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

Milton’s eye-sight, which had been some time declining, was now totally gone; but, greatly felt as this privation must have been to a man of studious habits, his intellectual powers suffered no diminution. About this time (1652), he was involved in another controversy respecting the “Defensio pro populo Anglicano,” in consequence of a work published at the Hague, entitled “Regii sanguinis. clamor ad coelum adversus parricidas Anglicanos,” written by Peter du Moulin, but published by, and under the name of, Alexander Morus, or More. This produced from Milton, his “Defensio secunda pro populo Anglicano,” and a few replies to the answers of his antagonists. In this second “Defensio,” written in the same spirit as thq preceding, is introduced a high panegyric upon Cromwell, who had now usurped the supreme power with the title of Protector. It seems acknowledged that his biographers have found it very difficult to justify this part of his conduct. They have, therefore, had recourse to those conjectural reasons which shew their own ingenuity, but perhaps never existed in the mind of Milton, Their soundest defence would have been to suppose Milton placed in a choice of evils, a situation which always admits of apology. It is evident, however, that he had now reconciled himself to the protector-king, and went on with his business as secretary, and, among other things, is supposed to have written the declaration of the reasons for a war with Spain. About this time (1652) his first wife died in childbed, leaving him three daughters. He married again, not long after, Catherine, the daughter of a captain Woodcock, of Hacktiey, who died within a year in child-birth, and was lamented by him in a sonnet, which Johnson terms “poor,” but others “pleasing and pathetic.” To divert his grief he is said now to have resumed his “History of England,” and to have made some progress in a Latin dictionary. This last appears to have engaged his attention occasionally for many years after, for he left three folios of collections, that were probably used by subsequent lexicographers, but could not of themselves have formed a publication.

He had praised Cromwell as the only person who could allay the contentions of parties, and the time was now come when the nation was to lose this protecting genius. Another Cromwell was not to be found, and general anarchy seemed approaching. Milton, somewhat alarmed, but not wholly dispirited with this state of things, took up his pen to give advice on certain urgent topics, and having as much dread of presbyterianism as of royalty, he published two treatises, one, “Of the civil power in ecclesiastical causes,” and the other, “Considerations touching the likeliest means to remove hirelings out of the church.” In both these he shewed his sentiments to be unaltered on the subjects of civil and ecclesiastical government; and he urged them yet farther in “The present means and brief delineation of a free Commonwealth,” and “The ready and easy way to establish a free Commonwealth.” In this last his inconsistencies have been justly exposed by one of his recent biographers. “With the strongest prepossession of a party-zealot, he deserts his general principle for the attainment of his particular object: and thinks that his own opinions ought to be enforced in opposition to those of the majority of the nation. Aware also that a frequent change of the governing body might be attended with inconvenience and possible danger, he decides against frequent parliaments, and in favour of a permanent council. Into such inconsistencies was he betrayed by his animosity to monarchy, and his bigoted attachment to whatever carried the name of a republic.” These pamphlets were answered both in a sportive and serious way, but neither probably gave him much uneasiness. His last effort in the cause of republicanism was entitled “Brief notes” on a loyal sermon preached by Dr. Matthew Griffith, one of the late king’s chaplains: and with this terminated his political controversies.

Charles II. was now 'advancing, with the acclamations of the people, to the throne, and Milton, it was natural to snppose, might expect his resentment: for sometime, therefore, he secreted himself, but on the issuing of the act of oblivion, his name was not found among the exceptions, and he appeared again in public. Various reasons have been assigned for this lenity, but the most probable was the interest of his friends Andrew Marvel 1, sir Thomas Clarges, and especially sir William Davenant, whom Milton had once rescued from a similar danger. The only notice taken of him was by the House of Commons, who ordered his “Iconoclastes” and “Defence of the people of England” to be burnt by the hands of the hangman; and it appears that he was once, and for a short time, in custody, but on what pretext is not known.

In 1662 he resided in Jewin-street, and from this he removed to a small house in the Artillery-walk, adjoining Bunhill-fields, where he continued during the remaining part of his life. While living in Jewin-street, he married his third wife, Elizabeth Minshull, the daughter of a gentleman of Cheshire. He was now employed on “Paradise Lost,” to which alone, of all his works, he owes his fame. Whence he drew the original design has been variously conjectured, but nothing very satisfactory has been produced. It was at a very early period that he meditated an epic poem, but then thought of taking his subject from the heroic part of English history. At length “after long choosing, and beginning late,” he fixed upon “Paradise Lost:” a design so comprehensive, that it could, says Dr. Johnson, be justified only by success. We may refer to that eminent critic, and his other biographers, for a regular examination of the beauties and detects of this immortal poem, as well as for many particulars relative to the times and mode in which he composed. These it would have been delightful to trace, had our information been as accurate as it is various; but, unhappily, every step in Milton’s progress has been made the subject of angry controversy, and they who can take any pleasure in the effusions of critical irritation, may be amply gratified in the more recent lives of Milton.

The “Paradise Lost” was first published in 1667: and much surprize and concern have been discovered at the small pecuniary benefit which the author derived from this proud display of his genius. It must, in our view of the matter, and considering only the merit and popularity of the poem, seem deplorable that the copyright of such a composition should be sold for the sum of five pounds, and a contingent payment, on the sale of 2600 copies, of two other equal sums, making in all fifteen pounds, as the whole pecuniary reward of a poem which has never been equalled. It will not greatly diminish our wonder at this paltry sum if we add, upon the authority of his biographers, that this fifteen pounds purchased the bookseller’s right only to the several editions for which they were paid, and that Milton’s widow sold the irreversible copyright to the same bookseller, Samuel Simmons, for eight pounds. Here is still only a sum of twenty-three pounds derived from the work, to the author and his family. In defence of the bookseller, however, we are referred to the risk he ran from the publication of a work in all respects new, and written by a man under peculiar circumstances: and to the state of literary curiosity and liberality so different from what prevail in our own days. This is specious, and must be satisfactory for want of information respecting the usual prices of literary labour, which we cannot now easily acquire. We have seen a manuscript computation by the late John Whiston the bookseller, which would be valuable, as coming from a good judge of the article, if, unfortunately, he had been correct in the outset: but as he represents Jacob Tonson giving the author 30l. for the first edition, and lOl. more when it should come to a second, we know all this to be erroneous, and that the author’s family had disposed of the whole before the work became Tonson’s property* This, however, he calls “a generous price, as copies then sold;” and if this be true, we cannot suppose for a moment, that a scholar could in that a^e indulge any hopes of being rewarded by the public. In Milton’s case we hope he had no dependance on it, for the true way to ascertain how very paltry the sum was which he received, is by comparing it with his property, which, at his death, amounted to 3000l.

In 1671, Milton published his “Paradise Regained,” written on the suggestion of Elwood, the quaker, who had been one of his amanuenses. Elwood, after reading the “Paradise Lost,” happened to say, “Thou hast said much here on Paradise Lost, but what hast thou to say of Paradise Found” This poem was probably regarded by the author as the theological completion of the plan commenced in “Paradise Lost,” and he is said to have viewed it with strong preference; but in this last opinion few have been found to coincide. Its inferiority in point of grandeur and invention is very generally acknowledged, although it is not by any means unworthy of his genius. About the same time appeared his “Samson Agonistes,” a drama, composed upon the ancient model, and abounding in moral and descriptive beauties, but never intended or calculated for the stage.

To that multiplicity of attainments, and extent of comprehension, that entitle this great author to our veneration, may be added, says Johnson, a kind of humble dignity, which did not disdain the meanest services to literature. The epic poet, the controvertist, and politician, having already descended to accommodate children with a book of elements, now, in the last years of his life, composed a book of Logic, for the initiation of students in philosophy: and published, in 1672, “Artis Logica? plenior institutio ad Petri Kami methodum concinnata.” In the following year he ventured once more to meddle with the controversies of the times, and wrote “A Treatise of true Religion, &c. and the best means to prevent the Growth of Popery.” The latter was become the dread of the nation, and Milton was among the most zealous of its opponents. The principle of toleration which he lays down is, agreement in the sufficiency of the scriptures, which he denies to the Papists, because they appeal to another authority. In the same year Milton published a second edition of his youthful poems, with his “Tractate on Education,” in one volume, in which he included some pieces not comprehended in the edition of 1645. In 1674 he gave the world his familiar letters, and some college exercises, the former with the title of “Epistolarum Familiarum Liber unus,” and the latter with that, of “Prolusiones quaedam oratoriae in Collegio Christ! habitae.” He is also said, but upon doubtful authority, to have translated into English the declaration of the Poles, on their elevating John Sobieski to their elective throne. With more probability he has been reckoned the author of “A brief History of Muscovy,” which was published about eight years after his death. With this work terminated his literary labours; for the gout, which had for many years afflicted him, was now hastening his end. He sunk tranquilly under an exhaustion of the vital powers on the 8th of November, 1674, when he had nearly completed his sixty-sixth year. His remains were carried from his house in Bunhill-fields to the church of St. Giles, Cripplegate, with a numerous and splendid attendance, and deposited in the chancel near those of his father. No monument marked the tomb of this great man, but one was erected to his memory in Westminster Abbey, in 1737, at the expence of Mr. Benson, one of the auditors of the imprest. His bust has since been placed in the church where he was interred, by the late Samuel Whitbread, esq.

In the July preceding- his death, Milton had requested the attendance of his brother Christopher, and in his presence made a disposition of his property by a formal declaration of his will. This mode of testament, which is called nuncupative, was set aside, on a suit instituted by his daughters. By this nuncupative will he had given all his property to his widow, assigning nothing to his daughters but their mother’s portion, which had not yet been paid. On this account* and from exacting from his children some irksome services, such as reading to him in languages which they did not understand, a necessity resulting from his blindness and his indigence, he has been branded as an unkind father. But the nuncupative will, discovered some years since, shews him to have been amiable, and injured in that private scene, in which alone he has generally been considered as liable to censure, or rather, perhaps, as not entitled to affection. In this will, published by Mr. Warton, and in the papers connected with it, we find the venerable parent complaining of “unkind children,” as he calls them, for leaving and neglecting him because he was blind; and we see him compelled, by their injurious conduct, to appeal against them even to his servants. By the deposition of one of those servants, it is certain, that his complaints were not extorted by slight wrongs, or uttered by capricious passion on trivial provocations: that his children, with the exception of the youngest, would occasionally sell his books to the dunghill women, as the witness calls them. That these daughters were capable of combining with the maid-servant, and of advising her to cheat her master, and their father, in her marketings; and that one of them, Mary, on being told that her father was married, replied, “that was no news 1; but if she could hear of his death, that would be something.”

Of the three daughters of Milton, Anne, the eldest, married a master-builder, and died with her first child in her lying-in. Mary, the second, died in a single state: and Deborah, the youngest, married Abraham Clarke, a weaver in Spitalfields. She had seven sons and three daughters; but of these she left, at her decease, only Caleb, who, marrying in the East Indies, had two sons, whose history cannot be traced; and Elizabeth, who married Thomas Foster, of the same business with her father, and had by him three sons and four daughters, who all died young and without issue.Mrs. Foster died in poverty and distress, on the ninth of May, 1754. This was the lady for whose benefit “Comus” was played in 1750, and she had so little acquaintance with diversion or gaiety, that she did not know what was intended when a benefit was offered her. The profits of the night were only 130l.; yet this, as Dr. Johnson remarks, was the greatest benefaction that “Paradise Lost” ever procured the author’s descendants.

Milton was in youth so eminently beautiful that he was called the lady of his college. His hair, which was of a light brown, parted at the foretop, and hung down upon his shoulders, according to the picture which he has given of Adam. He was rather below the middle size, but vigorous and active, fond of manly sports, and even skilful in the exercise of the sword. His domestic habits, as far as they are known, were those of a severe student. He was remarkably temperate both in eating and drinking. In his youth, as we have noticed, he studied late at night; but afterwards changed his hours, and became a very early riser. The course of his day was best known after he lost his sight. When he first rose, he heard a chapter in the Hebrew Bible, and then studied till twelve; then took some exercise for an hour then dined, then played on the organ, and sung or heard another sing studied to the hour of six, and entertained his visitors till eight then supped, and after a pipe of tobacco and a glass of water went to bed. To his personal character there seems to have been little to object. He was unfortunate in his family, but no part of the blame rested with him. His temper, conduct, morals, benevolence, were all such as ought to have procured him respect. His religion has been a fertile subject of contest among his biographers. He is said to have been in early life a Calvinist, and when he began to hate the presbyterians, to have leaned towards Arminianism. Whatever were his opinions, no sect could boast of his countenance; for after leaving the church he never joined in public worship with any of them.

, an ancient Greek poet, was born either at Colophon, according to Strabo, or according to others at Smyrna, some time in the sixth century B. C. Strabo informs us that he was a musician, as well as a writer of elegies, which was his chief pursuit: and Nanno, the lady who passes for his mistress, is recorded to have got her livelihood by the same profession. There are but few fragments of his poems remaining, yet enough to shew him an accomplished master in his own style. His temper seems to have been as truly poetical as his writings, wholly bent on love and pleasure, and averse to the cares of common business. He appears to have valued life only as it could afford the means of pleasure. By some he is said to have been the inventor of the pentameter, but various specimens of that verse of older date are still extant. Mimnermus’s fragments are printed by Brunck, in his “Analecta,” and in the “Gnomici Poetae.”

, a physician of Augsburg, of the chemical sect, lived in the early part of the seventeenth century. He was eminent as a military physician, in which capacity he served several campaigns, and also rose to high reputation and practice in the courts of Vienna and Munich, where he was consulted by the principal nobility. He published the result of his experience relative to the diseases of armies, in the German language; and this work was translated into Latin, with the title of “Medicina Militaris, seu, Liber Castrensis, euporista et facilè parabilia Medicamenta continens,” Vienna, 1620, 8vo. This work was several times reprinted, and was also translated into English in 1674. He was likewise author of the following works “De Pestilentia Liber unus,” ibid. 1608 “Albedarium Marocostinum,” ibid. 1616, and afterwards republished “De Calcantho, seu Vitriolo, ejusque qualitate, virtute, et viribus,” 1617 “Threnodia Medica, seu, Planctus Medicinæ lugentis,” 1619. His chemical reputation is evinced by the connection of his name in the shops, even at this day, with the neutral salt, the acetate of ammonia, which is called Mindererus’ spirit.

, a Dutch grammarian, born at Rotterdam about 1625, was occupied for the chief part of his life in teaching the learned languages, and died about 1683. He published editions of Terence, Sallust, Virgil, Horace, Florus, Valerius Maximus, and most of the classics, with short notes, rather for the aid of mere schoolboys, than of any kind of utility to the learned. Most of these editions are also printed in a very incorrect manner, at least the republications of them, in this and other countries.

, an ancient English poet, who flourished in the fourteenth century, but appears to have been unknown to Leland, Bale, Pits, and Tanner, was lately discovered by Tyrwhitt, and edited by Mr. Ritson in 1794, 8vo. The discovery was owing to a remarkable circumstance. Some former possessor of the manuscript in which his poems are contained had written his name, Richard Chawser, on one of the supernumerary leaves. The compiler of the Cotton catalogue, printed at Oxford in 1696, converted this signature into Geoffrey Chaucer, and therefore described the volume in these words, “Chaucer. Exemplar emendate scriptum.” Mr. Tyrwhitt, whilst he was preparing his edition of the Canterbury Tales, consulted this manuscript, and thus discovered the poems of Laurence Minot. The versification of this poet is uncommonly easy and harmonious for the period in which he lived, and an alliteration, as studied as that of Pierce Plowman, runs through all his varieties of metre. He has not the dull prolixity of many early authors; nor do we find in his remains those pictures of ancient times and manners, from whica early writers derive their greatest value. In the easy flow of his language he certainly equals Chaucer but here the merit of Laurence Minot ends, although Mr. Ritson endeavours to carry it much farther.

, a father of the primitive church, flourished in the third century. He is said to have been an African by birth, but little is known of his history, except tiiat he was a proselyte to Christianity, resided at Rome, and followed the profession of a lawyer. He is now known by his excellent dialogue, entitled “Octavius.” At what time he wrote it is a contested point, but as he appears to have imitated Tertullian, and to have been copied by Cyprian in his treatise “De idolornm vanitate,” it may probably be referred to the reign of the emperor Caracalla. The speakers in this dialogue are Caecilius, a heathen, and Octavius, a Christian; and Minucins, as their common friend, is chosen to moderate between the two disputants. Octavius is made to encounter the arguments of Caecilius, and maintains the unity of God, asserts his providence, vindicates the manners of Christians, and partly attempts to explain their tenets, and partly refers a more ample consideration of them to some future opportunity of discourse. It is a learned, elegant, and ingenious performance, although critical objections may be made to the form of the dialogue, and to some of the sentiments. This work was, for a considerable time, attributed to Arnobius; but in 1560, Francis Baldwin, a learned lawyer, published it at Heidelberg, in 8vo, and made the discovery in a preliminary dissertation, that Minucius was its true author. It has, since that time, gone through many editions, of which the best is that printed at Cambridge in 1712, with the dissertation of Baldwin prefixed, and w Commodiani Instructiones adversus Gentium Deos," added in the way of appendix. We have likewise an excellent translation of it, with notes and illustrations, published by sir D. Dalrymple, lord Hailes, in 1781, from the preface to which part of the above account is taken.

, a learned man, who held the place of perpetual secretary to the French academy, was born in Provence in 1674, and lived to the age of eighty-six. He is chiefly known, as an author, by 1. “A translation of Tasso’s Jerusalem delivered,” which has gone through several editions, but has since been superseded by a better, written by M. le Brun. Mirabauu took upon him, rather too boldly, to retrench or alter what he thought unpleasing in his author, 2. “A translation of the Orlando Furioso,” which has the same faults. He wrote also a little tract entitled “Alphabet de la Fee Gracieuse,” 1734, 12mo. His eulogium at the academy was drawn up by M. de Buffon, and is full of high encomiums.

, well known both by his writings, and the active part he took in bringing about the French revolution, was born in 1749, of a noble family. Throughout life he displayed a spirit averse to every restraint, and was one of those unhappy geniuses in whom the most brilliant talents serve only as a scourge to themselves and all around them. It is told by his democratical panegyrists, as a wonderful proof of family tyranny, under the old government, that not less thau sixty- seven lettres de cachet had been obtained by Mirabeau the father against this son, and others of his rela-' tives. It proves at least as much, what many anecdotes confirm, that, for his share of them, the son was not less indebted to his own ungovernable disposition, than to the severity of his parent. The whole Course of his youth was passed in this manner. Extravagance kept him always poor; and this species of paternal interference placed him very frequently in prison. It may be supposed also, that the part taken by the government in these unpleasant admonitions, did not tend to attach young Mirabeau to that system. The talents of Mirabeau led him frequently to employ his pen, and his publications form the chief epochas of his life. His first publication was, 1. “Essai sur le Despotisme,” “An Essay on Despotism,” in 8vo. Next, in one of his confinements, he wrote, 2. a work “On Lettres de Cachet,” 2 vols. 8vo. 3. “Considerations sur Pordre de Cincinnatus,” 8vo; a remonstrance against the order of Cincinnatus, proposed atone time to be established in America. The public opinion in America favoured this remonstrance, and it proved effectual. 4. His next work was in favour of the Dutch, when Joseph II. demanded the opening of the Scheld, in behalf of the Brabanons. It is entitled, “Doutes sur la liberte* de PEscaut,” 8vo. 5. “Lettre a Pempereur Joseph II. sur son reglement concernant P Emigration,” a pamphlet of forty pages, in 8vo. 6. “De la Caisse d'Escompte,” a volume in 8vo, written against that establishment. 7. “De la Banque d'Espagne,” 8vo a remonstrance against establishing a French bank in Spain. A controversy arising on this subject, he wrote again upon it. 8. Two pamphlets on the monopoly of the water company in Paris, Soon after writing these hewent to Berlin, which was in 1786, and was there when Frederic II. died. On this occasion also he took up his pen, and addressed to his successor a tract entitled, 9. “Lettre remise a Frederic Guillaume II. roi regnant de Prusse, le jour de son avenement au trone.” This contained, says his panegyrist, “non pas des eloges de lui, mais des eloges du peuple; non pas des voeux pour lui, mais des vceux pour le peuple; non pas des conseils pour Jui, mais des conseils pour le bonheur du peuple.”

