbis puerorum Tractatus locupletissimi,” Venice, 1583. 10. “De Venenis et Morbis venenosis,” ibid. 1584. 11. “De Decoratione liber,” ib. 1585. 12. “Consultationes et Responsa Medicinalia.” Four volumes were successively published in 1587, 1590, and 1597; and were republished together after his death. 13. “Tractatus de Compositione Medicamentorum, De Morbis oculorum et auriura,” ibid. 1590. 14. “De Hominis Generatione,” 1597. 15. “Commentarii in Hippoc. Coi Prognostica, Prorrhetica,” &c. ibid. 1597. 16. “Medicina Practica, seu, de cognoscendis, discernendis, et curandis omnibus humani corporis affectibus,” Francfort, 1602, folio. All these works have been several times reprinted, and some of them were selected after his death, and printed together, under the title of “Opuscula aurea et selectiora,” Venice, 1644, folio.

, perpetual secretary of the academy of sciences at Berlin, was born at Leichstal, near Basil, Sept. 27, 1723, of a reputable family, and received a learned education, with the particulars of which, however, we are unacquainted. In 1750 he was invited from Holland to Berlin, on the recommendation of Maupertuis, and died in that city Feb. 12, 1807, in the eighty-fourth year of his age. The best known of his works were French translations of Claudian, and of Hume’s Essays, the latter, published at Amsterdam, 1759 1764, 5 vols. 12mo, enriched with commentaries and refutations of the most objectionable principles. He translated also some of Michaelis’s works. The Memoirs of the Academy of Berlin contain several of his pieces on philosophical subjects and on geometry. One of the best is a parallel between the philosophy of Leibnitz and Kant, which was much noticed on its first appearance. Merian bore an estimable private character, and preserved all the activity and vigour of youth to a very advanced age. A few days before his death he officiated as secretary at a sitting of the academy, to celebrate, according to custom, the memory of the Great Frederic.

, a lady much and justly ceJebrated for her skill in drawing insects, flowers, and other subjects of natural history, was born at Francfort on the Maine, in 1647; being the grand-daughter and daughter of Dutch engravers of some celebrity, whose talents were continued and improved in her. She was instructed by Abraham Mignon. She married John Andriez Graff, a skilful painter and architect of Nuremberg, but the fame she had previously attached to her own name, has prevented that of her husband from being adopted. They had two children, both daughters, who were also skilful in drawing. By liberal offers from Holland, this ingenious couple were induced to settle there; but Sibylla, whose great object was the study of nature, had the courage to travel in various parts, for the sake of delineating the insects, and several other productions peculiar to each country. She ventured to take the voyage to Surinam, where she remained two years, for the express purpose of making the drawings which have since added so considerably to her fame; and, though it does not appear that there was any kind of disagreement between her and her husband, she went, if we mistake not, without him. His own occupations, probably, precluded such a journey. Madame Merian died at Amsterdam in 1717, at the age of seventy.

The drawings of this lady have a delicacy and a beauty of colour, which have seldom been equalled, and her designs are still in high estimation, notwithstanding the great attention which has since been paid to the accurate execution of such works. She published, 1. “The origin of Caterpillars, their nourishment and changes” written in Dutch; Nuremberg, 1679–1688, in 2 vols. 4to. This was afterwards translated into Latin, and published at Amsterdam, in 1717, 4to. This work, much augmented by herself and daughters, with thirty-six additional plates and notes, was published in French by John Marret, Amsterdam, 1730, folio, under the title of, “Histoire des Insectes d'Europe.” 2. “Dissertatio de Generatione et Metamorphosibus insectorum Surinamensium,” Anise. 1705, folio. This contains only sixty plates. To some of the later editions twelve plates were annexed, by her daughters Dorothea and Helena. There is an edition of this in folio, French and Dutch, printed at Amsterdam, in 1719. Another in French and Latin, 1726; and another in Dutch, in 1730. There have been also editions of the two works united, under the title of “Histoire des Insectes de PEurope et de PAmerique,” Amst. 1730; Paris, 1768 1771. Many of the original drawings of this artist are in the British Museum, in two large volumes, which were purchased by sir Hans Sloane, at a large price. The current opinion is, that he gave five guineas for each drawing; but this is not sufficiently authenticated. Of these volumes, one contains the insects of Surinam, the other those of Europe, and among them are many designs which have never been engraved. Among those of the Surinam insects are several, which, though very elegantly finished, appear evidently, on examination, to be painted on impressions taken from the wet proofs of the engravings. Those of Europe are, perhaps, entirely original drawings. In the engraved works, much less justice has been done to the European insects than to those of America. Matthew Merian, the father of this lady, published many volumes of topographical engravings and collections of plates in sacred history.

, a British writer, who flourished towards the latter end of the fifth century, but of whom little memorial remains, except such as is wholly disfigured by fiction, was reputed to be both an enchanter and a prophet, and to have been begotten by an incubus. For want of more authentic materials, we may be allowed to give the account of Spenser, in his Faery Queen, b. iii. canto 3. where, after speaking of his supposed magical powers, he thus tells his progeny:

And sooth men say that he was not the sonne

But wondrously begotten and begonne

And coosin unto king Ambrosius,

Merlin is said to have foretold the arrival and conquests of the Saxons, to which allusion is made by Andrew of Wyntown, in his fifth book, ch. 12.

It was supposed that Merlin did not die, but was laid asleep by magic, and was, after a long period, to awake and live again. Spenser alludes to this fable also. Extravagant prophecies, and other ridiculous works are ascribed to Merlin, and some authors have written Commentaries on them, as ridiculous as the text. In the British Museum is “Le compte de la vie de Merlin et de ses faiz, et compte de ses prophecies,” 2 vols. fol. on vellum, without date or place. There is a French edition, 3 vols. small folio, black letter, dated 1498. There are also other French and Italian editions. In English we have 46 The Life of Merlin, surnamed Ambrosius. His prophesies and predictions interpreted: and their truth made good by our English annals, published by T. Heywood," Lond. 1641, 4to. This was Hey wood the actor, of whom some notice is taken in our seventeenth volume.

, a learned doctor of the Sorbonne, born in the diocese of Limoges, was curate of Montmartre, and afterwards canon and grand penitentiary of Paris. Having preached against some persons belonging to the court, who were supposed to be favourable to the reformed religion, he was confined in the castle at the Louvre, 1527, by order of Francis I. and then banished to Nantes, from whence he returned to Paris, 1530. Merlin was appointed grand vicar of Paris, and curate of la Magdelaine. He died September 26, 1541. He was the first who published a “Collection of Councils;” of which there are three editions. It is said to be a compilation of great accuracy and impartiality. Merlin also published editions of “Richard de St. Victor, Peter de Blois, Durand de St. Pour$ain, and Origen;” and has prefixed to the works of the latter an Apology, in which he undertakes to clear Origen from the errors imputed to him. He had a violent dispute on this subject with Noel Beda.

, a physician and naturalist, born at Winchcombe, in Gloucestershire, in February 1614, was educated at Gloucester-hall, and Oriel-college, Oxford, and after taking the degree of M. D. in 1642, settled in London. He appears to have had a considerable share of practice, was a fellow of the college of physicians, and one of the original members of the philosophical society, which after the restoration became the royal society. He died in 1695. His first publication was “A Collection of Acts of Parliament, Charters, Trials at Law, and Judges’ Opinions, concerning those Grants to the College of Physicians,” 1660, 4to. This became the basis of Dr. Goodairs History of the College, and was followed, in 1669, by “A short View of the Frauds and Abuses committed by Apothecaries, in relation to Patients and Physicians,” which involved him in an angry controversy with Henry Stubbe. He also, in 1662, published a translation of Neri’s work, “De arte vitriaria,” with notes; but his principal work was entitled “Pinax Rerum Naturalium Britannicarum, continens Vegetabilia, Animalia, et Fossilia in hac Insula reperta,” Lond. 1667, 8vo. This, though incomplete and erroneous, was the first of the kind relating to this country, and was without doubt instrumental in promoting the study of natural history here. A great portion of his knowledge of plants was obtained through the medium of Thomas Wiliisel, a noted herbalist, whom he employed to travel through the kingdom for him during five summers. Merret communicated several papers to the royal society, which are printed in the earlier volumes of the Philosophical Transactions; particularly an account of some experiments on vegetation of the tin mines in Cornwall of the art of refining and some curious observations relative to the fens of Lincolnshire.

, an English divine and poet, whom bishop Lowth characterised as one of the best of men and most eminent of scholars, was the second son of John Merrick, M. D. He was born Jan. 8, 1720, and was educated at Reading school. After being opposed, (very unjustly according to his biographer) as a candidate for a scholarship at St. John’s, on sir Thomas White’s foundation, he was entered at Trinity-college, Oxford, April 14, 1736, and admitted a scholar June 6, 1737. He took the degree of B. A. in Dec. 1739, of M. A. in Nov. 1742, and was chosen a probationer fellow in May 1 744. The celebrated lord North, and the late lord Dartmouth, were his pupils at this college. He entered into holy orders, but never engaged in any parochial duty, being subject 10 acute pains in his head, frequent lassitude, and feverish complaints; but, from the few manuscript sermons which he left behind him, appears to have preached occasionally in 1747, 1748, and 1749. His life chiefly passed in study and literary correspondence, and much of his time and property were employed on acts of benevolence. Few men have been mentioned with higher praise by all who knew him*. He had an extraordinary faculty of exact memory; had great good nature, and a flow of genuine wit; his charity was extensive, and his piety most exemplary. He died after a short illness at Reading, where he had principally resided, Jan. 5, 1769; and was buried at Caversham church, near the remains of his father, mother, and brothers.

He was early an author. In 1734, while he was yet at school, he published “Messiah, a Divine Essay,” printed at Reading; and in April 1739, before he was twenty years of age, he was engaged in a correspondence with the learned Reimarus. The imprimatur from the vice-chancellor, prefixed to his translation of “Tryphiodorus,” is dated Oct. 26, 1739, before he had taken his bachelor’s degree. In Alberti’s last volume of Hesychius, published by Ruhnkenius, are many references to Mr. Merrick’s notes on Tryphiodorus, which are all ingenious, and serve to illustrate the Greek writer by historical and critical explanations; many of them have a reference to the New Testament, and show how early the author had turned his thoughts to sacred criticism. The translation itself is correct and truly poetical. It is indeed, for his years, a very

1746, says of Mr. Merrick, "There learning amiable and useful; is not

cannot be a more deserving man in all only a good scholar, but (which is iarespects. His learning (which is be- finitely better) a good Christian." yond comparison great for his years) is extraordinary proof of classical erudition and taste, and was deservedly supported by a more numerous list of subscribers than perhaps any work of the time. It was handsomely printed in an 8vo volume, at the Clarendon press, but without date or publisher’s name.

The rest of Mr. Merrick’s works were published in the following order: 1. “A Dissertation on Proverbs, chapter ix. containing occasional remarks on other passages in sacred and profane writers,” 1744, 4to. 2. “Prayers for a time of Earthquakes and violent Floods,” a small tract, printed at London in 1756, when the earthquake at Lisbon had made a very serious impression on the public rnind. 3. “An encouragement to a good life; particularly addressed to some soldiers quartered at Reading,” 1759. His biographer informs us that a list is still preserved of the names of many thousand soldiers, whom Mr. Merrick had instructed in religious duties, and to whom he had distributed pious books. Among the latter, Granger mentions Rawlet’s “Christian Monitor,” of which he says Mr. Merrick distributed near 10,000 copies “chiefly among the soldiers, many of whom he brought to a sense of religion.” 4. “Poems on Sacred subjects,” Oxford, 1763, 4to. 5. “'A Letter to the rev. Joseph Warton, chiefly relating to the composition of Greek Indexes,” Reading, 1764. In this letter are mentioned many indexes to Greek authors, some of which were then begun, and others completed. Mr. Robert Robinson, in the preface to his “Indices Tres,” of words in Longinus, Eunapius, and Hierocles, printed at the Clarendon press in 1772, mentions these as composed by the advice of Mr. Merrick, by whose recommendation to the delegates of the press they were printed at the expence of the university; and they rewarded the compiler with a very liberal present. 6. “Annotations, critical and grammatical, on chap. I. v. 1 to 14 of the Gospel according to St. John,” Reading, 1764, 8vo. 7. “Annotations, critical, &c. on the Gospel of St. John, to the end of the third chapter,” Reading, 1767, 8vo. 8. “The Psalms translated, or paraphrased, in English verse,” Reading, 1765. Of this, which is esteemed the best poetical English version of the Psalms now extant, the only defect was, that not being divided into stanzas, it could not be set to music for parochial use. This objection has been removed, since the author’s death, by the rev. W. D. Tfcttersall; who with great and laudable zeal for the improvement of our parochial psalmody, has published three editions properly divided, and procured tunes to be composed for them by the best masters. Custom, however, has so attached the public to the old versions, that very little progress has yet been made in the introduction of Mr. Tattersall’s psalmody in churches and chapels. 9. “Annotations on the Psalms,” Reading, 1768, 4to. 10. “A Manual of Prayers for common occasions,” ibid. 1768, 12mo. This is now one of the books distributed by the society for promoting Christian knowledge, who have also an edition of it in the Welsh language.

Mr. Merrick occasionally composed several small poems, inserted in Dodsley’s Collection; and some of his classical effusions may be found among the Oxford gratulatory poems of 1761 and 1762. In the second volume of Dodsley’s “Museum,” is the “Benedicite paraphrased” by him. Among his Mss. in the possession of the Loveday family at Williamscot, near Banbury, are his ms notes orj the whole of St. John’s Gospel, being a continuation 'of what he published during his life. He had begun an elaborate and ingenious account, in English, of all the Greek authors, in alphabetical order, which was left unfinished at his death. It extends as far as letter H: the manuscript ending with “Hypsicles.” The late rev. William Etwall, editor of three dialogues of Plato, with various ind exes, in 1771, mentions, in his preface, his obligation,^ to Mr. Merrick, who was always happy to communicate information *, and encourage genius. The indexes of. that work were composed according to the plan recopjmended by him in his letter to Dr. Warton, whose broUier, Thomas, in his edition of “Theocritus,” in various passages, expresses his obligations to Mr. Merrick, an d pays a just compliment to his skill in the Greek language. His knowledge both of the Greek and Hebrew was truly critical; and was applied with great success to the ill ustration of the sacred writings; as his annotations on the P'salms, and his notes upon St. John, abundantly testify. It remains to be mentioned that in the former of these works, the “Annotations,” he was assisted by Dr. Lowth, then bishop of

municated by Mr. Merrick to lhatau- and another curio us one on Indexes in

tbor, with whom h appears to have th same work, p. 310. Oxford, who supplied many of the observations, and by a person whom he described 'as “virum summa eruditione, summo loco” who was afterwards known to have been archbishop Seeker. Some remarks introduced here in opposition to Dr. Gregory Sharpe’s criticism on the 1-1 Oth Psalm, produced from that gentleman “A Letter to the right rev. the Lord Bishop of Oxford, from the Master of the Temple, containing remarks upon some strictures made by his grace the late archbishop of Canterbury, in the rev. Mr. Merrick’s Annotations on the Psalms,” 1769, 8vo.

, an English poet of considerable merit, was born in London, April 1755, and was descended in a right line from sir Henry Merry, who was knighted by James I. at Whitehall. Mr. Merry’s father was governor of the Hudson’s Bay company. His grandfather, who was a captain in the royal navy, and one of the elder brethren of the Trinity-house, established the commerce of the Hudson’s Bay company upon the plan which it now pursues. He made a voyage to Hudson’s Bay, and discovered the island in the North seas, which still bears the name of Merry’s island. He also made a voyage to the East Indies, and was, perhaps, the first Englishman who returned home over land; in which expedition he encountered inconceivable hardships. Mr. Merry’s mother was the eldest daughter of the late lord chief justice Willes, who presided for many years with great ability in the court of Common Pleas, and was for some time first lord commissioner of the great seal. Mr. Merry was educated at Harrow, under Dr. Sumner, and had the celebrated Dr. Parr as his private tutor. From Harrow he went to Cambridge, and was entered of Christ’s college. He left Cambridge without taking any degree, and was afterwards entered of Lincoln’s-inn, but was never called to the bar. Upon the death of his father he bought a commission in the horse-guards, and was for several years adjutant and lieutenant to the first troop, commanded by lord Lothian. Mr. Merry quitted the service, and went abroad, where he remained nearly eight years; during which time he visited most of the principal towns of France, Switzerland, Italy, Germany, and Holland. At Florence he stayed a considerable time, enamoured (as it is said) of a lady of distinguished rank and beauty. Here he studied the Italian language, encouraged his favourite pursuit, poetry, and was elected a member of the academy Delia Crusca. Here also he was a principal contributor to a collection of poetry, by a few English of both sexes, called “The Florence Miscellany.” The name of the academy he afterwards used as a signature to many poems which appeared in the periodical journals, and the newspapers, and excited so many imitators as to form a sort of temporary school of poets, whose affectations were justly ridiculed by the author of the “Baviad and Maeviad,” and soon despised by the public. Mr. Merry, however, had more of the qualities of a poet than his imitators, although not much more judgment. His taste, originally good, became vitiated by that love of striking novelties which exhausts invention. Of his poems published separately, scarcely one is now remembered or read.

In 1791 he married miss Brunton, an actress, who performed in his tragedy of “Lorenzo,” and a prospect opened to him of living at his ease, by the joint production of that lady’s talents, and his own pen; but the pride of those relations upon whom he had most dependence, was wounded by the alliance; and he was constrained, much against Mrs. Merry’s inclination, to take her from the stage. This he did as soon as her engagement at the theatre expired, which was in the spring of 1792. They then visited the continent, and returned in the % summer of 1793. They retired to America in 1796, and our author died suddenly at Baltimore, in Maryland, Dec. 24, 1798, of an apoplectic disorder, which proceeded, as is supposed, from a plethora, and the want of proper exercise. He was author of the following dramatic pieces, viz. “Ambitious Vengeance;” “Lorenzo;” “The Magician no Conjurer;” and “Fenelon,” a serious drama, none of which had great success.

Mr. Merry was an accomplished gentleman, and for many years highly esteemed by a numerous circle of friends of rank and learning, but in his latter years he unfortunately became enamoured of those loose and theoretical principles which produced the French revolution; and this change gave a sullen gloom to his character, which made him relinquish all his former connexions, and attach himself to company far beneath his talents, and unsuitable to his habits. There is reason to think, however, that his mind recovered somewhat of its better frame after he had resided a few months in America, and had leisure to reflect on what he had exchanged for the gay visions of republican fancy. Mrs. Merry, who married Mr. Warren, the manager of a theatre in America, died in 1808.

, a learned French writer, was born at Oyse, in the province of Maine, Sept. 8, 1588. He cultivated the belles lettres at the college of la Flche; and afterwards went to Paris, and studied divinity at the Sorbonne. Upon his leaving the schools of the Sorbonne, he entered himself among the Minims, and received the habit of that order, July 17, 1611. In 1612 he went to reside in the convent of Paris, where he was ordained priest. He then applied himself to the Hebrew language, which he learned of father John Bruno, a Scotch Minim. From 1615 to 1619, he taught philosophy and theology in the convent of Nevers; and then returned to Paris, where he spent the remainder of his life. Study and conversatioa were afterwards his whole employment. He held a correspondence with most of the principal men of his time; being as it were the very centre of communication between literary men of all countries, by the mutual correspondence which he managed between them; and was in France what Mr. Collins was in England. He omitted no opportunity to engage them to publish their works; and the world is obliged to him for several excellent discoveries, which would probably have been lost, but for his encouragement; and on all accounts he had the reputation of being one of the best men, as well as philosophers, of his time. He was the chief friend and literary agent of Des Cartes, in particular, with whom he had contracted a friendship while he studied at la Flche, which continued to his death. He was that philosopher’s chief agent at Paris. Thus, when Mersenne gave out in that city, that Des Cartes was erecting a new system of physics upon the foundation of a vacuum, and found the public very indifferent to it on that very account, it was said, that he immediately sent intelligence to Des Cartes, that a vacuum was not then the fashion at Paris; which made that philosopher change his system, and adopt the old doctrine of a plenum. In the mean time, Mersenne’s residence at Paris did not hinder him from making several journies into foreign countries; for he went to Holland in 1629, and stayed a year there; and he was in Italy four times; in 1639, 1641, 1644, and 1646. He fell sick, in 1648, of an abscess in the right side, which the physicians took to be a bastard pleurisy and bled him several times to no purpose. At last it was thought proper to open the side but he expired in the midst of the operation, when he was almost sixty years of age. He ordered the physicians at his death to open his body, which they did, and found an abscess two inches above the place where they had opened his side; so that, if the incision had been made at the proper place, his life might possibly have been saved.

He was a man of universal learning, but excelled so much in physical and mathematical knowledge, that Des Cartes scarcely ever did any thing, or at least was not perfectly satisfied with any thing he had done, without first knowing what Mersenne thought of it. He published a great many books, the first of which occasioned him some trouble. The title is, “Qusestiones celeberrimse in Genesim, cum accurata textus explicatione: in quo volumine athei & deisti impugnantur,” &c. Paris, 1623. Two sheets of this book, from column 669 to column 676 inclusive, were suppressed by him; and it is very difficult to meet with any copy in which these sheets are not taken out. He had given there a list of the atheists of his time, mentioned their different works, and specified their opinions, as appears from the index in the word Athei, which has not been altered. Whether this detail was thought of dangerous consequence, or whether Mersenne had enlarged too much the number of atheists, it was judged proper that he should retrench all he had said upon that subject. Baillet calls Mersenne, to whose 671st page he refers, the most credulous man alive for believing, that there could be at that time, us he supposes, 50,000 atheists in Paris; and considers this pretended number, as nothing more than a fiction of the Hugonots, that they might take, occasion thence to abuse the catholics. In this work, he has undoubtedly inserted a variety of things which are of a nature foreign to his main subject. Thus he calls it in his title-page, “Opus theologis, philosophis, medicis, jurisconsuhis, mathematicis, musicis vero & catoptricis praesertim utile.” His largest digression relatesao music, which be had studied, and upon which he wrote several books. He attacks also Dr. Robert Fludd, fellow of the college of physicians in London; the severity of whose answers raised up many defenders for Mersenne, and among the rest the illustrious Gassendi, whose tract on this subject was printed at Paris in 1628, under this title: “Epistolica exercitatio, in qua proecipua principia philosophise Robert! Fludd deteguntur, & ad recentes illius libros ad versus patrem Marimim Mersennum scriptos respondetur.” This piece is reprinted in the third volume of Gassendi’s works at Paris, in 1658, under the title of “Examen philosophic Fltiddanae,” &c.

Mersenne was a man of good invention; and had a peculiar talent in forming curious questions, though he did not always succeed in resolving them; however, he at least gave occasion to others to do it. It is said* he invented the Cycloid, otherwise called the Roulette. Presently the chief geometricians of the age engaged in the contemplation of this new curve, among whom Mersenne himself held a distinguished rank.

Mersenne was author of many useful works, particularly the following: 1. “Questiones celeberrimae in Genesim,” already mentioned. 2. “Harmonicorum Libri.” 3. “De Sonorum Natura, Causis, et Effectibus.” 4. “Cogitata Physico-Mathematica,” 2 vols. 4to. 5. “La Verite des Sciences.” 6. “Les Questions inouies.” He has also many letters in the works of Des Cartes, and other authors.

, the illustrious founder of Merton college, Oxford, which became the model of all other societies of that description, was bishop of Rochester and chancellor of England in the thirteenth century. Of his personal history very little is known. From a pedigree of him, written about ten years after his death, we learn, that he was the son of William de Merton, archdeacon of Berks in 1224, 1231, and 1236, by Christina, daughter of Walter Fitz-Oliver, of Basingstoke. They were both buried in the church of St. Michael, Basingstoke, where the scite of their tomb has lately been discovered. Their son was born at Merton, in Surrey, and educated at the convent there. So early as 1239 he was in possession of a family estate, as well as of one acquired. From his mother he received the manor of St. John, with which he commenced a public benefactor, by founding, in 1261, the hospital of St. John, for poor and infirm clergy; and after the foundation of Merton college, it was appointed in the statutes, that the incurably sick fellows or scholars of that college should be sent thither; and the office of master was very early annexed to that of warden of Merton. Not many years ago, part of the chapel roof of this hospital remained, pannelled with the arms of Merton college in the intersections, and one of the gothic windows stopped up; but all this gave way to a new brick building in 1778.

According to Mr. Denne (Custumale Roffense, p. 193), he occurs prebendary of Kentish town, and afterwards had the stall of Finsbury, both of them in the church of St. Paul’s, London. He held in 1259 a prebend in Exeter cathedral; and, according to Browne Willis, was vicar of Potton in Bedfordshire at the time of his promotion to the see of Rochester. Other accounts say, that he was first canon of Salisbury, and afterwards rector of Stratton. He became eminent in the court of Chancery, first as king’s clerk, then as prothonotary, and lastly rose to be chancellor of England in 1258. Of this office he was deprived in the same year by the barons, but restored in 1261, with a yearly salary of four hundred marks; and held it again in 1274, in which year he was consecrated bishop of Rochester. He appears to have been of high credit in affairs of state, and consulted on all matters of importance, as a divine, a lawyer, and a financier. His death was occasioned by a fall from his horse, in fording a river in his diocese; soon after which accident he died, Oct. 27th, 1277. Notwithstanding his liberality, at his death he was possessed of goods valued by inventory at 5110l. of which he left legacies to the amount of 2126l. His debts amounted to 746l., and he had owing to him about 622l. He was interred on the north side of St. William’s chapel, at the north end of the cross aile in Rochester cathedral, with a marble monument, which had probably been injured or decayed, as in 1598, the present beautiful alabaster monument was erected by the society of Merton college, at the suggestion of the celebrated sir Henry Savile, then warden of the college.

With respect to the foundation of this college, an opinion has long prevailed, which the inquiries of some recent antiquaries have rendered doubtful. It was stated by Wood and others, that Walter de Merton first founded a college at Maldon, as a nursery for that at Oxford; that at a certain age the scholars were removed from Maldon to Oxford, where the founder provided a house for them on the site of the present college, and that the whole establishment was not removed from Maldon to Oxford until the year 1274, when the third and last charter was obtained. On the other hand, his original intention appears to have been to establish a religious house at Maldon, consisting of a warden and priests, who were to appropriate certain funds, with which he entrusted them, to the maintenance and education of twenty scholars at Oxford or elsewhere, and that when he founded Merton college, he removed the warden and priests thither. What seems to confirm this account is, that the founder appointed a fellow of Merton college to instruct such of his students as were ignorant of grammar, which would not probably have been the case had they been brought from a preparatory school.

Nothing could be more satisfactory than to be able to trace the progress of this great work from these small beginnings, but all that can be now collected is, that having purchased several tenements, on the ground where the college stands, he began his erection, and by charter dated Jan. 7, 1264, established it by the name of Domus Scholarium da Merlon. This first charter, with the statutes prescribed in it, continued in force until 1270, when it was confirmed by a second, in which great additions were made to the endowment by estates in Oxford, Oxfordshire, and other counties; the scholars were increased, and the term f rat res became used as a farther step towards the present form. A third charter was granted in 1274. All these which respect the creation in 1264, the enlargement in 1270, and the completion in 1274, and refer to, and confirm one another, are now perserved in the library, and were consulted as precedents in the foundation of Peterhouse, the earliest college of the sister university, and probably of others in both universities. The first officers of Merton were appointed in 1276. It yet remains to be noticed that Walter de Merton’s preference of Oxford is thought to have been owing to his better acquaintance with the place, there being a tradition that he studied some time among the canons regular of Oseney, or in Mauger hall, in St. Martin’s parish, Oxford. By the assistance of subsequent benefactors, Merton college was progressively raised to its present state, in which it consists of a warden, twenty- four fellows, two chaplains, fourteen. portionista or postmasters, four scholars, and two clerks.

, an Italian of very uncommon talents and learning, was born at Alexandria, in the duchy of Milan, about 1420. His family name was Merlani, which he exchanged for Merula. He was the disciple of Philephus, and taught polite literature at Venice and at Milan for forty years, and laboured with great success in restoring and correcting ancient authors. Jovius calls him “Grammaticorum exactissimus,” the most exact of grammarians and Erasmus, in his “Ciceronianus,” represents him as a man, who translated the Greek authors with a dignity and elegance sufficient to rank him with many of the ancients. He died at Milan in 1494. His original works are of the historical kind, the most distinguished of which is his “Antiquitates Vicecomiturn, lib. X.” fol. without place or date, but printed at Milan about the beginning of the sixteenth century. This only extends to the death of Matthew, whom the Italians are accustomed to call *' the Great.“The style is pure, but he has adopted too many of the fabulous reports of the old chronicles, and is in other respects incorrect as to dates and facts. It is not, however, to this, or his other historical pieces that he owes his reputation, which was more substantially built on the aid he gave in the restoration of classical learning, as one of the first editors of ancient authors. It is to him we are indebted for the first edition, collectively, of the” Scriptores de re Rustica,“Gato, Varro, Columella, and Palladius, which he published at Venice, 1472, fol. with notes. He also published the first edition of Plautus, at Venice, 1472, fol. and assisted in the publication of the early editions of Juvenal, Martial, and Ausonius, and translated several of the Greek authors. His Juvenal is entitled” Enarrationes Satyrarum Juvenalis, per GeorgiumMerulam Alexandrinum," Tarvisii (Trevigny) 1478, fol.

From these works the character of Merula justly stood high; but whether he was naturally vain and arrogant, or spoiled by flattery, his disposition was jealous and irritable, and he treated some of his learned contemporaries with that species of harshness and contempt which, although in all ages the disgrace of literature, seems reviving in our own. In our authorities may be found an account of his quarrels with his old master Philephus, with Politian, whom he once declared the only scholar in Italy that had any share of merit, and with others, in whose cases his provocations were so trifling, that we may be justified in ascribing the virulence of his style in controversy to the worst of sources. It is said, however, that at his death he repented of his conduct towards Politian, at least; earnestly desired to be reconciled to him, and ordered that every thing he had written against that illustrious scholar should be expunged from his works.

, or Van Merle, a very learned Hollander, was born at Dort, Aug. 19, 1558; and went to France and Geneva, to study the law. Afterwards he traTelled to Italy, Germany, and England; and, having been absent nine years, returned to Dort. Here he frequented the bar four years, and then quitted it for the professorship of history, which was vacated by the cession of Justus Lipsius in 1592. It has been thought a sufficient encomium on him that he was doemed worthy to succeed so great a man. In 1598, the curators of the university of Leyden joined to his professorship the office of public librarian, vacant by the death of the younger Dousa. He married in 1589, and had several children. He hurt his constitution so much by an overstrained application to books, that he died July 20, 1607, when he was no more than forty-nine. Merula was the author or editor of several works, some of the principal of which are, 1. “Q. Ennii annalium librorum xviii. fragmenta collecta & commentariis illustrata,” L. Bat. 1595, 4to. 2. “Eutropii Historiae Rom an Sb, libri x.” 1592, 8vo; but more complete with the entire notes of Glareanus and Merula, Leyden, 1594, 8vo. 3. “Urbi$ Romae delineatio & methodica ex variis authoribus descriptio,” 1599. 4. “Vita Desiderii Eras on ex ipsius manu fideliter representata. Additi sunt epistolarum ipsius libri duo,” 1607, 4to. 5. “Cosmographiae generalis libri tres. Item geographies particularis libri quatuor, quibus Europa in genere, speciatim Hispania, Galiia, Italia describuntur, cum tabuiis geographicis,” 1605, 4to. This work went through many editions; but its use is now superseded by the more accurate labours of subsequent geographers. Merula published several other works enumerated in our authorities.

, a French divine, was born at Beauvais, August 22, 1677. After having been a literary professor for several years, in the college of that place, he was invited by his friends to Paris, and there soon became coadjutor to Coffin, then principal of the college of Beauvais. His zeal for some points, not approved at court, particularly his opposition to the bull Unigenitus, having undermined his favour there, he quitted the college in 1728, and lived the remainder of his days in literary retirement, though still at Paris; and from this time employed himself in several considerable works. This mode of life was so congenial to his feelings, which were of a candid and tranquil kind, that he attained the age of eighty-six, and died Feb. 19, 1763. He wrote, 1. for the use of his pupils, while employed in the college, his “Exposition de la doctrine Chretienne,” 6 vols. 12mo. This work, though written with clearness and precision, contained some passages not approved at Rome, and therefore was condemned by Clement XIII. in 1761. 2. “Abrege de THistoire, & de la morale de PAncien Testament,” Paris, 1728, 12mo; highly commended by Rollin. a. “Abrége de l‘Histoire de l’Ancien Testament, avec des eclaircissemens et des reflexions,” Paris, 10 vols. in 12mo. This is also a useful work, and, as may be supposed, chiefly an extension of the former plan. 4. An edition of the New Testament, with short notes. 5. “La constitution Unigenitus avec des remarques,” 12mo, 6. “Lettres a un Ami sur la constitution Unigenitus” also in 12mo. 7: “Entretiens sur la Religion,” 12mo. This author had also a large share in the lives of the saints, published by the abbe Goujet; and in the Missal of Paris.

, an ingenious burlesque poet of Scotland, was born in the parish of Midmar in Aberdeenshire, about 1688. He received a liberal education at the Marischal college in Aberdeen, and, after finishing his studies, became one of the teachers in the high-school of New Aberdeen. Thence he removed into the family of Marshal, to be preceptor to the young earl of that name, and his brother, afterwards marshal Keith; and, in 1714, by the interest of the countess, was appointed professor of philosophy in the Marischal college. He did not long retain this situation, for, when the rebellion broke out in 1715, he followed the fortunes of his noble patrons, who made him governor of Dunotter castle. After the defeat at Sheriffmuir, he lurked among the mountains, till the act of indemnity was passed, with a few fugitive companions, for whose amusement and his own, he composed several of the burlesque poems, which he called “Mother Grim’s tales.” He appears to have remained steady to his principles, and consequently was not restored to his professorship but, while the countess of Marshal lived, resided chiefly in her family where his great pleasantry and liveliness made him always an acceptable guest. After her death, he must have been for some time without much provision, till he commenced an academy at Elgin, in conjunction with his brother Mr. Samuel Meston. He was, however, little formed for prudence and regularity, but much more given to conviviality; for which cause probably, among others, this academy at Elgin after a time began to decline. He then successively settled at Turiff, in Aberdeenshire, and* at Montrose, where he lost his brother and coadjutor. He made the same attempt at Perth, but soon after entered as preceptor into the family of a Mr. Oliphant, Here he continued till his health declined, when he removed to Peterhead for the benefit of the mineral waters. There he was chiefly supported by the bounty of the countess of Errol, under whose patronage he had formerly undertaken the academy at TuriflF. At length he removed to Aberdeen, where he was taken care of by some relations, till he died of a languishing distemper in the spring of 1745.

Meston is said to have been one of the best classical scholars of his time, and by no means a contemptible philosopher and mathematician. His wit also was very lively, and shone particularly in jovial meetings, to which unhappily he was rather too strongly addicted. His poems were first published separately, as they were written, and doubtless by way of assisting him in his necessities. That called “the Knight/* appears to have been first printed in 1723; and, after it had received several corrections, a second edition was printed at London. The first decade of” Mother Grim’s Tales,“afterwards appeared; and next, the second part, by Jodocus, her grandson. Some years after, the piece called,” Mob contra Mob.“The whole were first collected in a small volume, 12 mo, at Edinburgh, in 1767, to which a short account of his life is prefixed, whence the present memoirs have been extracted. The Knight,” and several others of his poems, are in the style of Butler, whom he greatly adinired and imitated, perhaps too servilely, yet with some success. In the second decade, written under the name of Jodocus, there are several poems in Latin, and the title was in that language. It runs thus: “Decadem alteram, ex probatissimis auctoribus, in usum Juventutis Jinguse Latinse, prsesertim verse poeseos studiosse, selectam, et in scholis ad propagandam fidem legendam: admixtis subinde nonnullis, in gratiam Pulchrioris Sexus, vernaculis, subjunxit Jodocus Grimmus Aniculae nostrae pronepos.” His Latin poetry is of no great excellence.

, the most illustrious poet of modern Italy, whose true name was Trapassi, was born at Rome Jan. 6, 1698, the second son of Felice Trapassi of Assisi. Felice, though a free citizen of Assisi, was very poor, and settled at Rome in a small way of business. His son was very early distinguished for an extraordinary talent at speaking extemporary verses; and, at ten years old, used to attract a little audience in the street by the melody of his voice, and the sweetness of his unpremeditated poetry. The celebrated Gravina, among others, accidentally heard him, and was so charmed with his talents, that, with the consent of his parents, he undertook to give him an education; and changed his name from Trapassi to Metastasio, a kind of Italianized Greek translation of the former name: and so much was he pleased with his disposition and talents, that he finally adopted him, and made him his heir.

Though Gravina had first noticed his young friend for his extraordinary poetical talents, he was very desirous afterwards to wean him from that delightful art, and fix him to his own profession of the law an attempt which has equally failed in the case of many other celebrated poets. Metastasio struggled hard to obey his patron; but his passion for poetry was insuperable, and Gravina was obliged to give way a little, and put the best poets into his hands. Thus indulged, he produced at fourteen the tragedy of “Giustino,” written to please his master, exactly on the Greek model. Gravina appears to have been so mollified by this, as to be still more indulgent to his natural propensity, and carried him at eighteen to Naples, that he might contend, in singing extemporaneous verses, with the most celebrated improvisator! of Italy. This he did with a success that confirmed and much extended his fame. The order, clearness, and learning, with which he treated the subjects, the sweetness of his voice, the grace of his action, his modest deportment, with the expression, beauty, and dignity of his countenance, gained him universal admiration. But with his poetical studies, Metastasio continued to pursue that of die law; and in order to obtain a passport to the two most promising roads to preferment ia Rome, assumed the clerical habit, and took the minor order of priesthood. Hence he is usually styled Abate.

At the age of twenty he lost his excellent preceptor and patron, Gravina, who died in 1718. Metastasio, whose writings evince him to have been all tenderness, bewailed his death in the celebrated elegy called “La strada della Gloria,” and found when the will was examined, that he was made heir to all his fortune. Being now become a patron, instead of a dependant, he kept a handsome table, at which, as may be supposed, he easily obtained guests he abandoned the law, and cultivated poetry and in about two years found himself nearly at the end of his 15,000 crowns, which had been the bequest of his patron. He now went to Naples, with a serious intention to return to the study of the law; but his instructor Paglietti was harsh, the admirers of his poetry were numerous, and, in 1721, we find him addressing an epithalamium to the marquis Pignatelli, at the desire of the countess of Althan. His drama of Endymion, the first that he produced expressly for music, was written about the same time. He went on, though partly by stealth, on account of the inexorable lawyer under whom he was studying; till the acquaintance of the Romanina, the greatest singer and actress of the time, finally determined him to quit both his preceptor and that profession which he had ever studied so unwillingly. The effect of his first opera, “The Garden of the Hesperides,” upon the audience, is described as singular in the extreme. By the beauties of the verse, the excellence of the sentiments, and every species of merit, the audience, usually noisy, was charmed into profound attention, and the whole was heard with a silence then perfectly uncommon in the Italian theatres.

From this time Metastasio united his family establishment with that of the Romanina and her husband, and lived the life of a poet, amidst harmony and poetry. Thus situated, he wrotewithin a short period, three more dramas; “Catone in Utica,” “Ezio,” and “Semiramide riconosciuta.” But it was now, in 1729, the thirty-second year of Metastasio’s life, that he was to change his country. A letter, dated Aug. 31, in that year, from prince Pio of Savoy, invited him to the court of the emperor, as coadjutor to signior Apostolo Zeno, in the office of imperial laureat. All matters of appointment being settled to his mind, he resolved, though with reluctance, to quit Italy, and his Italian connections, for this new country: and he actually arrived at Vienna in July 1730. From this time the life of Metastasio was uniform, even beyond what is usual to men of letters. He resided continually in one city, Vienna; and in one house, that of M. Martinetz: with the exception only of a visit in the autumn, which for a long time was annual, to the countess of Althan in Moravia, where he sought health from the bracing air of the mountains. To make the uniformity of his life more singular, he was naturally and habitually attached to an exact regularity, and passed one day precisely as he passed another, allotting particular hours for particular occupations. His usual routine was this, according to the report of Dr. Burney. “He studied from eight in the morning till noon; then he visited his friends, and those families and individuals from whom he had received civilities. He dined at two; and at five received his most familiar and intimate friends. At nine, in summer, he went out in his carnage, visited, and sometimes played at ombre; a game which he liked better than those of mere chance, as it afforded him exercise of mind in calculation. He returned home at ten o'clock, supped, and went to bed before eleven.” This monotonous mode of life has by some been ridiculed, and certainly would not be expected in a poet; but the varieties of human nature are endless, and in him the love of order had superseded the more common passion for change and variety. A very interesting part of the history of Metastasio, is his long and steady friendship with the celebrated Farinelli. From appearing first before the public about the same time, the one as a singer, the other as a poet, in 1723, they called each other Gemelli, or twins; and their attachment, which was of the most sincere and ardent kind, ended only with their lives, which were extended nearly to the same period. His other tuneful friend died early, namely, in the beginning of 1734, and, as a mark of her regard, left him heir to all her property, after the death of her husband, to the amount of 25,000 crowns; but Metastasio, with his usual sense of propriety, and with great generosity, relinquished the whole bequest, and restored it to the disposal of her husband.

“Whether Metastasio’s connection with the Romanina was purely Platonic,” says Dr. Burney, “or of a less seraphic kind, I shall not pretend to determine; but the husband residing in the same house with them, both at Naples and at Rome, and the friendly manner in which the poet always mentioned him in his letters to the wife, with, the open manner in which he expressed his affliction, in writing to him after her death, would, in England, be thought indications favourable to conjugal fidelity. But a chaste actress, and opei^, singer,” he adds, “is a still more uncommon phenomenon in Italy, than in Britain.” The ideas of that country are indeed totally different from those which we entertain on these subjects; and it is very probable, that the mutual attachment of Metastasio and his wife gave great pleasure to the husband Bulgarini, as an honour conferred upon his family.

In 1738 Metastasio was honoured by the voluntary gift of nobility, from the city of Assisi. In 1740 he lost his patron, the emperor Charles VI. His place was, however, continued under Charles VII. and Francis I. the successor of that prince. Through the interest of Farinelli he afterwards enjoyed also the regard and patronage of the court of Spain, for which, though he did not visit the country, he was often employed to write.

Thus lived Metastasio. Always employed in writing, sometimes by imperial, sometimes by regal command: always anxious about the merit of his productions, and always composing such as ought to have removed all anxiety. He died, after a short illness, on the 12th of April, 1782, being just eighty-four. Farinelli, aletterto whom, from mademoiselle Martinetz, gives the most exact account of his death, lived only to September of the same year. Metastasio was interred in the parish church of St. Michael, in Vienna. His funeral rites were performed with splendor by signior Joseph Martinetz, whom he had made his heir. The inheritance he left, “consisted in a well furnished habitation, a coach, horses, a great quantity of princely presents, a very ample and select collection of books, with a capital of 130,000 florins; from, which, however, were to be deducted twenty thousand for each of Metastasio’s sisters, and three thousand for each of his younger brothers.” The circumstances of his life are chiefly preserved by means of his letters, a large collection of which has been published; and they are used by his English biographer for amplifying the narrative. His correspondents are among the most extraordinary men of his time, and, in all points of view, his character was respectable, and indeed amiable. His life has frequently been written, and his works appear united in editions published in several parts of Europe. He was an enemy to that pompous, verbose, and obscure style which prevailed in his country a few years ago; and he was persuaded that the first duty of a writer, in prose or verse, is to be understood. “The style of Metastasio,” says an Italian critic, “never fails to please those who give way to their own feelings, more than persons of profound meditation; and I would rather be accused of partiality to him whom I venerate and love, than ranked with cold philosophers and deep thinkers, whom I may respect but cannot love.” He regarded “Atilio Regolo,” as his best opera; “Betnlia liberata,” as his best oratorio; and “Artaserse,” as the most fortunate of his dramas; for, however set or sung, it was always successful. To give a list of his works, as they are always found collectively, would be superfluous. Dr. Burney has given one that is very ample, and arranged in chronological order, with the character and peculiarities of each. Hence it appears, that he produced twenty- six operas, eight oratorios, or sacred dramas, besides occasional pieces, such as we should call masques, in great numbers; with cantatas, canzonets, sonnets, and every kind of miscellaneous poetry. He wrote also, some translations from classics; an excellent analysis of Aristotle’s poetics, entitled “Estrato delP Arte Poetica d'Aristotile, et consideration! sur la medesima;” with short accounts of all the Greek dramas, tragic and comic, and his own critical remarks. Few authors have been more prolific, and none, perhaps, so completely successful in every effort of the mind. It is a pleasing reflection that Metastasio was always as much beloved for his amiable qualities, as admired for those by which he was constituted a poer, and one of the most enchanting of all poets. Perfectly master of the resources of his art, he reduced the opera to rules. He banished from it machines, and other improbabilities, which amuse the eye without affecting the heart; substitnting natural situations of interesting personages, which often produce the full effect of tragedy. His actions are great, his characters well conceived and supported, and his plots conducted with address. There are scenes of Metastasio’s, says Voltaire, worthy of Corneille when he avoids declamation, or of Racine when he is not languid. Never, therefore, was patronage better bestowed than that of Gravina; and though such talents could not have been hidden, their early maturity and final perfection must be in a great part attributed to the culture and attentions of that able master.

a protestant historian, was born at Antwerp July 9, 1535. His father, Jacob de Meteren, was of Balda; his mother, Ortelia, was the daughter of William Ortelis, or Ortelius, of Augsburgh, grandfather of the celebrated geographer, Abraham Ortelins. He was carefully educated in the languages and sciences, and when a youth, is reported to have attempted to translate the Bible into English, which, says Bullart, made his religious principles to be suspected. His father, who had embraced the protestant religion, being obliged to take refuge in England, took this son with him, and gave him the choice of continuing his studies, or embarking in commerce. Emanuel, having preferred the latter, was sent to Antwerp, and engaged with a merchant in that city, where he continued about ten years, but his father had not the happiness to witness his progress, as he and his wife were drowned in their passage from Antwerp to London. Emanuel, during his residence at Antwerp, after this disaster, employed his leisure hours in collecting information respecting the history of the Netherlands; and having acquired the confidence of various persons of eminence in the government, he succeeded in obtaining much secret history of the times, which he published under the title of “Historia rerum potissimum in Belgio gestarum,” &c. It appears that he had sent some copies of this work in German to a friend, who was to procure engravings for it, but who caused it to be printed for his own benefit in Latin and German, yet with the name of the author, whose reputation he did not value so much as the profits of the work. Meteren, on hearing this, procured an order from the States to suppress this edition, which is dated 1599, and afterwards published it himself. He was enabled to revisit London again in the reign of James I. as consul for the Flemings. In this office he acquitted himself with spirit and ability, and wrote an ample volume of the treaties of commerce which formerly subsisted betwixt the English nation, the house of Burgundy, and the states of Holland. He died at London, April 8, 1612, and was interred in the church of St. Dionis Back-Church, Fenchurch-street, where his relict erected a monument to his memory, which was destroyed in the great fire.

, a father of the church, bishop of Olympus, or Patara, in Lycia, and afterwards of Tyre in Palestine, suffered martyrdom at Chalcis, a city of Greece, towards the end of Dioclesian’s persecution in the year 302 or 303. Epiphanius says “that he was a very learned man, and a strenuous assertor of the truth.” St. Jerome has ranked him in his catalogue of church writers; but Eusebius has not mentioned him; which silence is attributed by some, though merely upon conjecture, to Methodius’s having written very sharply against Origen, who was favoured by Eusebius. Methodius composed in a clear and elaborate style several works i a large one “Against Porphyry the philosopher;” “A Treatise on the Resurrection,” against Origen; another on “Pythonissa,” against the same a book entitled “The banquet of Virgins” one on “Free-will” “Commentaries upon Genesis and the Canticles” and several other pieces extant in St. Jerome’s time. Father Combesis collected several considerable fragments of this author, cited by Epiphanius, Photius, and others, and printed them with notes of his own at Paris, in 1644, together with the works of Amphilochius and Andreas Cretensis, in folio. But afterwards Possinus, a Jesuit, found “The Banquet of Virgins” entire, in a manuscript belonging to the Vatican library; and sent it, with a Latin version of his own, into France, where it was printed in 1657, folio, revised and corrected by another manuscript in the library of cardinal Mazarin. We cannot doubt that this is the true and genuine work of Methodius; as it not only carries all the marks of antiquity in it, but contains word for word all the passages that Photius had cited out of it. It is written in the way of dialogue, after the manner of “Plato’s Banquet of Socrates;” with this difference, that the speakers here are women, who indeed talk very learnedly and very elegantly.

, or Meetkercke, or Mekerchus (Adolphus), a learned writer, was born at Bruges in 1528, and passed the greater part of his life in the service of the revolted states of the Low Countries, as counsellor of state, and envoy to the foreign potentates. He was employed on an embassy to queen Elizabeth in the latter part of his life, an office which was probably very agreeable to him, as he was a protestant, and had resided here for the quiet enjoyment of his religion for some time before he was appointed on the embassy. He appears to have been an ornament and delight of the age in which he lived, second to none in literary accomplishments, and was a man also of great benevolence and amiable temper. Grief for the loss of his son is said to have hastened his death, which took place at London in 1591, in his sixty-fourth year. He was buried in the church of St. Botolph, Aldersgate, under a monument which, when that church was rebuilt, was conveyed to Julians, near Buntingford, in Hertfordshire, the seat of his descendants who settled in this country, and where some of them are still living. The present owner of the estate is in possession, among others, of a folio ms. of Greek and Latin poetry by his ancestor, the subject of this article, with additions by his son Adolphus, who died without issue, and by his son Edward, D. D. of Christchurch, Oxford, professor of Hebrew in that university, and prebendary of Winchester. He became professor in 1621, and died in 1660. Foppen asserts that sir Adolphus, as the ambassador was called, declared in writing, on his death-bed, that there was no true religion out of the catholic church, and that his daughter was so struck with this as to return to Bruges, and to the Roman catholic religion. As far as respects the daughter, this may be true, but her father certainly died in the protestant faith, as appears by the inscription on his monument, which Foppen is obliged to confess, is written “stylo acatholico.” Sir AdoU phus published in 1565, not a translation of some pieces of Bion and Moschus, as it has been erroneously called, but the first edition of “Bion and Moschus,” printed at Bruges in 1565, 4to, Gr. and Lat. It has a double Latin version with the Variorum scholia, the elegies of Phanoclis, and some fragments of Propertius. It is a very rare and curious edition. Retranslated into Latin verse “Theocriti Epigrammata,” and published a treatise “De veteri et recta pronuntiatione linguae Graecas Commentarius,” Bruges, 1565, and Antwerp, 1576, 8vo. He contributed also to editions of the “Fasti Consulares,” “Vitae Caesarum,” “Magna Grsecia,” &c. and in his political character published “A Collection of the Proceedings at the Peace of Cologne, in 1579.”

, or Meton, a celebrated mathematician of Athens, who flourished 432 B. C. was the son of Pausanias. He observed, in the first year of the 87th olympiad, the solstice at Athens, and published his cycle of 19 years, by which he endeavoured to adjust the course of the sun and moon, and to make the solar and lunar years begin at the same point of time. This is called the Metonic period, or cycle. It is also called the golden number, from its great use in the calendar. Meton was living about the year 412 B. C. for when the Athenian fleet was sent to Sicily, he escaped from being embarked on that disastrous expedition by counterfeiting an appearance of idiotism.

, of Constantinople, was one of the most learned Grecians in the fourteenth century. He held considerable offices under the emperor Andronicus the Elder, but in the reign of his successor, was banished, and his goods confiscated. He was afterwards recalled, and died in 1332, in a monastery which he had founded. He was called a living Library, from his great erudition; and left several valuable works, the principal among which are, “An Abridgement of the Roman History, from Julius Caesar to Constantine the Great,” 1628, 4to “The Sacred History,” in two books,“translated by Herve, Paris, 1555, 4to” The History of Constantinople“and” A Paraphrase on Aristotle’s Physics.“In 1790, was published” Specimina operum Theod. Metochitae, cum praefatione et nods primum vulgata ab Jano Bloch," Haunise, in 8vo.