Mirabeau was still at Berlin when he heard of the assembly of notables convened in France, and then foretold that it would soon be followed by a meeting of the states. At this period he published a volume against the stockjobbing, then carried to a great height, entitled, 10. “Denonciation de Pagiotage au roi, et a Passemblee des notables,” vo. A lettre de cachet was issued against him in consequence of this publication, but he eluded pursuit, and published a pamphlet as a sequel to the book. His next work was against M. Necker. 11. “Lettre a M. de Cretelle, sur Padministration de M. Necker,” a pamphlet in $vo. 12. A volume, in 8vo, against the Stadtholdership “Aux Bataves, sur le Stadthouderat.” 13. “Observations sur la maison de force appellee Bicetre,” an 8vo pamphlet. 14. Another tract, entitled “Conseils a un jeune prince qui sent la nécessite de refaire son education.” 15. He now proceeded to a larger and more arduous work than any he had yet published, on the Prussian monarchy under Frederic the Great, “De la Monarchic Prussienne sous Frederic le Grand,” 4 vols. 4to, or eight in 8vo. In this work he undertakes to define precisely how a monarchy should be constituted. When the orders were issued for convening the states-general, Mirabeau returned into Provence, and at the same time published, 16. “Histoire secrette de la cour de Berlin,” two volumes of letters on the secret history of the court of Berlin. This work was condemned by the parliament of Paris, for the unreserved manner in which it delivered the characters of many foreign princes. As the elections proceeded, he was chosen at once for Marseilles, and for Aix; but the former being a commercial town, which seemed to require a representative particularly conversant in such business, Mirabeau made his choice for Aix.

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

, a learned German, was born at Brussels in 1573; and was first almoner and librarian of Albert, archduke of Austria. He was an ecclesiastic, and laboured all his life for the good of the church and of his country. He died in 1640. His works are, 1.“Elogiaillustrium Belgii scriptorum,” 1609, 4to. 2. “Opera Historica et Diplomatica.” This is a collection of charters and diplomas, relating to the Low Countries. The best edition is that of 1724, 4 vols. in folio, by Foppens, who has made notes, corrections, and additions to it. 3. “Rerum Belgicarum Chronicon;” useful for the history of the Low Countries. 4. “De rebus Bohemicis,” 12mo. 5. “Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica.” 6. “Vita Justi Lipsii,” &c. Penetration, and exactness in facts and citations, are usually esteemed the characteristics of this writer.

, a distinguished lawyer, whose pleadings before the parliament of Paris in favour of the reformers, bear genuine marks of eloquence and ability, retired into England after the repeal of the edict of Nantes, where he became a strenuous assertor of the protestant religion. In 1687 and 1688, he went on his travels into Italy, in quality of governor to an English nobleman. An account of the country, and of the occurrences of the time in which he remained in it, was published at the Hague, in 3 vols. 12mo, under the title of “A New Voyage to Italy.” L'abbe du Fresnoy, speaking of this performance, observes, “that it is well written but that the author has shewn himself too credulous, and as ready to believe every insinuation to the disadvantage of the Roman catholics, as they generally are to adopt whatever can reflect disgrace upon the protestants.” The translation of this work into the English language has been enlarged with many additions: the original has been several times reprinted. Addison, in his preface to his remarks on the different parts of Italy, says, that “Mons. Misson has written a more correct account of it, in general, than any before him, as he particularly excelled in the plan of the country, which he has given us in true and lively colours.” He published, after his arrival in England, “The Sacred Theatre at Cevennes, or an account of Prophecies and Miracles performed in that part of Languedoc:” this was- printed at London in 1707 and, according to the Roman catholic writers, is full of fanaticism and ridiculous stories, He also left behind him “The Observations and Remarks of a Traveller,” in 12mo, published at the Hague, by Vanderburen. He died at London, Jan. 16, 1721.

, knight of the bath, and a distinguished ambassador at the court of Berlin, was the only child of the rev. William Mitchell, formerly of Aberdeen, but then one of the ministers of St. Giles’s, commonly called the high church of Edinburgh. The time of his birth is not specified, but he is said to have been married in 1715, when very young, to a lady who died four years after in child-birth, and whose loss he felt with so much acuteness, as to be obliged to discontinue the study of the law, for which his father had designed him, and divert his grief by travelling, amusements, &c. This mode of life is said to have been the original cause of an extensive acquaintance with the principal noblemen and gentlemen in North Britain, by whom he was esteemed for sense, spirit, and intelligent conversation. Though his progress in the sciences was but small, yet no person had a greater regard for men of learning, and he particularly cultivated the acquaintance of the clergy, and professors of the university of Edinburgh. About 1736 he appears to have paid considerable attention to mathematics under the direction of the celebrated Maclaurin; and soon after began, his political career, as secretary to the marquis of Tweedale, who Wc-s appointed minister for the affuirs of Scotland in 1741. He became also acquainted with the earl of Stair, and it was owing to his application to that nobleman that Dr. (afterwards sir John) Pringle, was in 1742 appointed physician to the British ambassador at the Hague.

Though the marquis of Tweedale resigned the place of secretary of state, in consequence of the rebellion in 1745, yet Mr. Mitchell still kept in favour. He had taken care, during that memorable period, to keep up a correspondence with some eminent clergymen in Scotland, and from time to time communicated the intelligence he received; which assiduity was rewarded wiih a seat in the House of Commons in 1747, as representative for the burghs of BamfF, Elgin, Cullen, Inverurie, and Kiiitore. In 1751 he was appointed his majesty’s resident at Brussels, where, continuing two years, he in 1753 came to London, was created a knight of the bath, and appointed ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary at the court of Berlin. There, by his polite behaviour, and a previous acquaintance with marshal Keith, he acquired sufficient influence with his Prussian majesty to detach him from the French interest. This event involved the court of France in the greatest losses, arising not only from vast subsidies to the courts of Vienna, Petersburg!], and Stockholm, but also from the loss of numerous armies. Sir Audrew generally accompanied the great Frederick through the course of his several campaigns, and when, on the memorable 12th of August, 1759, the Prussian army was totally routed by count SoltikofT, the Russian general, it was with difficulty that he could be prevailed upon to quit the king’s tent, even while all was in confusion.

From a very recent writer, we have some account of his mode of living and general conduct while at Berlin, which was highly honourable to his sense and spirit. When he first arrived at Berlin, he had occasioned some perplexity to those who invited him to their houses, for he played no game of chance, so that his hosts constantly said to each other, “What shall we do with this Englishman, who never plays at cards” In a short time, however, the contest was, who should leave the card -table to enjoy the conversation of sir Andrew Mitchell, whose understanding, they discovered, was no less admirable than the virtues of his character. His bon-mots came into circulation, and were long retailed. Thiebault has recorded a few which, as he says, explain rather his principles than his understanding. On one occasion that three English mails were due, the king said to him, at the levee, “Have you not the spleen, Mr. Mitchell, when the mail is thus delayed r” “No, Sire, not when it is delayed, but often enough when it arrives duly.” This alludes to his being frequently dissatisfied with his own court. During the seven years’ war, in which, as we have already noticed, he constantly served immediately under Frederic, the English government had promised Frederic to send a fleet to the Baltic, for the protection of commerce, and to keep off the Swedes and Russians; but as this fleet never made its appearance, the Swedes were enabled to transport their army without interruption to Pomerania, together with all the necessaries for its support, and the Russians conveyed provisions for their troops by sea, and laid siege to Colberg, &c. All this could not fail to give umbrage to Frederic, and he incessantly complained to sir Andrew, who found himself embarrassed what reply to make. At length the ambassador, who had before been daily invited to dine with the king, received no longer this mark of attention; the generals, meeting him about the king’s hour of dinner, said to him, < It is dinner-time, M. Mitchell.“” Ah gentlemen,“replied he,” no fleet, no dinner“This was repeated to Frederic, and the invitations were renewed. Frederic in his fits of ill-humour was known to exercise his wit even at the expence of his allies; and the English minister at home expressed to sir Andrew Mitchell a wish that he would include some of these splenetic effusions in his official dispatches. Sir Andrew, however, in reply, stated the distinction between such kind of intelligence, and that which properly belonged to his office; and the application was not repeated, by which he was saved from the disgrace, for such he considered it, of descending to the littlenesses of a mere gossip and tale-bearer. We shall only add one more repartee of sir Andrew Mitchell, because, if we mistake not, it has been repeated as the property of other wits. After the affair of Port Mahon, the king of Prussia said to him,” You have made a bad beginning, M. Mitchell. What! your fleet beaten, and Port Mahon taken in your first campaign The trial in which you are proceeding against your admiral Byng is a bad plaister for the malady. You have made a pitiful campaign of it; this is certain.“” Sire, we hope, with God’s assistance, to make a better next year.“” With GocVs assistance, say you, Sir I did not know you had such an ally.“” We rely much upon him, though he costs us less than our other allies."

In 1765, sir Andrew came over to England for the recovery of his health, which was considerably impaired, and after spending some time at Tunbridge Wells, returned in March 1766 to Berlin, where he died Jan. 28, 1771. The court of Prussia honoured his funeral with their presence, and the king himself, from a balcony, is said to have beheld the procession with tears.

, was the son of a stone-cutter in North-Britain, and was born about 1684. Cibber tells us that he received an university education while he remained in that kingdom, but does not specify where. He quitted his own country, however, and repaired to London, with a view of improving his fortune. Here he got into favour with the earl of Stair and sir Robert Walpole; on the latter of whom he was for great part of his life almost entirely dependent. He received, indeed, so many obligations from that open-handed statesman, and, from a sense of gratitude which seems to have been strongly characteristic of his disposition, was so zealous in his interest, that he was distinguished by the title of “Sir Robert Walpole’s poet.” Notwithstanding this valuable patronage, his natural dissipation of temper, his fondness for pleasure, and eagerness in the gratification of every irregular appetite, threw him into perpetual distresses, and all those uneasy situations which are the inevitable consequences of extravagance. Nor does it appear that, after having experienced, more than once, the fatal effects of those dangerous follies, he thought of correcting his conduct at a time he had it in his power: for when, by the death of his wife’s uncle, several thousand pounds devolved to him, instead of discharging those debts which he had already contracted, he lavished the whole away, in the repetition of his former follies. As to the particulars of his history, there are not many on record, for his eminence in public character not rising to such an height as to make the transactions of his life important to strangers, and the follies of his private behaviour inducing those who were intimate with him, rather to conceal than publish his actions, there is a cloud of obscurity hanging over them, which is neither easy, nor indeed much worth while, to withdraw from them. His genius was of the third or fourth rate, yet he lived in good correspondence with most of the eminent wits of his time, particularly with Aaron Hill, who on a particular occasion finding himself unable to relieve him by pecuniary assistance, presented him with the profits and reputation also of a successful dramatic piece, in one act, entitled “The Fatal Extravagance.” It was acted and printed in Mitchell’s name; but he was ingenuous enough to undeceive the world with regard to its true author, and on every occasion acknowledged the obligations he lay under to Hill. The dramatic pieces, which appear under this gentleman’s name are, 1. “The Fatal Extravagance, a tragedy,” 1721, 8vo. 2. “The Fatal Extravagance, a tragedy, enlarged,” 1725, 12mo. 3. “The Highland Fair, ballad opera,” 1731, 8vo. The latter of these is really Mitchell’s, and is notwithout merit. This author died Feb. 6, 1738 and Gibber gives the following character of him “He seems to have been a poet of the third rate he has seldom reached the sublime his humour, in which he more succeeded, is not strong enough to last his versification holds a statd of mediocrity he possessed but little invention and if he was not a bad rhimester, he cannot be denominated a fine poet, for there are but few marks of genius in his writings.” His poems were printed 1729, in 2 vols. 8vo.

, a learned monk and historian of the order of the Camaldoli, was born at Venice Sept. 10, 1708, and after a course of study, during which he distinguished himself by arduous application, and acquired the fame of great learning, he became, in 1732, professor of philosophy and theology in the monastery of St. Michael at Venice. Being also appointed master of the novices, he remained in that office until 1747, when he removed to Faenza, as chancellor of his order. Here he first began to form the plan and collect materials for his celebrated work, the “Annales Camaldulenses,” in which he had the assistance of father Anselm Costadoni. In 1756 he was chosen abbe of his order in the state of Venice, and became, of course, head of the monastery of St. Michael. In 1764 he was appointed general of his order, and went to Rome, where he was received with every mark of respect by pope Clement XIII. He died at St. Michael’s Aug. 14, 1777. His annals were published in 1773, under the title of “Arinales Camaldulenses ordinis S. Benedicti ab anno 907 ad annum 1764, &c.” Venice, 9 vols fol. His other works were,. “Memorie del monistero della santissima Trinita irr Fv.erza,” Faenza, 1749. 2. “Ad scriptores rerum Itahcarum Cl. Mnratorii accessiones historicge Faventinae,” &c. Venice, 1771. 5. “De litteratura Faventinorum, sive de viris dociis, et scriptoribus urbis Faventinae (Faenza), appendix ad accessiones hist. Faventinas,” Venice, 1775. 6. “Bibliotheca codicum manuscriptorum monasterii S. Michaeiis Venetiaruhi, cum appendice librorum impressorum seculi XV.” ibid. 1779, fol.

, an ingenious French painter, born at Paris about 1688, was the pupil of Galloche. Though born without the least traces of a genius for painting, it is incredible what lengths his perseverance, and continual reflections on the theory and practice of his art, carried him. His manner of designing was never correct, but it was pleasing; and the heads of his women remarkably graceful. His best pictures are, the nativity at S. Roche; a transfiguration; the flight into Egypt; a St. John in the desert at St. Eustace’s; the assumption of the virgin, in fresco, at St. Sulpice; the conversion of St. Paul at St. Germain-des-Pres; the apotheosis of Hercules at Versailles, the saloon of which he was four years in painting, and, for reward, the king granted him a pension of 3000 livres. The end of his days was tarnished by the crime of suicide, which he committed in a melancholy fit June 4, 1737, aged 49 years.

, a very learned French minister of the Protestant religion, was born at Caen in 1624. He became extremely skilled in the Greek, Latin, and Oriental tongues, and professed divinity with high reputation at Leyden, in which city he died in 1689. Several dissertations of his are printed together, and entitled “Varia sacra,” in 2 vols. 4to; besides which, he wrote other works.

, a French poet, born at Chaumon in Bassigny in 1602, was admitted into the society and confidence of the Jesuits, and is said to have been the first Jesuit of France who acquired any fame by writing poetry in his native language. He was not, however, a poet of the first order; he was rather & college student, possessed of an ardent imagination, but devoid of taste; who, instead of restraining the hyperbolical flights of his genius, indulged them to the utmost. His greatest work was “Saint Louis, ou la Couronne reconquise sur les Infidelles,” an epic poem, in eighteen books. Boileau being asked his opinion of him, answered, “that he was too wrong-headed to be much commended, and too much of a poet to be strongly condemned.” He wrote many other poems of a smaller kind, and several works in prose, on divinity, and other subjects. He died at Paris, the 22d of Aug. 1672.

, warden of All Souls college, Oxford, was born in 1578 in Dorsetshire, and educated first at Brasenose college, whence in 1599 he was elected a fellow of All Souls, befng then four years standing in the degree of B. A. Afterwards he took his master’s degree, and entered into holy orders. He hecame domestic chaplain to archbishop Abbot, and in Dec. 1610 was instituted to the rectory of St. Clement’s, Eastcheap, which he resigned in December following. In 1611 he was made rector of St. Michael, Crooked-lane, but resigned it in June 1614, in consequence of having been in April preceding, elected warden of All Souls, on which occasion he took his degree of D. D. He held afterwards the rectory of Monks Risborow, in the county of Buckingham, and of Newington, near Dorchester, in Oxfordshire. He was one of the king' commissioners in ecclesiastical affairs, and died July 5, 1618, in the fortieth year of his age. Wood seems to insinuate that his death was hastened by the treatment his work received. This was a folio published at London in 1616, containing a Latin translation of the Liturgy, Catechisms, 39 articles, ordination book, and doctrinal points extracted from the homilies, to which he added, also in Latin, a treatise “de politia ecclesiae Anglicanac.” The design of this publication was to recommend the formularies and doctrines of the Church of England to foreign nations; but, according to Wood, there was such a leaning towards “Calvin’s Platform,” that the work was not only called in, but ordered to be publicly burnt. Heylin, who speaks highly of the author’s character and good intentions, thinks that the true cause of this work being so disgraced was, that in translating the 20th article, he omitted the first clause concerning the power of the church to decree rites and ceremonies, &c. His treatise “De Politia” was reprinted at London in 1683, 8vo, but the former edition we conceive is of rare occurrence, as we do not find it in the Bodleian or Museum catalogues.

, an eminent painter, was, according to some, born at Coldra, and to others, at Lugano, 1609. He was at first the disciple of Gesari d'Arpino, but formed a style of his own, selected from the principles of Albani and Guercino. He never indeed arrived at the grace of the former, but he excelled him in vigour of tint, in variety of invention, in spirited and resolute execution. He had studied colour with intense application at Venice, and excelled in fresco and in oil. Of the many pictures with which he enriched the churches and palaces of Rome, that of Joseph recognised by his brothers, on the Quirinal, is considered as the most eminent. If Mola possessed a considerable talent for history, he was a genius in landscape: his landscape every where exhibits in the most varied combination, and with the most vigorous touch, the sublime scenery of the territory in which he Was born. His predilection for landscape was such, that in his historic subjects it may often be doubted which is the principal, the actors or the scene; a fault which may be sometimes imputed to Titian himself. In many of Mola’s gallery-pictures, the figures have been ascribed to Albano. He reared three disciples, Antonio Gherardi of Rieti, who after his death entered the school of Cortona, and distinguished himself more by facility than elegance of execution Gia. Batista Boncuore of Rome, a painter at all times of great effect, though often somewhat heavy and Giovanni Bonati of Ferrara, called Giovannino del Pio, from the protection of that cardinal, who painted three altar-pieces of consideration at Rome, but died young. Mola died in 1665, aged fifty-six. He had a brother, John Baptist, who was born in 1620, and also learned the art of painting in the school of Albani. He proved a very good painter in history, as well as in landscape; but was far inferior to his brother, in style, dignity, taste, and colouring. In his manner he had more resemblance to the style of Albani, than to that of his brother; yet his figures are rather hard and dry, and want the mellowness of the master. However, there are four of his pictures in the Palazzo Salviati, at Rome, which are universally taken for the hand of Albani.