, the patriarch of Alexandria in the seventeenth century, was sent into England by Cyrillus Lucar, to be instructed in the doctrine and discipline of our church, and to learn the English and Latin languages. For these purposes he applied to archbishop Abbot, who procured him admission into Baliol college, Oxford, where he remained until 1622, at which time he was chancellor to the patriarch of Constantinople; but on his return to his own country, was chosen patriarch of Alexandria. On his way home, and while in Germany, he drew up “A Confession of Faith of the Greek Church,” printed at Helmstadt, Gr. and Lat. in 1661. It inclines chiefly to the protestant doctrines; but catholic writers have declared themselves satisfied with some parts of it. The time of his death is not known, but he is said to have been living in 1640.

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

, a Dutch painter of small portraits, was born at Leyden in 1615. His master is not known, but he studiously imitated Gerard Dow, and Mieris. The beauty of his colouring is particularly esteemed, and he finished his paintings with great labour. His subjects were usually taken from low life, but they were all designed after nature, and represented with astonishing skill; such as women selling fish, fowls, or game; sick persons attended by the physician; chemists in their laboratories; painters rooms, shops, and drawing-schools, hung with prints and pictures; all which he finished with extraordinary neatness. They are not scarce in this country, although highly valued. By confining himself so closely to a sedentary life, he became violently afflicted with the stone. He submitted to the operation of cutting for it, but had not strength of constitution to survive the operation, and died in 1658, at the age of forty-three.

, an eminent artist, was born at Brussels in 1634. He was a disciple of Peter Snayers, a battle painter of considerable note, and his early progress gave strong promise of his future eminence. His ingenious pictures attracted the attention of M. Colbert, the minister of Louis XIV., who induced V. Meulen to settle in Paris; and soon afterwards introduced him to the king, who appointed him to attend and paint the scenes of his military campaigns, gave him a pension of '2000 livres, and paid him besides for his performances. He made sketches of almost all the most remarkable events that occurred in these expeditions of Louis; designing upon the spot the encampments, marches, sieges, &c. of the armies the huntings of the king; the assembling of the officers, &c.: from these he composed his pictures, which are skilfully arranged, with great bustle, animation, and spirit, and executed with a very agreeable, though not always a natural tone of colour, and with a sweet and delicate pencil. Some of his pictures exhibit uncommon skill and taste in composition. Frequently the scene he had to paint was flat and insipid, such as a marshy country before long extended walls; even these he contrived to render agreeable by his judicious management of the chiaroscuro, and the pleasing groups which he displayed with his figures, which, though dressed in the stiff uncouth frippery of the French court of that period, are handled with so much delicacy and corresponding taste, that they never fail ^o please. He was particularly skilful in pourtraying the actions of the horse, of which he has left behind him a number of excellent studies, drawn with great care from nature. His pictures frequently include a great extent of country, and an immense number of objects. His perfect knowledge of perspective enabled him to manage the objects and distances with the greatest ease and effect, so that the eye accompanies the figures without confusion, and assigns to each its due action and distance. He lived not beyond the age of 56, but left a great number of pictures, most of which are in France, but they are not very unfrequent in this country.

, was born at a little town of that name, situated on the river Loire, near Orleans, in 1280, and on account of his 'lameness acquired the name of Clopinel. His range of study appears to have been very extensive, including philosophy, astronomy, chemistry, arithmetic, but above all, poetry. His talents recommended him to the court of Philip le Bel, which he enlivened by his wit, but often at the same time, created enemies by his satirical remarks. He is supposed to have died about 1364. His name is preserved on account of the share he had in the celebrated “Roman de la Rose” (see Lorris), which the French esteem the most valuable piece of their old poetry. It is, says Warton, far beyond the rude efforts of all their preceding romancers. John of Meun’s share in this poem, however, is inferior in poetical merit to that of Lorris, as he had little of his predecessor’s inventive and poetical vein; but it has strong satire and great liveliness. Chaucer, who translated all that was written by William of Lorris, gives only part of the continuation of John de Meun. Some other works are attributed to the latter, which are of little value unless as curiosities.

, a learned Dutchman, was born in 1579 at Losdun, a town near the Hague, where his father was minister. At six years of age his father began to teach him the elements of the Latin language; and the year after sent him to a school at the Hague, where he continued four years. He was then removed to Leyden, and made so great a progress in literature, that at twelve he could write with fluency in Latin. He advanced with no less rapidity in the Greek language, for which he conceived a particular fondness; insomuch that at thirteen he made Greek verses, and at sixteen wrote a “Commentary upon Lycophron,” the most obscure of all the Greek authors. When he had finished the course of his studies, and gained the reputation of a person from whom much might be expected, the famous John Barnevelt intrusted him with the education of his children; and he attended them ten years, at home and in their travels. This gave him an opportunity of seeing almost all the courts in Europe, of visiting the learned in their several countries, and of examining the best libraries. As he passed through Orleans, in 1608, he was made doctor of law. Upon his return to Holland, the curators of the academy of Leyden appointed him, in 1610, professor of history, and afterward of Greek; and the year following, the States of Holland chose him for their historiographer. In 1612 he married a lady of an ancient and good family, by whom he had a son, called after his own name, who died in the flower of his age, yet not till he had given specimens of his uncommon learning, by several publications.

Barnevelt having been executed in 1619, they proceeded to molest all who had been any way connected with him, and who were of the party of the Remonstrants, which he had protected. Meursius, as having been preceptor to his children, was unjustly ranked in this number, although he had never interfered in their theological disputes: but as he had always acquitted himself well in his professorship, they had not even a plausible pretence to remove him from the chair. They used, however, all the means of ill treatment they could devise, to make him quit it of himself: they reproached him with writing too many books, and said that the university, on that account, did not reap any benefit from his studies. Meursius, thus ill-treated, only waited for an opportunity of resigning his post with honour and, at last, in 1625, the following failone- presented itself Christieni IV. king of Denmark, offered him at that time the professorship of history and politics, in the university of Sora, which he had just reestablished; and also the place of his historiographer. These Meursius accepted with pleasure, and went immediately to Denmark, where he fully answered all the expectations which had been conceived of his capacity, and was highly respected by the king and the chief men at court. He was greatly afflicted with the stone at the latter end of his life, and died Sept. 20, 1639, a* his epitaph at Sora shews; and not in 1641, as Valerius Andreas says in his “Bibliotheca Belgica.”

Most authors have agreed in extolling the ingenuity, learning, and merit of Meursius he excelled particularly in the knowledge of the Greek language and antiquities and applied himself with such indefatigable pains to correct, explain, translate, and publish many works of the ancients, that John Imperialis asserted that more Greek authors, with Latin versions and emendations, had been published by Meursius alone than by all the learned together for the last hundred years. He was the author and editor of above sixty works, many of which are inserted in the collection of Greek and Latin antiquities by Graevius and Gronovius. His “Eleusinia, sive de Cereris Eleusinae sacro et festo,” to which all who have since written upon that subject have been greatly indebted, is a very valuable work, but now become scarce. We do not know that it has been printed more than twice: first at Leyden, 1619, in 4to, and afterwards in the seventh volume of Gronovius’s Greek Antiquities. The entire works of Meursius, however, edited by Lami, were published in twelve large volumes in folio, at Florence, in 1741—63.

It seems almost needless to observe, that the shamefully obscene Latin work, entitled “Meursius de elegantiis Latinae linguae,” was not written either by this author or his son; but was, as the French biographers assures us, the production of Nicolas Chorier, an attorney at Grenoble. It probably had the name of John Meursius prefixed by way of throwing a ridicule upon the grave and learned professor. His son produced, as we have said, some learned works, but not such as to rival those of his father.

, a historian of some note in Spain, when history was mere compilation, was a native of Seville, of a family of some rank, and liberally educated. His inclination being principally for historical studies, he was made chronographer, perhaps what we should call, historiographer to Charles V. He is also said to have been a poet. Antonio has collected from various authors, his contemporaries, opinions highly favourable to his learning and knowledge. The only fault imputable seems to be that of mixing Latin words too frequently with his Spanish. He died about 1552. His principal work, for which he is known in this country, is entitled “Silvade varia Leccion,” which with the additions of the Italian and French translators, was published at London under the title of the “Treasury of ancient and modern Times,” fol. The original was first printed at Seville, in black-letter, in 1542, fol. often reprinted, and translated into most European languages, with additions. His other writings were, a “History of the Caesars,” Seville, 1545, fol. likewise translated by W. T. and enlarged by Edward Grimeston, Lond. 1623. foL 2. “Colloquies o Dialogos,” or “Laus Asini,” in imitation of Lucian and Apuleius, Seville 1547, 8vo, often reprinted and translated into Italian. 3. “Parenesis de Isocrates.” He left some Mss. and an unfinished life of Charles V.

, a Flemish historian of some note, was born near Bailieul in Flanders, Jan. 7, 14yi, whence he is sometimes called Baliolanus. He became an ecclesiastic, and finally rector of Blackenbergh, but had undertaken the education of youth as an additional source of support. He died Feb. 5, 1552. His principal productions are, 1. “Annales rerum Flandricarum,” folio, published at Antwerp, in 1561. These annals are carried as far as 1477, and have been esteemed, not only for their matter, but for ease and purity of style. 2. “Flandricarum rerutn decas,” printed at Bruges, in 1531, 4to.

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

He wrought both in enamel and water-colours, and had no competitor until Mr. Humphrey, in the latter process, produced some performances of exquisite merit: but as that gentleman soon quitted miniature painting, he left Meyer without a rival in his department. Meyer was many years a member of the academy in St. Martin’s-lane; and at the institution of the royal academy he was chosen one of the founders. He long resided in Covent-garden, but at the latter part of his life he retired to Kew, where he died Jan. 20, 1789. This event was the consequence of a fever contracted by friendly zeal, in the service of a gentleman in a contested election. Mr. Hayley says he was no less admirable as a friend than as an artist: and endeared to all who knew him by a pleasant social vivacity, and by an indefatigable spirit of extensive beneficence. “Were I required,” adds Mr. Hayley, “to name the individual whom I believe to have been most instrumental in promoting the prosperity of others (without the advantages of official authority, or of opulence), I should say, without hesitation, Meyer.”

, an eminent French historian, was born at Ry, near Argentau in Lower Normandy, in 1610. He was educated in the university of Caen, where he discovered an early inclination for poetry; and had himself so high an opinion of his talent in that art, that he thought he should be able to raise both a character and a fortune by it. But, upon going to Paris, he was dissuaded from pursuing poetry, by Vauquelin des Yveteaux, who had been the preceptor of Louis XIII. and advised to apply himself earnestly to history and politics, as the surest means of succeeding in life. In the mean time, that gentleman procured him the place of commissary of war, which he held for two or three campaigns, and then quitted it. Upon his return to Paris, he resolved to spend the remainder of his life there; and, changing the name of his family as being an obscure one, he took the name of Mezerai, which is a cottage in the parish of Ry. But his little stock of money made him apprehensive that he should not be able to continue long at Paris; and therefore, to support himself, he had recourse to writing satires against the ministry, articles which were then extremely well received, and for which he had naturally a turn. M. Larroque, in his Life of Mezerai, assures us, that he was author of all the pieces published against the government under the name of Sandricourt. They are written in a low and burlesque style, and adapted merely to please the populace. Larroque has given us the titles of nineteen of these pieces, but would not give those of others which Mezerai wrote, either during the minority of Louis XIV. or against cardinal Richelieu; “because,” he says, “they ought to be forgotten, out of reverence to the persons whom they attacked.”

By these satires Mezerai gained a considerable sum in less than three years; and being now in easy circumstances, applied himself, at the age of twenty-six, to compile an “History of France.” Cardinel Richelieu, hearing of his character and circumstances, made him a present of two hundred crowns, with a promise to remember him afterwards. He published the first volume of his history in 1643, which extends from Pharamond to Charles VI.; the second in 1646, which contains what passed from Charles VI. to Charles IX.; and the third in 1651, which comprehends the history from. Henry Hi. till the peace of Vervins, in 1598; all in folio. This history procured him a pension from the king. It was received with extraordinary applause, as if there had been no history of France before: and perhaps there was none more agreeable as to Teracity. In 1668, he published, in 3 vols. 4to, an “Abridgement of the history of France:” in which there being several bold passages, which displeased Colbert, that minister ordered Perrault, of the French academy, to tell Mezerai, in his name, that “the king had not given him a pension of 4000 livres to write in so free a manner; that his majesty had indeed too great a regard to truth, to require his historiographers to disguise it, out of fear or hope; but that he did not think they ought to take the liberty of reflecting, without any necessity, upon the conduct of his ancestors, and upon a policy which had long been established, and confirmed by th.e suffrages of the whole nation.” Upon this remonstrance, the author promised to retouch the passages complained of, which he did in a new edition, 1672, in 6 vols. 12mo. In this, however, he was so unfortunate as neither to satisfy the public, who were displeased to see the truth altered, nor the minister, who retrenched half his pension. Mezerai was extremely piqued at this, and complained of Colbert in such severe terms, as induced that minister to deprive him of the remainder of his pension. Mezerai then declared that he would write history no longer; and that the reason of his silence might not be concealed, he put the last money which he recieved as historiographer, into a box by itself with this note “Here is the last money I have received of the king he has ceased to pay me, and 1 to speak of him either good or ill.” * Mezerai had designed at first to revise his great work; but some friends giving him to understand that a correct abridgement would be more acceptable, he followed their advice, as we have related, and spent ten whole years in drawing it up. The first edition of it “met with greater applause than even his larger work, and was much sought after by foreigners as well as Frenchmen. Learned men, and critics in historical matters, have remarked many errors in it; but he did not value himself at all upon correctness; and used to tell his friends, who reproached him with the want of it, that” very few persons could perceive the difference between a history that is correct and one that is not so; and that the glory which he might gain by greater accuracy was not worth the pains it would cost."

In 1649, he was admitted a member of the French academy, in the room of Voiture; and, in 1675, chosen perpetual secretary of that academy. Besides the works abovementioned, he wrote a “Continuation of the general history of the Turks,” in which he is thought not to have succeeded “L'Origine des Francois,” printed at Amsterdam, in 1682 “Les Vanites de la Cour,” translated from the Latin of Johannes Sarisburiensis, in 1640; andaFrench translation of “Grotius de Veritate Christianse Religionis,” in 1644. He died July 10, 1633, aged seventy-three. He was, according to Larroque, a man who was subject to strange humours. He was extremely negligent in his person, and so careless in his dress, that he had more the appearance of a beggar than a gentleman. He was actually seized one morning by the archers des pauvres, or parish officers; with which mistake he was highly diverted, and told them, that “he was not able to walk on foot, but that, as soon as a new wheel was put to his chariot, he would attend them wherever they thought proper.” He used to study and write by candle-light, even at noon-day in summer; and always waited upon his company to the door with a candle in his hand. He had a brother, father Eudes, a man of great simplicity and piety, whom he insidiously drew in to treat of very delicate points before the queen ­mother, regent of the kingdom, who was of the Medici family; and to lay down some things relating to government and the finances, which could not fail of displeasing that princess; and must have occasioned great trouble to father Eudes, if the goodness of the queen had not excused the indiscretion of the preacher. But of all his humours, none lessened him more in the opinion of the public, than the unaccountable fondness he conceived for a man who kept a public house at Chapellein, called Le Faucheur. He was so taken with this man’s frankness and pleasantry, that he used to spend whole days with him, notwithstanding the admonition of his friends to the contrary; and not only kept up an intimate friendship with him during his life, but made him sole legatee at his death. With regard to religion, he affected Pyrrhonism; which, however, was not, it seems, so much in his heart as in his mouth. This appeared from his last sickness; for, having sent for those friends who had been the most usual witnesses of his licentious talk about religion, he made a sort of recantation, which he concluded by desiring them “to forget what he might formerly have said-upon the subject of religion, and to remember, that Mezerai dying, was a better believer than Mezerai in health.” These particulars are to be found in his life by M. Larroque: but the abbe Olivet tells us, that he “was surprised, upon reading this life, to find Mezerai’s character drawn in such disadvantageous colours.” Mezerai was certainly a man of many singularities, and though agreeable when he pleased in his conversation, yejfc full of whim, and not without ill-nature. It was a constant way with him, when candidates offered themselves for vacant places in the academy, to throw in a black ball instead of a white one: and when his friends asked him the reason of this unkind procedure, he answered, “that it was to leave to posterity a monument of the liberty of the elections in the academy.” As an historian, he is valued very highly and deservedly for his integrity and faithfulness, in relating facts as he found them; but for this solely: for as to his style, it is neither accurate nor elegant, although he had been a member of the French academy long before he wrote his “Abridgment.”

, a very able scholar, was born at Bresse in 1581. At the age of twenty he was admitted into the order of Jesuits, but on his recovery from an illness, he returned to a secular life again. About this time, he resided occasionally both at Paris and Rome; and at Rome wrote a small collection of Italian poems, in competition with Vaugelas, who was there at the same time; among which there are imitations of the most beautiful similies in the eight first books of the ^neid. He published also Latin and French poetry in 1621, and translated some of Ovid’s epistles, which he illustrated with commentaries, esteemed more valuable than his translation. He is also said to have been well versed in the controversies, both in philosophy and religion; and an able algebraist and geometrician. Of the latter we have a proof in his edition of “Diophantus,” enriched with a very able commentary and notes, Paris, 1621, and reprinted several times in Germany. Des Cartes had a very high opinion of his knowledge in mathematical science. Such was his fame at one time, that he was proposed as preceptor to Louis XIII. upon which account he left the court in great haste, and declared afterwards, that he never felt so much pain upon any occasion in his life: for that he seemed as if he had had already upon his shoulders the weight of a whole kingdom. He was, though absent, made a member of the French academy, when in its infancy; and, when it came to his turn to make a discourse in it, he sent up one, which was read to the assembly by Mr. de Vaugelas. He died at Bourg in Bresse, Feb. 26, 1638. He left several Mss. in a finished state, but which have never been printed, and had brought a translation of all Plutarch’s works with notes almost to a conclusion when he died.

. See Buonarroti, and Caravagio.

, a celebrated biblical critic, and professor of divinity and the oriental languages, was born at Halle, in Lower Saxony, in 1717. His first education was private, but in 1729 he was sent to the public school of the orphan-house, where he studied diviniiy and philosophy, and at the same time he occasionally attended the lectures of his father, who was professor of divinity and the oriental languages. During the latter part of his time at school, he acquired a great facility in speaking Latin, and in thinking systematically, from the practice of disputation, in which one of the masters frequently exercised him. In 1733, he entered into the university of Halle, where he applied himself to the study of mathematics, metaphysics, theology, and the oriental languages. He also prepared himself for pulpit services, and preached with great approbation at Halle and other places. In 1739 he took a degree in philosophy, and soon after was appointed assistant lecturer under his father, having shewn how well qualified he was for that situation, by publishing a small treatise “De Antiquitate Punctorum Vocalium.” In 1741 he left his own country with a view of visiting England, and passing through Holland, became acquainted with the celebrated Schultens, from whom he received many marks of the most friendly attention. Upon his arrival in England, he engaged to officiate for the German, chaplain to the court, who was at that time in an infirm state of health, and continued to preach at the palace-chapel nearly a year and a half. During this period he visited the university of Oxford, greatly increased his knowledge of the oriental languages, and formed an intimacy with some of the first literary characters of that age, particularly with Dr. Lowth, afterwards bishop of London, on some of whose lectures “De Sacra Poesi Hebraeorum” he attended. Upon his return to Halle, he resumed his labours as assistant to his father, and delivered lectures on the historical books of the Old Testament, the Syriac and Chaldee languages, and also upon natural history, and the Roman classics; but seeing no prospect of a fixed establishment, he left Halle in 1745, and went to Gottingen, in the capacity of private tutor. In the following year he was made professor extraordinary of philosophy in the university of Gottingen, and, in 1750, professor in ordinary in the same faculty. In 1751 he was appointed secretary to the newly instituted Royal Society of Gottingen, of which he afterwards became director, and about the same time was made aulic counsellor by the court of Hanover. During 1750, he gained the prize in the Royal Academy of Berlin, by a memoir “On the Influence of Opinions on Language, and Language on Opinions.” While the seven years’ war lasted, Michaelis met with but little interruption in his studies, being exempted,in common with the other professors, from military employment; and when the new regulations introduced by the French in 1760, deprived them of that privilege, by the command of marshal Broglio it was particularly extended to M. Michaelis. Soon after this, he obtained from Paris, by means of the marquis de Lostange, the manuscript of Abulfeda’s geography, from, which he afterwards edited his account of the Egyptians; and by the influence of the same nobleman, he was chosen correspondent of the “Academy of Inscriptions at Paris,” in 1764, and elected one of the eight foreign members of that institution. In 1760, the professor gave great offence to the orthodox clergy, by publishing his “Compendium of dogmatic Theology,” consisting of doctrinal lectures which he had delivered by special licence from the government. Shortly after this, Michaelis shewed his zeal for the interests of science and literature, by the part which he took in the project of sending a mission of learned men into Egypt and Arabia, for the purpose of obtaining such information concerning the actual state of those countries, as might serve to throw light on geography, natural history, philology, and biblical learning. He first conceived the idea of such a mission, which he communicated by letter to the privy counsellor Bernstorf, who laid it before his sovereign Frederic V. king of Denmark. That sovereign was so well satisfied of the benefits which might result from the undertaking, that he determined to support theexpence of it, and he even committed to Michaelis the management of the design, together with the nomination of proper travellers, and the care of drawing up their instructions. Upow the death of Gesner in 1761, Michaelis succeeded in the office of librarian to the Royal Society, which he held about a year, and was then nominated to the place of director, with the salary for life of the post, which he then resigned. Two years afterwards he was invited by the king of Prussia to remove to Berlin, but his attachment to Gottingen led him to decline the advantages which were held out to him as resulting from the change. In 1766 he was visited at Gottingen by sir John Pringle, whom he had known in England, and Dr. Franklin. With the first he afterwards corresponded on the subject of the leprosy, spoken of in the books of Moses, and on that of Daniel’s prophecy of the seventy weeks. The latter subject was disscussed in the letters which passed between them during 1771, and was particularly examined by the professor. This correspondence was printed by sir John Pringle in 1773, under the title of “Joan. Dav. Michaelis de Epistolse, &c. LXX. Hebdomadibus Danielis, ad D. Joan. Pringle, Baronettum; primo privatim missse, nunc vero utriusque consensu publice editae.” In 1770, some differences having arisen between Michaelis and his colleagues in the Royal Society, he resigned his directorship. In 1775 his well-established reputation had so far removed the prejudices which had formerly been conceived against him in Sweden, that the count Hbpkin, who some years before had prohibited the use of his writings at Upsal, now prevailed upon the king to confer upon him the order of the polar star. He was accordingly decorated with the ensignia of that order, on which occasion he chose as a motto to his arms, “libera veritas.” In 1782 his health began to decline, which he never completely recovered; in 1786 he was raised to the rank of privy counsellor of justice by the court of Hanover; in the following year the academy of inscriptions at Paris elected him a foreign member of that body; and in 178S he received his last literary honour by being elected a member of the Royal Society of London. He continued his exertions almost to the very close of life, and a few weeks before his death, he shewed a friend several sheets in ms. of annotations which he had lately written on the New Testament. He died on the 22d of August, 1791, in the seventy- fifth year of his age. He was a man of very extensive and profound erudition, as well as of extraordinary talents, which were not less brilliant than solid, as is evident from the honours which were paid to his merits, and the testimony of his acquaintance and contemporaries. His application and industry were unwearied, and his perseverance in such pursuits as he conceived would prove useful to the world, terminated only with the declension of his powers. His writings are distinguished not only by various and solid learning, but by a profusion of ideas, extent of knowledge, brilliancy of expression, and a frequent vein of pleasantry. In the latter part of his life he was regarded not only as a literary character, but as a man of business, and was employed in affairs of considerable importance by the courts of England, Denmark, and Prussia. His works are very numerous, and chiefly upon the subjects of divinity and oriental languages. A part of them are written in Latin, but by far the greater number in German. Of the Conner class there are these 1. “Commentatio de Battologia, ad Matth. vi. 7.” Bremen, 1753, 4to. 2. “Paralipomena contra Polygamiam,” ibid. 1758, 4to. 3. “Syntagma commentationum,” Goett. 1759 1767, 4to. 4. “Curse in versionem Syriacam Actuurn Apostolorum,” Goett, 1755, 4to. 5. “Compendium Theologize dogmatics?,” ib. 1760, 8 vo. 6. “Commentationes resize soc. Scientiarum Goettingerrsis, per annos 1758 1762,” Bremen, 1775, 4to. 7. “Vol. II. Ejusdem, 1769.” 8. “Spicilegium Geographies Hebrseorum exterae, post Bochartum,” Goett. 1769 1780, 2 torn. 4to. 9. “Grammatica Chaldaica,” ib. 1771, 8vo. 10. “Supplementa ad Lexicon Hebraicum,” 1784 1792, 6 torn. 4to. 11. “Grammatica Syriaca,” Halae, 1784, 4to. The following are in German: 12. “Hebrew Grammar,” Halle, 1778, 8vo.13. “Elements of Hebrew accentuation,” ib. 1741, 8vo. 14. “Treatise on the Law of Marriage, according to Moses,” Goett. 1768, 4to. 15. “Paraphrase and Remarks on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Titus, Timothy, and Philemon,” Bremen, 1769, 4to. 16. “Introduction to the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament,” Bremen, 1750, 8vo. 17. “Prophetical plan of the preacher Solomon,” ib. 1762, 8vo.18. “Thoughts on the Doctrine of Scripture concerning Sin,” Hamb. 1752, 8vo. 19. “Plan of typical Divinity,” Brem. 1763, 8vo. 20. “Criticism of the means employed to understand the Hebrew language.” 21. “Critical Lectures on the principal Psalms which treat of Christ,” Frankf. 1759, 8vo. 22. “Explanation of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Frankf. 1784, 2 vols. 4to, 2$. “Questions proposed to a society of learned Men, who went to Arabia by order of the king of Denmark,” ib. 1762, 8vo. 24. “Introduction to the New Testament,' 7 a second edition, Goett. 1788, 2 vols. 4to. 25.” Miscellaneous Writings,“two parts, Frankf. 1766 8, 8vo. 26.” Programma concerning the seventy-two translators,“Goett. 1767, 8vo. 27.” Dissertation on the Syriac language, and its use,“Goett. 1768, 8vo. 28.” Strictures concerning the Protestant Universities in Germany,“Frankf. 1775, 8vo. 29.” Translation of the Old Testament,“Goett. 1769 83, 13 parts. 30.” Fundamental Interpretation of the Mosaic Law,“Frankf. 1770-5, 6 parts, with additions, 8vo. 31.” Of the Seventy Weeks of Daniel,“Goett. 1772, 8vo. 32.” Arabic Grammar and Chrestomathy,“ib. 1781, 8vo. 33.” Oriental and exegetical Library,“Frankf. 1771—89, 24 parts, and two supplements, 8vo. 34.” New Oriental and exegetical Library,“Goett. 1786 91, 9 parts. 35.” Of the Taste of the Arabians in their Writings,“ib. 1781, 8vo. 36.” Dissertation on the Syriac Language and its uses, together with a Chrestomathy,“ib. 1786, 8vo. 37.” On the Duty of Men to speak Truth,“Kiel, 1773, 8vo. 38.” Commentary on the Maccabees,“Frankfort, 1777, 4to. 39.” History of Horses, and of the breeding of Horses in Palestine,“&c. ib. 1776, 8vo. 40.” Thoughts on the doctrine of Scripture concerning Sin and Satisfaction,“Bremen, 1779, 8vo. 41.” Illustration of the History of the Burial and Resurrection of Christ,“Halle, 1783, 8vo. 42.” Supplement, or the fifth Fragment of Lessing’s Collections,“Halle, 1785, 8vo. 43.” German Dogmatic Divinity,“Goett. 1784, 8vo. 44.” Introduction to the Writings of the Old Testament,“Hamb. 1787, 1st vol. 1st part, 4to: 45.” Translation of the Old Testament, without remarks,“Goett. 1789, 2 vols. 4to. 46.” Translation of the New Testament,“ib. 1790, 2 vols. 4to 47.” Remarks for the unlearned, relative to his translation of the New Testament,“ib. 1790 92, 4 parts, 4to. 48.” Additions to the third edition of the Introduction to the New Testament,“ibid. 1789, 4to. 49.” Ethics," a posthumous work, published by C. F. Steudlin, Goett. 1792, 2 parts, 8vo.

Of those with which the English scholar has been brought acquainted, one of the principal is the “Introduction to the New Testament,” translated into English from the first edition, and published in 1761, in a quarto volume. In 1788, the fourth edition was published in two volumes quarto. The object of this work, which is purely critical and historical, is to explain the Greek Testament, with the same impartiality, and the same unbiassed love of truth, with which a critic in profane literature would examine the writings of Homer, Virgil, &c. The first volume contains an examination of the authenticity, inspiration, and language of the New Testament. The second volume contains a particular introduction to each individual book of the New Testament. An English translation of it has been published by the rev. Herbert Marsh, in six volumes, royal 8vo. To this we may add another very important translation of his “Mosaisches Recht,” or “Commentaries on the Laws of Moses,” by Alexander Smith, D. D. minister of the Chapel of Garioch, Aberdeenshire, 1814, 4 vols. 8vo. This, says the learned translator, has always been esteemed the chef d* cewvre of Michaelis, but although a work of very great importance, demands the application of somewhat of that precautionary chastening, which Dr. Marsh has so judiciously applied in the “Introduction to the New Testament.” From Dr. Smith, also, the public have reason to expect a memoir of the life and writings of Michaelis, more ample than has yet appeared in this country.

, a learned orientalist, professor of divinity, Greek, and oriental languages, and director of the divinity school of Halle, was born at Kettenburg, in Hohenstein, July 26, 1668. His father sent him in 1683 to Brunswick, to learn trade, but a few months after, he allowed him to be placed at the school of St. Martin in that city, where the rector, M. Msering, cultivated his talents, and found him capable of instructing some of the younger scholars. An illness obliging him to leave this place, he continued his studies at Nordhausen, and in 1688 at Leipsic, where he went through courses of philosophy and divinity, and also studied the oriental languages and rabbinical Hebrew. In 1694 he quitted Leipsic for the university of Halle, where he taught the Greek, Hebrew, and Chaldeewith great reputation. Here he published, with the assistance of professor Francke, who mentions him respectfully in his “Pietas Hallensis,” a work entitled “Conamina brevioris Manuductionis ad Doctrinam de Accentibus Hebraeorum Prosaicis.” In 1696 he published another piece, entitled “Epicrisis philologica de reverendi Michaelis Beckii, Ulmensis, Disquisitionibus philologicis, cum responsionibus ad Examen XIV. Dictor. Gen.” In 1699, he succeeded Francke in the Greek professorship at Halle, and in 1707 was made keeper of the university library. He was afterwards nominated professor of divinity in ordinary, and admitted to the degree of D. D. In 1732 he was made senior of the faculty of divinity, and inspector of the theological seminary. He died in 1738, at about the age of seventy. He was author of many works besides those already mentioned, the titles of which are enumerated in our authority.

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

In the autumn of 1706, the care of the public garden at Florence, founded by Cosmo 1. was confided to Micheli, and he was commissioned to travel, not only in Italy, but in various distant countries, to collect plants, and to establish a correspondence, for the benefit of his trust. By the co-operation of his friends Franchi and Gualtieri, ^the garden was enriched from the then more flourishing one at Pisa; and a botanical society was instituted at Florence in 1717, which greatly promoted the interests of the science. In the summer of that year, the great William Sherard, returning from Smyrna to England, visited Florence in his way, and formed a friendship with Micheli, that continued till his own decease in 172S. A frequent correspondence, and interchange of specimens, took place between them, as amply appears by the collections preserved at Oxford, and by the writings of Micheli.

Micheli continued his scientific studies, as well as his bodily exertions in frequent journies. The fruit of the former was the publication of his great work, entitled “Nova Plantarum Genera,” 1729, a folio of 234 pages and 108 plates. The result o*f his journies proved but too soon disastrous. He spent near three months, from the 4th of September to the 30th of November, 1736, in an excursion to the north of Italy, visiting the famous mount Baldus, and the Venetian isles; but he caught a pleurisy, from the consequences of which he never recovered, dying at Florence, January 2, 1737, new style, in the fifty-eighth, year of his age. He was buried in the church of Santa Croce, amongst the ashes of some of the greatest men of his country, and of the civilized world, where a neat marble tablet was erected to his memory by his associates. The simple and elegant inscription was probably composed by his learned friend Antony Cocchi, to whom he always confided the revision of his Latin works, before publication, and who delivered an Italian oration in his praise, in the council chamber of the old palace, August 7, 1737, which was soon after published.

Micheli is described by his contemporaries as a man of the most pleasing, modest, and liberal manners, no less ready to communicate, than eager to acquire, knowledge. His friend Cocchi informs us, that “he was endued with a clear and concise natural eloquence; and although the poverty of his parents deprived him of the advantages of a learned education, he had, by his own application, acquired, with wonderful felicity, a knowledge of Latin.” “The writings of the most eminent botanists were so familiar to him, that he had learned to express his ideas in Latin, by no means amiss, he having a very quick perception as to any barbarous expressions.”

, an ingenious poet, was the son of the rev. Alexander Mickle or Meikle, who exchanging the profession of physic for that of divinity, was admitted, at an age more advanced than usual, into the ministry of the church of Scotland. From that country he removed to London, where he preached for some time in various dissenting meetings, particularly that of the celebrated Dr. Watts. He was also employed by the booksellers in correcting the translation of Bayle’s Dictionary, to which he is said to have contributed the greater part of the additional notes. In 1716 he returned to Scotland, on being presented to the living of Langholm in the county of Dumfries; and in 1727, he married Julia, daughter of Mr. Thomas Henderson, of Ploughlands near Edinburgh, and first cousin to the late sir William Johnstone, bart. of Westerhall. By this lady, who appears to have died before him, he had ten children.

Our poet, his fourth, or as some say, his third, son, was born Sunday Sept. 29, 1734, and educated at the grammar school of Langholm, where he acquired that early taste for works of genius which frequently ends, in spite of all obstacles, in a life devoted to literary pursuits. He even attempted, when at school, a few devotional pieces in rhyme, which, however, were not superior to the common run of puerile compositions. About his thirteenth year, he accidentally met with Spenser’s “Faerie Queene,” which fixed a lasting impression on his mind, and made him desirous of being enrolled among the imitators of that poet. To this he joined the reading of Homer and Virgil, during his education at the high school of Edinburgh, in which city his father obtained permission to reside in consideration of his advanced age and infirmities, and to enable him to give a proper education to his children.

About two years after the rev. Mr. Mickle came to reside in Edinburgh, upon the death of a brother-in-law, a brewer in the neighbourhood of that city, he embarked a great part of his fortune in the purchase of the brewery, and continued the business in the name of his eldest son. Our poet was then taken from school, employed as a clerk under his father, and upon coming of age in 1755, took upon him the whole charge and property of the business, on condition of granting his father a share of the profits during his life, and paying a certain sum to his brothers and sisters at, stated periods, after his father’s decease, which happened in 1758. Young Mickle is said to have entered into these engagements more from a sense of filial duty, and the peculiar situation of his family, than from any inclination to business. He had already contracted the habits of literary life; he had begun to feel the enthusiasm of a son of the Muses, and while he was storing his mind with the productions of former poets, and cultivating those branches of elegant literature not usually taught at schools at that time, he felt the employment too delightful to admit of much interruption from the concerns of trade. In 1761, he contributed, but without his name, two charming compositions, entitled “Knowledge, an Ode,” and a “Night Piece,” to a collection of poetry published by Donaldson, a bookseller of Edinburgh; and about the same time published some observations on that impious tract “The History of the Man after God’s own heart,” but whether separately, or in any literary journal, is not now known. He had also finished a dramatic poem of considerable length, entitled “The Death of Socrates,” and had begun a poem on “Providence,” when his studies were interrupted by the importunities of his creditors.

This confusion in his affairs was partly occasioned by his intrusting that to servants which it was in their power to abuse without his knowledge, and partly by imprudently becoming a joint security for a considerable sum with a printer in Edinburgh, to whom one of his brothers was then apprentice, which, on his failure, Mickle was unable to pay. In this dilemma, had he at once compounded with his creditors, and disposed of the business, as he was advised, he might have averted a series of anxieties that preyed on his mind for many years; and he perhaps might have entered into another concern more congenial to his disposition, with all the advantage of dear-bought experience. But some friends interposed at this crisis, and prevailed on his creditors to accept notes of hand in lieu of present payment, a measure which, however common, is in general futile, and seldom fails to increase the embarrassment which it is kindly intended to alleviate. Accordingly within a few months, Mickle was again insolvent, and almost distracted with a nearer view of impending ruin ready to fall, not only on himself, but on his whole family. Perhaps an unreserved acknowledgment of iasolvency might not yet have been too late to shorten his sufferings, had not the same friends again interfered, and again persuaded his creditors to allow him more time to satisfy their demands. This interference, as it appeared to be the last that was possible, in some degree roused him to a more close application to business; but as business was ever secondary in his thoughts, he was induced at the same time to place considerable reliance on his poetical talents which, as far as known, had been encouraged by some critics of acknowledged taste in his own country. He therefore began to retouch and complete his poem on “Providence/' from which he conceived great expectations, and at length had it published in London by Becket, in August 1762, under the title of” Providence, orArandusand Emilee.“The character given of it in the Critical Review was highly flattering; but the opinion of the Monthly, which was then esteemed more decisive, being less satisfactory, he determined to appeal to lord Lyttelton. Accordingly', he sent to this nobleman a letter dated January 21, 1763, under the assumed name of William More, begging his lordship’s opinion of his poem,” which,“he tells him,” was the work of a young man friendless and unknown, but that, were another edition to have the honour of lord Lyttelton’s name at the head of a dedication, such a pleasure w r ould enable him to put it in a much better dress than what it then appeared in." He concluded with requesting the favour of an answer to be left at Seagoe’s Coffee-house, Hoiborn. This letter he consigned to the care of his brother in London, who was to send it in his own hand and call for the answer. But before this could arrive, his affairs became so deranged that, although he experienced many instances of friendship and forbearance, it was no longer possible to avert a bankruptcy; and suspecting that one of his creditors intended to arrest him for an inconsiderable debt, he was reduced to the painful necessity of leaving his home, which he did in the month of April, and reached London on the 3th day of May. Here for some time he remained friendless and forlorn, reflecting with the utmost poignancy that he had in all probability involved his family and friends in, irremediable distress.

Among other schemes w hich he hoped might eventually succeed in relieving his embarrassments, he appears to have now had some intentions of going to Jamaica, but in what capacity, or with what prospects, he perhaps did not himself know. There was, however, no immediate plan soeabily practicable, by which he could expect at some distant period to satisfy his creditors, and the consciousness of this most painful of all obligations was felt by him in a manner which can be conceived only by minds of the nicest honour and most scrupulous integrity. While in this perplexity, he was cheered by a letter from lord Lyttelton, in which his lordship assured him that he thought his genius in poetry deserved to be cultivated, but would not advise the republication of his poem without considerable alterations. He declined the offer of a dedication, as a tiling likely to be of no use to the poet, “as nobody minded dedications;” but suggested that it might be of some use if he were to come and read the poem with his lordship, when they might discourse together upon what he thought its beauties and faults. In the mean time he exhorted Mickle to endeavour to acquire greater harmony of versification; and to take care that his diction did not loiter into prose ^ or become hard by new phrases, or words unauthorized by the usage of good authors. In answer to this condescending and friendly letter, Mickle informed his lordship of his real name, and inclosed the elegy of “Pollio” for his lordship’s advice. This was followed by another kind letter from lord Lyttelton, in which he gave his opinion, that the correction of a few lines would make it as perfect as any thing of that kind in our language, and promised to point out its faults when he had the pleasure of seeing the author. An interview accordingly took place in the month of February 1764, when his lordship, after receiving him with the utmost politeness and affability, begged him not to be discouraged at such difficulties as a young author must naturally expect, but to cultivate his very promising poetical powers; and, with his usual condescension, added, that he would become his schoolmaster. Other interviews followed this very flattering introduction, at which Mickle read with him the poem on “Providence,” and communicated his plan for treating more fully a subject of so much intricacy, intimating that he had found it necessary to discard the philosophy of Pope’s ethics. But, as in order to render his talents as soon productive as possible, he had now a wish to publish a volume of poems, he sent to his noble friend that on “Providence,” “Pollio,” and an “Elegy on Mary Queen of Scots.” This produced a long letter from his lordship, in which after much praise of the two former, he declined criticising any part of the elegy on Mary, because he wholly disapproved of the subject. He added, with justice, that poetry should not consecrate what history must condemn; and in the view his lordship had taken of the history of Mary, he thought her entitled to pity, but not to praise. In this opinion Mickle acquiesced, from convenience, if not from conviction, and again sent his lordship a copy of “Providence,” with further improvements, hoping probably that they might be the last; but he had the mortification to receive it back from the noble critic so much marked and blotted, that he began to despair of completing it to his satisfaction. He remitted, therefore, a new performance, the “Ode on May Day,” begging his lordship’s opimion “if it could be made proper to appear this spring (1765) along with the one already approved.”

Whether any answer was returned to this application, we are not told. It is certain no volume of poems appeared, and our author began to feel how difficult it would be to justify such tardy proceedings to those who expected that he should do something to provide for himself. He had now been nearly two years in London, without any other subsistence than what he received from his brothers, or procured by contributing to some of the periodical publications, particularly the British and St. James’s Magazines. All this was scanty and precarious, and his hopes of greater advantages from his poetical efforts were considerably damped by the fastidious opinions of the noble critic who had voluntarily undertaken to be his tutor. It now occurred to Mickle to try whether his lordship might not serve him more essentially as a patron; and having still some intention of going to Jamaica, he took the liberty to request his lordship’s recommendation to his brother William Henry Lyttelton, esq. who was then governor of that island. This produced an interview, in which lord Lyttelton intimated that a recommendation to his brother would be of no real use, as the governor’s patronage was generally bespoke long before vacancies take place; he promised, however, to recommend Mickle to the merchants, and to one of them then in London, whom he expected to see very soon. He also hinted that a clerkship at home would be desireable, as England was the place for Mickle, but repressed all hopes from this scheme, by adding, that as he (lord Lyttelton) was in opposition, he could ask no favours. He then mentioned the East Indies, as a place where perhaps he could be of service; and after much conversation on these various schemes, concluded with a promise, which probably appeared to his client as a kind of anti-climax, that he would aid the sale of his “Odes” with his good opinion when they should be published.

This was the last interview Mickle had with his lordship. He afterwards renewed the subject in the way of correspondence, but received so little encouragement, that he was at length compelled, although much against the fond opinion he had formed of his lordship’s zeal in his cause, to give up all thoughts of succeeding by his means. It cannot be doubted that he felt this disappointment very acutely, but whether he thought, upon more mature reflection, that he had not sufficient claims on lord Lyttelton’s patronage, that his lordship could not be expected to provide for every one who 'solicited his opinion, or that he was really unable to befriend him according to his honest professions, it is certain that he betrayed no coarse resentment, and always spoke, respectfully of the advantages he had derived from his critical opinions. The conclusion of their correspondence, indeed, was in some respect owing to Mickle himself. Lord Lyttelton so far kept his word as to write to his brother in his favour at the time when Mickle was bent on going to Jamaica, but the latter had, in the mean time, “in order to avoid the dangers attending an uncertainty,” accepted the offer of going as a merchant’s clerk to Carolina, a scheme which, being delayed by some accident, he gave up for a situation more agreeable to his taste, that of corrector of the Clarendon press at Oxford.

To whom he owed this appointment we are not told. As it is a situation, however, of moderate emolument, and dependant on the printer employed, it required no extraordinary interference of friends. He was already known to the Wartons, and it is not improbable that their mentioning him to Jackson, the printer, would be sufficient. He removed to Oxford in 1765; and in 1767, published “The Concubine,” in the manner of Spenser, which brought him into more notice than any thing he had yet written, and was attributed to some of the highest names on the list of living poets, while he concealed his being the author. It may here be noticed, that when he published a second edition in 1778, he changed the name to “Sir Martyn,” as “The Concubine” conveyed a very improper idea both of the subject and spirit of the poem. Living now in a society from which some of the ablest defenders of Christianity have risen, he was induced to take up his pen in its defence, by attacking a “Translation of the New Testament” published by the late Dr. Harwood. Mickle’s pamphlet was entitled “A Letter to Dr. Harwood, wherein some of his evasive glosses, false translations, and blundering criticisms, in support of the Arian heresy, contained in his liberal translation of the New Testament, are pointed out and confuted.” Harwood had laid himself so open to ridicule as well as confutation by his foolish translation, that perhaps there was no great merit in exposing what it was scarcely possible to read with gravity; but our author, while he employed rather more severity than was necessary on this part of his subject, engaged in the vindication of the doctrine of the Triraity with the acuteness of a man who had carefully studied the controversy, and considered the established opinion as a matter of essential importance. This was followed by another attempt to vindicate revealed religion from the hostility of the deists, entitled “Voltaire in the Shades, or Dialogues on the Deistical Controversy.”

In 1772, he formed that collection of fugitive poetry, which was published in four volumes by George Pearch, bookseller, as a continuation of Dodsley’s collection. In this Mickle inserted his “Hengist and Mey,” and the “Elegy on Mary queen of Scots.” He contributed about the same time other occasional pieces, both in prose and verse, to the periodical publications, when he could spare leisure from his engagements at the Clarendon press, and from a more important design which he had long revolved in his mind, and had now the resolution to carry into execution in preference to every other employment. This was his justly celebrated translation of the “Lusiad” of Camoens, a poem which he is said to have read when a boy in Castera’s French translation, and which at no great distance of time he determined to familiarize to the English, reader. For this purpose he studied the Portuguese language, and the history of the poem and of its author, and without greatly over-rating the genius of Camoens, dwelt on the beauties of the “Lusiad,” until he caught the author’s spirit, and became confident that he could transfuse it into English with equal honour to his original andto himself. But as it was necessary that the attention of the English public should be drawn to a poem at this time very little known, he first published proposals for his translation to be printed by subscription, and afterwards sent a small specimen of the fifth book to be inserted in the Gentleman’s Magazine, which was then, as now, the common vehicle of literary communications. This appeared in the Magazine for March 1771, and a few months after he printed at Oxford the first boo.k of the “Lusiad.” These specimens were received with indulgence sufficient to encourage him to prosecute his undertaking with spirit; and that he might enjoy the advantages of leisure and quiet, he relinquished his situation at the Clarendon press, and retired to an old mansion occupied by a Mr. Tomkins, a farmer at Forrest- hill, about five miles from Oxford. Here be remained until the end of 1775, at which time he was enabled to complete his engagement with his numerous subscribers, and publish the work complete in a quarto volume printed at Oxford.

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

Soon after the publication of the “Lusiad,” he returned to London, and was advised by some who probably in this instance consulted his fame less than his immediate interest, to write a tragedy, The story of his tragedy, which was entitled “The Siege of Marseilles,” was taken from the French history in the reign of Francis I. When completed, his friends recommended it to Garrick, wbo allowed its general merit, but complained of the want of stage effect, and recommended him to take the advice of Dr. Warton. This able critic was accordingly called in, with his brother Thomas, and with Home the author of “Douglas.” In compliance with their opinion, Mickle made great alterations, and Thomas Warton earnestly recommended the tragedy to Garrick, but in vain; and Mickle, his biographers inform us, was so incensed at this, that he resolved to appeal to the judgment of the public by printing it.

His conduct on this occasion must be ascribed to irritation arising from other disappointments. The mere printing would have been a harmless, and might have been a profitable experiment, but Mickle threatened to go farther. Having been told by some officious person that Garrick had followed his refusal by sentiments of personal disrespect, he was so enraged as to threaten to write a new “Dunciad,” of which Garrick should be the hero. His more sensible friends naturally took the alarm at a threat so impotent, and persuaded him to lay aside his design. Yet he drew up an angry preface, and sent a copy of it to Mr. Garrick. It is unnecessary to say more of this play, than that it was afterwards rejected by Mr. Harris and Mr. Sheridan.

The first edition of the “Lusiad,” consisting of a thousand copies, had so rapid a sale, that a second edition, with improvements, was published in June 177S. About the same time, as he had yet no regular provision, some means were employed, but ineffectually, to procure him a pension from the crown, as a man of letters. Dr. Lowth, then bishop of London, had more than once intimated, that he was ready to admit him into holy orders, and provide for him; but Mickle refused the offer, lest his hitherto uniform support of revealed religion should be imputed to interested motives. This offer was highly honourable to him, as it must have proceeded from a knowledge of the excellence of his character, and the probable advantages which the church must have derived from the accession of such a member. Nor was his rejection of it less honourable, for he was still poor. Although he had received nearly a thousand pounds from the sale and for the copyright of the “Lusiad,” he appropriated all of that sum which he could spare from his immediate necessities to the payment of his debts, and the maintenance of his sisters, He now issued proposals for printing an edition of his original poems, by subscription, in quarto, at one guinea each copy. For this he had the encouragement of many friends, and probably the result, would have been very advantageous, but the steady friendship of the late commodore Johnstone relieved him from any farther anxiety on this account.

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

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

On his arrival in England, in November 1780, he was appointed joint agent for the disposal of the valuable prizes taken during the Commodore’s cruize; and by the profits of this place, and his share of the prize-money, he was enabled to discharge his debts. This had long been the ardent wish of his heart, the object of all his pursuits, and an object which he at length accomplished with the strictest honour, and with a satisfaction to his own mind the most pure and delightful. Jn 1782 our poet published /'The Prophecy of Queen Emma," a ballad, with an ironical preface, containing an account of its pretended author and discovery, and hints for vindicating the authenticity of the poems of Ossian and Rowley. This irony, however, lost part of its effect by the author’s pretending that a poem, which is modern both in language and versification, was the production of a prior of Durham in the reign of William Rufus, although he endeavours to account for this with some degree of humour, and is not unsuccessful in imitating the mode of reasoning adopted by dean Milles and Mr. Bryant, in the case of Chatterton.

In the same year he married Mary, the daughter of Mr. Robert Tomkins, with whom he resided in Oxfordshire while employed in translating the “Lusiad.” The fortune which he obtained by his marriage, and what he acquired under commodore Johnstone, would have enabled him to pass the remainder of his days in ease and independence, and with that view he took a house at Wheatly, near Oxford; but the failure and death of a banker, with whom he was connected as agent for the prizes, and a chancery suit in which he engaged rather too precipitately, in order to secure a part of his wife’s fortune, involved him in many delays and much anxiety and expence. He still, however, employed his pen on occasional subjects, and contributed essays entitled “The Fragments of Leo,” and some other articles, to the European Magazine. His last production was ' Eskdale Braes," a song in commemoration of the place of his birth.

He died after a short illness at Forrest-hill, on the 28th of October, 1788, and was buried in the church-yard of that parish. His character, as drawn by Mr. Isaac Reed and Mr. John Ireland, who knew him well, may be adopted with safety. “He was in every point of view a man of the utmost integrity, warm in his friendship, and indignant only against vice, irreligion, or meanness. The compliment paid by lord Lyttelton to Thomson, might be applied to him with the strictest truth; not a line is to be found in his works, which, dying, he would wish to blot During the greatest part of his lire, he endured the pressures of a narrow fortune, without repining, never relaxing in his industry to acquire, by honest exertions, that independence which at length he enjoyed. He did not shine in conversation; nor would any person, from his appearance, have been able to form a favourable judgment of his talents. In every situation in which fortune placed him, he displayed an independent spirit, undebased by any meanness; and when his pecuniary circumstances made him, on one occasion, feel a disappointment with some force, he even then seemed more ashamed at his want of discernment of character, than concerned for his loss. He seemed to entertain with reluctance an opinion, that high birth could be united with a sordidmind. He had, however, the satisfaction of reflecting, that no extravagant panegyric had disgraced his pen. Contempt certainly came to his aid, though not soon: he wished to forget his credulity, and never after conversed on the subject by choice. To conclude, his foibles were but few, and those inoffensive: his virtues were many; and his genius was very considerable. He lived without reproach, and his memory will always be cherished by those who were acquainted with him.”