, viscount Molesworth of Swordes in Ireland, an eminent statesman and polite writer, was descended from a family, anciently seated in the counties of Northampton and Bedford in England; but his father having served in the civil wars in Ireland, settled afterwards in Dublin, where he became an eminent merchant, and died in 1656, leaving his wife pregnant with this only child, who raised his family to the honours they now enjoy. He was born in Dec. at Dublin, and bred in the college there; and engaged early in a marriage with a sister of Richard earl of Bellamont, who brought him a daughter in 1677. When the prince of Orange entered England in 1688, he distinguished himself by an early and zealous appearance for the revolution, which rendered him so obnoxious to king James, that he was attainted, and his estate sequestered by that king’s parliament, May 2, 1689. But when king William was settled on the throne, he called this sufferer, for whom he had a particular esteem, into his privy council; and, in 1692, sent him envoy extraordinary to the court of Denmark. Here he resided above three years, till, some particulars in his conduct disobliging his Danish majesty, he was forbidden the court. Pretending business in Flanders, he retired thither without any audience of leave, and came from thence home: where he was no sooner arrived, than he drew up “An Account of Denmark;” in which he represented the government of that country as arbitrary and tyrannical. This piece was greatly resented by prince George of Denmark, consort to the princess, afterwards queen Anne; and Scheel, the Danish envoy, first presented a memorial to king William, complaining of it, and then furnished materials for an answer, which was executed by Dr. William King. From King’s account it appears, that Molesworth’s offence in Denmark was, his boldly pretending to some privileges, which, by the custom of the country, are denied to every body but the king; as travelling the king’s road, and hunting the king’s game: which being done, as is represented, in defiance of opposition, occasioned the rupture between the envoy and that count. If this allegation have any truth, the fault lay certainly altogether on the side "of Molesworth whose disregard of the customs: of the country to which he was sent, cannot be defended.

In the mean time his book was well received by the public, reprinted thrice (and as lately as 1758), and translated into several languages. The spirit of it was particularly approved by the earl of Shaftesbury, author of the “Characteristics;” who from thence conceived a great esteem for him, which afterwards ripened into a close friendship. Molesworth’s view in writing the “Account of Denmark,” is clearly intimated in the preface, where he plainly give us his political, as well as his religious creed. He censures very severely the clergy in general, for defending the revolution upon any other principles than those of resistance, and the original contract, which he maintains to be the true and natural basis of the constitution; and that all other foundations are false, nonsensical, rotten, derogatory to the then present government, and absolutely destructive to the legal liberties of the English nation. As the preservation of these depends so much upon the right education of youth in the universities, he urges, also, in the strongest terms, the absolute necessity of purging and reforming those, by a royal visitation: so that the youth may not be trained up there, as he says they were, in the< slavish principles of passive obedience and jus divinum, but may be instituted after the manner of the Greeks and Romans, who in their academies recommended the duty to their country, the preservation of the law and public liberty: subservient to which they preached up moral virtues, such as fortitude, temperance, justice, a contempt of death, &c. sometimes making use of pious cheats, as Elysian fields, and an assurance of future happiness, if they died in the cause of their country; whereby they even deceived their hearers into greatness. This insinuation, that religion is nothing more than a pious cheat, and an useful state-engine, together with his pressing morality as the one thing necessary, without once mentioning the Christian religion, could not but be very agreeable to the author of the “Characteristics.” In reality, it made a remarkably strong impression on him, as we find him many years after declaring, in a letter to our author, in these terms: “You have long had my heart, even before I knew you, personally. For the holy and truly pious man, who revealed the greatest of mysteries: he who, with a truly generous love to mankind and his country, pointed out the state of Denmark to other states, and prophesied of things highly important to the growing age: he, I say, had already gained me as his sworn friend, before he was so kind as to make friendship reciprocal, by his acquaintance and expressed esteem. So that you may believe it no extraordinary transition in me, from making you in truth my oracle in public affairs, to make you a thorough confident in my private.” This private affair was a treaty of marriage with a relation of our author; and though the design miscarried, yet the whole tenor of the letters testifies the most intimate friendship between the writers.

Molesworth served his country in the House of Commons in both kingdoms, being chosen for the borough of Swordes in Ireland, and for those of Bodmyn, St. Michael, and East Retford in England; his conduct in the senate being always firm and steady to the principles he embraced. He was a member-of the privy-council to queen Anne, till the latter end of her reign when, party running high, he was removed from the board in Jan. 1713. This was upon a complaint against him from the lower, house of convocation, presented Dec.^2, by the prolocutor, to the House of Peers, charging him- with speaking these words, in the hearing of many persons: “They jhat have turned the world upside down, are come hither also;” and for affronting the clergy in convocation, when they presented their address to lord chancellor Phipps. Steele’s “Crisis” was written partly in vindication of Molesworth, and severely animadverted upon by Swift in his “Public Spirit of the Whigs.” But as Molesworth constantly asserted, and strenuously maintained the right of succession in the house of Hanover, George I. on the forming of his privy-council in Ireland, made him a member of it, Oct. 9, 1714, and the next month a commissioner of trade and plantations. His majesty also advanced him to the peerage of Ireland in 1716, by the title of Baron of Philipstown, and viscount Molesworth of Swordes. He was fellow of the Royal Society and continued to serve his country with indefatigable industry, till the two last years of his life when, perceiving himself worn out with constant application to public affairs, he passed these in a studious and learned retirement. His death happened on May 22, 1725, at his seat at Breedenstown, in the county of Dublin. He had a seat also in England, at Edlington, near Tickill, in Yorkshire. By his will he devised 50l. towards building a church at Philipstown. He had by his wife seven sons and four daughters; one of whom, Mary, married to Mr. Monk, an Irish gentleman, acquired some reputation as the authoress of poems published after her death, in 1715, by her father, under the title of “Marinda, Poems and Translations upon several occasions.” See Mo>Ik hereafter.

Besides his “History of Denmark,” he wrote an “Address to the House of Commons,” for the encouragement of agriculture; “Considerations for promoting Agriculture,” Dublin, 1723; and “A Letter relating to the Bill of Peerage,” 1719. He translated “Franco-Gallia,” a Latin treatise of the civilian Hottoman, giving an account of the free state of France, and other parts of Europe, before the loss of their liberties. The second edition of this work, with additions, and a new preface by the translator, came out in 1721, 8vo. He is likewise reputed the author of several tracts, written with great force of reason and masculine eloquence, in defence of his ideas of the constitution of his country, and the common rights of mankind: and it is certain, that few men of his fortune and quality were more learned, or more highly esteemed by men of learning. In the printed correspondence between Locke and Molyneux, there are letters which shew the high regard those gentlemen had for him.

, the celebrated comic writer of France, whose original name was Pocquelin, was born at Paris about 1620. He was both son and grandson to valets de chambres on one side, and tapissiers on the other, to Louis XIII. and was designed for the latter business, that of a domestic upholsterer, whose duty was to take care of the furniture of the royal apartments. But the grandfather being very fond of the boy, and at the same time a great lover of plays, used to take him often with him to the hotel de Bourgogne; which presently roused up Moliere’s natural genius and taste for dramatic representations, and created in him such a disgust to his intended employment, that at last his father consented to let him study under the Jesuits, at the college of Clermont. During the five years that he resided here, he made a rapid progress in the study of philosophy and polite literature, and, if we mistake not, acquired even now much insight into the varieties of human character. He had here also an opportunity of contracting an intimate friendship with Chapelle, Bernier, and Cyrano. Chapelle, with whom Bernier was an associate in his studies, had the famous Gassendi for his tutor, who willingly admitted Moliere to his lectures, as he afterwards also admitted Cyrano. When Louis XIII. went to Narbonne, in 1641, his studies were interrupted: for his infirm father, not being able to attend the court, Moliere was obliged to go there to supply his place. This, however, he quitted on his fathers death; and his passion for the stage, which had induced him first to study, revived more strongly than ever. Some have said, that he for a time studied the law, and was admitted an advocate. This seems doubtful, but, if true, he soon yielded to those more lively pursuits which made him the restorer of comedy in France, and the coadjutor of Corneille, who had rescued the tragic Muse from barbarism. The taste, indeed, for the drama, was much improved in France, after cardinal de Richelieu granted a peculiar protection to dramatic poets. Many little societies now made it a diversion to act plays in their own houses; in one of which, known by the name of “The illustrious Theatre,” Moliere entered himself; and it was then, in conformity to the example of the actors of that time, that he changed his name of Pocquelin for that of Moliere, which he retained ever after. What became of him from 1648 to 1652 we know not, this interval being the time of the civil wars, which caused disturbances in Paris; but it is probable, that he was employed in composing some of those pieces which were afterwards exhibited to the public. La Bejart, an actress of Champagne, waiting, as well as he, for a favourable time to display her talents, Moliere was particularly kind to her; and as their interests became mutual, they formed a company together, and went to Lyons in 1653, where Moliere produced his first play, called “L'Etourdi,” or the Blunderer, and appeared in the double character of author and actor. I his drew almo_st all the spectators from the other company of comedians, which was settled in that town; some of which company joined with Moliere, and followed him to Beziers in Languedoc, where he offered his services to the prince of Co'nti, who gladly accepted them, as he had known him at college, and was among the first to predict his brilliant career on the stage. He now received him as a friend; and not satisfied with confiding to him the management of the entertainments which he gave, he offered to make him his secretary, which the latter declined, saying, “I am a tolerable author, but I should make a very bad secretary.” About the latter end of 1657, Moliere departed with his company for Grenoble, and continued there during the carnival of 1658. After this he went and settled at Rouen, where he staid all the summer; and having made some journeys to Paris privately, he had the good fortune to please the king’s brother, who, granting him his protection, and making his company his own, introduced him in that quality to the king and queen-mother. That company began to appear before their majesties and the whole court, in Oct. 1658, upon a stage erected on purpose, in the hall of the guards of the Old Louvre; and “were so well approved, that his majesty gave orders for their settlement at Paris. The hall of the Petit Bourbon was granted them, to act by turns with the Italian players. In 1663, Moliere obtained a pension of a thousand livres: and, in 1665, his company was altogether in his majesty’s service. He continued all the remaining part of his life to give new plays, which were very much and very justly applauded: and if we consider the number of works which he composed in about the space of twenty years, while he was himself all the while an actor, and interrupted, as he must be, by perpetual avocations of one kind or other, we cannot fail to admire the quickness, as well as fertility of his genius; and we shall rather be apt to think with Boileau,” that rhime came to him,“than give credit to some others, who say he” wrote very slowly."

His last comedy was “Le malade imaginaire,” or The Hypochondriac and it was acted for the fourth time, Feb. 17, 1673. Upon this very day Moliere died and the manner of his death, as it was first reported, must have been extraordinary, if true. The chief person represented in “Le ma'iade imaginaire,” is a sick man, who, upon a certain occasion, pretends to be dead. Moliere represented that person, and consequently was obliged, in one of his scenes, to act the part of a dead man. The report, therefore, was that beexpired in that part of the play, and the poets took hold of this incident to show their wit, in a ^variety of jeux d'esprit, as if it had been a legitimate subject for jesting. The only decent lines on this occasion were the following, evidently written by some person of a graver character:

But, according to the best accounts, Moliere was indisposed before the performance of the play. His wifr, and Baron the actor, urged him to take some care of himself, and not to perform that day. “And what then,” said he, “is to become of my poor performers I should reproach myself if I neglected them a single day.” The exertions which he made to go through his part, produced a convulsion, followed by a voiniting of blood, which suffocated him some hours after, in the fifty-third year of his age. The king was so extremely affected with the loss of him, that, as a new mark of his favour, he prevailed with the archbishop of Paris not to deny his being interred in consecrated ground. As Moliere had gained himself many enemies, by ridiculing the folly and knavery of all orders of men, and particularly by exposing the hypocrites of the ecclesiastical order, and the bigots among the laity, in his celebrated comedy, the “Tartuffe*,” they therefore took the advantage of this play, to stir up Paris and the court against its author; and if the king had not interposed, he had then fallen a sacrifice to the indignation of the clergy. The king, however, stood his friend now he was dead; and the archbishop, through his majesty’s intercession, permitted him to be buried at St. Joseph’s, which was a chapel of ease to the parish church of St. Eustace.

It is related that Moliere read his comedies to an elderly female servant, named Laforet, and when he perceived that the passages which he intended to be humorous and laughable had no effect upon her, he altered them. He

* This comedy was suppressed by prince of Conde, his wonder at the difthe hverest of 'he ecclesiastics, afier rent fates of these two pieces, and

was permitted to have a long run. ridiculed; but Moliere, in the Tar‘­When Lows XIV. expressed to the tuftV,’ has attacked even the priests.“required the players also to bring their children to the rehearsals, that he might form his opinion of different passages from the natural expressions of their emotions. Moliere, who diverted himself on the theatre by laughing at the follies of mankind, could not guard against the effects of his own weakness. Seduced by a violent passion for the daughter of La Bejart, the actress, he married her, and was soon exposed to all the ridicule with which he had treated the husbands who were jealous of their wives. Happier in the society of his friends, he was beloved by his equals, and courted by the great. Marshal de Vivonne, the great Conde*, and even Lewis XIV. treated him with that familiarity which considers merit as on a level with birth. These flattering distinctions neither corrupted his understanding nor his heart. A poor man having returned him a piece of gold which he had given him by mistake,” In what a humble abode,“he exclaimed,” does Virtue dwell Here, my friend, take another.“When Baron informed him of one of his old theatrical companions whom extreme poverty prevented from appearing, Moliere sent for him, embraced him, and to words of consolation added a present of twenty pistoles and a rich theatrical dress.” When he was in the height of his reputation, Racine, who was just then come from Languedoc, and was scarcely known in Paris, went to see him, under pretence of consulting him about an ode which he had just finished. Moliere expressed such a favourable opinion of the ode, that Racine ventured to shew him his first tragedy, founded on the martyrdom of Theagenes and Chariclea, as he had read it in the Greek romance. Moliere, who had an honest consciousness of superiority, which exalted him above envy, was not sparing either of praise or of counsel. His liberality carried him still farther: he knew that Racine was not in easy circumstances, and therefore lent him a hundred louis-d'ors; thinking it a sufficient recompence to have the honour of producing a genius to the public, which, he foresaw, would one day be the glory of the stage. The French have very justly placed Moliere at the head of all their comic authors. There is, indeed, no author, in all the fruitful and distinguished age of Lewis XIV. who has attained a higher reputation, or who has more nearly reached the summit of perfection in his own art, according to the judgment of all the French critics. Voltaire boldly pronounces him to be the most eminent comic poet of any age or country nor, perhaps, is this the decision of mere partiality for, upon the whole, who deserves to be preferred to him When Louis XIV. insisted upon Boileau’s telling him who was the most original writer of his time, he answered, MoHere Moliere is always the satirist only of vice or folly. He has selected a great variety of ridiculous characters peculiar to the times in which he lived, and he has generally placed the ridicule justly. He possessed strong comic powers he is full of mirth and pleasantry and his pleasantry is always innocent. His comedies in verse, such as his “Misanthrope” and Tartuffe,“are a kind of dignified comedy, in which vice is exposed, in the style of elegant and polished satire. His verses have all the flow and freedom of conversation, yet he is said to have passed whole days’ in fixing upon a proper epithet or rhime. In his prose comedies, though there is abundance of ridicule, yet there is never any thing to offend a modest ear, or to throw contempt on sobriety and virtue. Together with those high qualities, Moliere has also some defects, which Voltaire, though his professed panegyrist, candidly admits. He is acknowledged not to be happy in the unravelling of his plots. Attentive more to the strong exhibition of characters, than to the conduct of the intrigue, his unravelling is frequently brought on with too little preparation, and in an improbable manner. In his verse comedies, he is sometimes not sufficiently interesting, and too full of long speeches; and in his risible pieces in prose, he is censured for being too farcical. Few writers, however, if any, ever possessed the spirit, or attained the true end of comedy, so perfectly, upon the whole, as Moliere. His” Tartuffe,“in the style of grave comedy, and his” Avare," in the gay, are accounted his two capital productions.

At the time of his death, Moliere was intended for a vacant place in the French academy. More than a century afterwards the academicians placed his bust in their hall, the gift of D'Alembert, and from the many inscriptions proposed, the following was adopted:

And when the place of his interment was lately pulled down, his remains were removed to the garden of the Museum, and placed among the honorary monuments there, in 1799. Of the numerous editions of Moliere, the French bibliographers point out, as the best, that by Bret, 1773, 6 vols. 8vo, with the engravings of the younger Moreau, and a splendid one by Didou 1792, 6 vols. 4to.

, born in 1677, of a noble and ancient family at Tarascon, entered among aie lathers of the oratory, and was pupil to Malebranche. Quitting the oratory, after that celebrated philosopher’s death, he devoted himself wholly to physic and mathematics, in which he acquired great skill, and was appointed professor of philosophy at the royal college in 1723, and afterwards member of the academy of sciences, in 1729. His principal work is “Philosophical Lectures,” 4 vols. 12mo, in which he explains the laws, mechanism, and motions of. the celestial vortices, in order to demonstrate the possibility and existence of them in the system of the Plenum; his system is that of Descartes, but corrected by Newton’s principles. He also left “Mathematical Lectures,” 12mo, very incorrectly printed; and “La premiere partie des Elemens de Geometric,” 12mo. In his temper he shewed very little of the philosopher. In the maintenance of his principles he could bear no contradiction; and when some of his positive assertions provoked the smiles of the academicians, he fell into violent passions, and on one occasion this irritation was so great, as to bring on a fever, of which he died, May 12, 1742. In other respects his character was amiable; but, like some other mathematicians, he was liable in his studies to such absence of mind, as to appear almost wholly insensible to surrounding objects, and this infirmity becoming known, he was made the subject of depredations. A shoe-black, once finding him profoundly absorbed in a reverie, contrived to steal the silver buckles from his shoes, replacing them with iron ones. At another time, while at his studies, a villain broke into the room in which he was sitting, and demanded his money; Molieres, without rising frogi his studies, or giving any alarm, coolly shewed him where it was, requesting him, as a great favour, that he would not derange his papers.

, born of a noble family at Cuenca, entered the Jesuits’ order, 1553, at the age of eighteen, and taught theology with reputation during twenty years in the university of Ebora. He died October 12, 1660, at Madrid, aged sixty-five. His principal works are, Commentaries on the first part of the Summary of St. Thomas, in Latin, a large treatise “De Justitia et Jure,” a book on “The Concordance of Grace and Free-will,” printed at Lisbon, 1588, 4to, in Latin, which ought to have at the end an appendix, printed in 1589. It is an apology from Molina against those who called some propositions in his book heretical, and this last work was what divided the Dominicans and the Jesuits into Thomists, and Molinists, and raised the famous disputes about grace and predestination. Molina’s object was to shew that the operations of divine grace were entirely consistent with the freedom of human will; and he introduced a new kind of hypothesis to remove the difficulties attending the doctrines of predestination and liberty, and to reconcile the jarring opinions of Augustinians, Thomists, Semi- Pelagians, and other contentious divines. Molina affirmed, that the decree of predestination to eternal glory was founded upon a previous knowledge and consideration of the merits of the elect; that the grace from whose operation these merits are derived, is not efficacious by its own intrinsic power only, but also by the consent of our own will, and because it is administered in those circumstances, in which the Deity, by that branch of his knowledge which is called scientia media, foresees that it will be efficacious. The kind of prescience, denominated in the schools scientia media, is that foreknowledge of future contingents, that arises from an acquaintance with the nature and faculties of rational beings, of the circumstances in which they shall be placed, of the objects that shall be presented to them, and of the influence which these circumstances and objects must have on their actions.