To this Mr. Ireland adds, “His manners were not of that obtrusive kind by which many men of the second or third order force themselves into notice. A very close observer might have passed many hours in Mr. Mickle’s company, without suspecting that he had ever written a line of poetry. A common physiognomist would have said that he had an unmasked face. Lavater would have said otherwise; but neither his countenance nor manners were such as attract the multitude. When his name was announced, he has been more than once asked if the translator of Camoens was any relation to him. To this he usually answered, with a good-natured smile, that they were of the same family. Simplicity, unaffected simplicity, was the leading feature in his character. The philosophy of Voltaire and David Hume was his detestation. He could not hear their names with temper. For the Bible he had the highest reverence, and never sat silent when the doctrines or precepts of the Gospel were cither ridiculed or of with contempt.” In 1794, an edition of his poems was published by subscription, with an account of his life by Mr. Ireland. A more full and correct collection of his poems appeared in 1807, with a life by the rev. John Sim, who was his intimate friend when at Oxford, and has done ample justice to his memory; and his principal poems were added to the late continuation of Johnson’s collection.

Although there is no species of poetry of which he had not afforded favourable specimens, and many striking images and animated descriptions are discoverable in his original pieces, and while we allow that his imagination is considerably fertile, his language copious, and his versification rich and various, yet it cannot be denied that there are too- many marks of imitation in all his lesser poems, and that his fame must rest principally, where it is more than probable he intended it should, on his translation of the Lusiad. This work, which is now rising in reputation, is inferior only to Pope’s Iliad, according to the general opinion, which perhaps may be controverted. Pope has given an English poem of unquestionable beauty, but, we may say with Bentley, it is not Homer. Mickle has not only transfused the spirit, but has raised the character of his original. By preserving the energy, elegance, and fire of Camoens, he has given an “English Lusiad,” a work which, although confessedly borrowed from the Portuguese, Has all the appearance of having been invented- in the language in which we find it. In executing this, indeed, it must be confessed that Mickle has taken more liberties with his original than the laws of translation will allow; but they are of a kind not usually taken by translators, for he has often introduced beauties of his own equal to any that come from the pen of Camoens. In acknowledging that he has taken such freedoms, however, he has not specified the individual passages; a neglect for which some have praised his humility, and others have blamed his injustice. But with this exception, he has successfully executed what he purposed, not only to make Camoens be understood and relished, but “to give a poem that might live in the English language.” Nor ought it to be omitted in this general character of the Lusiad, that in his preliminary dissertations, he has distinguished himself as a scholar, a critic, and a historian.

, professor of divinity at Stetin, and a very learned man, was born at Cuslin in Pomerania, in 1597. He began his studies in the college of his own country; and, in 1614, removed to Stetin, where he studied theology under professor Cramer. In 1616, he maintained a dispute “de Deo uno & trino,” which gained him great reputation; and went the year after to the university of Konintrsberg, where he disputed again “de veritate. transcendentali.” He received, in 1621, the degree of master of philosophy at the university of Gripswald, after having maintained a thesis “de meteoris;” and, some time after, went to Leipsic to finish his studies. He was made professor of rhetoric in the royal college at Stetin in 1624, rector of the senate school in 1627, and rector of the royal college, and professor of theology, in 1649. The same year he received his doctor of divinity’s degree, in the university of Gripswald, and which he was, we are told, led to ask; because, in a dispute he had with John Bergius, first preacher at the court of the elector of Brandenburg, upon the differences between the Lutherans and Calvinists, the latter arrogantly boasted of his being an old doctor in divinity; to which Micrelius could only answer, “that he had received the degree of master in philosophy before Bergius.” He had obtained by his solicitations in 1642, when he was made professor of rhetoric, that there might be also professors of law, physic, and mathematics, in the royal college; and that a certain number of students might be maintained there at the public charge. He made a journey to Sweden in 1653, and had the honour to pay his respects to queen Christina, who gave him very obliging marks of her liberality, and who had before defrayed the charges of his doctor’s degree. He died Dec. 3, 1658.

This professor wrote several learned works, which were well received, and went through several editions: among which were, 1. “Ethnophronius contra Gentiles de principiis religionis Christianas;” to which he afterwards added a continuation, “Contra Judaicas depravationes.” 2. “Lexicon philosophicum.” 3. “Syntagma historiarum ecclesise.” 4. “Syntagma historiarum politicarum, &c. &C.”

, a celebrated English divine, was the son of William Middleton, rector of Hinderwell near Whitby in Yorkshire, and born at York Dec. 27, or, as Mr. Cole says, Aug. 2, 1633. His father, who possessed an easy fortune, gave him a liberal education; and at seventeen he was admitted a pensioner of Trinity college, Cambridge, and two years after was chosen a scholar upon the foundation. After taking his degree of A. B. in 1702, he took orders, and officiated as curate of Trumpington, near Cambridge. In 1706 he was elected a fellow of his college, and next year commenced master of arts. Two years after he joined with other fellows of his college in a petition to Dr. John More, then bishop of Ely, as their visitor, against Dr. Bentley their master. But he had no sooner done this, than he withdrew himself from Bentiey’s jurisdiction, by marrying Mrs, Drake, daughter of Mr. Morris, of Oak-Morris in Kent, and widow of counsellor Drake of Cambridge, a lady of ample fortune. After his marriage, he took a small rectory in the Isle of Ely, which was in the gift of his wife; but resigned it in little more than a year, on account of its unhealthy situation.

In Oct. 1717, when George the First visited the university of Cambridge, Middleton was created, with several others, a doctor of divinity by mandate; and was the person who gave the first cause of that famous proceeding against Dr. Bentley, which so much occupied the attention of the nation. Although we have given an ample account of this in the life of Bentley, some repetition seems here necessary to explain the part Dr. Middleton was pleased to take in the prosecution of that celebrated scholar. Bentley, whose office it was to perform the ceremony called Creation, made a new and extraordinary demand of four guineas from each of the doctors, on pretence of a fee due to him as divinity-professor, over and above a broad piece, which had by custom been allowed as a present on this occasion. After a warm dispute, many of the doctors, and Middleton among the rest, consented to pay the fee in question, upon condition that the money should be restored if it were not afterwards determined to be his right. But although the decision was against Bentley, he kept the money, and Middleton commenced an action against him for the recovery of his share of it. Bentley behaving with contumacy, and with contempt to the authority of the university, was at. first suspended from his degrees, and then degraded. He then petitioned the king for relief from that sentence: which induced Middleton, by the advice of friends, to publish, in the course of the year 1719, the four following pieces: 1. “A full and impartial Account of all the late Proceedings in the University of Cambridge, against Dr. Bentley.” 2. “A Second Part of the full and impartial Account, &c.” 3. “Some Remarks upon a Pamphlet, entitled The Case of Dr. Bentley farther stated and vindicated, &c.” The author of the piece here remarked, was the well-known Dr. Sykes, whom Dr. Middleton treats here with great contempt, but afterwards changed his opinion of him, and in his “Vindication of the Free Enquiry into the Miraculous Powers,” published after his death, he appeals to Dr. Sykes’s authority, and calls him “a very learned and judicious writer.” The last tract is entitled, 4. “A true Account of the present State of Trinity-college in Cambridge, under the oppressive Government of their Master Richard Bentley, late D. D.” This, which relates only to the quarrel betwixt him and his college, is employed in exposing his misdemeanors in the administration of college affairs, in order to take off a suspicion which many then had, that the proceedings of the university against Dr. Bentley did not flow so much from any real demerit in the man, as from a certain spirit of resentment and opposition, to the court, the great promoter and manager of whose interest he was thought to be there: for, it must be remembered that, in that part of his life, Dr. Middleton was a strong tory; though like other of his contemporaries in the university, he afterwards became a very zealous whig.

Middleton’s animosity to Bentley did not end here. The latter having in 1720 published “Proposals for a new edition of the Greek Testament, and Latin Version,” Middleton, the following year, published, 5. “Remarks, Paragraph by Paragraph, upon the Proposals, &c.” and at setting out, “only desires his readers to believe, that they were not drawn from him by personal spleen or envy to the author of them, but by a serious conviction, that he had neither talents nor materials proper for the work he had undertaken.” Middleton might believe himself sincere in all this, but no such conclusion can be drawn from the pamphlet, which carries every proof of malignant arrogance. The very motto which he borrowed from one of Burmairs orations, “Doctus criticus & adsuetus urere, secare, inclementer omnis generis librns tractare, apices, syllabas,” &c. implies the utmost personal animosity, and could have been thought “happily chosen,” only at a time when Bentley’s temper was better known than his learning. Bentley defended his “Proposals” against these “Remarks,” which, however, he dkl not ascribe to Middleton, but to Dr. Colbatch, a learned fellow of his college, and casuistical professor of divinity in the university. It has been said that he very well knew the true author, but was resolved to dissemble it, for the double pleasure it would give him, of abusing Colbatch, and shewing his contempt of Middleton. His treatment of Colbatch, however, being as unjustifiable as that which he had received from Dr. Middleton, provoked the vice-chancellor and heads of the university, at a meeting in Feb. 1721, to pronounce his book a most scandalous and malicious libel, and they resolved to inflict a proper censure upon the author, as soon as he should be discovered: for no names had yet appeared in the controversy. Middleton then published, with his name, an 'answer to Bentley’s Defence, entitled,

6. “Some farther Remarks, Paragraph by Paragraph, upon Proposals lately published for a new edition of a Greek and Latin Testament, by Richard Bentley,” 1721. His motto was again chosen in the same contemptuous spirit, “Occupatus ille eruditione secularium literarum, scripturas omi)ino sanctas ignoraverit,” c. Hieron. These two pieces against Bentley were thought to be written with great acuteness and learning; but if, as asserted, they prevented the intended publication, whoever can appreciate Bentley’s talents will agree that acuteness and learning were never worse employed.

Upon the great enlargement of the public library at Cambridge, by the addition of bishop Moore’s books, which had been purchased by the king at 6000l. and presented to the university, the erection of a new office there, that of principal librarian, was first voted, and then conferred upon Dr. Middleton: who, to shew himself worthy of it, published, in 1723, a little piece with this title,

7. “Bibliothecae Cantabrigiensis ordinandae methodus quaedam, quam domino procancellario senatuique acaclemico considerandam & perficiendam, officii & pietatis ergo proponit.” The plan is allowed to be judicious, and the whole performance expressed in elegant Latin. In his dedication, however, to the vice-chancellor, in which he alluded to the contest between the university and Dr. Bentley, he made use of some incautious words against the jurisdiction of the court of King’s-bench, for which he was prosecuted, but dismissed with an easy fine. Soon after this publication, having had the misfortune to lose his wife, Dr. Midclleton, not then himself in a good state of health, owing to some experiments he had been making to prevent his growing fat, travelled through France into Italy, along with lord Coleraine, an able antiquary, and arrived at Rome early in 1724. Here, though his character and profession were well known, he was treated with particular respect by persons of the first distinction both in church and state. The author of the account of his life in the “Biographia Britannica,” relates, that when Middleton first arrived at Rome, he met with an accident, which provoked him not a little. “Dr. Middleton,” says he, “made use of his character of principal librarian, to get himself introduced to his brother librarian at the Vatican; who received him with great politeness; but, upon his mentioning Cambridge, said he did not knowbefore that there was any university in England of that name, and at the same time took notice, that he was no stranger to that of Oxford, for which he expressed a great esteem. This touched the honour of our new librarian, who took some pains to convince his brother not only of the real existence, but of the real dignity of his university of Cambridge. At last the keeper of the Vatican acknowledged, that, upon recollection, he had indeed heard of a celebrated school in England of that name, which was a kind of nursery, where youth were educated and prepared for their admission at Oxford; and Dr. Middleton left him at present in that sentiment. But this unexpected indignity put him upon his mettle, and made him resolve to support his residence at Rome in such a manner, as should be a credit to his station at Cambridge; and accordingly he agreed to give 400l. per annum for a hotel, with all accommodations, fit for the reception of those of the first rank in Rome: which, joined to his great fondness for antiques, occasioned him to trespass a little upon his fortune.” Part of this story seems not very probable.

He returned through Paris towards the end of 1725, and arrived at Cambridge before Christmas. He had not been long employed in his study, before he incurred the displeasure of the whole medical faculty, by the publication of a tract, entitled, 8. “De medicorum apud veteres Romanos degentiiuu coiulitione dissertatio qua, contra viros celeberrimos Jacobutn Sponimn &, Richardum Meadium, servilem atque ignobilem earn fuisse ostenditur,” Cant. 1726. Mead had just before published an Harveian Oration, in which he had defended the dignity of his profession: so that this seeming attempt of Middleton to degrade it, was considered by the faculty as an open attack upon their order. Much resentment was shewn, and some pamphlets were published: one particularly with the title of “Responsio,” of which the late professor Ward of Gresham-college was the author. Ward was supposed to be chosen by Mead himself for this task: for his book was published under Mead’s inspection, and at his expence. Middleton defended his dissertation in a new publication entitled, 9. “Dissertations, &e. contra anonymos quosdam notarum brevium, responsionis, atque animadversionis auctores, defensio, Pars prima, 1727.” The purpose of this tract seems to have been, not to pursue the controversy, for he enters little into it, but to extricate himself from it with as good a grace as he could: for nothing more was published about it, and the two doctors, Mead and Middleton, without troubling themselves to decide the question, became afterwards very good friends. A “Pars secunda,” however, was actually written, and printed for private circulation, after his death, by Dr. Heberden, in 1761, 4to. In 1729 Middleton published, 10. “A Letter from Rome, shewing an exact Conformity between Popery and Paganism: or, the Religion of the present Romans derived from that of their Heathen Ancestors.” This letter, though written with great politeness, good sense, and learning, yet drew upon the author the displeasure of some even of our own church; because he attacked in it the Popish miracles with that general spirit of incredulity and levity, which seemed, in their opinion, to condemn all miracles. In his second edition he endeavoured to obviate this objection, by an -express declaration in favour of the Jewish and Christian miracles, to which perhaps more credit was given now than afterwards. A fourth edition came out in 1741, 8vo, to which were added, 1. “A prefatory Discourse, containing an Answer to the Writer of a Popish book, entitled, The Catholic Christian instructed, &c. with many new facts and testimonies, in farther confirmation of the general Argument of the Letter:” and, 2. “A Postscript, in which Mr. Warburton’s opinion concerning the Paganism of Rome is particularly considered.” Hitherto certainly the opinion of the world was generally in his favour, and many thought that he had done great service to Protestantism, by exposing the absurdities and impostures of Popery. He had also several personal qualities, which recommended him; he was an excellent scholar, an elegant writer, a very polite man, and a general favourite with the public, as well as with the community in which he lived; but an affair now happened, which ruined all his hopes, proved fatal to his views of preferment, and disgraced him with his countrymen as long as he lived.

About the beginning of 1730, was published Tindal’s famous book called “Christianity as old as the Creation:” the design of which was to destroy revelation, and to establish natural religion in its stead. Many writers entered into controversy againsMt, and, among the rest, the wellknown Waterland, who published a “Vindication of Scripture,” &c. Middleton, not lik.ng his manner of vindicating Scripture, addressed, 11. “A letter to him, containing some remarks on it, together with the sketch, or plan, of another answer to TindaPs book,” 1731. Two things, we are told, contributed to make this performance obnoxious to the clergy; first, the popular character of Waterland, who was then at the head of the champions for orthodoxy, yet whom Middleton, instead of reverencing, had ventured to treat with the utmost contempt and severity; secondly, the very free things that himself had asserted, and especially his manner of saying them. His name was not put to the tract, n'or was it known for some time who was the author of it. While Waterland continued to publish more parts of “Scripture vindicated,” &c. Pearce, bishop of Rochester, took up the contest in his behalf; which drew from Middleton, 12. “A Defence of the Letter to Dr. Waterland against the false and frivolous Cavils of the Author of the Reply,” 1731. Pearce replied to this “Defence,” and treated him, as he had done before, as an infidel, or enemy to Christianity in disguise; who, under the pretext of defence, meant nothing less than subversion. Middleton was now known to be the author of the letter; and he was very near being stripped of his degrees, and of all his connections with the university. But this was deferred, upon a promise that he would make all reasonable satisfaction, and explain himself in such a manner, as, if possible, to remove every objection. This he* attempted to do in, 13. “Some Remarks on Dr. Pearce’s second Reply, &c. wherein the author’s sentiments, as to all the principal points in dispute, are fully and clearly explained in the manner that had been promised,” 1732: and he at least effected so much by this piece, that he was suffered to be quiet, and to remain in statu quo; though his character as a divine ever after lay under suspicion, and he was reproached by some of the more zealous clergy, by Venn in particular, with downright apostacy. There was also published, in 1733, an anonymous pamphlet, entitled, “Observations addressed to the author of the Letter, to Dr. Waterland” which was written by Dr. Williams, public orator of the university and to which Middleton replied in, 14. “Some remarks,” &c. The purpose of Williams was to prove Middleton an infidel that his letter ought to be burnt, and himself banished and he then presses him to confess and recant in form.“But,” says Middleton, “I have nothing to recant on the occasion nothing to confess, but the same four articles that I have already confessed first, that the Jews borrowed some of their customs from Egypt secondly, that the Egyptians were possessed of arts and learning in Moses’s time; thirdly, that the primitive writers, in vindicating Scripture, found it necessary sometimes to recur to allegory; fourthly, that the Scriptures are not of absolute and universal inspiration. These are the only crimes that I have been guilty of against religion: and by reducing the controversy to these four heads, and declaring my whole meaning to be comprised in diem, I did in reality recant every thing else, that through heat or inadvertency had dropped from me; every thing that could be construed to a sense hurtful to Christianity.”

During this controversy, he was appointed, in Dec. 1731, Woodwardian professor; a foundation to which he had in some degree contributed, and was, therefore, appointed by Woodward’s executors to be the first professor. In July 1732, he published his inauguration speech, with this title, 15. “Oratio de novo physiologies explicandos munere, ex celeberrimi Woodwardi testamento instituto: habita Cantabrigias in scholis publicis.” It is easy to suppose, that the reading of lectures upon fossils was not an employment suited either to Middleton’s taste, or to the turn of his studies; and therefore we cannot wonder that he should resign it in 1734, when made principal librarian. Soon after this, he married a second time, Mary, the daughter of the rev. Conyers Place, of Dorchester; and upon her death, which happened but a few years before his own, a third, who was Anne, the daughter of John Powglf, esq. of Boughroya, Radnorshire, in North Wales. In 1735 he published, 16. “A Dissertation concerning the Origin of Printing in England: shewing, that it was first introduced and practised by our countryman William Caxton, at Westminster, and not, as is commonly believed, by a foreign printer at Oxford” an hypothesis that has been since ably controverted in Bowyer and Nichols’s “Origin of Printing,” 1776.

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

In 1743 he published, 18. “The Epistles of M. T. Cicero to M. Brutus, and of Brutus to Cicero, with the Latin text on the opposite page, and English notes to each epistle: together with a prefatory dissertation, in which the authority of the said epistles is vindicated, and all the objections of the rev. Mr. Tunstall particularly considered and confuted.” Tunstall had, in a Latin performance addressed to Dr. Middleton, questioned the authority and genuineness of the said epistles, and attempted to prove them to be the forgery of some sophist: and Middleton. thought it incumbent on him to vindicate their credit, and assert their real antiquity, having made much use of them in his Life of Cicero. “The reasons,” he tells us, “why he chose to give an English answer to a Latin epistle, are, first, the perpetual reference and connection which this piece will necessarily have with his Life of Cicero; and, secondly, as it will be a proper preface to this English edition of the letters themselves.” In 1745, he published, 19. “Germana quaedam antiquitatis eruditae monumenta, quibus Romanorurn veterum ritus varii, tarn sacri quata profani, turn Grgecorum atque ygyptiorum nonnulli, illustrantur; Romae olim maxima ex parte collecta, ac dissertationibus jam singulis instructa,” 4to and in 1747, 2O. “A Treatise on the Roman senate,” in two parts the first of which contains the substance of several letters, formerly written to the late lord Hervey, concerning the manner of creating senators, and filling up the vacancies of that body in old Rome. These letters were long after published by Dr. Knowles, in a 4to volume, 177S.

The same year came out a publication which laid the foundation of another controversy with the clergy, called, 21. “An introductory Discourse to a larger Work, designed hereafter to be published, concerning the miraculous powers which are supposed to have subsisted in the Christian church from the earliest ages, through several successive centuries; tending to shew, that we have no sufficient reason to believe, upon the authority of the primitive fathers, that any such powers were continued to the church after the days of the apostles. With a Postscript, containing some Remarks on an archidiaconal charge, delivered last summer by the Rev. Dr. Chapman, to the clergy of the archdeaconry of Sudbury.” This undertaking justly alarmed the clergy, and all friends to religion, since it was impossible to succeed, without entirely destroying the reputation of the fathers; and many were also of opinion, that the miracles of the three first centuries could not be rejected as forgeries and impostures, without tainting in some degree the credit of the Scripture miracles. They thought too, that even the canon of Scripture must not be a little affected, if the fathers, on whose credit the authenticity of its books in Some measure depends, were so utterly despised. The “Introductory Discourse” was therefore immediately attacked by two celebrated controversial writers, Dr. Stebbing and Dr. Chapman; the former endeavouring chiefly to shew, that Dr. Middleton’s scheme was inseparably connected with the fall of Christianity; while the latter laboured to support the authority of the fathers. This attack Middleton endeavoured to repel by, 22. “Some remarks on both their performances,” 1748; and, in December the same year, he published his larger work, with this title, 23. “A free inquiry into the Miraculous powers which are supposed to have subsisted in. the Christian church from the earliest ages, through several successive centuries.” Innumerable answerers now appeared against him; two of whom, namely, Dodwell and Church, distinguished themselves with so much zeal and ability, that they were complimented by the university of Oxford with the degree of doctor in divinity.

Before Middleton thought proper to take notice of any of his antagonists, he surprised the public with, 24. “An Examination of the lord bishop of London’s Discourses concerning the use and intent of Prophecy: with some cursory animadversions on his late Appendix, or additional dissertation, containing a farther enquiry into the Mosaic account of the Fall, 1750.” He tells his reader in the beginning of this “Examination,” that though these discourses of Dr. Sherlock had been “published many years, and since corrected and enlarged by him in several successive editions, yet he had in truth never read them till very lately; or otherwise these animadversions might have made their appearance probably much earlier.” To this assertion, from a man so devoted to study, it is not easy to give credit; especially when it is remembered also that Midclleton and Sherlock had been formerly in habits of intimacy and friendship; were ofthe same university, and nearly of the same standing and that, however severely and maliciously Middleton treated his antagonist in the present Examination, there certainly was a time when he triumphed in him as “the principal champion and ornament of church and university.” Different principles and different interests separated them afterwards: but it is not easy to conceive that Middleton, who published his Examination in 1750, should never have read these very famous discourses, which were published in 1725*. There is too great reason, therefore, to suppose, that this publication was drawn from him by spleen and personal enmity, which he now entertained against every writer who appeared in defence of the belief and doctrines of the church. What other provocation he might have is unknown. Whether the bishop preferred, had not been sufficiently mindful of the doctor unpreferred, or whether the bishop had been an abettor and encourager of those who opposed the doctor’s principles, cannot be ascertained; some think that both causes concurred in creating an enmity between the doctor and the bishop f. This “Examination” was refuted by Dr. Rutherforth, divinity professor at Cambridge: but Middleton, having gratified his animosity against Sherlock, pursued the argument no further. He was, however, meditating a general answer to all the objections made against the “Free Inquiry;” when being seized with illness, and imagining he might not be able to go through it, he singledout Church and Dodwell, as the two most considerable of his adversaries, and employed himself in preparing a particular answer to them. This, however, he did not live to finish, but died of a slow hectic fever and disorder in his liver, on the 28th of July, 175O, in his sixty-seventh 1 year, at Hildersham. He was buried in the parish of St.

* “Sherlock told me that he pre- bably from the same authority, sented Dr. M. with this book when first f It is said by bishop Newton, that published in 1725, and that he soon when Middleton applied for the Charafterwards thanked him for it, and ex- terhouse. Sir Robert Walpole told him pressed his pleasure in the perusal.” that Sherlock, with the other bishops, ms note by Whiston the bookseller, in was against his being chosen. This to his copy of the first edition of this Die- a man who, as Warburton, his friend, ­tionary. The same fact occurs in the declared, “never could bear contraGent. Mag. 1773, 385, 387, but pro- diction,” was sufficient provocation. Michael, Cambridge. As he died without issue, he left his widow, who died in 1760, in possession of an estate which was not inconsiderable: yet we are told that a little before his death, he thought it prudent to accept of a small living from sir John Frederick, bart *. A few months after was published, his 25. “Vindication of the Free enquiry into the Miraculous powers, &c. from the objections of Dr. Dodwell and Dr. Church.” The piece is unfinished, as we have observed, but correct, as far as it goes, which is about fourscore pages in quarto.

In 1752, were collected all the above-mentioned works, except “The Life of Cicero,” and printed in four volumes, 4to, under the title of “Miscellaneous Works;” among which were inserted these following pieces, never before published, viz. 26. “A 'Preface to an intended Answer to all the objections made against the Free enquiry.” 27. “Some cursory reflections on the dispute, or dissention, which happened at Antioch, between the Apostles Peter and Paul.” 28. “Reflections on the variations, or inconsistencies, which are found among the four Evangelists, in their different accounts of the same facts.” 29. “An Essay on the gift of Tongues, tending to explain the proper notion and nature of it, as it is described and delivered to us in the sacred Scriptures, and it appears also to have been understood by the learned both of ancient and modern times.” 30. “Some short Remarks on a Story told by the Ancients concerning St. John the Evangelist, and Cerinthus the Heretic; and on the use which is made of it by the Moderns, to enforce the duty of shunning Heretics.” 31. “An Essay on the allegorical and* literal interpretation of the creation and fall of Man.” 32. “De Latinaruiri literarum pronunciatione dissertatio.” 33. “Some Letters of Dr. Middleton to his Friends.” A second edition of these “Miscellaneous Works” was afterwards published in

* The living was Hascomb, in Surrey, which I wholly dislike, yet while I amOneof Dr.Middleton’s biographers, and content to acquiesce in the ill, I should the most furious in railing at the cleri- be glad to taste a little of the good, and cat bigots who opposed his sentiments, to have so'me amends for the ugly ashas been so blinded by the doctor’s sent and consent which no man of sense virtues, as to inform us that his sub- can approve.“If Dr. Middleton had scription to the thirty-nine article?, his bigoted opponents, the present when he accepted of this living, was anecdote may surely be quoted as a purely political and gives the follow- proof that he had very impartial deing confirmation of the fact, from a fenders! British Biography, by foir­ms letter of Dr.Middleton’s:” Though ers, vol. IX. p, 337. there are many things in the churcU 5 vols. 8vo, but for many years there has been little or no demand for any of his works, except the “Life of Cicero.”

Dr. Middleton’s reputation as a man of great learning and splendid talents may still be supported by his writings, but in his personal character, little will be found that is amiable, dignified, or independent. His religion was justly suspected, and it is certain that his philosophy did not teach him candour. He had been opposed, without respect, by many of the clergy, and in revenge, he attacked the church, to which he professed to belong, and in which he would have been glad to rise, if he could.

With respect to his talents as a writer, he tells his patron, lord Hervey, in his dedication of “The Life of Cicero,” that “it was Cicero who instructed him to write your lordship,” he goes on, “who rewards me for writing for next to that little reputation with which the public has been pleased to favour me, the benefit of this subscription is the chief fruit that I have ever reaped from my studies.” Of this he often speaks, sometimes in terms of complaint, and sometimes, as in the following passage, in a strain of triumph: “I never was trained,” says he, “to pace in the trammels of the church, nor tempted by the sweets of its preferments, to sacrifice the philosophic freedom of a studious, to the servile restraints of an ambitious life: and from this very circumstance, as often as I reflect upon it, I feel that comfort in my own breast, which no external honours can bestow. I persuade myself, that the life and faculties of man, at the best but short and limited, cannot be employed more rationally or laudably, than in th$ search of knowledge, and especially of that sort which relates to our duty, and conduces to our happiness, &c.” This, however, was the philosophy of a disappointed man. It is true, indeed, that he felt the free spirit he describes, which was manifest in all his writings, yet from many of them it is no less clear that he felt anger and disappointment also, at not being preferred, according t;o his own internal consciousness of merit. So inconsistent are even the most able men. He made his preferment impossible, and then repined at not obtaining it. Some of his late biographers have endeavoured to prove what a “good Christian” he was; he had the same opinion of himself, but it is not easy to discover what, in his view, entered into the character of a good Christian. That he was an apostate, as some of his antagonists have asserted, may be doubtful, r perhaps easily contradicted. From all we have seen of his confidential correspondence, he does not appear to have, ever had much to apostatize from. As far back as 1733, he says, in one of his letters to lord Hervey, “It is my misfortune to have had so early a taste of Pagan sense, as to make me very squeamish in my Christian studies.” In the following year he speaks of one of the most common observances of religion in a manner that cannot be misunderstood: “Sunday is my only day of rest, but not of liberty; for I am bound to a double attendance at church, to wipe off the stain of infidelity. When I have recovered my credit, in which I make daily progress, I may use more freedom.” With such contempt for church and churchmen, it can be no wonder that Dr. Middleton failed both of preferment and respect.

, a public-spirited man, and a great benefactor to the city of London, by bringing in thither the New River, was a native of Denbigh in North Wales, and a citizen tind goldsmith of London. This city not being sufficiently supplied with water, three acts of parliament were obtained for that purpose; one in queen Elizabeth’s, and two in king James the First’s reign; granting the citizens of London full power to bring a river from any part of Middlesex and Hertfordshire. The project, after much calculation, w r as laid aside as impracticable, till sir Hugh Middleton undertook it: in consideration of which, the city conferred on him and his heirs, April 1, 1606, the full right and power of the act of parliament; granted unto them in that behalf. Having therefore taken an exact survey of all springs and rivers in Middlesex and Hertfordshire, he made choice of two springs, one in the parish of Am well near Hertford, the other near Ware, both about twenty miles from London; and, having united their streams, conveyed them to the city with very great labour and expence. The work was begun Feb. 20, 1608, and carried on through various soils, some oozy and muddy, others extremely hard and rocky. Many bridges in the mean time were built over his New River; and many drains were made to carry off land-springs and commonsewers, sometimes over and sometimes under it. Besides these necessary difficulties, he had, as may easily be imagined, many others to struggle with; as the malice and derision of the vulgar and envious, the many hindrances and complaints of persons through whose grounds the channel was to be cut, &c. When he had brought the water into the neighbourhood of Enfield, almost his whole fortune was spent upon which he applied to the lord mayor and commonalty of London but they refusing to interest themselves in the affair, he applied next to king James. The king, willing to encourage that noble work, did, by indenture under the great seal, dated May 2, 1612, between him and Mr. Middleton, covenant to pay half the expence of the whole work, past and to come; and thus the design was happily effected, and the water brought into the cistern at Islington on Michaelmas-day, 1613. Like all other projectors, sir Hugh greatly impaired his fortune by this stupendous work: for though king James had borne so great a part of the expence, and did afterwards, in 1619, grant his letters-patent to sir Hugh Middleton, and others, incorporating them by the name of “The Governors and Company of ttfe New River, brought from Chadwell and Am well to London” impowering them to choose a governor, deputy-governor, and treasurer, to grant leases, &c. yet the profit it brought in at first was very inconsiderable. There was no dividend made among the proprietors till the year 1633, when III. 195. Id. was divided upon ea^h share. The second dividend amounted only to 3l. 4s. 2d. and instead of a third dividend, a call being expected, king Charles I. who was in possession of the royal moiety aforesaid, re-conveyed it again to sir Hugh, by a deed under the great seal, Nov. 18, 1636; in consideration of sir Hugh’s securing to his majesty and his successors a fee-farm rent of 500l. per annum, out of the profits of the company, clear of all reprises. Sir Hugh charged that sum upon the holders of the king’s shares. He was at last under the necessity of engaging in the business of a surveyor, or what is now denominated a civil engineer, and in that capacity rendered essential services to his country, by various schemes of mining, draining, &c. In 1622 he was created a baronet, and he died in the year 1631; since which, the value of the shares in this New River, as it is still called, advanced so much as to create large fortunes to thje heirs of the original holders. A hundred pounds share, some years since, sold as high as fifteen thousand pounds. Of late, however, there have been several acts of parliament passed in favour of other projects, which have reduced the value of the New River shares full one half. It is the fashion now to decry the company as extravagant in their charges for supplies of water; but it should be remembered, that the shares of this corporation, like those of other commercial companies, are perpetually changing their masters; and it is probable that the majority of share-holders, when their value was even at the highest, had paid their full price, so as to gain only a maderate interest upon their purchase money.

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

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

, called the Young Mieris, was born at Leyden in 1662, and during the life of his father made a remarkable progress under his instructions. When he lost this aid, which was at the age of nineteen, he turned his attention to nature, and attained still higher excellence by an exact imitation of his models. He painted history occasionally, and sometimes animals, and even landscapes; and modelled in clay and wax with so much skill, as to deserve the name of an excellent sculptor. In the delicate finishing of his works he copied his father, and also in the lustre, harmony, and truth of his paintings; altogether, however, they are not quite equal to those of the elder Mieris. He died in 1747, at the age of eighty-five. He left a son named Francis, who is called the Young Francis Mieris, to distinguish him from his grandfather. He painted jn the same style, but was inferior to his father and grandfather; yet there is no doubt that his pictures are often sold in collections under the name of one of the former.

, an historical and portrait painter, was born at Troyes, in Champagne, in 1610. He was the disciple of Vouet, but quitted his school at an early period of his life, and went to Rome, anxious to see and study the works of Raphael, Michael Angelo, and the Caracci. He there lived with Du Fresnoy, and they studied together the noble works of art which that city presented to them; they also travelled together to Florence and Venice, that they might leave no source of improvement unsought which the extraordinary talents of their great predecessors had prepared and left for their study and imitation. Mignard’s residence at Rome, which he prolonged for twenty- two years, and the style he acquired of composition and drawing by the imitation of the Roman masters, together, obtained for him the appeHation of the Roman; but to judge candidly, one would imagine that the former was the principal cause of that denomination; for his style of design savours too much of the flutter of the French school, instead of the chaste simplicity of Raphael and the best of the Romans. He enjoyed, however, a full share of favour and fortune during his life. He painted portraits of the popes Urban VIII. and Alexander VII. together with those of many of the nobility of Rome.

Louis XIV. hearing of his fame and abilities, sent for him to Paris, and is said to have sat to him for his portrait ten times. Almost all the illustrious nobles of the French court followed the example of their sovereign, and were painted by Mignard. His style of execution in these portraits is wrought up with all the false taste and pompous parade which distinguished that vicious period of the French nation; in his pictures every thing seems in motion; even. when the scene is laid in a close room, the draperies are flying about as in a high wind. With these and other defective points in his character as an artist, Mignard must be allowed to be the best portrait-painter of the French school. The king ennobled him; and, after Le Brun’s death, appointed him his principal painter, and the director of the manufactories of Seve and the Gobelins. He lived to the age of eighty-five, dying in 1695. He had an elder brother, whose name was Nicholas, a skilful painter, but who never rose to equality with him.

,or Minion (Abraham), a painter of Frankfort, was born in 1639, and celebrated for his delicate and accurate touch in painting flowers, insects, fruit, and still life. The insects introduced by him are exquisitely painted, and the drops of dew upon the fruits and flowers, have all the transparency of real water, and he would have been esteemed the first painter in this style had not Van Huysum appeared. Mignon died in 1679.

, a learned French canonist, was born at Paris, March 17, 1698. In his younger years he went through a complete course of education, and even then gave proofs of those talents in theology and general literature which constituted the reputation of his future life. After studying with care and success the Oriental languages, the holy Scriptures, the fathers, church history, and the canon law, he received his degree of doctor of divinity in April 1722. After this his attention was particularly directed to the history and antiquities of the laws and customs of his country, which made him often be consulted by political and professional men, and procured him the esteem and confidence, among others, of the celebrated chancellor D'Aguesseau. Mignot, however, amidst these advantages, which opened an easy way to promotion, indulged his predilection for a retired life, and was so little desirous of public notice that he seldom, if ever, put his name to his works; but he was not allowed to remain in obscurity, and, although somewhat late in life, he was elected a member of the academy of inscriptions, to whose memoirs he furnished some excellent papers on topics of ancient history. He died July 25, 1771, in the seventythird year of his age, leaving the following works, which were all much esteemed in France: 1. “Trait 6 des prets de commerce,” Paris, 1759, 4 vols. 12mo. To this he added a 5th vol. in 1767, that he might answer the abbé, La Porte, who had opposed his opinions respecting usurious interest. 2. “Les Droits de l'etat et du prince sur les biens du clerge,” 1755, 6 vols. 12mo. 3. “Histoire des demeles de Henry II, avec St. Thomas de Cantorbery,” 1756, 12mo, a work, if well executed, of some importance in English history. 4. “Histoire de la reception du Concile de Trente dans les etats catholiques,” Amst. 1756, 2 vols. 12mo. 5. “Paraphrase sur les Psaumes,” and some paraphrases on other parts of the Bible. He published also a few religious works, a Memoir on the liberties of the Gallican church, and “La Verite de l'Histoire de PEglise de St. Omer,” 1754, 4to, a work improperly attributed to the abbe de Bonnaire. There was another abbe* Mignot, who died in 1790, the nephew of Voltaire, and who, fearing that the remains of his uncle would not be allowed Christian burial, had him interred in his abbey of Selliere. He wrote a history of the Ottoman empire, and a translation of Quintus Curtius.

, a poetical writer of no very honourable reputation, was the son of a nonconformist minister, of both his names, a native of Loughborough in Leicestershire, who was ejected from the living of Wroxhal in Warwickshire. He died in 1667. Of his son, little seems to be known unless that he was educated at Pembroke hall, Cambridge, where he is said to have taken his master’s degree, but we do not find him in the list of graduates of either university. Mr. Malone thinks he was beneficed at Yarmouth, from whence he dates his correspondence about 1690. We are more certain that he was instituted to the living of St. Ethelburga within Bishopsgate, London, in 1704, and long before that, in 1688, was chosen lecturer of Shoreditch. Dryden, whom he was weak enough to think he rivalled, says in the preface to his “Fables,” that Milbourne was turned out of his benefice for writing libels on his parishioners. This must have been his Yarmouth benefice, if he had one, for he retained the rectory of St. Ethelburga, and the lectureship of Shoreditch, to his death, which happened April 15, 1720. As an author he was known by a “Poetical Translation of Psalms,” 1698, of a volume called “Notes on Dryden’s Virgil,” 1698 of “Tom of Bedlam’s Answer to Hoadly,” &c. He is frequently coupled with Blackmore, by Dryden, in his poems, and by Pope in “The Art of Criticism;” and is mentioned in “The Dunciad.” He published thirtyone single “Sermons,” between 1692 and 1720; a book against the Socinians, 1692, 12mo; and “A Vindication of the Church of England,” 1726, 2 vols. 8vo. A whimsical copy of Latin verses, by Luke Milbourne, B, A. is in the “Lacrymse Cantabrigienses, 1670,” on the death of Henrietta duchess of Orleans. Dr. Johnson, in the Life of Dryden, speaking of that poet’s translation of Virgil, says, “Milbourne, indeed, a clergyman, attacked it (Dryden’s Virgil), but his outrages seem to be the ebullitions of a mind agitated by stronger resentment than bad poetry can excite, and previously resolved not to be pleased. His criticism extends only to the preface, pasturals, and georgtcks; and, as he professes to give this antagonist an opportunity of reprisal, he has added his own version of the first and fourth pastorals, and the first georgic.” Malone conjectures that Melbourne’s enmity to Dryden originally arose from Dryden’s having taken his work out of his hands as he once projected a translation of Virgil, and published a version of the first Æneid. As he had Dryden and his friends, and Pope and his friends against him, we cannot expect a very favourable account either of his talents or morals. Once only we find him respectfully mentioned, by Dr. Walker, who thanks him for several valuable communications relative to the sequestered divines.

, an eminent statesman of the sixteenth century, and founder of Emmanuel college, Cambridge, was the fourth son of Thomas Mildmay, esq. by Agnes, his wife, daughter of Read. He was educated at Christ’s college, Cambridge, where he made great proficiency in learning, and to which college he afterwards became a benefactor. In the reign of Henry VIII. he succeeded to the office which had been held by his father, that of surveyor of the court of augmentation, erected by statute 27 Henry VIII. for determining suits and controversies relating to monasteries and abbey-lands. It took its name from the great augmentation that was made to the revenues of the crown by the suppression of the religious houses. In 1547, immediately after the coronation of Edward VI. he was made one of the knights of the carpet. He had also in this reign the chief direction of the mint, and the management, under several special commissions, of the king’s revenues, particularly of those which arose from the crown lands, the nature and value of which he had made his chief study. In 1552 he represented the town of Maldon, Essex, in parliament, and was a burgess in the first parliament of Mary for the city of Peterborough, and sat afterwards as one of the knights for the county of Northampton. How he came co escape during this detestable reign we are not told, unless, as some think, that “he concealed his affection to the protestant religion*;” but that was probably well known, and he was afterwards not only a zealous protestant, but a friend, on many occasions, to the puritans. Q.ueen Elizabeth, on the lieath of sir Richard Sackville in 1566, gave him the otiice of chancellor of the exchequer, and he became a most useful, but not a favoured servant, for his integrity was too stiff to bend to the politics of that reign, and his consequent popularity excited the continual jealousy of his mistress: he was therefore never advanced to any higher post, though in one of the letters published by Mr. Lodge, he is mentioned as a candidate fof the seals. Honest Fuller, in his quaint way, thus expresses sir Walter’s conduct and its consequences: “Being employed by virtue of his place, to advance the queen’s treasure, he did it industriously, faithfully, and conscionably, without wronging the subject; being very tender of their privileges, insomuch that he once complained in parliament, that many subsidies were granted, and no grievances redressed; which words being represented with disadvantage to the queen, made her to disaffect him, setting in a court-cloud, but in the sunshine of his country, and a clear conscience.” In 1582 he was employed in a, treaty with the unfortunate queeo. of Scots, accompanied by sir William Cecil.

After retaining his post of chancellor of the exchequer for twenty-three years, he died May 31, 1589, and was buried in the chancel of the church of St. Bartholomew the Great, in West Smithfield, where a handsome monument was erected to his memory. Sir Waiter married Mary, sister to sir Francis Walsinghana, by whom he had two sons, Anthony and Humphrey, and three daughters, Winifred, married to William Fitzwilliam, of Gainspark, in Essex, an ancestor of the present earl Fitzwilliam; Christian, to Charles Barret, of Avely, in the same county; and Martha, to William Brounker.

He was a very learned man, and an eminent encourager of literature, as appears by his founding Emmanuel college, Cambridge, which, by the additional assistance of other benefactors, arose gradually to its present flourishing state. Fuller tells us that the founder “coming to court, the queen told him,” Sir Walter, I hear you have erected a puritan foundation." No madam,‘ sayth he, c far be it from me to countenance any thing contrary to your established laws; but I have set an acorn, which when it becomes an oak, God alone knows what will be the fruit thereof.’ ' He had so much of the puritan about him, however, as to make the chapel stand north and south, instead of east and west.

, many years principal engineer to the New river company, a man to whom the city of London and its environs have had many and great obligations, was the son of a gentleman, and nearly related to a baronet of that name. He was born in London, in or near Red Lion square, Holborn, soon after 1680. He had a liberal education, was for some time at one of the universities, and at a very early period of life displayed his skill in mechanics. Though we are unable to fix either his age, or the time, yet it is certain that he was very young when the New-river company engaged him as their principal engineer; in which station he continued, with the highest esteem, till his death. During this period they placed implicit confidence in him, and with the utmost reason; for through his skill and labours, their credit, their power, and their capital, were continually increasing. Mr. Mill also, among other undertakings of the kind, supplied the town of Northampton with water, for which he was presented with the freedom of that corporation; and provided an ample supply of water to the noble seat of sir llobert v Walpole, at Houghton, in Norfolk, which was before so deficient in that respect, that Gibber one day, being in the gardens, exclaimed, “Sir Robert, sir Robert, here is a crow will drink up all your canal” Mr. Mill, through age, becoming infirm, particularly from a paralytic stroke, an assistant was taken into the company’s service (Mr. Mylne, the late engineer), but without derogation to him; on the contrary, though he ceased to take an active part, he constantly attended on the board-days, his advice was asked, and his salary continued to his death. Mr. Mill was of a pleasing amiable disposition; his manners were mild and gentle, and his temper cheerful. He was a man of great simplicity of life and manners: in a word, it seemed to be his care to “have a conscience void of offence.” He was suddenly seized with a fit, Dec. 25, 1770, and died before the next morning. His surviving sister, Mrs. Hubert, erected a monument to his memory in the parish-church of Breemoore, near Salisbury.

, the learned editor of the Greek Testament, was the son of Thomas Mil!, of Banton or Bampton, near the town of Snap in Westmoreland, and was born at Shap about 1645. Of his early history our accounts are very scanty; and as his reputation chiefly rests on his Greek Testament, which occupied the greater part of his life, and as he meddled little in affairs unconnected with his studies, we are restricted to a very few particulars. His father being in indifferent circumstances, he was, in 1661, entered as a servitor of Queen’s college, Oxford, where we may suppose his application soon procured him respect. Bishop Kennet tells us, that in his opinion, he “talked and wrote the best Latin of any man in the university, and was the most airy and facetious in conversation — in all respects a bright man.” At this college he took the degree of B. A. in May 1666, and while bachelor, was selected to pronounce an “Oratio panegyrica” at the opening of the Sheldon theatre in 1669. In November of the same year he took his master’s degree, was chosen fellow, and became an eminent tutor. He then entered into holy orders, and was, according to Kennet, a “ready extempore preacher.” In 1676 his countryman and fellowcollegian, Dr. Thomas Lamplugh, being made bishop of Exeter, he appointed Mr. Mill to be one of his chaplains, and gave him a minor prebend in the church of Exeter. In July 1680 he took his degree of B. D.; in August 1681 he was presented by his college to the rectory of Blechingdon, in Oxfordshire; and in December of that year he proceeded D. D. about which time he became chaplain in ordinary to Charles II. by the interest of the father of one of his pupils. On May 5, 1685, he was elected and admitted principal of St. Edmund’s Hall, a station particularly convenient for his studies. By succeeding Dr. Crossthwaite in this office, bishop Kennet says he had the advantage of shining the brighter; but “he was so much taken up with the one thing, ‘his Testament,’ that he had not leisure to attend to the discipline of the house, which rose and fell according to his different vice-principals.” In 1704 archbishop Sharp obtained for him from queen Anne, a prebend of Canterbury, in which he succeeded Dr. Beveridge, then promoted to the see of St. Asaph. He had completed his great undertaking, the new editiuu of the Greek Testament, when he died of an apop'ectie fit, June 23, 1707, and was buried in the chancel of Blechingdon church, where, in a short inscription on his monument, he is celebrated for what critics have thought the most valuable part of his labours on the New Testament, his “prolegomena marmore perenniora.”

Of this edition of the Greek Testament, Michaelis remarks, that “the infancy of criticism ends with the edition of Gregory, and the age of manhood commences with that of Mill.” This work is undoubtedly one of the most magnificent publications that ever appeared, and ranks next to that of Wetstein, in importance and utility. It was published only fourteen days before his death, and had been the labour of thirty years. He undertook it by the advice of Dr. John Fell, bishop of Oxford; and the impression was begun at his lordship’s charge, in his printing-house near the theatre. But after the bishop’s death his executors were not willing to proceed; and therefore Dr. Mill, perhaps hurt at this refusal, and willing to shew his superior liberality, refunded the sums which trie bishop had paid, and finished the impression at his own expence. The expectations of the learned, foreigners as well as English, were raised very high in consequence of Dr. Mill’s character, and were not disappointed. It was, however, atacked at length by the learned Dr. Daniel Whitby, in his “Examen variantium lectionum Johannis Milli, S. T. P. &c. in 1710, or, an examination of the various readings of Dr. John Mill upon the New Testament; in which it is shewn, I. That the foundations of these various readings are altogether uncertain, and unfit to subvert the present reading of the text. II. That those various readings, which are of any moment, and alter the sense of the text, are very few; and that in all these cases the reading of the text may be defended. III. That the various readings of lesser moment, which are considered at large, are such as will not warrant us to recede from the vulgarly received reading. IV. That Dr. Mill, in collecting these various readings, hath often acted disingenuously; that he abounds in false citations, and frequently contradicts himself.” The various readings which Mill had collected, amounted, as it was supposed, to above 30,000; and this alarmed Dr. Whitby, who thought that the text was thus made precarious, and a handle given to the free-thinkers; and it is certain that Collins, in his “Discourse upon Free-thinking,” urges a passage out of this book of Whitby’s, to shew that Mill’s various readings of the New Testament must render the text itself doubtful. But to this objection Bentley, in his Phileleutherus Lipsiensis, has given a full and decisive answer, the substance of which will bear transcription “The 30,000 various lections then,” says Bentley, “are allowed and confessed and if more copies yet are collated, the sum will still mount higher. And what is the inference from this? why one Gregory, here quoted, infers, that no profane author whatever has suffered so much by the hand of time, as the New Testament has done. Now if this shall be found utterly false, and if the scriptural text has no more variations than what must necessarily have happened from the nature of things, and what are common, and in equal proportion, in all classics whatever, I hope this panic will be removed, and the text be thought as firm as before. If,” says he, “there had been but one ms. of the Greek Testament at the restoration of learning about two centuries ago, then we had had no various readings at all. And would the text be in a better condition then, than now we have 30,000 So far from that, that in the best single copy extant we should have had hundreds of faults, and some omissions irreparable: besides that the suspicions of fraud and foul play would have been increased immensely. It is good, therefore, to have more anchors than one; and another ms. to join with the first, would give more authority, as well as security. Now chuse that second where you will, there shall be a thousand variations from the first; and yet half or more of the faults shall still remain in them both. A third, therefore, and so a fourth, and still on, are desirable that, by a joint and mutual help, all the faults may be mended some copy preserving the true reading in one place, and some in another. And yet the more copies you call to assistance, the more do the various readings multiply upon you: every copy having its peculiar slips, though in a principal passage or two it do singular service. And this is a fact, not only in the New Testament, but in all ancient books whatever. It is a good providence, and a great blessing,” continues he, “that so many Mss. of the New Testament are still among us; some procured from Egypt, otheri from Asia, others found in the Western churches. For the very distances of the places, as well as numbers of the books, demonstrate, that there could be no collusion, no altering or interpolating one copy by another, nor all by any of them. In profane authors, as they are called, whereof one ms. only had the luck to be preserved, as Velleius Paterculus among the Latins, and Hesychius among the Greeks, the faults of the scribes are found so numerous, and the defects so beyond all redress, that notwithstanding the pains of the learnedest and acutest critics for two whole centuries, these books still are, and are like to continue, a mere heap of errors. On the contrary, where the copies of any author are numerous, though the various readings always increase in proportion, there the text, by an accurate collation of them, made by skilful and judicious hands, is ever the more correct, and comes nearer to the true words of the author. It is plain, therefore, to me, that your learned Whitbyus, in his invective against my dead friend, was suddenly surprised with a panic; and under his deep concern for the text, did not reflect at all, what that word really means. The present text was first settled almost 200 years ago out of several Mss. by Robert Stephens, a printer and bookseller at Paris; whose beautiful, and, generally speaking, accurate edition, has been ever since counted the standard, and followed by all the rest. Now this specific text, in your doctor’s notion, seems taken for the sacred original in every word and syllable; and if the conceit is but spread and propagated, within a few years that printer’s infallibility will be as zealously maintained as an evangelist’s or apostle’s. Dr. Mill, were he alive, would confess to your doctor, that this text fixed by a printer is sometimes, by the various readings, rendered uncertain; nay, is proved certainly wrong. But then he would subjoin, that the real text of the sacred writer does not now, since the originals have been so long lost, lie in any single ms. or edition, but is dispersed in them all. It is competently exact indeed, even in the worst ms. now extant: nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or lost in them; chuse as aukwardly as you can, chuse the worst by design, out of the whole lump of readings. But the lesser matters of diction, and among several synonymous expressions, the very words of the writer must be found out by the same industry and sagacity that is used in other books; must not be risked upon the credit of any particular ms. or edition; but be sought, acknowledged, and challenged wherever they are met with. Not frighted therefore with the present 30,000, I for my part, and, as I believe, many others, would not lament, if out of the old manuscripts yet untouched, 10,000 more were faithfully collected; some of which without question would render the text more beautiful, just, and exact; though of no consequence to the main of religion, nay, perhaps, wholly synonymous in the view of common readers, t and quite insensible in any modern version,” p. 88, &c.