In order to put an end to these ‘contentions, pope Clement VIII. instituted the celebrated congregation ’De Auxiliis, in 1597; but after several assemblies of counsellors and cardinals, in which the Dominicans and Jesuits disputed contradictorily during nine years before the pope and the court of Rome, the affair was still undecided. Pope Paul V. under whom these disputes had been continued, at length published a decree, Aug. 31, 1607, forbidding the parties to defame or censure each other, and enjoining the superiors of both orders to punish those severely who should disregard this prohibition.

, regular canon and procurator general of the congregation of St. Genevieve, and one of the most learned antiquaries of the seventeenth century, was born in 1620, at Chalons sur Marne, of a nohle and ancient family. He collected a large cabinet of curiosities, and placed the library of St. Genevieve at Paris in the state which has rendered it so celebrated. He died September 2, 1687, aged sixty-seven. His principal works are, an edition of the “Epistles of Stephen, bishop of Tournay,” with learned notes; “History of the Popes by Medals,” from Martin V. to Innocent XI. 1679, folio, Latin “Reflexions sur l'origine et Pantiquit6 des Chanoines séculiers et réguliers,” 4to “Dissertation sur ra Mitre des Anciens;” another “Dissertation sur une Tete d'Isis,” &c. “Le Cabinet de la Bibliotheque de Ste. Genevieve,” 1692, folio, a curious book. He was the author also of some dissertations in the literary Journals, and left several Mss. on subjects of history and antiquities. He was a man of vast research but, as his countrymen say, he was “plus rempli d'erudition que de critique,” and certainly in some cases took little pains to discriminate between the true and the fabulous.

, a Spanish priest, and by some reckoned the founder of the sect of Quietists, was born in the diocese of Saragossa in 1627, and appears to have resided mostly at Rome, where his ardent piety and devotion procured him a considerable number of disciples of both sexes. In 1675 he published his “Spiritual Guide,” -written in Spanish, which was honoured with the encomiums of many eminent personages, and was republished in Italian in several places, and at last at Rome in 1681. It was afterwards translated into French, Dutch, and Latin (the last by professor Franke at Halle in 1687), and passed through several editions in France, Holland, and Italy. It was at Rome, however, where its publication in 1681 alarmed the doctors of the church. The principles of Molinos, which, Mosheim remarks, have been very differently interpreted by his friends and enemies, amount to this, that the whole of religion consists in the perfect tranquillity of a mind removed from all external and finite things, and centered in God, and in such a pure love of the Supreme Being, as is independent of all prospect of interest or reward; or, in other words, “the soul, in the pursuit of the supreme good, must retire from the reports and gratifications of sense, and, in general, from all corporeal objects, and, imposing silence upon all the motions of the understanding and will, must be absorbed in the Deity.” Hence the denomination of Quietists was given to the followers of Molinos; though that of Mystics, which was their vulgar title, was more applicable, and expressed their system with more propriety, the doctrine not being new, but rather a digest of what the ancient mystics had advanced in a more confused manner. For this, however, Molinos was first imprisoned in 1685, and notwithstanding he read a recantation about two years afterwards, was sentenced to perpetual imprisonment, from which he was released by death in 1696. Madame Guyon was among the most distinguished of his disciples, and herself no inconsiderable supporter of the sect of Quietists.

, descended from a very good family in the kingdom of Ireland, was born in the city of Dublin, and received part of his education at Trinity college there, of which he afterwards became a fellow. At his first coming to England he entered himself of the Middle Temple, and was supposed to have had a very considerable hand in the writing of a periodical paper, called “Fog’s Journal,” and afterwards to have been the principal writer of another well-known paper, entitled “Common Sense.” All these papers give testimony of strong' abilities, great depth of understanding, and clearness of reasoning. Dr. King was a considerable writer in the latter, as were lords Chesterfield and Lyttelton. Our author had large offers made him to write in defence of sir Robert Walpole, but these he rejected: notwithstanding which, at the great change in the ministry in 1742, he was entirely neglected, as well as his fellow-labourer Amherst, who conducted “The Craftsman.” Mr. Molloy, however, having married a lady of fortune, was in circumstances which enabled him to treat the ingratitude of his patriotic friends with the contempt it deserved. He lived many years after this period, dying so lately as July 16, 1767. He was buried at Edmonton, July 20. He also wrote three dramatic pieces, 1. “Perplexed Couple,” 1715, 12mo. 2. “The Coquet,” 1718, 8vo. 3. “Half-pay Officers,” 1720, 12mo. None of which met with any very extraordinary success.

Harris, in his edition of Ware’s “Writers of Ireland,” mentions another Charles Molloy, a native of the King’s County, and a lawyer pf the Inner Temple, who wrote “De Jure Maritime et Naval i, or a Treatise of Affairs Maritime, and of Commerce,” first published at London in 1676, and still known by many republications, the last of which was in 1769, 2 vols. 8vo. He died under fifty years of age, in 1690, at his house in Cranes-court, Fleet-street. Harris gives some account also of a Francis Molloy, of King’s County, professor of divinity in the college of St. Isidore at Home, who wrote “Sacra Theologia,” Rome, 1666, 8vo “Grammatica Latino-Hibernica compendiata,” ibid. 1677, 12mo. Edward Lluyd, who has made an abn stract of this in his “Archeeologia Britannica,” says that it was the most complete Irish grammar then extant, although imperfect as to syntax, &c. He says also, what is less credible, that Molloy was not the author of it; although the latter puts his name to it, and speaks of it in the preface as his own work. Molloy’s other work is entitled “Lucerna Fidelium,” Rome, 1676, 8vo, which although the title is in Latin, is written in Irish, and contains an explanation of the Christian religion according to the faith of the church of Rome.

an excellent mathematician and astronomer, was born April 17, 1656, at Dublin, where his father, a gentleman of good family and fortune, lived*. Being of a tender constitution, he was educated under a private tutor at home, till he was near fifteen, and then placed in the university of Dublin, under the care of Dr. PaJliser, afterwards archbishop of Cashell. He distinguished himself here by the probity of his manners as

master-^uuner of Ireland (an employ- Ulster king at arms, whom sir James ment which he held many years), and Ware calls " venerandce autiquitati

ed for great Artillery and Mortar whatever reason, the second part only

Pieces." It was printed on copper- was published, plates, and collected from a larger well as by the strength of his parts; and, having made a remarkable progress in academical learning, and particularly in the new philosophy, as it was then called, he proceeded at the regular time to his bachelor of arts degree. After four years spent in this university, he came to London, and was admitted into the Middle Temple in June 1675. He staid there three years, and applied himself to the study of the laws of his country, as much as was necessary for one who was not designed for the profession of the law; but the bent of his genius, as well as inclination, lying strongly to philosophy and mathematics, he spent the greatest part of his time in these inquiries, which, from the extraordinary advances newly made by the Royal Society, were then chiefly in vogue.

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

In 1688, the philosophic society at Dublin was broken up and dispersed by the confusion of the times. Mr. Molyneux had distinguished himself, as a member of it, from the beginning, by several discourses upon curious subjects; some of which were transmitted to the royal society at London, and afterwards printed in the “Philosophical Transactions.” In 1689, among great numbers of other Protestants, he withdrew from the disturbances in Ireland, occasioned by the severities of Tyrconnel’s government; and, after a short stay in London, fixed himself with his family at Chester. In this retirement he employed himself in putting together the materials he had some time before prepared for his “Dioptrics,” in which he was much assisted by Flamsteed; and, in August 1690, went to London to put it to the press, where the sheets were revised by Halley, who, at our author’s request, gave leave for printing, in the appendix, his celebrated theorem for finding the foci of optic glasses. Accordingly the book came out, 1692, in 4to, under the title of “Dioptrica nova: a Treatise of Dioptrics, in two parts; wherein the various Effects and Appearances of Spherical Glasses, both Convex and Concave, single and combined, in Telescopes and Microscopes, together with their usefulness in many concerns of Human Life, are explained.” He gave it the title of “Dioptrica nova,” not only because it was almost wholly new, very little being borrowed from other writers, but because it was the first book that appeared in English upon the subject. This work contains several of the most generally useful propositions for practice demonstrated in a clear and easy manner, for which reason it was many years much used by the artificers: and the second part it very entertaining, especially in his history which he gives of the several optical instruments, and of the discoveries made by them. The dedication of the “Dioptrics” being addressed to the royal society, he takes notice, among other improvements in philosophy, by building it upon experience, of the advances that had been lately made in logic by the celebrated John Locke.

Before he left Chester, he lost his lady, who died soon after she had brought him a son. Illness had deprived her of her eye-sight twelve years before, that is, soon after she was married; from which time she had been very sickly, and afflicted with extreme pains of the head. As soon as the public tranquillity was settled in his native country, he returned home; and, upon the convening of a new parliament in 1692, was chosen one of the representatives for the city of Dublin. In the next parliament, in 1695, he was chosen to represent the university there, and continued to do so to the end of his life; that learned body having, before the end of the first session of the former, conferred on him the degree of doctor of laws. He was likewise nominated, by the lord-lieutenant, one of the commissioners for the forfeited estates, to which employment was annexed a salary of five hundred pounds a-year; but looking upon it as an invidious office, and not being a lover of money, he declined it. In 1698, he published “The Case of Ireland stated, in relation to its being bound by Acts of Parliament made imEngland” in which he is supposed to have delivered all, or most, that can be said upon this subject, with great clearness and strength of reasoning. This piece (a second edition of which, with additions and emendations, was printed in 1720, 8vo,) was answered by John Gary, merchant of Bristol, in a book called, “A Vindication of the Parliament of England, &c.” dedicated to the lord-chancellor Somers, and by Atwood, a lawyer. Of these Nicolson remarks that “the merchant argues like a counsellor at law, and the barrister strings his small wares together like a shop-keeper.” What occasioned Molyneux to write the above tract, was his conceiving the Irish woollen manufactory to be oppressed by the English government; on which account he could not forbear asserting his country’s independency. He had given Mr. Locke a hint of his thoughts upon this subject, before it was quite ready for the press, and desired his sentiments upon the fundamental principle on which his argument was grounded; in answer to which that gentleman, intimating that the business was of too large an extent for the subject of a letter, proposed to talk the matter over with him in England. This, together with a purpose which Molyneux had long formed, of paying that great man, whom he had never yet seen, a visit, prevailed with him to cross the water once more, although he was in a very infirm state of health, in July this year, 1698; and he remained in England till the middle of September. But the pleasure of this long-wished-for interview, which he intended to have repeated the following spring, seems to have been purchased at the expence of his life; for, shortly after, he was seized with a severe fit of his constitutional distemper, the stone, which occasioned such retchings as broke a blood-vessel, and two days after put a period to his life. He died October 11, 1698, and was buried at Sr. Audoen’s church, Dublin, where there is a monument and Latin inscription to his memory. Besides the “Sciotbericum telescopicum,” and the “Dioptrica nova,” already mentioned, he published the following pieces in the “Philosophical Transactions.” 1. “Why four convexglasses in a telescope shew objects erect,” No. 53. 2. “Description of Lough Neagh, in Ireland,” No. 158. 3. “On the Connaught worm,” No. 168. -4. “Description of a new hygrometer,” No. 172. 5. “On the cause of winds and the change of weather, c.” No. 177. 6. “Why bodies dissolved swim in menstrua specifically lighter than themselves,” No. 181. 7. “On the Tides,” No. 184. 8. “Observations of Eclipses.” No. 164 185. 9. “Why celestial objects appear greatest near the horizon.” No. 187. 10. “On the errors of Surveyors, arising from the variation of the Magnetic-needle,” No. 230.

, son of the above, was born at Chester in July 1689, and educated with great care by his father, according to the plan laid down by Locke upon that subject. When his father died, he was committed to the care of his uncle Dr. Thomas Molyneux, an excellent scholar and physician at Dublin, and also an intimate friend of Mr. Locke;“who executed his trust so well, that Mr. Molyneux became afterwards a most polite and accomplished gentleman, and was made secretary to his late majesty George II. when he was prince of Wales. Astronomy and optics being his favourite study, as they had been his father’s, he projected many schemes for the advancement of them, and was particularly employed, in the years 1723, 1724, and 1725, in perfecting the method of making telescopes; one of which, of his own making, he had presented to John V. king of Portugal. In the midst of these thoughts, being appointed a commissioner of the admiralty, he became so engaged in public affairs, that he had not leisure to pursue these inquiries any farther; and gave his papers, to Dr. Robert Smith, professor of astronomy at Cambridge, whom he invited to make use of his house and apparatus of instruments, in order to finish what he had left imperfect. Mr. Molyneux dying soon after, in the flower of his age, Dr. Smith lost the opportunity; yet, supplying what was wanting from Mr. Huygens and others, he published the whole in his” Complete Treatise of Optics."

, The preceding William Molyneux had also a brother, Thomas, who was born in Dublin, and educated partly in the university there, and partly at Leyden and Paris. Returning home, he became professor of physic in the university of Dublin, fellow of the college of physicians, physician to the state, and physician- general to the army. He had also great practice, and in 1730 was created a baronet. He died Oct. 19, 1733. He had been a fellow of the royal society of London, and several of his pieces are published in the Transactions. He published, separately, “Some Letters to Mr. Locke,” Lond. 1708, 8vo.

, an eminent Italian and Latin poet, was born of a noble family at Modena, in 1489; and, after being educated at Rome, where he made extraordinary proficiency in the Greek and Latin languages, and even in the Hebrew, he was recalled to Modena, where, in 1512, he married, and intended to settle. The fame, however, of Leo X's court, led him about four years after, back to Rome, where he formed an acquaintance with many eminent scholars; but appears to have paid more attention to the cultivation of his taste than his morals, as he formed a licentious connexion with a Roman lady, in consequence of which he received a wound from the hand of an unknown assassin, which had nearly cost him his life. Even when, on the death of Leo X. he left Rome, he did not return to his family, but went to Bologna, where he became enamoured of Camilla Gonzaga, a lady of rank and beauty, and a warm admirer of Italian poetry. His life after this appears to have been wholly divided between poetry and dissipation; and he died of the consequences of the latter, in 1544. His Italian and Latin poems were for many years published in detached forms until 1749, when Serassi produced an entire edition at Bergamo.

, grand-daughter to the preceding, by Camillo, his eldest son, wa born at Modena in 1542. She was instructed in the classsics, in Hebrew, and in the belles lettres, became an adept in some of the abstruser branches of science, and was a proficient in music; and with all these, was distinguished by the graces and amiable qualities of her sex. She was married, in 1560, to> Paul Porrino, but never had any children; and after his death, in 1578, she passed her life in literary retirement at Modena, where she died in 1617. Her writings, consisting of Latin and Italian poems, translations from Plato, and other classics, were printed in the Bergamo edition of her grandfather’s works. This lady was the subject of numerous eulogies from contemporary writers; but the most extraordinary honour that she received, was that of being presented with the citizenship of Rome, by the senate and people of that city, in a patent reciting her singular merits, and conferring upon her the title of Unica. The honour is extended to the whole noble family of Molza.

, a native of Milan, who flourished in the fifteenth century, obtained considerable reputation for some Latin poems, particularly one on “The Passion,” but his most celebrated work was a collection of the “Lives of the Saints,” not a confused and credulous compilation, but which exceeded all preceding works of the kind, by the pains he took to distinguish truth from fable. This he was enabled to do by a judicious examination of all the existing authorities, and by availing himself of many Mss. which he discovered in public libraries, and carefully collated. In some instances he has admitted supposed for real facts, but in such a vast collection, a few mistakes of this kind are pardonable, especially as he brought to light much information not before made public. This work, which is of uncommon rarity and great price, is entitled “Sanctuarium, sive vitje Sanctorum,” 2 vols. fol. without date or place, but supposed to have been printed at Milan about 1479. Some copies want the last leaf of signature Nnnn, but even with that defect bear a very high price.

, an able mathematical and medical writer, was born at Rheims about 1536, of a family which possessed jthe estate of Monantheuil in the Vermandois, in Picardy. He was educated at Paris in the college de Presles, under Kamus, to whose philosophical opinions he constantly adhered. Having an equal inclination and made equal progress in mathematics and medicine, he was first chosen professor of medicine, and dean of that faculty, and afterwards royal professor of mathematics. While holding the latter office he had the celebrated De Thou and Peter Lamoignon among the number of his scholars. During the troubles of the League, he remained faithful to his king, and even endangered his personal safety by holding meetings in his house, under pretence of scientific conversations, but really to concert measures for restoring Paris to Henry IV. He died in 1606, in the seventieth year of his age. His works are, 1 “Oratio pro mathematicis artibus,” Paris, 1574, 4to. 2. “Admonitio ad Jacobum Peletarium de angulo contactus,” ibid. 1581, 4to. 3. “Oratio pro suo in Regiam cathedram ritu,” ibid. 1585, 8vo. 4. “Panegyricus dictus Henrico IV. statim a felicissima et auspicatissima urbis restitutione,” &c. ibid. 1594, translated into French in 1596. 5. “Oratio qua ostenditur quale esse debeat collegium professorum regiorum,” &c. ibid. 15&6, 8vo. 6.“Commentarius in librum Aristotelis Tt^I Tuv /x>i%avjv,” Gr. and Lat. ibid. 1599, 4to. 7. “Ludus latromathematicus,” &c. ibid. 1597, 8vo, and 1700. 8. “De puncto primo Geometriae principio liber, 7 ' Leyden, 1600, 4to. This was at one time improperly attributed to his son, Thierry. 9.” Problematis omnium quse & 1200 annis inventa sunt nobilissimi demonstratio," Paris, 1600. He left some other works, both ms. and printed, of less consequence.

, a Spanish physician, was born at Seville in the early part of the sixteenth century. He received his education at the university of Alcala de Henarez, and settled in practice at Seville, where he died in 1578. The first of his writings related to a controverted question, and was entitled “Desecanda venain Pleuritide inter Graecos et Arabes concordia,” Hispal. 1539. This was followed by a tract, “De Rosa et partibus ejus; de succi Rosarum temperatura,” &c. But his reputation was chiefly extended by his work, in the Spanish language, concerning the medicinal substances imported from the new world, entitled “Dos Libros de las cosas que se traen de las Indias Occidentales, que sirven al uso de Medicina,” Sevilla, 1565. It was reprinted in 1569 and 1580, and to the latter edition a third book was added. Charles PEcluse, or Clusius, translated this work into Latin, with the title of “Simplicium Medicamentorum ex novo orbe delatorum, quorum in Medicina usus est, Historia,” Antw. 1574, and improved it by his annotations, and by the addition of figures. This work was also translated into Italian, French, and English, the latter by Frampton, 1580, 4to. Although the descriptions are inaccurate, the work had at least the merit of exciting the public attention to medicines heretofore little known. Monardes also published three works in Spanish, which were translated into Latin by l'Ecluse, with the title of “Nicolai Monardi Libri tres, magna Medicinae secreta et varia Experimenta continentes,” Lugd. 1601. The first of these relates to the lapis bezoardicus; the second, to the use and properties of steel, which he was the first after Rhazes to recommend as a deobstruent, according to Dr. Freind; and the third, to the efficacy of snow. His name is perpetuated by the botanical genus Monarda, in the class diandria of Linnæus.