Whitby’s remarks appear to have done very little injury to the reputation of Dr. Mill, which remains still great, notwithstanding the mofe substantial objections offered byrecent critics, particularly Michaelis, in Marsh’s translation, vol. II. part I. p. 455 62, and others noticed in our authorities. The chief of these objections appear to be these: viz. that in Dr. Mill’s extracts from the Oriental versions, he has had recourse to the Latin translations of them in Walton’s Polyglot and that he frequently gives an opinion where it is superfluous and decides positively in cases where neither of the readings has a manifest superiority of evidence. To these objections no adequate defence, we fear, can be set up. After the appearance of Wetstein, all thoughts of reprinting Dr. Mill’s edition were probably abandoned, otherwise there were materials from which it might have been rendered more correct and perfect. In the Bodleian library, there is a copy, with corrections in Mill’s own hand, and some additions by Hearne. In the library of Jesus college, Cambridge, is a copy containing extracts from the “Codex Leicestrensis,” by Dr. Jackson; a treasure of sacred criticism, which Dr. Marsh thinks ought to be communicated to the public. There is also a copy of Mill in the British Museum, with notes by himself; and another in the Orphan-house at Halle, with notes by Michaelis’s father.

, professor of law in the university of Glasgow, was born in 1735, in the parish of Shotts, in Lanerkshire. He received his grammar-education at the school of Hamilton, whence he was removed, at the age of eleven, to the university of Glasgow. He was designed for the church, but having early conceived a dislike to that profession, and turned his attention to the study of the law, he was invited by lord Kames to reside in his family, and to superintend, in the quality of preceptor, the education of his son, Mr. George Drummond Home. Lord Kames found in young Millar a congenial ardour of intellect, a mind turned to philosophical speculation, a considerable fund of reading, and what above all things he delighted in, a talent for supporting a metaphysical argument in conversation, with much ingenuity and vivacity. The tutor of the son, therefore, became the companion of the father: and the two years before Millar was called to the bar, were spent, with great improvement on his part, in acquiring those enlarged views of the union of law with philosophy, which he afterwards displayed with uncommon ability in his academical lectures on jurisprudence. At this period he contracted an acquaintance with David Hume, to whose metaphysical opinions he became a convert, though he materially differed from him upon political topics. In 1760 Mr. Millar began to practise at the bar, and was regarded as a rising young lawyer, when he thought proper to become a candidate for the vacant professorship of law at Glasgow, and supported by the recommendation of lord Kames and Dr. Adam Smith, he was appointed in 1761, and immediately began to execute its duties. The reputation of the university, as a school of jurisprudence, rose from that acquisition, and although, says lord Woodhouselee, the republican prejudices of Mr. Millar gave his lectures on politics and government a character justly considered as repugnant to the well-attempered frame and equal balance of our improved constitution; there were few who attended those lectures without at least an increase of knowledge. He lectured in English, and spoke fluently with the assistance of mere notes only. By this method his lectures were rendered full of variety and animation, and at the conclusion of each he was accustomed to explain the difficulties and objections that had presented themselves to his pupils, in a free and familiar conversation. In 1771, he published a treatise on “The Origin of the Distinction of Ranks, 17 in which he shews himself a disciple of the school of Montesquieu, and deals much in that sort of speculation which Mr. Dugald Stewart, in his Life of Smith, called theoretical or conjectural history. This work however was well received by the public, and has gone through several editions. His inquiries into the English government, which made an important part of his lectures, together with a zealous attachment to what he thought the genuine principles of liberty, produced in 1787 the first volume of an” Historical View of the English Government," in which he traces the progressive changes in the property, the state of the people, and the government of England, from the settlement of the Saxons to the accession of the house of Stuart. In this work we observe the same spirit of system, and the same partiality to hypothetical reasoning, as in the former: though resting, as may be supposed, on a more solid foundation of facts: and the less dangerous in its tendency, as being every where capable of scrutiny from actual history. It is impossible, however, to peruse this, or his other works, without meeting with much valuable information, and facts placed in those new lights which excite inquiry, and ultimately promote truth. Mr. Millar’s researches were by no means confined to politics, law, or metaphysics. His acquaintance with the works of imagination, both ancient and modern, was also very extensive, and his criticisms were at once ingenious and solid, resulting from an acute understanding and a correct taste. He died May 30, 1801, at the age of sixty-nine, leaving behind him several manuscripts, from which, in 1803, were printed, in two volumes, his posthumous works, consisting of an historical view of the English government from the accession of the house of Stuart, and some separate dissertations connected with the subject.

, a political and dramatic writer, the son of a clergyman who possessed two livings of considerable value in Dorsetshire, was born in 1703, and received his education at Wadham college, in Oxford. His natural genius and turn for satire led him, by way of relaxation from his more serious studies, to apply some portion of his time to the Muses; and, during his residence at the university, he composed great part of a comedy, called the “Humours of Oxford;” some of the characters in which being either designed for, or bearing a strong resemblance to, persons resident in Oxford, gave considerable umbrage, created the author many enemies, and probably laid the foundation of the greatest part of his misfortunes through life. On quitting the university, he entered into holy orders, and obtained immediately the lectureship of Trinity Chapel in Conduit-street, and was appointed preacher at the private chapel at Roehampton in Surrey.

The emoluments of his preferment, however, being not very considerable, he was encouraged, by the success of his first play, above mentioned, to have recourse to dramatic writing. This step being thought inconsistent with his profession, produced some warm remonstrances from a prelate on whom he relied for preferment, and who, finding him resolute, withdrew his patronage. Our author greatly aggravated his offence afterwards by publishing a ridiculous character, in a poem, which was universally considered as intended for the bishop. He then proceeded with his dramatic productions, and was very successful, until he happened to offend certain play-house critics, who from that time regularly attended the theatre to oppose any production known to be his, and finally drove him from the stage. About this time he had strong temptations to employ his pen in the whig interest; but, being in principle a high church-man, he withstood these, although the calls of a family were particularly urgent, and all hopes of advancement in the church at an end. At length, however, the valuable living of Upcerne was given him by Mr. Carey of Dorsetshire, and his prospects otherwise began to brighten, when he died April 23, 1744, at his lodgings in Cheyne-walk, Chelsea, before he had received a twelvemonth’s revenue from his new benefice, or had it in his power to make any provision for his family. As a dramatic writer, Baker thinks he has a right to stand in a very estimable light; yet the plays he enumerates are now entirelyforgotten. Besides these, he wrote several political pamphlets, particularly one called “Are these things so” which was much noticed. He was author also of a poem called “Harlequin Horace,” a satire, occasioned by some ill treatment he had received from Mr. Rich, the manager of Covent- Garden theatre; and was likewise concerned, together with Mr. Henry Baker, F. R. S. in a complete translation of the comedies of Moliere, primed together with the original French, and published by Mr. Watts. After his death was published by subscription a volume of his “Sermons,” the profits of which his widow applied to the satisfaction of his creditors, and the payment of his debts; an act of juctice by which t>he left herself and family almost destitute of the common necessaries of life.

As a man, says Baker, Mr. Miller’s character may partly be deduced from the foregoing relation of his life. He was firm and stedfast in his principles, ardent in his friendships, and somewhat precipitate in his resentments. In his conversation he was sprightly, chearful, and a great master of ready repartee, till towards the latter part of his Jife, when a depression of circumstances threw a gloom and hypochondria over his temper, which got the better of his natural gaiety and disposition.

, a celebrated gardener and botanist, was born in 1691. His father was gardener to the company of apothecaries afr Chelsea, and the son succeeded him in that otfice in 1722. His great skill in cultivation was soon evinced in a paper, communicated by himself to the Royal Society in 1728, and printed in the 35th volume of the Philosophical Transactions, on “a method of raising some exotic seeds,” which had been judged almost impossible to be raised in England; and two years afterwards, he made known, for the first time, the present popular mode of causing bulbous plants to flower in water. In 1730 he published anonymously, a thin folio, accompanied with twenty-one coloured plates, after the drawings of Van Huysum, entitled “A Catalogue of trees, shrubs, plants, and flowers, both exotic and domestic, which are prepared for sale in the gardens near London.” The preface is signed by a society of gardeners, amongst whom the name of Miller appears. The work is much more than a mere catalogue, the generic characters being given in English, and many horticultural and ceconomical remarks subjoined.

In 1731 appeared the first edition of the “Gardener’s Dictionary,” in folio, the most celebrated work of its kind, which has been often translated, copied, and abridged, and may be said to have laid the foundation of all the horticultural taste and knowledge in Europe. It went through eight editions in England, during the life of the author, the last being dated 1768. This last, which forms a very thick folio volume, follows the nomenclature and style of Linnaeus; the earlier ones having beeo written on Touruefortian principles. A much more ample edition has been published within a few years, making four large volumes, under the, care of the rev. Prot. Martyn. In this all the modern botanical discoveries are incorporated with the substance of the eighth edition. Linnæus justly predicted “Non erit Lexicon hortulanorum, sed botanicorum,” and it has certainly been the means of extending the taste for scientific botany, as well as horticulture. This work had been preceded, in 1724, by “The Gardener’s and Florist’s Dictionary,” 2 vols. 8vo, and was soon followed by “The Gardener’s Kalender,” a single 8vo volume, which has gone through numerous editions. One of these, in 1761, was first accompanied by “A short introduction to a knowledge of the science of Botany,” with five plates, illustrative of the Linnaean system. Miller had been trained in the schools of Tournefort and of Ray, and had been personally acquainted with the great English naturalist, of which he was always very proud. No wonder, therefore, if he proved slow in submitting to the Linnaean reformation and revolution, especially as sir Hans Sloane, the Mecaenas of Chelsea, had not given them the sanction of his approbation. At length more intelligent advisers, Dr. Watson and Mr. Hudson, overcame his reluctance, and, his eyes being once opened, he soon derived advantage from so rich a source. He became a correspondent of Linnæus, and one of his warmest admirers. Although it does not appear that he had any direct communication with Micheli, he was chosen a member of the botanical society of Florence, which seems to indicate that they were known to each other, and probably communicated through Sloane and Sherard, as neither was acquainted with the other’s language. Miller maintained an extensive communication of seeds with all parts of the world. His friend Houston sent him many rarities from the West Indies, and Miller but too soon inherited the papers of this ingenious man, amongst which were some botanical engravings on copper. Of these he sent an impression to Linnæus and such of them as escaped accidents, afterwards composed the “Reliquiae Houstonianae.”

In 1755 our author began to publish, in folio numbers, his “Figures of Plants,” adapted to his dictionary. These extended to three hundred coloured plates, mating, with descriptions and remarks, two folio volumes, and were completed in 1760. They comprehend many rare and beautiful species, there exhibited for the first time. The commendable design of the writer was to give one or more of the species of each known genus, all from living plants; which as far as possible he accomplished. His plates have more botanical dissections than any that had previously appeared in this country. Miller was a fellow of the Royal Society, and enriched its Transactions with several papers. The most numerous of these were catalogues of the annual collections of fifty plants, which were required to be sent to that learned body, from Chelsea garden, by the rules of its foundation. These collections are preserved in the British Museum, and are occasionally resorted to for critical inquiries in botany. He wrote also on the poison ash, or Toxicodendrum, of America, which he believed to be the Japanese varnish tre of Koempfer; a position controverted by Mr. Ellis, who appears to have been in the right, and this may account for a certain degree of ill humour betrayed by Mr. Miller in the course of the dispute.

Miller continued to attend to his duties and his favourite pursuits to an advanced age, but was obliged at length, by his infirmities, to resign the charge of the garden. He died soon after, at Chelsea, December 18, 1771, in his eighty-first year, and was interred in the burying-ground in the King’s road, with his wife, by whom he had, if we mistake not, several children. One of them, Mr. Charles Miller, who spent some time in the East Indies, where he acquired a handsome fortune, made some experiments on the cultivation of wheat, an account of which was given by Dr. Watson to the Royal Society. They were intended to shew the wonderful produce to be obtained by division and transplantation, and have often been repeated. An account of the island of Sumatra, by Mr. C. Miller, is printed in vol. LXVIII. of the Philosophical Transactions. The sister of Philip Miller married Ehret, and left one son. In the course of his residence at Chelsea, Miller collected, principally from the garden, an ample herbarium, which was purchased by sir Joseph Banks.

, a very worthy and intelligent bookseller, and well known to men of literary curiosity for upwards of half a century, at his residence at Bungay in Suffolk, was born at Norwich, Aug. 14, 1732. He was apprenticed to a grocer, but his fondness for reading induced him, on commencing business for himself, to apportion part of his shop for the bookselling business, which at length engrossed the whole of his attention, time, and capital; and for many years he enlarged his stock so as to make it an object of importance with collectors in all parts of the kingdom, who were not more pleased with his judicious selection of copies, than the integrity with which he transacted business. About 1782 he published a catalogue of his collection of books, engraved portraits, and coins, which for interest and value exceeded at that time any other country collection? except, perhaps, that of the late Mr. Edwards of Halifax. Mr. Miller was a great reader, and possessing an excellent memory, he acquired that fund of general knowledge, particularly of literary history, which not only rendered him an instructive and entertaining companion, but gave a considerable value to his opinions of books, when consulted by his learned customers. At a period of life, when unfortunately he was too far advanced for such an undertaking, he projected a history of his native county, Suffolk, and circulated a well-written prospectus of his plan. His habits of industrious research, and natural fondness for investigating topographical antiquities, would have enabled him to render this a valuable contribution to our stock of county histories; but, independent of his age, his eye-sight failed him soon after he had made his design known, and he was obliged to relinquish it. In 1799 he became quite blind, but continued in business until his death, July 25, 1804. There is a very fine private portrait of Mr, Miller, engraved at the expence of his affectionate son, the very eminent bookseller in Albemarle-street, who lately retired from business, carrying with him the high esteem and respect of his numerous friends and brethren. In 1795, when it became a fashion among tradesmen in the country to circulate provincial half-pennies, Mr. Miller sen. had a die cast; but an accident happening to one of the blocks, when only twentythree pieces were struck off, he, like a true antiquary, declined having a fresh one made. This coin (which is very finely engraved, and bears a strong profile likeness of himself) is known to collectors by the name of “The Miller half-penny.” He was extremely careful into whose hands the impressions went; and they are now become so rare as to produce at sales from three to five guineas.

, Mus. D. younger brother of the preceding, was apprenticed to his father’s business, that of a paviour, in Norwich, but his dislike of the occupation became so great, that he absconded, and came to London. Soon afterwards he placed himself under the tuition of the celebrated Dr. Burney, with whom he continued in habits of intimacy and correspondence throughout his life. In 1756 he went to reside at Doncaster in Yorkshire, where he followed his profession with great reputation, and was organist of the church fifty-one years. He took his degree of doctor of music at Cambridge in 1786. Dr. Miller’s company was much sought after, as he was an agreeable, well-bred man, and his conversation abounded in anecdote and apt quotation. His only failing was an occasional absence of mind; which led him into several ludicrous mistakes that will long be remembered in the neighbourhood of Doncaster.

The latter years of his life were clouded by domestic calamities. He had a promising family of three daughters, who all died of consumptive complaints when they attained the age of maturity; of his two sons, one was lost by shipwreck on board the Halsewell Indiaman. His only surviving son is a popular preacher among the methodists, with whom his talents, zeal,- piety, and charity, have made him deservedly beloved. Dr. Miller died at Doncaster, Sept. 12, 1807.

Dr. Miller’s professional knowledge was very extensive, particularly in the theory of music; and his publications have been much valued. Among these are “The Institutes of Music,” intended to teach the ground-work of the science; and “The Elements of Thorough Bass and Composition.” But the most popular of his works was the “Psalms of David,” set to music and arranged for every Sunday throughout the year. This, which was expressly intended for the use of churches and chapels, met with very great encouragement from all ranks of the clergy, and the subscription, before publication, amounted to near five thousand copies. It is now regularly used in a great proportion of places of public worship. Dr. Miller also was somewhat of a poet, and somewhat of an antiquary. His first attempt in the former character was entitled “The Tears of Yorkshire, on the death of the most noble the Marquis of Rockingham.” He informs us himself, that so much was the marquis beloved, “that 600 copies of this literary trifle were sold in the course of a few hours, on the day of his interment in York minster. As an antiquary he published, two years before his death,” The History and Antiquities of Doncaster," 4to, in which he was assisted by many learned friends in that neighbourhood; but even with their help it bears many marks of advanced years and infirmities.

, an English divine and antiquary, was the grandson of the rev. Isaac Milles, rector of High Clear in Hampshire, probably by his second son Jeremiah. His eldest son was Dr. Thomas Milles, bishop of Waterford and Lismore, of whom it may be necessary to give some account, as Mr. Harris the editor and continuator of Ware has admitted a few mistakes, calling him Mills, and stating that he was the son of Joseph Mills. He was educated at Wadham college, Oxford, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1692, and that of M. A. in 1695. He was ordained by bishop Hough. In 1704 he took the degree of B. D. and in 1706 was appointed Greek professor of Oxford. In 1707 he attended the earl of Pembroke, lord lieutenant of Ireland, into that kingdom, and by him was promoted to the see of Waterford and Lismore. He died at Waterford May 13, 1740. He published a few controversial tracts, enumerated by Harris, but is best known by his valuable edition of the works of St. Cyril, published at Oxford in 1703, folio.

Bishop Milles left his fortune to his nephew, Jeremiah, who was born in 1714, and educated at Eton school, when he entered of Queen’s college, Oxford, as a gentleman commoner, and took his degrees of M. A. in 1735, and B. and D. D. in 1747, on which occasion he went out grand compounder. He was collated by his uncle to a prebend in the cathedral of Waterford, and to a living near that city, which he held but a short time, choosing to reside in England. Here he married Edith, a daughter of archbishop Potter, by whose interest he obtained the united rectories of St. Edmund the King and St. Nicholas Aeon in Lombard-street, with that of Merstham, Surrey, and the sinecure rectory of West Terring, in Sussex. To Merstham he was inducted in 1745. From the chantorship of Exeter he was promoted to the deanery of that cathedral, in 1762, on the advancement of Dr. Lyttelton to the see of Carlisle, whom he also succeeded as president of the society of antiquaries in 176.5. He had been chosen a fellow of this society in 1741, and of the Royal Society in 1742. His speech, on taking upon him the office of president of the Society of Antiquaries, was prefixed to the first volume of the Archoeologia. In other volumes of that work are some papers communicated by him, one of which, “Observations on the Wardrobe Account for the year 1483, wherein are contained the deliveries made for the coronation of king Richard III. and some other particulars relative to the history,” was answered by Mr. Walpole, afterwards lord Orford, in a paper or essay, very characteristic of his lordship’s ingenuity and haughty petulance. In the early part of his life, Dr. Milles had made ample collections for a history of Devonshire, v*hich are noticed by Mr. Gough in his Topography. Ha was also engaged in illustrating the Da ish coinage, and the Domesday Survey, on both which subjects, it is thought, he left much valuable matter. His worst attempt was to vindicate the authenticity of Rowley’s poems, in an edition which he printed in 1782, 4to. After what Tyrwhitt and Warton had advanced on this subject, a grave answer to this was not necessary; but it was the writer’s misiortune to draw upon himself the wicked wit of the author of “An Archaeological Epistle,” and the more wicked irony of George Steevens in the St. James’s Chronicle. The dean died Feb. 13, 1784, and was buried in the church of St. Edmund, which, as well as his other preferments, he retained until his death, with the exception of the rectory of West Terring, which he resigned to his son Richard. His character is very justly recorded on his monument, as one conspicuous for the variety and extent of his knowledge, and for un remitted zeal and activity in those stations to which his merit had raised him; nor was he in private life less distinguished for sweetness of disposition, piety, and integrity.

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

, a learned English divine, the second son of John Milner of Skircoat, near Halifax in Yorkshire, was born probably in Feb. 1627-8, as he was baptised on the 10th of that month. After being educated at the grammar-school of Halifax, he was sent at fourteen years of age to Christ’s college, Cambridge, where he took the degrees of B. A. and M. A. at the regular periods. He was first curate of Midleton in Lancashire, but was forced thence, on sir George Booth’s unsuccessful attempt to restore king Charles II. a little before the fight at Worcester. After this he retired to the place of his nativity, where he lived till 1661, when Dr. Lake, then vicar of Leeds, and his brother-in-law, gave him the curacy of Beeston, in his parish. In 1662 he took the degree of B. D, and the same year was made minister of St. John’s in Leeds. He was elected vicar of Leeds in 1673, and in 1681 was chosen prebendary of Ripon. In 1688, not being satisfied about the revolution, he removed from his vicarage, and was deprived of all his preferments; on which he retired to St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he spent the remainder of his days, continuing a nonjuror till his death, which happened in St. John’s college, Feb. 16, 1702, in his seventy- fifth year. He left an only son, Thomas Milner, M. A. vicar of Bexhili in Sussex, who proved a great benefactor to Magdalen college, Cambridge. Dr. Gower, lady Margaret’s professor at Cambridge, gave the following character of Mr. John Milner to Mr. Thoresby “Great learning and piety made him really a great man he was eminent in both, and nothing but his humility and modesty kept him from being more noted for being so. I had the happiness of much of his conversation, but still desired more. He was a blessing to the whole society, by the example he gave in every thing good. He died beloved, and much lamented here, and his memory is honourable and precious among us, and will long continue so.”

His works are, 1. “Conjectanea in Isaiam ix. 1, 2. Item in parallela quaedam veteris ac novi testament), in quibus versionibus LXX interpretum cum textu Hebræo conciiiatio,” &c. Lond. 1673, 4to. Dr. Castel, the Arabian professor, called this “a most excellent essay, wherein the author shewed incredible reading and diligence, in perusing so many copies, versions, and various lections, with the best interpreters of sacred writ.” 2. “A collection of the Church History of Palestine, from the birth of Christ, to the beginning of the empire of Diocletian,” Lond. 1688, 4to. 3. “A short Dissertation concerning the four last Kings of Judah,” Lond. 1689, 4to. This was occasioned by Joseph Scaliger’s “Judicium de Thesi Chronologica,” &c. 4. “De Nethinim sive Nethinaeis, &c. et de iis qui se Corban Deo nominabant, disputatiuncula, adversus Steuch. Eugubinum, Card. Baronium,” &c. Camb. 1690, 4to. 5. “An Answer to the vindication of a Letter from a person of quality in the North, concerning the profession of John, late bishop of Chichester,” Lond. 1690, 4to. 6. “A Defence of the Profession of John (Lake) lord bishop of Chichester, made upon his death-bed, concerning passive obedience, and the new oaths; with some passages of his lordship’s life,” Lond. 1690, 4to. 7. “A Defence of archbishop Usher against Dr. Cary and Dr. Is. Vossius, with an Introduction concerning the uncertainty of Chronology, and an Appendix touching the signification of the words, &c. as also the men of the great Synagogue,” Camb. 1694, 8vo. 8. “A Discourse of Conscience, &c. with reflexions upon the author of Christianity not mysterious,” &c. Lond. 1697, 8vo. 9. “A View of the Dissertation upon the epistles of Phalaris, Themistocles, &c. lately published by the rev. Dr. Bentley. Also, of the examination of that Dissertation by the hon. Mr. Boyle,” ibid. 1698, 8vo. 10. “A brief Examination of some passages in the Chronological part of a Letter written to Dr. Sherlock, in his vindication. In a letter to a friend.” 11. “A further Examination of the Chronological part of that Letter. In a second letter to a friend.” 12. “An Account of Mr. Locke’s religion, out of his own writings, and in his own words: together with observations, and a two-fold appendix,” Lond. 1700, 8vo. 13. “Animadversions upon Mons. Le Clerc’s Rejections upon our Saviour and his Apostles, &c. primitive fathers, &c.” Camb. 1702. He left also several manuscripts enumerated in our principal authority, on subjects of chronology, biblical criticism, &c.

, a pious and learned divine and ecclesiastical historian, was born in the neighbourhood of Leeds in Yorkshire, Jan. 2, 1744, and was educated at the grammar school of his native place, where he made great proficiency in Greek and Latin, in which he was assisted by a memory of such uncommon powers, that his biographer, the present dean of Carlisle, says that he never saw his equal, among the numerous persons of science and literature with whom he has been acquainted. This faculty which Mr. Milner possessed, without any visible decay, during the whole of his life, gained him no little reputation at school, where his master, the rev. Mr. Moore, often availed himself of his memory in cases of history and mythology, and used to say, “Milner is more easily consulted than the Dictionaries or the Pantheon, and he is quite as much to be relied on.” Moore, indeed, told so many and almost incredible stories of his memory, that the rev. Mr. Murgatroyd, a very respectable clergyman, at that time minister of St. John’s church in Leeds, expressed some suspicion of exaggeration. Mr. Moore was a man of the strictest veracity, but of a warm temper. He instantly offered to give satisfactory proof of his assertions. “Milner,” said he, “shall go to church next Sunday, and without taking a single note at the time, shall write down your sermon afterward. Will you permit us to compare what he writes with what you preach” Mr. Murgatroyd accepted the proposal with pleasure, and was often heard to express his astonishment at the event of this trial of memory. The lad,“said he,” has not omitted a single thought or sentiment in the whole sermon; and frequently he has got the very words for a long way together."