, was the son of sir Francis Monckton, knt. of Cavil Hall, and of Newbold, both in the East-riding of Yorkshire, and descended from an ancient family in that county, who possessed the lordship of Monckton before the place was made a nunnery, which was in the 20th Edward II. (1326). Sir Philip was born at Heck, near Howden, in Yorkshire, and was high sheriff for that county in the 21st Charles II. (1669). He served for some time in parliament for Scarborough, and had been knighted in 1643. His loyalty to Charles I. brought him under the cognizance of the usurpers, and for his loyal services he underwent two banishments, and several imprisonments during the course of the civil war; his grandfather, father, and himself, being all at one time sequestered by Cromwell. In consideration of these services and sufferings, king Charles II. in 1653, wrote a letter to him in his own hand (which was delivered by major Waters) promising that if it pleased God to restore him, he should share with him in his prosperity, as he had been content to do in his adversity; but he afterwards experienced the same ingratitude as many of his father’s friends, for when he waited on the lord chancellor Clarendon with a recommendation from the earl of Albemarle for some compensation for his services, he was treated with the utmost insolence, and dismissed with marked contempt. Sir Philip had been a prisoner in Belvoir castle, and was released on col. Rossiter’s letter to the lord general Fairfax in his favour. He fought at the several battles of Hessey Moor, Marston Moor, Aderton Moor, and at Rowton Heath, near Chester, where he was wounded in his right arm, and was forced to manage his horse with his teeth whilst he fought with his left, when he was again wounded and taken prisoner. He was likewise at the siege of Pontefract castle, and at York. He married miss Eyre, of an ancient family, of Hassop, in Derbyshire. His manuscripts are now in. the possession of his descendant, the lord viscount Galway.

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

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

, a member of the French academy, was born at Paris in 1687. He was a very elegant writer, and his works have gone through various editions. His principal performances are, “An Essay on the necessity and means of Pleasing,” which is an ingenious book of maxims. He wrote “Les Ames Rivales,” an agreeable romance, containing lively and just descriptions of French manners. He was also author of various pieces of poetry, small theatrical pieces, complimentary verses, madrigals, &c. Moncrif died at Paris in 1770, at the age of eighty-three, and left behind him a great character for liberality, and amiable manners.

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

He was a member of the French academy, and of the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres; and was fitted to do honour to any society. In the first volume of the “Memoirs of the Academy of Inscriptions” there are two fine dissertations of his one “upon the divine honours paid to the governors of the Roman provinces, during the continuance of the republic;” the other, “upon the temple, which Cicero conceived a design of consecrating to the memory of his beloved daughter Tullia, under the title of Fanum.”

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

About this time his elder brother died without issue male; and the family estate by entail devolving upon him, he repaired it from the ruinous condition in which his father and brother had left it. He had scarce settled his private affairs, when he was called to serve against the Scots (who had proclaimed Charles II.) under Oliver Cromwell; by whom he was made lieutenant-general of the artillery, and had a regiment given him. His services were now so important, that Cromwell left him commander in chief in Scotland, when he returned to England to pursue Charles II. In 1652, he was seized with a violent fit of illness, which obliged him to go to Bath for the recovery of his health: after which, he set out again for Scotland, was one of the commissioners for uniting that kingdom with the new-erected commonwealth, and, having successfully concluded it, returned to London. The Dutch war having now been carried on for some months, lieutenant-general Monk was joined with the admirals Blake and Dean in the command at sea; in which service, June 2, 1653, he contributed greatly by his courage and conduct to the defeat of the Dutch fleet. Monk and Dean were on board the same ship; and, Dean being killed the first broadside, Monk threw his cloak over the body, and gave orders for continuing the fight, without suffering the enemy to know that we had lost one of our admirals. Cromwell, in the mean time, was paving his way to the supreme command, which, Dec. 16, 1653, he obtained, under the title of protector; and, in this capacity, soon concluded a peace with the Dutch. Monk remonstrated warmly against the terms of this peace; and his remonstrances were well received by Oliver’s own parliament. Monk also, on his return home, was treated so respectfully by them, that Oliver is said to have grown jealous of him, as if he had been inclined to another interest, but, receiving satisfaction from the general on that head, he not only took him into favour, but, on the breaking out of fresh troubles in Scotland, sent him there as commander in chief. He set out in April 1654, and finished the war by August; when he returned from the Highlands, and fixed his abode at Dalkeith, a seat belonging to the countess of Buccleugh, within five miles of Edinburgh: and here he resided during the remaining time that he stayed in Scotland, which was five years, amusing himself with rural pleasures, and beloved by the people, though his government was more arbitrary than any they had experienced. He exercised this government as one of the protector’s council of state in Scotland, whose commission bore date in June 1655. Cromwell, however, could not help distrusting him at times, on account of his popularity; nor was this distrust entirely without the appearance of foundation. It is certain the fcing entertained good hopes of him, and to that purpose sent to him the following letter from Colen, Aug. 12, 1655.

"One, who believes he knows your nature and inclinations very well, assures me, that, notwithstanding all ill accidents and misfortunes, you retain still your old affection to me, and resolve to express it upon the first seasonable opportunity; which is as much as I look for from you. We must all patiently wait for that opportunity, which may be offered sooner than we expect when it is, let it find you ready and, in the mean time, have a care to keep yourself out of their hands, who know the hurt you can do them in a good conjuncture, and can never but suspect your affection to be, as I am confident it is, towards

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

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

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

, daughter of Lord Molesworth, and wife to George Monk, esq. was celebrated for her poetical talents. She acquired by her own application a perfect knowledge of the Latin, Italian, and Spanish languages; and, from a study of the best authors, a decided taste for poetical composition. She appears to have written for her own amusement, rather than with any view to publication. Her poems were not printed till after her death, when they were published under the title of “Marinda; Poems and Translations upon several Occasions,” London, 1716, 8vo. A dedication'to Caroline, princess of Wales, was prefixed to them by lord Molesworth, the father of Mrs. Monk, who speaks of the poems as the production * c of the leisure hours of a young woman, who, in a remote country retirement, without other assistance than that of a good library, and without omitting the daily care due to a large family, not only acquired the several languages here made use of, but the good morals and principles contained in those books, so as to put them in practice, as well during her life and languishing sickness, as at the hour of her death; dying not only like a Christian, but a Roman lady, and becoming at once the grief and the comfort of her relations.“She died in 1715, at B^t 1. On her deathbed she wrote some very affecting verses to her husband, which are not printed in her works, but may be found in vol. II. of the” Poems of Eminent Ladies,“and in” Cibber’s Lives."

, an eminent French astronomer and mathematician, was born at Paris, Nov. 23, 1715. His education was chiefly directed to the sciences, to which he manifested an early attachment; and his progress was such that at the age of twenty-one, he was chosen as the co-operator of Maupertuis, in the measure of a degree of the meridian at the polar circle. At the period when the errors in Flamsteed’s catalogue of the stars began to be manifest, he undertook to determine anew the positions of the zodiacal stars as being the most useful to astronomers. In 1743 he traced at St. Sulpice a grand meridian line, in order to ascertain certain solar motions, and also the small variations in the obliquity of the ecliptic.

In 1746, he determined, after numerous observations, the great inequalities of Saturn, produced by the action of Jupiter; and his work served as a foundation for the paper of Euler on this subject, which gained the prize at the academy of sciences in 1748. Soon after this, Le Monnier published his “Astronomical Institutions,” a work which was so much the more useful, as it was then the only one in France that contained the first principles of astronomy. Having undertaken to determine the errors of the lunar tables, he directed his labours peculiarly to that satellite, which he observed with assiduity during the entire period of eighteen years, at the end of which the same errors should recommence. His principal works, besides the foregoing, are “Lunar Nautical Astronomy,” “Tables of the Sun,” and “Corrections of those of the Moon.” He took great pleasure in astronomical observations, and to him has been ascribed the great improvement that has taken place in France in practical astronomy.

During his long career he was considered among his friends as the soul of astronomy, and made numerous proselytes to this study by his advice, example, and instructions. It is to him we chiefly owe the early progress of two celebrated astronomers, Lalande and Pingre. Le Monnier died in 1799, in the 84th year of his age. He had a brother, Lewis William, a very able experimental philosopher, but who is not to be confounded with an abbe of that name who translated Terence and Persius into French, and who was the author of fables, tales, and epistles. The latter died in 1796.

, a learned French poet, was born in Dijon, the capital of Burgundy, June 15, 1641, He was a man of parts and learning, had a decided taste for poetry; and, in 1671, had a fair opportunity of displaying his talents. The subject of the prize of poetry, founded by the members of the French academy at this time, was, “The Suppressing of Duelling by Lewis XIV.” As this was the first contest of the kind, the candidates were numerous and eager; but la Monnoye succeeded, and had the honour of being the first who won the prize Founded by the French academy; by which he gained a reputation that increased ever after. In 1673, he was a candidate for the new prize, the subject of which was, “The protection with which his Gallic majesty honoured the French academy;” but his poem came too late. He won the prize in 1675, on “The glory of arms and learning under Lewis XIV;” and that also of 1677, on “The Education of the Dauphin.” On this occasion, the highest compliment was made him by the abbe* Regnier; who said, that “it would be proper for the French academy to elect Mr. de la Monnoye upon the first vacancy, because, as he would thereby be disqualified from writing any more, such as should then be candidates would be encouraged to write.” It was indeed said, that he discontinued to write for these prizes at the solicitation of the academy; a circumstance which, if true, reflects higher honour on him than a thousand prizes. He wrote many other successful pieces, and was no less applauded in Latin poetry than in the French. Menage and Bayle have both bestowed the highest encomiums on his Latin poetry. His Greek and Italian poems are likewise much commended by the French critics.

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

, an eminent anatomist, and the father of the medical school of Edinburgh, was descended both by his paternal and maternal parents from distinguished families in the north of Scotland. He was born in London, in September 1697, where his father, then a surgeon in the army of king William in Flanders, resided upon leave of absence in the winter. On quitting the army, Mr. Monro settled in Edinburgh; and perceiving early indications of talent in Alexander, he gave him the best instruction which Edinburgh then afforded, and afterwards sent him to London, where he attended the anatomical courses of Cheselden, and while here, laid the foundation of his most important work on the bones. He then pursued his studies at Paris and Leyden, where his industry and promising talents recommended him to the particular notice of Boerhaave. On iiis return to Edinburgh, in the autumn of 1719, he was appointed professor and demonstrator of anatomy to the company of surgeons, the joint demonstrators having spontaneously resigned in his favour, and soon after began also to give public lectures on anatomy, aided by the preparations which he had made when abroad; and at the same time Dr. Alston, then a young man, united with him in the plan, and began a course of lectures on the materia medica and botany. These courses may be regarded as the opening of that medical school, which has since extended its fame, not only throughout Europe, but over the new world. Mr. Monro suggested this plan; and by the following circumstance, probably, contributed to lead his son into a mode of lecturing, which subsequently carried him to excellence. Without the young teacher’s knowledge, he invited the president and fellows of the College of Physicians, and the whole company of surgeons, to honour the first day’s lecture with their presence. This unexpected company threw the doctor into such confusion, that he forgot the words of the discourse, which he had written and committed to memory. Having left his papers at home, he was at a loss for a little time what to do: but, with much presence of mind, he immediately began to shew some of the anatomical preparations, in order to gain time for recollection; and very soon resolved not to attempt to repeat the discourse which he had prepared, but to express himself in such language as should occur to him from the subject, which he was confident that he understood. The experiment succeeded: he delivered himself well, and gained great applause as a good and ready speaker. Thus discovering his own strength, he resolved henceforth never to recite any written discourse in teaching, and acquired a free and elegant style of delivering lectures.

In the same year, 1720, a regular series of medical instruction was instituted at Edinburgh, through the interest of Dr. Monro’s father: these two lectureships were put upon the university establishment, to which were soon, after added those of Drs. Sinclair, Rutherford, Innes, and Plummer. This system of medical education was, however, incomplete, without affording some opportunity to the students of witnessing the progress and treatment of diseases, as well as of hearing lectures. A proposal was, therefore, made to erect and endow an hospital by subscription; and Dr. Monro published a pamphlet, explaining the advantages of such an institution. The royal infirmary was speedily raised, endowed, and established by charter; and the institution of clinical lectures, which were commenced by Dr. Monro on the surgical cases, and afterwards by Dr. Rutherford, in 1748, on the medical cases, completed that admirable system of instruction, upon which the reputation and usefulness of the medical school of Edinburgh have been subsequently founded.

Dr. Monro, who was indefatigable in the labours of his office, soon made himself known to the professional world by a variety of ingenious and valuable publications. His first and principal publication was his “Osteology, or Treatise on the Anatomy of the Bones,” which appeared in 1726, and passed through eight editions during his life, and was translated into most of the languages of Europe. To the later editions of this work he subjoined a concise neurology, or description of the nerves, and a very accurate account of the lacteal system and thoracic duct.

Dr. Monro was also the father and active supporter of a society, which was established by the professors and other practitioners of the town, for the purpose of collecting and publishing papers on professional subjects, and to which the public is indebted for six volumes of “Medical Essays and Observations by a Society at Edinburgh,” the first of which appeared in 1732. Dr. Monro was the secretary of this society; and after the publication of the first volume, when the members of the society became remiss in their attendance, the whole labour of collection and publication was carried on by himself; “insomuch that after this,” says his biographer, c< scarce any other member ever saw a paper of the five last volumes, except those they were the authors of, till printed copies were sent them by the bookseller.“Of this collection, many of the most valuable papers were written by Dr. Monro, on anatomical, physiological, and practical subjects: the most elaborate of these is an” Essay on the Nutrition of the Foetus,“in three dissertations. Haller, speaking of these volumes as highly valuable to the profession, adds,” Monrous ibi eminet."

After the conclusion of this publication, the society was revived, at the suggestion of the celebrated mathematical professor, Colin Maclaurin, and was extended to the admission of literary and philosophical topics. Dr. Monro a<yain took an active part in its proceedings, as one of its vice-presidents, especially after the death of Maclaurin, when two volumes of its memoirs, entitled “Essays Physical and Literary,” were published, and some materials for a third collected, to which Dr. Monro contributed several useful papers. The third was not published during his life. His last publication was an “Account of the Success of Inoculation in Scotland,” written originally as an answer to some inquiries addressed to him from the committee of the faculty of physicians at Paris, appointed to investigate the merits of the practice. It was afterwards published at the request of some of his friends, and contributed to extend the practice in Scotland. Besides the works which he published, he left several Mss. written at different times, of which the following are the principal viz. A History of Anatomical Writers An Encheiresis Anatomica; Heads of many of his Lectures; A Treatise on Comparative Anatomy; A Treatise on Wounds and Tumours; and, An Oration de Cuticula. This last, as well as the short tract on comparative anatomy, has been printed in an edition of his whole works, in one volume quarto, published by his son, Dr. Alexander Monro, at Edinburgh, in 1781. This tract had been published surreptitiously in 1744, from notes taken at his lectures; but is here given in a more correct form.

In 1759, Dr. Monro resigned his anatomical chair, which he had so long occupied with the highest reputation, to his son, just mentioned; but he still continued to lecture as one of the clinical professors on the cases in the infirmary. His life was also a scene of continued activity in other affairs, as long as his health permitted. For he was not only a member, but a most assiduous attendant, of many societies and institutions for promoting literature, arts, sciences, and manufactures in Scotland; he was also a director of the bank of Scotland, a justice of the peace, a commissioner of high roads, &c. and was punctual in the discharge of all his duties. His character in private life was as amiable and exemplary as it was useful in public. To the literary honours, which he attained at home, were added those of a fellow of the royal society of London, and an honorary member of the royal academy of surgery, at Paris. Dr. Monro was a man of middle stature, muscular, and possessed of great strength and activity; but was subject for many years to a spitting of blood on catching the ieast cold, and through his life to frequent inflammatory levers. After an attack of the influenza, in 1762, he was afflicted with symptoms of a disease of a painful and tedious nature, which continued ever after, until it terminated his existence. This was a fungous ulcer of the bladder and rectum, the distress of which he bore with great fortitude and resignation, and died with perfect calmness, on the 10th of July, 1767, at the age of seventy.

Two of his sons became distinguished physicians: Dr. Alexander, his successor, and who has filled his chair since his death, is well known throughout Europe by his valuable publications. It was not until 1801 that to relieve himself from the fatigues of the professorship, he associated with himself, his son, the third Alexander Monro, who bids fair to perpetuate the literary honours of his family. Dr. Donald Monro, the other son of the first Alexander, settled as a physician in London, became a fellow of the royal college of physicians, and senior physician to the army. He wrote, besides several smaller medical treatises, “Observations on the Means of preserving the Health of Soldiers,” 1780, 2 vols. 8vo; a treatise on medical and pharmaceutical chemistry, and the Materia Medica, 1788, 4 vols. 8vo and the life of his father, prefixed to the edition of his works published by his son, Alexander, 1781, 4to. He died in July 1802, aged seventy one. It is from this life of the first Dr. Monro, that the preceding account is taken.

, an eminent physician, was descended from the ancient family of that name, in the county of Ross, in North Britain; and was born at Greenwich, in the county of Kent, on the 16th of November, 1715, O. S. His grandfather, Dr. Alexander Monro, was principal of the university of Edinburgh, and, just before the revolution in 1688, had been nominated by king James the lid, to fill the vacant see of the Orkneys; but the alteration which took place in the church-establishment of Scotland at that period, prevented his obtaining possession of this bishopric; and the friendship which prevailed between him and the celebrated lord Dundee, the avowed opponent of king William, added to his being thought averse to the new order of things, exposed him to much persecution from the supporters of the revolution, and occasioned him to retire from Edinburgh to London, whitber he brought with him his only son, then a child. James Monro, the son of Dr. Alexander, after taking his academical degrees in the university of Oxford, practised with much success as a physician in London; and, dedicating his studies principally to the investigation of that branch of medicine which professes to relie* e the miseries arising from insanity, was elected physician to the hospital of Bridewell and Bethlem.

Dr. John Monro was the eldest son of Dr. James, and was educated at Merchant-Taylors school in London, whence he was removed in 1723* to St. John’s college, Oxford, of which he became a fellow. In 1743, by the favour of sir Robert Walpole, with whom his father lived on terms of friendship, he was elected to one of the travelling fellowships founded by Dr. Radcliffe, and soon after went abroad. He studied physic, first at Edinburgh, and afterwards at Leyden, under the celebrated Boerhaave; after which he visited various parts of Europe. He resided some time at Paris in 1745, whence he returned to Holland; and, after a short stay in that country, he passed through part of Germany into England, carefully observing whatever merited the notice of a man of learning and taste. After quitting Italy he paid a second visit to France, and, having continued some time in that country, returned to England in 1751.

During his absence on the continent, the university of Oxford conferred upon him the degree of doctor of physic, by diploma; and his father’s health beginning to decline soon after his arrival in England, he was, in July 1751, elected joint physician with him to Bridewell and Bethlem hospitals, and on his death, which happened in the latter end of 1752, he became sole physician thereof.

From this time he confined his practice entirely to cases of insanity, in which branch of the medical art he attained to a higher degree of eminence than was possessed by any of his predecessors or contemporaries. In 1758, Dr. Battie having published “A Treatise on Madness,” wherein he spoke, as Dr. Monro conceived, disrespectfully of the former physicians of Bethlem hospital, he thought it incumbent upon him to take some notice of the publication; and, in the same year, published a small pamphlet, entitled, “Remarks on Dr. Baltic’s Treatise on Madness.” His ideas of this, dreadful malady, as well as the motives which induced him to compose these remarks, are very concisely and elegantly expressed in the advertisement which is prefixed to the work. “Madness is a distemper of such a nature, that very little of real use can be said concerning it; the immediate causes will for ever disappoint our search, and the cure of that disorder depends on management as much as medicine. My own inclination would never have led me to appear in print; but it was thought neces’sary for me, in my situation, to say something in answer to the undeserved censures which Dr. Battie has thrown upon my predecessors.”

Dr. Monro defines madness to be a “vitiated judgment;” though he declares, at the same time, he “cannot take upon him to say, that even this definition is absolute and perfect.” His little work contains the most judicious and accurate remarks on this unhappy disorder; and the character which, in the course of it, he draws of his father, is so spirited, and so full of the warmth of filial affection, as to merit being selected. “To say he understood this distemper beyond any of his contemporaries is very little praise; the person who is most conversant in such cases, provided he has but common sense enough to avoid metaphysical subtilties, will be enabled, by his extensive knowledge and experience, to excel all those who have not the same opportunities of receiving information. He was a man of admirable discernment, and treated this disease with an address that will not soon be equalled; he knew very well, that the management requisite for it was never to be learned but from observation; he was honest and sincere, and though no man was more communicative upon points of real use, he never thought of reading lectures on a subject that can be understood no otherwise than by personal observation: physic he honoured as a profession, but he despised it as a trade; however partial I may be to his memory, his friends acknowledge this to be true, and his enemies will not venture to deny it.”

In 1753, Dr. Monro married Miss Elizabeth Smith, second daughter of Mr. Thomas Smith, merchant, of London, by whom he had six children. The eldest of these, John, was designed for the profession of physic, and had made a considerable progress in his studies, but died, after a short illness, at St. John’s college, Oxford, in 1779, in the 25th year of his age. The loss of his eldest son was severely felt by Dr. Monro, to whom he was endeared by his many amiable qualities and promising abilities; and this loss was aggravated by that of his only daughter, Charlotte, who was carried off in the 22d year of her age, by a rapid consumption, within four years afterwards. She was a young lady, who, to a native elegance of manners, added excellent sense, and an uncommon sweetness of disposition. It is not wonderful, therefore, that her loss should prove a severe blow to a father who loved her with the most lively affection. He was now in his 63th year, and had hitherto enjoyed an uncommon share of good health; but the constant anxiety he was under during his daughter’s illness, preyed upon his mind, and brought on a paralytic stroke in January 1783. The strength of his constitution, however, enabled him to overcome the first effects of this disorder, and to resume the exercise of his profession; but his vigour, both of mind and body, began from this time to decline. In 1787, his youngest son, Dr. Thomas Monro (who, on the death of his eldest brother, had applied himself to the study of physic,) was appointed his assistant at Bethlem hospital; and he thenceforward gradually withdrew himself from business, till the beginning of 1791, when he retired altogether to the village of Hadley, near Barnet; and in this retirement he continued till his death, which happened, after a few days illness, on the 27th of December, in the same year, and in the 77th year of his age.

Dr. Monro was tall and handsome in his person, and of a robust constitution of body. Though naturally of a grave cast of mind, no man enjoyed the pleasures of society with a greater relish. To great warmth of temper he added a nice sense of honour; and, though avowedly at the head of that branch of his profession to which he confined his practice, yet his behaviour was gentle and modest, and his manners refined and elegant in an eminent degree. He possessed an excellent understanding, and great humanity <>t disposition but the leading features of his character were disinterestedness and generosity; as he has said of his father, so may it, with equal truth, be said of himself “physic he honoured as a profession, but he despised it as a trade” Never did he aggravate the misery of those who were in want, by accepting what could ill be spared; whilst he frequently contributed as much by his bounty as his professional skill to alleviate the distress he was forced to witness. It was the remark of a, man of acute observation, who knew him intimately, “that he had met with many persons who affected to hold money in contempt, but Dr. Monro was the only man he had found who really did despise it.”

He possessed a very elegant taste for the fine arts in general, and his collection, both of books and prints, was very extensive. He was uncommonly well versed in the early history of engraving; and the specimens he had collected of the works of the first engravers were very select and curious. From these, as well as from the communications of Dr. Monro, the late ingenious Mr. Strutt derived great assistance in the composition of his history of engravers. Though he never appeared as an author, except in the single instance mentioned above, he possessed a mind stored with the beauties of ancient as well as modern literature. Horace and Shakspeare were his favourite authors and his notes and remarks on the latter were considerable these he communicated to Mr. Steevens, previous to his publication of the works of our immortal poet anxious to contribute his mite to the elucidation of those passages which time has rendered obscure. His fondness for reading was great, and proved a considerable resource to him in the evening of life; and fortunately he was able to enjoy his books till within a very few days of his death.

Dr. Monro was buried in the church-yard of Hadley and, of his children, three only survived him James, who commanded the ship Houghton, in the service of the East India company; Charles; and Thomas, who succeeded him, and still is physician to Bethlem and Bridewell hospitals. Besides these, and his son and daughter, whose deaths are mentioned above, he had a younger son, Culling, who died an infant.

, a brave English admiral, was the third son of sir John Monson, of South Carlton, in. Lincolnshire, and born in 1569. For about two years he studied at Baliol college, Oxford: but, being of an active and martial disposition, he soon grew weary of a contemplative life, and applied himself to the sea-service, in which he became very expert. In the beginning of queen Elizabeth’s war with Spain, he entered on board of ship without the knowledge of his parents; but in 1587 we find he went out commander of a vessel, and in 1588, he served in one of the queen’s ships, but had not the command of it. In 1589, he was vice-admiral to the earl of Cumberland, in his expedition to the Azores islands, and at the taking of Fayal; but, in their return, suffered such hardships, and contracted such a violent illness from them, as kept him at home the whole year 1590. “The extremity we endured,” says he, “was more terrible than befel any ship during the eighteen years’ war: for, laying aside the continual expectation of death by shipwreck, and the daily mortality of our men, I will speak of our famine, that exceeded all men and ships’ I have known in the course of my life. For sixteen days together we never tasted a drop of drink, either beer, wine, or water;and though we had plenty of beef and pork of a year’s saltirxg, yet did we forbear eating of it for making us the drier. Many drank salt water, and those that did, died suddenly, and the last words they usually spake, was, ‘drink, drink, drink’ And I dare boldly say, that, of five hundred men that were in that ship seven years before, at this day there is not a man alive but myself and one more.”

In 1591, he served a second time under the earl of Cumberland; and the commission was, as all the former were, to act against the Spaniards. They took several of their ships; and captain Monson, being sent to convoy one of them to England, was surrounded and taken by six Spanish gallies, after a long and bloody fight. On this occasion they detained him as an hostage for the performance of certain covenants, and carried him to Portugal, where he was kept prisoner two years at Cascais and Lisbon. Not discouraged by this ill-luck, he entered a third time into the earl’s service, in 1593; and he behaved himself in this, as in all other expeditions, like a brave and able seaman. In 1594, he was created master of arts at Oxford; in 151)5, he was married; in 1596, he served in the expedition to Cadiz, under Walter Devereux, earl of Essex, to whom he did great service by his wise and moderate counsel, and was deservedly knighted. He was employed in several other expeditions, and was highly honoured and esteemed during Elizabeth’s reign. Military men were not king James’s favourites: therefore, after the death of the queen, he never received either recompence or preferment, more than his ordinary entertainment or pay, according to the services he was employed in. However, in 1604-, he was appointed admiral of the Narrow Seas, in which station he continued till 1616: during which time he supported the honour of the English flag, against the insolence of the infant commonwealth of Holland, of which he frequently complains in his “Naval Tracts;” and protected our trade against the encroachments of France.

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

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

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

, an English statesman and poet, was born April 16, 1661, at Horton in Northamptonshire. He was the son of Mr. George Montague, a younger son of the earl of Manchester. He was educated first in the country, and then removed to Westminster, where, in 1677, he was chosen a king’s scholar, and recommended himself to the celebrated master of the school, Busby, by his felicity in extemporary epigrams. He contracted a very intimate friendship with Mr. Stepney; and, in 1682, when Stepney was elected to Cambridge, the election of Montague not being to proceed till the year following, he was afraid lest by being placed at Oxford, he might be separated from his companion, and therefore solicited to be removed to Cambridge, without waiting for the advantages of another year. He was now in his twenty-first year, and his relation, Dr. Montague, was then master of Trinity college in which he was placed a fellow-commoner, and took him under his particular care. Here he commenced an acquaintance with, the great Newton, which continued through his life, and was at last attested by a legacy.

In 1685, he wrote some verses on the death of king Charles, which made such an impression on the earl of Dorset, that he was invited to town, and introduced by that universal patron to the other wits. In 1687, he joined with. Prior in “The City Mouse and the Country Mouse,” one of his best compositions, which was intended as a burlesque of Dryden’s “Hind and Panther.” Commencing his political career, he signed the invitation to the prince of Orajge, and sat in the convention. He about the same time married the countess dowager of Manchester, and intended to have taken orders; but afterwards altering his purpose, he purchased for 1500l. the place of one of the clerks of the council.

After he had written his epistle on the victory of the Boyne, his patron Dorset introduced him to king William, with this expression: “Sir, I have brought a moirsc to wait on your majesty.*' To which the king is said to have replied,” You do well to put me in the way of making a man of him;" and ordered him a pension of five hundred pounds. This story, however current, says Dr. Johnson, seems to have been made after the event^ The king’s answer implies a greater acquaintance with our proverbial and familiar diction than king William could possibly have attained.

In March 1691, Mr. Montague first displayed his abilities in the debates upon the bill for regulating trials in cases of high treason; the design of this bill, among other things, was to allow counsel to prisoners charged w4th that offence, while the trial was depending. Montague rose up to speak for it, but after uttering a few sentences, was struck so suddenly with surprise, that, for a while, he was not able to go on. Recovering himself, he took occasion, from this circumstance, “to enforce the necessity of allowing counsel to prisoners, who were to appear before their judges; since he, who was not only innocent, and unaccused, but one of their own members, was so dashed when he was to speak before that wise and illustrious assembly.”

In this year, 1691, he was made one of the commissioners of the treasury, and called to the privy council; and in 1694 was appointed second commissioner and chancellor of the exchequer, and under-treasurer. In 1695, he entered into the design of re-coining all the current money of the nation; which, though great difficulties attended it, he completed in the space of two years. In 1696, he projected the scheme for a general fund, which gave rise to the sinking fund, afterwards established by sir Robert Walpole. The same year, he found out a method to raise the sinking credit of the Bank of England; and, in 1697, he provided against the mischiefs from the scarcity of money, by raising, for the service of the government, above two millions in exchequer-notes; on which occasion he was sometimes called the British Machiavel. Before the end of this session of parliament, it was resolved by the House of Commons, that “Charles Montague, esq. chancellor of the exchequer, for his good services to the government, did deserve his majesty’s favour.” This vote, when we consider that the public affairs called for the skill of the ablest statesmen, and that he was at this time not more than thirty-six years of age, may be admitted as a proof of the high esteem entertained of his abilities.

In 1698, being advanced to the first commission of the treasury, he was appointed one of the regency in the king’s absence: the next year he was made auditor of the exchequer, and the year after created baron Halifax. He was, however, impeached by the Commons; but the articles were dismissed by the Lords.

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

As he was a patron of poets, his own works did not miss of celebration. Addison began to praise him early, and was followed or accompanied by other poets; perhaps by almost all, except Swift and Pope, who forbore to flatter him in his life, because he had disappointed their hopes; and after his death spoke of him, Swift with slight censure, and Pope in the character of Bufo with acrimonious contempt*.

He was, as Pope says, “fed with dedications;” and Tickell affirms that no dedication was unrewarded. Dr. Johnson’s remarks on this are too valuable to be omitted.

lord Halifax as Bufo occurs in the Pope, with a ludicrous anecdote re­“Prologue to the Satires,” and yet in specting Halifax’s talents as a critic.

than his abilities in parliament.“In of whom he said that” his encouragethe preface to the Ilvad, he also speaks raents were only good words and good

highly of him, but they had not at that dinners.“time fallen out. The cause of their ”To charge all unmerited praise with the guilt of flattery, and to suppose that the encomiast always knows and feels the falsehoods of his assertions, is surely to discover great ignorance of human nature and human life. In determinations depending not on rules, but on experience and comparison, judgment is always in some degree subject to affection. Very near to admiration is the wish to admire. Every man willingly gives value to the praise which he receives, and considers the sentence passed in his favour as the sentence of discernment. We admire in a friend that understanding which selected us for confidence; we admire more, in a patron, that judgment which, instead of scattering bounty indiscriminately, directed it to us; and, if the patron be an author, those performances which gratitude forbids us to blame, affection will easily dispose us to exalt. To these prejudices, hardly culpable, interest adds a power always operating, though not always, because not willingly, perceived. The modesty of praise wears gradually away; and perhaps the pride of patronage may be in time so increased, that modest praise will no longer please.“The opinion of the same critic, on the poetry of Montague, may safely be quoted, as it seems to be the general one. <c It would now be esteemed no honour, by a contributor to the monthly bundle of verses, to be told, that, in strains either familiar or solemn, he sings like Montague.” His poems and speeches, with memoirs of his life, were published in 1715. The former were inserted in Dr. Johnson’s edition of the English Poets, but although they have served to make his name more familiar with the public, it is in political history that his character appears to greatest advantage.

, eari of Sandwich, an English general, admiral, and statesman, was the only surviving son of sir Sidney Montague^ the youngest son of Edward lord Montague of Bough ton. He was born July 27, 1625, and after a liberal education was very early introduced into public life. His career may be said to have commenced at the age of eighteen; for in August 1643 he was commissioned to raise a regiment in the service of the parliament, and to act against Charles I. He then joined the army, and acquitted himself with great courage at the storming of Lincoln, the battles of Marston-moor and Naseby, and on other occasions, before he had arrived at his twentieth year. He sat also in the House of Commons as representative for Huntingdonshire before he was of age, and had afterwards a seat at the board of treasury under Cromwell. After the Dutch war he went from the army to the navy, had a command in the fleet, and Cromwell had so good an opinion of him, as to associate him with the celebrated admiral Blake in his expedition to the Mediterranean. In 1656 he returned to England with some rich prizes, and received the thanks of the parliament, as well as renewed instances of Cromwell’s favour. In the following year he was appointed to command the fleet in the Downs, the object of which was to watch the Dutch, to carry on the war with Spain, and to facilitate the enterprize of Dunkirk. After the death of Cromwell, he accepted, under Richard, the command of a large fleet which was sent to the North, on board of which he embarked in the spring of 1659. In April he wrote to the kings of Sweden and Denmark, and to the Dutch admiral Opdam, informing them that his instructions were, not to respect the private advantage of England by making war, but the general tranquillity of Europe, by engaging the Powers of the North to enter into an equitable peace; and in the negocrations which he carried on with other ministers to effect this purpose, he is said to have displayed the talents of a consummate statesman.

He appears, however, about this time, to have conceived a dislike against his employers for which two reasons are assigned the one, that previous to his sailing, the parliament had tied him down to act only in conjunction with their commissioners, one of whom was Algernon Sidney; and the other, that they had given away his regiment of horse. While thus employed, and with these feelings, Charles II. sent him two letters, one from himself, and the other from chancellor Hyde, the purpose of which was to induce him to withdraw from the service of parliament, and, as a necessary step, to return with the fleet to England, where it might be ready to act in conjunction with sir George Booth and others, who were already disposed to promote the restoration. He accordingly set sail for England, but had the mortification to find that sir George Booth was in the Tower, the parliament in full authority, and a charge against himself brought by Algernon Sidney. He set out, however, for London, and defended his conduct to parliament with so much plausibility, that the only consequence was his being dismissed from his command.

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

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

The character of this nobleman may be inferred from the above particulars. Of his bravery and skill both as a commander and statesman, there cannot be any difference of opinion; but there are the strongest inconsistencies in his political career, and perhaps greater inconsistencies in the dispensation of courf-favours after the restoration. He had contributed to dethrone the father, and had offered the son’s crown to the usurper; yet for his slow services at the very eve of the restoration, Charles II. heaped rewards and honours upon him, while he neglected thousands who had, at the risk of life and property, adhered to the royal cause through all its vicissitudes.

Lord Orford, who has given this nobleman a place iri his “Catalogue of Royal and Noble Authors,” mentions of his writing, “A Letter to Secretary Thurloe,” in the first volume of “Thurloe’s State-papers;” -“Several Letters during his Embassy to Spain,” published with “Arlington’s Letters;” and “Original Letters and Negotiations of Sir Richard Fanshaw, the Earl of Sandwich, the Earl of Sunderland, and Sir William Godolphin, wherein divers matters between the three Crowns of England, Spain, and Portugal, from 1603 to 1678, are set in a clear light,” in 2 vols. 8vo. He was also the author of a singular translation, called “The Art of Metals, in which is declared, the manner of their Generation, and the Concomitants of them, in two books, written in Spanish by Albaro Alonzo Barba, M. A. curate of St. Bernard’s parish, in the imperial city of Potosi, in the kingdom of Peru, in the West Indies, in. 1640; translated in 1669, by the right honourable Edward earl of Sandwich,” 1674, a small 8vo. A short preface of the editor says “The original was regarded in Spain and the West Indies as an inestimable jewel but that, falling int the earl’s hands, he enriched our language with it, being content that all our lord the king’s people should be philosophers.” There are also some astronomical observations of his in No. 21 of the Philosophical Transactions.

, fourth earl of Sandwich, son of Edward Richard Montague, lord viscount Hinchinbroke, and Elizabeth only daughter of Alexander Popham, esq. of Littlecote in the county of Wilts, was born in the parish of St. Martin in the Fields, Westminster, Nov. 15, 1718. He was sent at an early age to Eton school, where, under the tuition of 'Dr. George, he made a considerable proficiency in the classics. In 1735, he was admitted of Trinity college, Cambridge, and during his residence there, he and the late lord Halifax were particularly distinguished for their college exercises; and were the first noblemen who declaimed publicly in the college chapel. After spending about two years at Cambridge, he set out on a voyage round the Mediterranean, his account of which has recently been published. Mr. Ponsonby, late earl of Besborough, Mr. Nelthorpe, and Mr. Mackye, accompanied his lordship (for he was now earl of Sandwich) on this agreeable tour, with Liotard the painter, as we have noticed in his article (vol. XX.) On his lordship’s return to England, he brought with him, as appears by a letter written by him to the rev. Dr. Dampier, “two mummies and eight embalmed ibis’s from the catacombs of Memphis a large quantity of the famous Egyptian papyrus fifteen intaglios five hundred medals, most of them easier to be read than that which has the inscription TAMttlN a marble vase from Athens, and a very long inscription as yet nndecyphered, on both sides of a piece of marble of about two feet in height.” This marble was afterwards presented to Trinity college, and the inscription was explained by the late learned Dr. Taylor, in 1743, by the title of Marmor Sandvicense.