About the age of thirteen, there were few of young Milner’s years equally skilled in Latin and Greek, and none who were to be compared to him in the accurate and extensive knowledge of ancient history. His love of the study of history shewed itself as soon as ever he could read, and he employed his leisure hours in reading, as a weakly constitution, and early disposition to asthma, rendered him utterly incapable of mixing with his schoolfellows in their plays and diversions. This passion for the study of history continued strong for many years, and was his favourite amusement and relaxation to the last. With such acquirements, at so early an age, it cannot be thought wonderful if while among his poorer and more ignorant neighbours, he went by the name of the “learned lad,” his schoolmaster should feel some degree of vanity in producing such a scholar; but his regard for him was more sincere than mere vanity could have produced, and Mr. Moore now meditated in what way he could be able to send his pupil to the university, where talents like his might have a wider range, and lead to the honours he merited. In this benevolent plan he seemed at first to be obstructed by the death of Mr. Milner’s father, who had been unsuccessful in business, and htd little to spare from the necessary demands of his family*; but this event seemed rather to quicken Mr. Moore’s zeal in favour of his pupil, and as the latter had begun to teach grown-up children of both sexes, in some opulent families in Leeds, &c. there seemed a general disposition to forward the plan of sending him to the university. At the moment when the purses of the wealthy were ready to be opened in favour of this scheme, the tutor of Catherine hall, Cambridge, an old acquaintance of Mr. Moore, wrote to him to the following effect “The office of Chapel-clerk with us will soon be vacant and if you have any clever lad, who is not very rich, and whom you would wish to assist, send him to us.” Mr. Moore instantly communicated this proposal to several of the liberal gentlemen above alluded to, who all cheerfully concurred in it, and young Milner was thus enabled to go to Catherinehall in 1762, in his eighteenth year.

Here his biographer expresses his surprise that Mr. Milner should have obtained so high a situation as he did in the mathematical and philosophical list of honours; and the more so, as he most certainly had no peculiar relish for those studies. He was the third senior optime; but, perhaps he applied to these studies in order to be qualified for the honours bestowed on classical learning, in which he was more familiar. The chancellor’s two gold medals for the best proficients in classical learning, were announced, and none but senior optimes could be candidates. He became, therefore, in 1766, in which year he took his bachelor’s degree, one of a list of candidates uncommonly numerous and able, and the two prizes were adjudged to Dr.

evening, I surprised my wife, by send- send both" Life by Dr. Milner. ing hom.e a Greek book for my son JoLaw, the late bishop of Elphin, and to Joseph Milner. Several members of the university are still alive, who well remember the general surprise caused by the success of the latter; and how his humorous and spirited translations of Terence and Plutarch, shown by the examiners to their friends, were handed about through the colleges, and excited general admiration.

He would have now gladly remained at the university, and increased his literary reputation, so happily begun, but there was no opportunity of electing him fellow at Catherine-hall, and he was already somewhat in debt. During his first year’s residence at Cambridge, he had lost by a premature death, his affectionate schoolmaster, Mr. Moore; and the management of his slender finances was transferred from the hands of Mr. Moore to those of a careless and dissipated person. Mr. Milner was not old enough for deacon’s orders, and it became absolutely necessary that he should look out for some employment. He accordingly became assistant in a school, and afterwards in the cure of his church, to the rev. Mr. Atkinson of Thorp-Arch, near Tadcaster. Here, we are told, he completed an epic poem, begun at Catherine-hall, entitled “Davideis,” or Satan’s various attempts to defeat the purpose of the Almighty, who had promised that a Saviour of the world should spring from king David. The ms. is still in existence. His biographer pronounces it “a fine monument of the author’s learning, taste, genius, and exuberant imagination.” He submitted it to Dr. Hurd, who sent him a very complimentary letter; but he laid the poem aside, and it has not been thought proper to publish it.

When he had obtained deacon’s orders, he applied for the place of head-master of the grammar-school at Hull, and having obtained it, was soon after chosen afternoon, lecturer in the principal church in that town. Under his auspices, the school, which had decayed through the negligence of his immediate predecessors, soon acquired and retained very considerable celebrity, and as the master’s salary rose in proportion to the increase of scholars, his income now, on the whole, amounted to upwards of 200L a year. The first use he made of this great change of circumstances was to discharge those duties that arose from the situation of his father’s family. His pious affection instantly led him to invite his mother (then living at Leeds in poverty) to Hull, where she became the manager of his house. He also sent for two indigent orphans, the children of his eldest brother, and took effectual care of their education. At this time his youngest brother, Isaac, whose prospects of advancement in learning were ruined by his father’s death, was now humbly employed in the woollen manufactory at Leeds. From this situation his brother Joseph instantly removed him, and employed him as his assistant in teaching the lower boys of his crowded school at Hull. By his brother’s means also, he was sent to Queen’s college, Cambridge, in 1770, of which he is now master, professor of mathematics, and dean of Carlisle. Of the affection between those brothers, the survivor thus speaks, “Perhaps no two brothers were ever more closely bound to each other. Isaac, in particular, remembers no earthly 7 thing without being able to connect it, in some way, tenderly with his brother Joseph. During all his life” he has constantly aimed at enjoying his company as much as circumstances permitted. The dissolution of such a connection could not take place without being severely felt by the survivor. No separation was ever more bitter and afflicting; with a constitution long shattered by disease, he never expects to recover from That wound."

Mr. Milner’s labours as a preacher were not confined to the town of Hull. He was curate for upwards of seventeen years, of North Ferriby, about nine miles from Hull, and afterwards vicar of the place. At both he became a highly popular and successful preacher, but for some years, met with considerable opposition from the upper classes, for his supposed tendency towards methodism. His sentiments and mode of preaching had in fact undergone a change, which produced this suspicion, for the causes and consequences of which we must refer to his biographer. It may be sufficient here to notice, that he at length regained his credit by a steady, upright, preseveriog, and disinterested conduct, and just before his death, the mayor and corporation of Hull, almost unanimously, chose him vicar of the Holy Trinity church, on the decease of the rev. T. Clarke. Mr. Milner died Nov. 15, 1797, in the fifty-fourth year of his age, and perhaps the loss of no man in that place has ever been lamented with more general or unfeigned regret. His scholars, almost without exception, loved and revered him. Several gentlemen, who had been his pupils many years before, shewed a sincere regard for their instructor, by erecting at their own expence, an elegant monument (by Bacon) to his memory in the high church of Hull. Mr. Milner’s principal publications are, 1. “Some passages in the Life of William Howard,” which has gone through several editions; 2. An Answer to Gibbon’s Attack on Christianity;“3.” Essays on the Influence of the Holy Spirit.“But his principal work is his ecclesiastical history, under the title of a” History of the Church of Christ,“of which he lived to complete three volumes, which reach to the thirteenth century. A fourth volume, in two parts, has since been edited from his Mss. by his brother Dr. Isaac Milner, reaching to the sixteenth century, and a farther continuation may be expected from the same pen. Since his death also, two volumes of his practical sermons have been published, with a life of the author by his brother, from which we have selected the above particulars. To his” History of the Church," we have often referred in these volumes, as it appears to us of more authority in many respects than that of Mosheim; and whatever difference of opinion there may be as to the view Mr. Milner takes of the progress of religion, he appears to have read more and penetrated deeper into the history, principles, and writings of the fathers and reformers, than any preceding English historian.

, the most illustrious of English poets, was by birth a gentleman, descended from the proprietors of Milton, near Thame in Oxfordshire, one of whom forfeited his estate in the contests between the houses of York and Lancaster. His grand-father was under-ranger of the forest of Shotover in Oxfordshire, and being a zealous Roman catholic, disinherited his son, of the same name, for becoming a protestant. This son, when thus deprived of the family property, was a student at Christchurch, Oxford, but was now obliged to quit his studies, and going to London became a scrivener. That he retained his classical knowledge appears from his son addressing him in one of his most elaborate Latin poems; he was also a great proficient in music, a voluminous composer, and, in the opinion of Dr. Burney, “equal in science, if not genius, to the best musicians of his age.” He married a lady of the name of Custon, of a Welsh family. By her he had two sons, John the poet, Christopher, and Anne. Anne became the wife of Mr. Edward Phillips, a native of Shrewsbury, who was secondary to the crown office in chancery. Christopher, applying himself to the study of the law, became a bencher of the Inner Temple, was knighted at a very advanced period of life, and raised by James II. first to be a baron of the Exchequer, and afterwards one of the judges of the Common-pleas. During the rebellion he adhered to the royal cause, and effected his composition with the republicans by the interest of his brother. In his old age he retired from the fatigues of business, and closed, in the country, a life of study and devotion.

John Miltcrti was born at his father’s house in Breadstreet, Cheapside, Dec. 9, 1608. From his earliest years his father appears to have discerned and with great anxiety cultivated his talents. He tells us himself that his father destined him when he was yet a child to the study of polite literature, and so eagerly did he apply, that from his twelfth year, he seldom quitted his studies till the middle of the night; this, however, he adds, proved the first cause of the ruin of his eyes, in addition to the natural weakness of which, he was afflicted with frequent headachs. Some part of his early education was committed to the care of Mr. Thomas Young, a puritan minister; and he was also placed for some time at St. Paul’s school, thea under the direction of Mr. Alexander Gill, with whose son, Alexander, Milton seems to have contracted a warm and lasting friendship. In February 1625, when in his seventeenth year, he was entered a pensioner at Christ’s-college, Cambridge, where he had for his tutor Mr. William Chappel, afterwards bishop of Cork and Ross. Of his conduct and the treatment which he experienced in his college, much has been made the subject of dispute. The most serious charge brought against him is, that he wasexpelledy for which there seems no reasonable foundation whatever. The register of the college proves that he regularly kept his terms, and as regularly took both his degrees. A charge of less consequence, that he had once received corporal punishment, seems scarcely worth the pains that have been bestowed in refuting it, if, according to the latest of his zealous apologists, no injury to his reputation would be the necessary result of its admission. It is allowed, however, to be probable that he might offend the governors of his college by the dislike, early instilled into his mind by his tutor Young, of the discipline of the church, or the plan of education then observed. Whateyer may be in this, he passed -seven years at the university, and after taking his master’s degree, retired to his father’s house, at Horton in Buckinghamshire.

During these seven years of college residence, his genius appeared in various attempts not unworthy of the future author of “Comus” and “Paradise Lost.” He was a poet when he was only ten years old, and his translation of the 136th psalm evinces his progress in poetic expression at the early age of fifteen. He renounced his original purpose of entering the church, for which he assigns as a reason, “that coming to some maturity of years, he had perceived what tyranny had pervaded it, and that he who would take orders, must subscribe slave, and take an oath withal, which, unless h^ took with a conscience that could retch, he must either strain, perforce, or split his faith; I thought it better to prefer a blameless silence before the office of speaking, bought and begun with servitude and forswearing.” These expressions have been supposed to allude to the articles of the church; but, as far as we know of Milton’s theology, there was none of those articles to which he had any objection. It seems more reasonable therefore to conclude, that he considered subscription as involving an approbation of the form of church government, which, we know, was his abhorrence.

He spent five years at his father’s house at Horton, and during this time exhibited some of the finest specimens of his genius. The “Comus,” in 1634, and the “Lycidas,” in 1637, were written at Horton; and there is strong internal proof that the “L'AIlegro” and “II Penseroso” were also composed here. The Mask of Comus was acted before the earl of Bridgwater, the president of Wales, in 1634, at Ludlow-castle: and the characters of the lady and her two brothers were represented by the lady Alice Egerton, then about thirteen years of age, and her two brothers, lord Brackley and Thomas Egerton, who were still younger. The story of this piece is said to have been suggested by the circumstance of the lady Alice having been separated from her company in the night, and havincr wandered for some time by herself in the forest of Haywood, as she was returning from a distant visit to meet her father. This admirable drama was set to music by Lawes, and first published by him in 1637, and, in the dedication to lord Brackley, he speaks of the work as not openly acknowledged by the author. The author surely had little to fear; it would be difficult to discover an age barbarous enough to refuse the highest honours to the author of a work so truly poetical. The “Lycidas” was written, as there is reason to believe, at the solicitation of the author’s old college, to commemorate the death of Mr. Edward King, one of its fellows, a man of great learning, piety, and talents, who was shipwrecked in his passage from Chester to Ireland. It formed part of a collection of poems, published on this melancholy occasion, in 1638, at the university press; and its being thus printed in a collection, may perhaps diminish the wonder expressed by one of Milton’s biographers, that a poem, breathing such hostility to the clergy of the Church of England, and menacing their leader with the axe, should be permitted to issue from the university press. There is no other way of accounting for this than by supposing that it had not been read before it went to press. “Lycidas” has been severely criticised by Dr. Johnson, and but feebly supported by Milton’s other biographers.

Of the “L' Allegro,” and “II Penseroso,” the precise time of writing cannot be positively ascertained. They made their first appearance in a collection of our author’s poems, published by himself in 1645; but there is reason from internal evidence to infer, that they were written in the interval between the composition of “Comus” and that of “Lycidas,” consequently while he lived at Horton. Of these two noble efforts of the imagination, the opinion of the public is uniform; eVery man that reads them, reads them with pleasure.

In 1638, on the death of his mother, he obtained his father’s leave to travel, and about the same time a letter of instructions from sir Henry Wotton, then provost of Eton, but who had resided at Venice as ambassador from James I. He went first tp Paris, where, by the favour of lord Scudainore, he had an opportunity of visiting Grotius, at that time residing at the French court as ambassador from Christina of Sweden. From Paris he passed into Italy, of which he had with particular diligence studied the language and literature; and, though he seems to have intended a very quick perambulation of the country, he staid two months at Florence, where he was introduced to the academies, and received with every mark of esteem. Among other testimonies may be mentioned the verses addressed to him by Carlo Dati> Erancini, and others, whicfe, prove that they considered a visit from Milton as no common honour. From Florence he went to Sienna, and from Sienna to Rome, where he was again received with kindness by the learned and the great. Holstenius, the keeper of the Vatican library, who had resided three years at Oxford, introduced him to cardinal Barberini; and he, on one occasion, at a musical entertainment, waited for him at the door, and led him by the hand into the assembly. Here it is conjectured that Milton heard the accomplished and enchanting Leonora Baroni sing, a lady whom he has honoured with three excellent Latin epigrams. She is also supposed to have been celebrated by Milton in her own language, and to have been the object of his love in his Italian sonnets. While at Rome, Selvaggi praised Milton in a distich, and Salsilfl in a tetrastic, on which he put some value by printing them before his poems. The Italians, says Dr. Johnson, were gainers by this literary commerce; for the encomiums with which Milton repaid Salsilli, though not secure against a stern grammarian, turn the balance indisputably in Milton’s favour.

From Rome, after a residence of two months, he went to Naples, in company with a hermit, who introduced him to Menso, marquis of Villa, who had been before the patron of Tasso, and who showed every mack of attention to Milton, until the latter displeased him by certain sentiments on the subject of religion. In return, however, for a few verses addressed to him by the marquis, in which he commends him for every thing but his religion, Milton sent him a Latin poem, which must have raised a high opinion of English elegance and literature. It ought indeed never to be forgot, that in the whole course of this tour, Milton procured respect for the English wherever he went; nor does it appear to be less memorable that he rarely found his superior among the learned men of the continent, who considered his country as only just emerging from barbarism.

He was now to have visited Sicily and Greece, but intelligence from England changed his purpose. “As I was desirous/' he says,” to pass into Sicily and Greece, the melancholy intelligence of the civil war recalled me; for I esteemed it dishonourable for me to be lingering abroad, even for the improvement of my mind, when my fellowcitizens were contending for their liberty at home." He therefore came back to Rome, though the merchants informed him of plots laid against him by the English Jesuits, for his free sentiments on religion; but he had sense enough to judge that there was no danger, and therefore kept on his way, and acted as before, neither obtruding nor shunning conversation. He now staid two months more at Rome, and went on to Florence without molestation. From Florence he visited Lucca, and afterwards went to Venice, whence he travelled to Geneva, and there became acquainted with John Diodati and Frederic Spanheim, two learned professors of divinity. From Geneva he passed through France, and came home after an absence of a year and three months.

For some time after his arrival, he employed himself in the business of education, a circumstance on which some have dilated with unnecessary prolixity, as if there had been any thing degrading in the character or employment of a schoolmaster. Dr. Johnson has observed that this is the period of his life from which all his biographers seem inclined to shrink. Milton himself says, that he hastened home (and his haste, after all, was not great) because he esteemed it dishonourable to be lingering abroad while his fellow-citizens were contending for their liberty. This seems to imply a promise of joining them in their endeavours; but as, instead of this, he sets up a school immediately on his arrival, his biographers are puzzled to account for his conduct, and yet desirous of defending it. What can be said in his favour has been better said by Johnson than by any of his apologists, and in fewer words; “His father was alive; his allowance was not ample; and he supplied its deficiencies by an honest and useful employment.” And we shall find that he very soon joined his fellow-citizens, and contributed his share to the controversies of the times.

As the mode of education which he introduced in his school has been given up by all his biographers, it may be sufficient here only to notice briefly that his purpose was to teach things more than words. Not content with the common school authors, he placed in the hands of boys from ten to fifteen years of age, such writers as were capable of giving information in some of the departments of science. Even in the selection of these he was unfortunate, as his most zealous advocates are willing to allow: the only part of his method which deserves general imitation, was the care with which he instructed his scholars in religion. Every Sunday was spent upon theology, of which he dictated a system to them founded on the principles of the Genevan divines. He also read and probably commented on a chapter in the Greek Testament. His first school was at his lodgings in St. Bride’s church-yard, but as the number of his scholars increased, he removed to a house in Alcjersgate-street.

The time, however, was now come when, as Johnson says, he was to lend “his breath to blow the flames of contention.” In 1641 he published a treatise of “Reformation,” in two books, against the established church; and soon after one, “Of Prelatical Episcopacy,” Against the learned Usher, who had written a confutation of “Smectymnuus,” which was intended as an answer to bishop Hall’s “Humble Remonstrance,” in defence of Episcopacy. His next work was “The Reason of Church Government urged against Prelacy,” 1642. In this book, says Johnson, he discovers, not with ostentatious exultation, but with calm confidence, his high opinion of his own powers; and promises to undertake something, he yet knows not what, that may be of use and honour to his country. “This,” says Milton, “is not to be obtained but by devout prayer to the eternal Spirit that can enrich with all utterance and knowledge, and sends out his Seraphim with the hallowed fire of his altar, to touch and purify the lips of whom he pleases. To this must be added, industrious and select reading, steady observation, and insight into all seemly and generous arts and affairs; till which in some measure be compast, I refuse not to sustain this expectation.” From a promise like this, adds Johnson, at once fervid, pious, and rational, might be expected the “Paradise Lost.” He published the same year two more pamphlets on the same question, with which the controversy appears to have ended, and episcopacy was 'soon afterwards overwhelmed by the violent meanj for which the press had long prepared.

About the time that the town of Reading was taken by the earl of Essex, Milton’s father came to reside in his house, and his school increased. In 1643, his domestic comfort was disturbed by an incident which he had hoped would have rather promoted it. This was his marriage to Mary, the daughter of Richard Powell, esq. a magistrate in Oxfordshire, and a loyalist. The lady was brought to London, but did not remain above a month with her husband, when under pretence of a visit to her relations, she wholly absented herself, and resisted his utmost and repeated importunities to return. His biographers inform us that the lady had been accustomed to the jovial hospitality of the loyalists at her father’s house, and that after a month’s experience of her new life, she began to sigh for the gaieties she had left, &c. Whether this will sufficiently account for her conduct, our readers may consider. Milton, however, appears to have felt the indignity, and determined to repudiate her for disobedience; and finding no court of law able to assist him, published some treatises to justify his intentions; such as “The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce;” “The Judgment of Martin Bucer, concerning Divorce,” &c. In these he argued the point with great ingenuity, but made few converts, and the principal notice taken of these writings came in a very unfortunate shape. The Westminster assembly of divines procured that the author should be called before the House of Lords, who did not, however, institute any process on the matter; but in consequence of this attack, the presbyterian party forfeited his favour, and he ever after treated them with contempt.

As in these writings on divorce, he had convinced himself of the rectitude of his principles, his next step was to carry them into practice, by courting a young woman of great accomplishments, the daughter of one Dr. Davis, or Davies. This alarmed the parents of his wife, who had now another reason for wishing a reconciliation, namely, the interest of Milton with the predominant powers, to whom they had become obnoxious by their loyalty. It was contrived, therefore, that his wife should be at a house where he was expected to visit, and should surprize him with her presence and her penitence. All this was successfully arranged: the lady played her part to admiration, 1 and Milton not only received her with his wonted affection, but extended his protection to her family in the most generous manner. He was now obliged to take a larger mansion, and removed to Barbican. In 1644, he published his ^ Tractate on Education,“explaining the plan already mentioned, which he had attempted to carry into execution in his school. His next publication was his” Areopagitica, or a speech for the liberty of unlicensed printing;" a treatise which at least served to expose the hypocrisy of the usurping powers, during whose reign the liberty of the press was as much restrained as in any period of the monarchy, nor perhaps at any time was Milton’s unbounded liberty less relished.

Though his controversial, and other engagements, had for some time suspended the exertion of his poetical talents, yet he did not suffer his character as a poet to sink into oblivion, and in 1645, he published his juvenile poems in Latin and English, including, for the first time, the “Allegro” and “Penseroso.” in 1646, Milton’s wife produced her first child, and in the following year, in which his father died, the family of the Powells returned to their own mansion, and his house was resigned once more to literature. In this house, in which his second daughter Mary was born, he did not continue long, but exchanged it for one of smaller cKmensions in High Holborn. He is not known to have published any thing afterwards till the king’s death, when finding that measure condemned by the Presbyterians, he wrote a treatise to justify it. Of all Milton’s political works this reflects least credit on his talents, or his principles. Even those who have been most disposed to vindicate him against all censure, and to represent him invulnerable both as a politician and a poet, seem to shrink from the task of defending him in this instance, and candidly tell us, that they meet with an insuperable difficulty in the very title of the book “TheTenure of Kings and Magistrates proving, that it is lawful, and hath been held so through all ages, for any who have the power, to call to account a tyrant or wicked king: and after due conviction, to depose and put him to death, if the ordinary magistrate have neglected or denied to do it.” Here, therefore, the right to punish kings belongs to any who have the power, and their having the power makes it lawful, a doctrine so monstrous as to be given up by his most zealous advocates, as “a fearful opening for mischief:” but it was, in truth, at that time, what Milton intended it to be, a justification, not of the people of England, for they had no hand in the king’s murder, but of the army under Ireton and Cromwell. That Milton was also at this time under the strong influence of party-spirit, appears from his attack on the Presbyterians in this work, the avowed ground of which is their inconsistency. When, however, we examine their inconsistency, as he has been pleased to state it, it amounts to only this, that they contributed in common with the Independents and other sectaries and parties, to dethrone the king; but r wished to stop short of his murder. Every species of opposition to what they considered as tyranny in the king, they could exert, but they thought it sufficient to deprive him of power, without depriving him of life.

His next publication was, “Observations upon the articles of Peace, which the earl of Ormond had concluded at Kilkenny, on Jan. 17, 1643-9, in the king’s name, and by his authority, with the popish Irish rebels,” &c. The purport of this also was to render the royal cause more odious by connecting it with the Irish massacre; and that the sentiments of the nation might become yet more completely republican, he now employed himself in composing “A History of England.” Of this, however, he wrote only six books, which bring it no lower down than to the battle of Hastings. It presents a perspicuous arrangement of the fabulous, and less interesting part of our history; but, as he never resumed the task, it is impossible to say in what way he could have rendered the events of more recent times subservient to his purpose. His regicide performance evidently shews that his ideas of our constitution are totally at variance with the opinions of the most enlightened of our present writers; and he probably found that even in the favourite republic now established, there was but little that suited with the order of things he had projected.

The immediate cause, however, of the interruption given to his “History,” was his being appointed Latin secretary to the new council of state, which was to supply all the offices of royalty. He had scarcely accepted this appointment, when his employers called upon him to answer the famous book entitled “Icon Basihk^, or the portraiture of his cacred majesty in his solitudes and sufferings.” This was then understood to be the production of Charles I. and was published unquestionably with the view to exhibit him to the people in a more favourable light than he had been represented by those who brought him to the block. It probably too was -beginning to produce that effect, as the government thought it necessary to employ the talents of Milton to answer it, which he did in a work entitled “Iconoclastes,” or Image-breaker, In this he follows the common opinion, that the king was the writer, although he sometimes seems to admit of doubts, and makes his answer a. sort of review and vindication of all the proceedings against the court. This has been praised as one of the ablest of all Milton’s political tracts, while it is at the same time confessed that it did not in the least diminish the popularity of the “Icon,” of which 48,500 are said to have been sold, and whether it was the production of the king or of bishop Gauden, it must have harmonized with the feelings and sentiments of a great proportion of the public. The story of Milton’s inserting a prayer taken from Sidney’s “Arcadia,” and imputing the use of it to the king as a crime, appears to have no foundation; but we know not how to vindicate this and other petty objections to the king’s character, from the charge of personal animosity.

Milton’s next employment was to answer the celebrated Salmasius, who, at the instigation of the exiled Charles II. had written a defence* of his father and of monarchy. Salmasius was an antagonist worthy of Milton, as a general scholar, but scarcely his equal in that species of political talent which rendered Milton’s services so important to the new government. Salmasius’s work was entitled “Defensio Kegia,” and Milton’s “Defensio pro populo Anglicano,” which greatly increased Milton’s reputation abroad, and at home we may be certain would procure him no small share of additional favour. That his work includes a very great portion of controversial bitterness, may be attributed either to the temper of the times, or of the writer, as the reader pleases; but the former was entirely in his favour, and his triumph was therefore complete. Of Salmasius’s work, the highest praise has been reserved to our own times, in which the last biographer of Milton has compared it to Mr. Burke’s celebrated book on the French revolution.