Being now of age, he took his seat in the House of Lords, and began his political career by joining the party then in opposition to sir Robert Walpole. On the formation of the ministry distinguished by the appellation of broadbottom, he was appointed second lord of the admiralty, Dec. 15, 1744. In consequence of the active part which he took in raising men to quell the rebellion in 1745, he obtained rank in the army. His political talents must at this time have been acknowledged, as in 1746 he was appointed plenipotentiary to the congress to be holden at Breda, and next year his powers were renewed, and continued till the definitive treaty of peace was signed at AixJa-Chapel!e in Oct. 1748. On his return he was sworn of the privy- council, and appointed first lord of the admiralty; and on the king’s embarking for Hanover, he was declared one of the lords justices during his majesty’s absence. In. June 1751, he was displaced from the admiralty, and did not again hold any public office till 1755, when he became one of the joint vice-treasurers of Ireland. In April 1763, he was again appointed first lord of the admiralty; and the death of lord Hardwicke causing a vacancy in the office of high steward of the university of Cambridge, lord Sandwich became a candidate to succeed him, but failed, after a very close contest. In 1765 he was again out of office, but in 1768 was made joint-postmaster with lord Le Despencer. In Jan. 1771, under lord North’s administration, he was a third time appointed first lord of the admiralty, which he held during the whole stormy period of the American war, and resigned only on the dissolution of the ministry which had carried it on. His conduct in the admiralty was allowed to redound greatty to his credit. He reformed many abuses in the dock-yards; increased the establishment of the marines set the example of annual visitations to the dock-yards was the promoter and patron of several voyages of discovery; and upon the whole, his attention to and knowledge of the duties of the naval department, although sometimes the objects of jealous inquiry, had probably never been exceeded.

In 1783, under the coalition cabinet he accepted the rangership of the parks, which he held only until the following year, and then returned to the calm satisfaction of a private station. In 1791, a complaint in the bowels, to which he had been subject, obliged him to try the waters of Bath; but, receiving no benefit, he returned to his house in town in the latter end of February 1792, where after languishing for some weeks, he died April 30.

“The earl of Sandwich,” says his biographer, “was rather to be considered as an able and intelligent speaker, then a brilliant and eloquent orator. In his early parliamentary career, he displayed uncommon knowledge of the sort of composition adapted to make an impression on a popular assembly; and from a happy choice of words, and a judicious arrangement of his argument, he seldom spoke without producing a sensible effect on the mind of every impartial auditor. In the latter part of his political life, and especially during the American war, his harangues were less remarkable for their grace and ornament, than for sound sense, and the valuable and appropriate information which they communicated. His speeches, therefore, were regarded as the lessons of experience and wisdom. He was never ambitious of obtruding himself upon the house. He had a peculiar delicacy of forbearance, arising from a sense of propriety; which, if more generally practised, would tend very much to expedite the public business by compressing the debates, now usually drawn out to an immeasurable and tiresome length, within more reasonable bounds. If, after having prepared himself on any important question, when he rose in the house any other lord first caught the chancellor’s eye, he sat down with the most accommodating patience; and, if the lord, who spoke before him, anticipated the sentiments which he meant to offer, he either did not speak at all, or only spoke to such points as had not been adverted to by the preceding speaker. Whenever, therefore, he rose, the House was assured that he had something material to communicate: he was accordingly listened to with attention, and seldom sat down without furnishing their lordships with facts at once important and interesting; of which no other peer was so perfectly master as himself. During the period of the American war he was frequently attacked in both houses for his official conduct or imputed malversation. When any such attempts were made in the House of Peers, he heard his accusers with patience, and with equal temper as firmness refuted their allegations, exposing their fallacy or their falsehood. On all such occasions, he met his opponents fairly and openly, in some instances concurring in their motions for papers, which his adversaries imagined would prove him a negligent minister; in others resisting their object, by shewing the inexpediency or the impolicy of complying with their requests. In the parliamentary contest, to which the unfortunate events of the American war gave rise, he is to be found more than once rising in reply to the late earl of Chatham; whose extraordinary powers of eloquence inspired sufficient awe to silence and intimidate even lords of acknowledged ability. Lord Sandwich never in such cases suffered himself to he dazzled by the splendor of oratorical talents; or ever spoke without affording proof that his reply was necessary and adequate. In fact, his lordship never rose without first satisfying himself, that the speaker he meant to reply to was in error; and that a plain statement of the facts in question would dissipate the delusion, and afford conviction to the house. By this judicious conduct his lordship secured the respect of those whom he addressed, and commanded at all times an attentive hearing.”

In his private character, his biographer bears testimony to the easy politeness and affability of his manners his chearfulness and hospitality the activity of his disposition and his readiness to perform acts of kindness. Of his morals less can be said. He was indeed a man of pleasure, in all the extent of that character; his most harmless enjoyment was music, in which he was at once a man of taste, a warm enthusiast, and a liberal patron. He is said to have been the author of a pamphlet, entitled “A State of Facts relative to Greenwich hospital, 7 ' 1779, in reply to captain Baillie’s” Case of the Royal Hospital at Greenwich,“published in 1778. Since his death has been published,” A Voyage performed by the Earl of Sandwich round the Mediterranean, in the years 1738 and 1739, written by himself." This was edited by his chaplain the rev. John Cooke in 1799, with a memoir of the noble author, from which we have extracted the above particulars. This noble lord’s narrative is less interesting now than it would have been about the period when it was written, and is indeed very imperfect and unsatisfactory, but the plan and execution of such a voyage are creditable to his lordship’s taste and youthful ambition.

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

In 1716, Mr. Wortley resigned his situation as a lord of the treasury, on being appointed ambassador to the Porte, in order to negociate peace between the Turks and Imperialists. Lady Mary determined to accompany him in this difficult and, during war, dangerous journey, and while travelling, and after her arrival in the Levant, amused herself and delighted her friends by a regular correspondence, chiefly directed to her sister the countess of Mar, lady Rich, and Mrs. Thistlethwaite, both ladies of the court, and to Mr. Pope. Previously to her arrival at the capital of the Ottoman empire, the embassy rested about two months at Adrianople, to which city the Sultan, Achmed the third, had removed his court. It was here that she first was enabled to become acquainted with the customs of the Turks, and to give so lively and so just a picture of their domestic manners and usages of ceremony. Her admission into the interior of the seraglio was one of her most remarkable adventures, and most singular privileges, and gave rise to many strange conjectures, which it is not now necessary to revive. It is more important to record that, during her residence at Constantinople, she was enabled to confer on Europe a benefit of the greatest consequence; namely, inoculation for the small-pox, which was at that time universal in the Turkish dominions. This practice she examined with such attention as to become perfectly satisfied with its efficacy, and gave the most intrepid and convincing proof of her belief, in 1717, by inoculating her son, who was then about three years old. Mr. Maitland, who had attended the embassy in a medical character, first endeavoured to establish the practice in London, and was encouraged by lady Mary’s patronage. In 1721 the experiment was successfully tried on some criminals. With so much ardour did lady Mary, on her return, enforce this salutary innovation among mothers of her own rank, that, as we find in her letters, much of her time was necessarily dedicated to various consultations, and to the superintendence of the success of her plan. In 1722, she had a daughter of six years old, inoculated, who was afterwards countess of Bute and in a short time the children of the royal family, that had not had the small- pox, underwent the same operation with success then followed some of the nobility, and the practice gradually prevailed among all ranks, although it had to encounter very strong prejudices; and was soon extended, by Mr. Maitland to Scotland, and by other operators to most parts of Europe.

Mr. Wortley’s negociations at the Porte having failed, owing to the high demands of the Imperialists, he received letters of recall, Oct. 28, 1717, but did not commence his journey till June 1718; in October of the same year he arrived in England. Soon after, lady Mary was solicited by Mr. Pope to fix her summer residence at Twickenham, with which she complied, and mutual admiration seemed to knit these kindred geniuses in indissoluble bonds. A short time, however, proved that their friendship was not superhuman. Jealousy of her talents, and a difference in political sentiments, appear to have been the primary causes of that dislike which soon manifested itself without ceremony and without delicacy. Lady Mary was attached to the Walpole administration and principles. Pope hated the whigs, and was at no pains to conceal his aversion in conversation or writing. What was worse, lady Mary had for some time omitted to consult him upon any new poetical production, and even when he had been formerly very free with his emendations, was wont to say, “Come, no touching, Pope, for what is good, the world will give to you, and leave the bad for me;” and she was well aware that he disingenuously encouraged that idea. But the more immediate cause of their implacability, was a satire in the form of a pastoral, entitled “Town Eclogues.” These were some of lady Mary’s earliest poetical attempts, and had been written previously to her leaving England. After her return, they were communicated to a favoured few, and no doubt highly relished from their supposed, or real personal allusions. Both Pope and Gay suggested many additions and alterations, which were certainly not adopted by lady Mary; and as copies, including their corrections, were found among the papers of these poets, their editors have attributed three out of six to them. “The Basset Table,” and The Drawing Room,“are given to Pope and the” Toilet“to Gay. The publication, however, of these poems, in the name of Pope, by Curl, a bookseller who hesitated at nothing mean or infamous, appears to have put a final stop to all intercourse between Pope and lady Mary.” Irritated,“says her late biographer,” by Pope’s ceaseless petulance, and disgusted by his subterfuge, she now retired totally from his society, and certainly did not abstain from sarcastic observations, which were always repeated to him.“The angry bard retaliated in the most gross and public manner against her and her friend lord Hervey. Of this controversy, which is admirably detailed by Mr. Dallaway, we shall only add, that Dr. Warton and Dr. Johnson agree in condemning the prevarication with which Pope evaded every direct charge of his ungrateful behaviour to those whose patronage he had once servilely solicited; and even his panegyrical commentator, Dr. Warburton, confesses that there were allegations against him, which” he was not quite clear of."

Lady Mary, however, preserved her envied rank in the world of fashion and of literature until 1739, when her health declining, she took the resolution to pass the remainder of her days on the continent. Having obtained Mr. Wortley’s consent, she left England in the month of July, and hastened to Venice, where she formed many connexions with the noble inhabitants, and determined to establish herself in the north of Italy. Having been gratified by a short tour to Rome and Naples, she returned to Brescia, one of the palaces of which city she inhabited, and also spent some months at Avignon and Chamberry. Her summer residence she fixed at Louverre, on the shores of the lake of Isco, in the Venetian territory, whither she had been first invited on account of the mineral waters, which she found greatly beneficial to her health. There she took possession of a deserted palace, she planned her garden, applied herself to the business of a country life, and was happy in the superintendance of her vineyards and silk-worms. Books, and those chiefly English, sent by her daughter lady Bute, supplied the want of society. Her visits to Genoa and Padua were not unfrequent, but about 1758, she quitted her solitude, and settled entirely at Venice, where she remained till the death of Mr. Wortley in 1761. She then yielded to the solicitations of her daughter, and after an absence of twenty-two years, she began her journey to England, where she arrived in October. But her health had suffered much, and a gradual decline terminated in death, on the 21st of August, 1762, and in the seventy-third year of her age.

The year following her death, appeared “Letters of Lady M y W y M” in 3 vols. 12mo, of which publication Mr. Dallaway has given a very curious history. By this it appears that after lady Mary had collected copies of the letters which she had written during Mr. Wortley’s embassy, she transcribed them in two small quarto volumes, and upon her return to England in 1761, gave them to Mr. Sowden, a clergyman at Rotterdam, to be disposed of as he thought proper. After her death, the late earl of Bute purchased them of Mr. Sowden, but they were scarcely landed in England when the above mentioned edition was published. On farther application to Mr. Sowden, it could only be gathered that two English gentlemen once called on him to see the letters, and contrived, during his being called away, to go off with them, although they returned them next morning with many apologies. Whoever will look at the three 12mo volumes, may perceive that with the help of a few amanuenses, there was sufficient time to transcribe them during this interval. Cleland was the editor of the publication, and probably one of the “gentlemen” concerned in the trick of obtaining the copies. The appearance of these letters, however, excited universal attention, nor on a re-perusal of them at this improved period of female literature, can any thing be deducted from Dr. Smollett’s opinion in the “Critical Review,” of which he was then conductor. “The publication of these letters will be an immortal monument to the memory of lady M. W. M. and will shew, as long as the English language endures, the sprightliness of her wit, the solidity of her judgment, the elegance of her taste, and the excellence of her real character. These letters are so bewitchingly entertaining, that we defy the most phlegmatic man on earth to read one without going through with them, or after finishing the third volume, not to wish there were twenty more of them.” Other critics were not so enraptured, and seemed to doubt their authenticity, which, however, is now placed beyond all question by the following- publication, “The Works of the right hon. lady M. W. M. including her correspondence, poems, and essays, published by permission (of the Earl of Bute) from her genuine papers,” London, 1803, 5 vols. 12mo, with Memoirs of her Life by Mr. Dallaway, drawn up with much taste and delicacy, and to which we are indebted for the preceding sketch. This edition, besides her poems, and a few miscellaneous essays, contains a great number of letters never before printed, perhaps of equal importance with those which have long been before the world, as they appear not to have been intended for publication, which the others certainly were, and we have in these new letters a more exact delineation of her character in advanced life. This if it be not always pleasing, will afford many instructive lessons. Her poetry, without being of the superior kind, is yet entitled to high praise, and had she cultivated the acquaintance of the muses with more earnestness, and had not disdained the scrupulous labour by which some of her contemporaries acquired fame, it is probable she might have attained a higher rank. She certainly was a woman of extraordinary talents, and acquired the honours of literary reputation at a time when they were not bestowed on the undeserving. It is, however, incumbent upon us to add, that the moral tendency of her letters may be justly questioned; many of the descriptions of Eastern luxuries and beauty are such as cannot be tolerated in an age of decency, and a prudent guardian will hesitate long before he can admit the letters from Constantinople among books fit for the perusal of the young. Her amiable relative, the late Mrs. Montague, represents Lady Mary as one who “neither thinks, speaks, acts, or dresses like any body;” and many traits qf her moral conduct were also, it is to be hoped, exclusively her own.

, only son of the preceding lady Mary, was born in October 1713, and in the early part of his life seems to have been the object of his mother’s tenderest regard, though he afterwards lost her favour. In 1716, he was taken by her on his father’s embassy to Constantinople, and while there, was, as we have noticed in her life, the first English child on whom the practice of inoculation was tried. Returning to England with his parents in 1719, he was placed at Westminsterschool, where he gave an* early sample of his wayward disposition, by running away, and eluding every possible search, until about a year after he was accidentally discovered at Blackwall, near London, in the character of a vender offish, a basket of which he had then on his head. He had bound himself, by regular indenture, to a poor fisherman, who said he had served him faithfully, making his bargains shrewdly, and paying his master the purchasemoney honestly. He was now again placed at Westminster-school, but in a short time escaped a second time, and bound himself to the master of a vessel which sailed for Oporto, who, supposing him a deserted friendless boy, treated him with great kindness and humanity. This treatment, however, produced no corresponding feelings; for the moment they landed at Oporto, Montague ran away up the country, and contrived to get employment for two or three years in the vintage. Here at length he was discovered, brought home, and pardoned but with no better effect than before. He ran away a third time after which, his father procured him a tutor, who made him so far regular that he had an appointment in one of the public offices and, in 1747, he was elected one of the knights of the shire for the county of Huntingdon but in his senatorial capacity he does not appear to have any way distinguished himself; nor did he long retain his seat, his expences so far exceeding his income, that he found it prudent once more to leave England, about the latter end of 1751. His first excursion was to Paris, where, in a short time, he was imprisoned in the Chatelet, for a fraudulent gambling transaction: how he escaped is not very clear, but he published a defence of himself, under the title of “Memorial of E. W. Montague, esq. written by himself, in French, and published lately at Paris, against Abraham Payba, a Jew by birth, who assumed the fictitious name of James Roberts. Translated into English from an authentick copy sent from Paris,” 1752, 8vo.

In the parliament which assembled in 1754, Mr. Montague was returned for Bossiney: and in 1759 he published his “Reflections on the Rise and Fall of the ancient Republics, adapted to the present state of Great Britain,” 8vo. This work contains a concise, and not inelegant, relation of the Grecian, Roman, and Carthaginian states, interspersed with occasional allusiotis to his own country, the constitution of which he appears to have studied with care. It is somewhat singular that Mr. Forster, the person whom his father had engaged as his tutor, endeavoured to claim the merit of this work; but not, as Mr. Seward remarks, until more than a year after Mr. Montague’s death, when he could receive no contradiction.

His father died in January 1761, at the advanced age of eighty, and by his will, made in 1755, bequeathed to his son an annuity of one thousand pounds a-year, to be paid to him during the joint lives of himself and his mother lady Mary; and after her death an annuity of two thousand pounds a-year, during the joint lives of himself and his sister lady Bute. By the same will he empowered Mr. Montague to make a settlement ou any woman he might marry, not exceeding eight hundred pounds a-year; and to any son of such marriage he devised a considerable estate in the West Riding of Yorkshire. It was this last clause which gave rise to a story that he had advertised for a wife, promising to marry “any widow or single lady, of genteel birth and polished manners, and five, six, seven, or eight months in her pregnancy.” Such an advertisement certainly appeared, but not sooner than 1776, within a few months of his death, and when he was abroad; all which render the story rather improbable.

His mother died in 1762, and left him only one guinea, he having offended her irreconcileably: but as he was now independent by his father’s liberal bequest, he once more took leave of his native country, and passed the remainder of his life in foreign parts, In 1762, while at Turin, he wrote two letters to the earl of Macclesfield, which were read at the Royal Society, and afterwards published in a quarto pamphlet, entitled, “Observations upon a supposed antique bust at Turin.” In the Philosophical Transactions are also, by him, “New Observations on Pompey’s Pillar,” and an account of his journey from Cairo in Egypt to the Written Mountains in the desarts of Sinai. It is said that he published “An Explication of the Causes of Earthquakes;” but it is not recollected where. His travels in the East occupied some years, and in the course of them he first abjured the protestant for the Roman catholic religion, and then the latter for Mahometanism, all the rite’s and ceremonies of which he performed with a punctuality which inclines us to think that he was in some degree deranged! He died at length at Padua in May 1776, and was buried under a plain slab, in the cloister of the HermitauTs, with an inscription recording his travels and his talents. The latter would have done honour to any character, but in him were obscured by a disposition which it would be more natural to look for in romance than in real life.

, a learned and ingenious English lady, was the daughter of Matthew Robinson, esq. of West Layton, in Yorkshire, of Coveney, Cambridgeshire, and of Mount Morris in Kent, by Elizabeth daughter and heiress of Robert Drake, esq. She was born at York, Oct. 2, 1720, but lived, for some of her early years, with her parents at Cambridge, where she derived great assistance in her education from Dr. Conyers Middleton, whom her grandmother had taken as a second husband. Her uncommon sensibility and acuteness of understanding, as well as her extraordinary beauty as a child, rendered her an object of great notice and admiration in the university, and Dr. Middleton was in the habit of requiring from her an account of the learned conversations at which, in his society, she was frequently present: not admitting of the excuse of her tender age as a disqualification, but insisting, that although at the present time she could but imperfectly understand their meaning, she would in future derive great benefit from the habit of attention inculcated by this practice. Her father, a man of considerable intellectual powers, and taste, was proud of the distinguished notice bestowed on his daughter, and contributed to increase in her the vivacity of wit with which she naturally abounded. In her early education, however, Mrs. Montague did not receive those strong impressions of the truth of divine revelation which she acquired at a later period, from her intimacy with Gilbert West and lord Lyttelton. It was reserved for the influence of the steady principles of Christianity, to correct the exuberant spirit of her genius, and to give the last touches of improvement to her character.

She had early a love for society, and it was her lot to be introduced to the best. In 1742, she was married to Edward Montague, esq. of Denton-hall in Northumberland and Sandleford priory in Berkshire, grandson of the first earl of Sandwich, and member of several successive parliaments for the borough of Huntingdon. By his connections and her own she obtained an extensive lange of acquaintance, but selected as her especial friends and favourites persons distinguished for taste and talents. By Mr. Montague, who died without issue in 1775, she was left in great opulence, and maintained her establishment in the learned and fashionable world for many years with great eclat, living in a style of most splendid hospitality. She died in her eightieth year, at her house in Portman-square, Aug. 25, 1800.

She had early distinguished herself as an author first by “Three Dialogues of the Dead,” published along with lord Lyttelton’s afterwards by her classical and elegant “Essay on the Genius and Writings of Shakspeare,” ia which she amply vindicated our great poet from the gross, illiberal, and ignorant abuse, thrown out against him by Voltaire. This is indeed a wonderful performance, as all, who will examine it impartially, must admit. It is a ridiculous supposition that she was assisted by her husband, whose talent lay in mathematical pursuits, which indeed absorbed the whole of his attention. Many years after she bad received the approbation of all persons of critical taste on this performance, it fell into the hands of Cowper the poet, who, on reading it, says to his correspondent, “I no longer wonder that Mrs. Montague stands at the head of all that is called learned, and that every critic veils his bonnet to her superior judgment:” “The learning, the good sense, the sound judgment, and the wit displayed in it, fully justify, not only my compliment, but all compliments that either have been already paid to her talents, or shall be paid hereafter.”

Few persons had seen more of life than Mrs. Montague, and of that part of mankind, who were eminent either for their genius or their rank; and for many years her splendid house in Portman-square was open to the literary world. She had lived at the table of the second lord Oxford, the resort of Pope, and his contemporaries she was the intimate friend of Pulteney and Lyttelton and she survived to entertain Johnson and Goldsmith, and Burke and Reynolds, till their respective deaths*. Dr. Beattie was frequently her inmate, and for many years her correspondent; and Mrs. Carter was, from their youth, her intimate friend, correspondent, and visitor. For the most learned of these she was a suitable correspondent and companion, as is evident from her letters, and was acknowledged by all who heard her conversation. It was, however, her defect that she had too great a regard to the manners and habits of the world, and damped her transcendant talents by a sacrifice to the cold dictates of worldly wisdom. Her understanding was as sound as her fancy was lively her taste was correct and severe and she penetrated the human character with an almost unerring sagacity but her love of popularity, and her ambition of politeness, controuled her expressions, and concealed her real sentiments from superficial observers. Since her death four volumes of her epistolary correspondence have been published by her nephew and executor, Matthew Montague, esq.; and when the series shall be completed, a just idea may be formed of Mrs. Montague’s genius and character, and the result, we may venture to predict, will be highly favourable.

, an eminent French, writer, was born at the castle of Montaigne, in the Perigord, Feb. 8, 1533. His father, seigneur of Montaigne, and mayor of Bourdeaux, bestowed particular attention on his education, perceiving in him early proofs of talents that would one day reward his care. His mode of teaching him languages is mentioned as somewhat singular at that time, although it has since been frequently practised. He provided him with a German attendant, who did not know French, and who was enjoined to speak to him in Latin, and in consequence young Montaigne is said to have been a master of that language at the age of six years. He was taught Greek also as a sort of diversion, and because his father had heard that the brains of children may be injured by being roused too suddenly out of sleep, he caused him to be awakened every morning by soft music. All this care he repaid by the most tender veneration for the memory of his father. Filial piety, indeed, is said to have been one of the most remarkable traits of his character, and he sometimes displayed it rather in a singular manner. When on horseback he constantly wore a cloak which had belonged to his father, not, as he said, for convenience, but for the pleasure it gave him. “II me semble m'envelopper de lui,” “I seem to be wrapped up in my father;” and this, which from any other wit would have been called the personification of a pun, was considered in Montaigne as a sublime expression of filial piety.

At the age of thirteen he had finished his course of studies, which he began at the college of Bourdeaux, under Grouchy, the celebrated Buchanan, and Muret, all learned and eminent teachers, and his progress bore proportion to their care. Being designed for the bar by his father, he married the daughter of a counsellor of parliament at Bourdeaux, when in his thirty-third year, and for some time himself sustained that character, but afterwards abandoned a profession to which he probably was never cordially attached. His favourite study was that of human nature, to pursue which he travelled through various parts of France, Germany, Swisserland, and Italy, making his observations on every thing curious or interesting in society, and receiving many marks of distinction. At Rome, in 1581, he was admitted a citizen; and the same year he was chosen mayor of Bourdeaux, and in this office gave such satisfaction to his fellow-citizens, that in 1582 they employed him in a special mission to courj; on important affairs, and after his mayoralty expired, they again elected him into the same office. In 1588 he appeared to advantage at the assembly of the states of Blois, and although not a deputy, took a share in their proceedings and cabals. During one of his visits at court, Charles IX. decorated him with the collar of the order of St. Michael, without any solicitation, which, when young, he is said to nave coveted above all things, it being at that time the highest mark of honour among the French nobility, and rarely bestowed.

Returning afterwards to his family residence, he devoted himself to study, from which be suffered some disturbance during the civil wars. On one occasion a stranger presented himself at the entrance of his house, pretending that while travelling with his friends, a troop of soldiers had attacked their party, taken away their baggage, killed all who made resistance, and dispersed the rest. Mon< taigne, unsuspectingly, admitted this man, who was the chief of a gang, and wanted admittance only to plunder the house. In a few minutes two or three more arrived, whom the first declared to be his friends that had made their escape, and Montaigne compassionately made them welcome. Soon after, however, he perceived the court of his chateau filled with more of the party, whose behaviour left him in no doubt as to their intentions. Montaigne preserved his countenance unaltered, and ordered them every refreshment the place afforded, and presented this with so nauch* kindness and politeness, that the captain of the troop had not the courage to give the signal for pillage.

In his old age Montaigne was much afflicted with the stone and nephritic colic, but could never be prevailed upon to take medicines, in which he never had any faith. The physicians, he used to say, “know Galen, but they know nothing of a sick person;” and such was his confidence in the powers of nature, that he refused even a common purgative, when the, indication was plain. He died Sept. 15, 1592, in his sixtieth year.

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

More recently, in 1799, his memory has been revived in France by an extravagant eloge from the pen of a French lady, Henrietta Bourdic-viot, who assures us that it was in the works of Montaigne that she acquired the knowledge of her duties.“But we rather incline to the more judicious character given of this author by Dr. Joseph Warton.” That Montaigne,“says this excellent critic,” abounds in native wit, in quick penetration, in perfect knowledge of the human heart, and the various vanities and vices that lurk in it, cannot justly be denied. But a man who undertakes to transmit his thoughts on life and manners to posterity, with the hope of entertaining and amending future ages, must be either exceedingly vain or exceedingly careless, if he expects either of these effects can be produced by wanton sallies of the imagination, by useless and impertinent digressions, by never forming or following any regular plan, never classing or confining his thoughts, never changing or rejecting any sentiment that occurs to him. Yet this appears to have been the conduct of our celebrated essayist; and it has produced many awkward imitators, who, under the notion of writing with the fire and freedom of this lively old Gascon, have fallen into confused rhapsodies and uninteresting egotisms. But these blemishes of Montaigne are trifling and unimportant, compared with his vanity, his indecency, and his scepticism. That man must totally have suppressed the natural love of honest reputation, which is so powerfully felt by the truly wise and good, who can calmly sit down to give a catalogue of his private vices, publish his most secret infirmities, with the pretence of exhibiting a faithful picture of himself, and of exactly pourtraying the minutest features of his mind. Surely he deserves the censure Quintilian bestows on Demetrius, a celebrated Grecian statuary, that he was nimius in veritate, ct similitudinis quam pulchritudinis amantior; more studious of likeness than of beauty."

The first edition of Montaigne’s Essays was published by himself in 1580, 8vo, in two books only, which were augmented afterwards to the present number. Of the subsequent editions, those by P. Coste are reckoned the best, and of these, Tonson’s edition, 1724, in 3 vols. 4to, is praised by the French bibliographers, as the most beautiful that has ever appeared. We have also two English translations. Montaigne’s life was first written by the president Bouhier, and prefixed to a supplementary volume of his works in 1740. Montaigne appeared once as the editor of some of the works of Stephen de la Boetie, in 1571; and ten years afterwards translated the “Natural Theologie” of Raimond de Sebonda, a learned Spaniard, and prefixed prefaces to both.

, senior member of the academy of sciences of France, was born July 16, 1714, at Angouleme. His family had been a long time rendered illustrious in arms by An. re* De Montalembert, count d'Esse“, lieutenant-general to the king, commander of his armies in Scotland, governor of Terouane near St. Omers, and who died on the breach, the 12th of June 1553. In 1732 the young Montalembert entered into the army, and distinguished himself at the sieges of Kehl and Philipsburg in 1736. He was afterwards captain of the guards to the prince of Conti. In peace he studied the mathematics and natural philosophy: he read a memoir to the academy of sciences, upon the evaporation of the water in the salt works at Turcheim, in the palatinate, which he had examined, and was made a member in 1747. There are in the volumes in the academy some memoirs from him upon the rotation of bullets, upon the substitution of stoves for fire-places, and upon a pool, in which were found pike purblind, and others wholly without sight. From 1750 to 1755 he established the forges at Angoumoisand Perigord. and there founded cannon for the navy. In 1777 three volumes were printed of the correspondence which he held with the generals and ministers, whilst he was employed by his country in the Swedish and Russian armies during the campaigns of 1757 and 1761, and afterwards in Britanny and the isle of Oleron, when fortifying it. He fortified also Stralsund, in Pomerania, against the Prussian troops, and gave an account to his court of the military operations in which it was concerned; and this in a manner which renders it an interesting part of the History of the Seven-years War. In 1776 he printed the first volume of an immense work upon Perpendicular Fortification, and the art of Defence; demonstrating the inconveniences of the old system, for which he substitutes that of casemates, which admit of such a kind of firing, that a place fortified after his manner appears to be impregnable. His system has been, however, uot always approved or adopted. His treatise was extended to ten volumes in quarto, with a great number of plates; the last volume was published in 1792, and will doubtless carry his name to posterity as an author as well as a general. He married, in 1770, Marie de Comarieu, who was an actress, and the owner of a theatre, for whom the general sometimes composed a dramatic piece. In 1784 and 1786 he printed three operatical pieces, set to music by Cambini and Tomeoni: they were,” La Statue,“” La Bergere qualite,“and” La Bohemienne." Alarmed at the progress of the revolution, he repaired to England in 1789 or 1790, and leaving his wife there, procured a divorce, and afterwards married Rosalie Louise Cadet, to whom he was under great obligation during the Robespierrian terror, and by whom he had a daughter born in July 1796. In his memoir published in 1790, it may be seen that he had been arbitrarily dispossessed of his iron forges, and that having a claim for six millions of livres clue to him, he was reduced to a pension, but ill paid, and was at last obliged to sell his estate at Maumer, in Angoumois, for which he was paid in assignats, and which were insufficient to take him out of that distress which accompanied him throughout his life. He was sometimes almost disposed to put an end to his existence, but had the courage to resume his former studies, and engaged a person to assist him in compleating some new models. His last public appearance was in the institute, where he read a new memoir upon the mountings (affect) of ship-guns. On this occasion he was received with veneration by the society, and attended to with religious silence: a man of eighty-six years of age had never been heard to read with so strong a voice. His memoir was thought of so much importance, that the institute wrote to the minister of marine, who sent orders to Brest for the adoption of the suggested change. He was upon the list for a place in the institute, and was even proposed as the first member for the section of mechanics, but learning that Bonaparte was spoken of for the institute, he wrote a letter, in which he expressed his desire to see the young conqueror of Italy honoured with this new crown. His strength of mind he possessed to the last, for not above a month before his death he wrote reflections upon the siege of St. John d'Acre, which contained further proofs of the solidity of his defensive system, but at last he fell ill of a catarrh, which degenerated into a dropsy, and carried him off March 22, 1802.

, an ancient heresiarch. among the Christians, founded a new sect in the second century of the church, which were called Montanists. They had also the name of Phrygians and Cataphrygians, because Montanus was either born, or at least first known, at Ardaba, a village of Mysia, which was situated upon the borders of Phrygia. Here he set up for a prophet, although it seems he had but lately embraced Christianity: but it is said that he had an immoderate desire to obtain a first place in the church, and that he thought this the most likely means of raising himself. In this assumed character he affected to appear inspired with the Holy Spirit, and to be seized and agitated with divine ecstacies; and, under these disguises he uttered prophecies, in which he laid down doctrines, and established rites and ceremonies, entirely new. This wild behaviour was attended with its natural consequences and effects upon the multitude some affirming him to be a true prophet others, that he was possessed with an evil spirit. To carry on his delusion the better, Montanus associated to himself Priscilla and Maximiila, two wealthy ladies, who acted the part “of prophetesses” and, it> by the power of whose geld,“as Jerome tells us,” he first seduced many churches, and then corrupted them with his abominable errors." He seems to have made Pepuza, a tawn in Phrygia, the place of his first residence; and he artfully called it Jerusalem, because he knew the charm there was in that name, and what a powerful temptation it would be in drawing from all parts the weaker and more credulous Christians. Here he employed himself in delivering obscure and enigmatical sayings, under the name of prophecies; and made no small advantage of his followers, who brought great sums of money and valuable presents, by way of offerings. Some of these prophecies of Montanus and his women are preserved by Epiphanius, in which they affected to consider themselves only as mere machines and organs, through which God spake unto his people.

The peculiarities of this sect of Christians are explicitly set forth by St. Jerome. They are said to have been very heterodox in regard to the Trinity; inclining to Sabellianism, “by crowding,” as Jerome expresses it, “the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, into the narrow limits of one person.” Epiphanius, however, contradicts this, and affirms them to have agreed with the church in the doctrine of the Trinity. The Montanists held all second marriages to be unlawful, asserting that although the apostle Paul permitted them, it was because he “only knew in part, and prophesied in part;” but tnat, since the Holy Spirit had been poured upon Montanus and his prophetesses, they were not to be permitted any longer. But the capital doctiines of the Montanists are these “God,” they say, “was first pleased to save the world, under the Old Testament, from eternal damnation by Moses and the prophets. When these agents proved ineffectual, he assumed flesb. and blood of the Virgin Mary, and died for us in Christ, under the person of the Son. When the salvation of the world was not effected yet, he descended lastly upon Montanus, Priscilla, and Maximilla, into whom he infused that fulness of his Holy Spirit*, which had not been vouchsafed to the apostle Paul; for, Paul only knew in part, and prophesied in part.” These doctrines gained ground very fast;, and Montanus soon found himself surrounded with a tribe of people, who would probably have been ready to acknowledge his pretensions, if they had been higher. To add to his influence over their minds, he observed a wonderful strictness and severity of discipline, was a man of mortification, and of an apparently most sanctified spirit. He disclaimed all innovations in the grand articles of faith; and only pretended to perfect what was left unfinished by the saints. By these means he supported for a long time the character of a most holy, mortified, and divine person, and the world became much interested in the visions and prophecies of him and his two damsels Priscilla and Maximilla; and thus the face of severity and saintship consecrated their reveries, and made real possession pass for inspiration. Several good men immediately embraced the delusion, particularly Tertullian, Alcibiades, and Theodotus, who, however, did not wholly approve of Montanus’s extravagancies; but the churches of Phrygia, and afterwards other churches, grew divided upon the account of these new revelations; and, for some time, even the bishop of Rome cherished the imposture. Of the time or manner of Montanus’s death we have no certain account. It has been asserted, but without proof, that he and his coadjutress Maximilla were suicides.

, a very learned Spaniard, was born at Frexenel, in Estremadura, in 1527, and was the son of a notary. He studied in the university of Alcala, where he made great proficiency in the learned languages. Having taken the habit of the Benedictines, he accompanied, in 1562, the bishop of Segovia to the council of Trent, where he first laid the foundation of his celebrity. On his return to Spain, he retired to a hermitage situated on the top of a rock, near Aracena, where it was his intention to have devoted his life to meditation, but Philip It. persuaded him to leave this retreat, and become editor of a new Polyglot, which was to be printed by Christopher Plantin at Antwerp. On this employment he spent four years, from 1568 to 1572, and accomplished this great work in 8 volumes folio. The types were cast by the celebrated William Lebe, whom Plantin had invited from Paris for this purpose. This Polyglot, besides what is given in the Alcala Bible, contains the Chaldaic paraphrases, a Syriac version of the New Testament, in Syriac and Hebrew characters, with a Latin translation, &c. While Montanus was beginning to enjoy the reputation to which his labours in this work so well entitled him, Leo de Castro, professor of oriental languages at Salamanca, accused him before the inquisitions of Rome and Spain, as having altered the text of the holy Scriptures, and confirmed the prejudices of the Jews by his Chaldaic paraphrases. In consequence of this, Montanus was obliged to take several journies to Rome, to justify himself, which he did in the most satisfactory manner. Being thus restored, Philip II. offered him a bishopric; but he preferred his former retirement in the hermitage at Aracena, where he hoped to finish his days. There he constructed a winter and a summer habitation, and laid out a pleasant garden, &c. but had scarcely accomplished these comforts, when Philip II. again solicited him to return to the world, and accept the office of librarian to the Escurial, and teach the oriental languages. At length he was permitted to retire to Seville, where he died in 1598, aged seventy-one.

Arias was one of the most learned divines of the sixteenth century. He was a master of the Hebrew, Chaldaic, Syriac, Arabic, and Greek and Latin languages, and spoke fluently in German, French, and Portuguese. He was sober, modest, pious, and indefatigable. His company was sought by the learned, the great, and the pious; and his conversation was always edifying. Besides the Antwerp Polyglot, he was the author of, 1. “Index correctorius Lib. Theologicorum, Catholici regis anthoritate editus,” Antwerp, 1571, 4to. 2. “Commentaria in duodecim prophetas minores,” ibid. 1571, 4to; reprinted 1582. 3. “Elucidationes in quatuor Evangelia & in Act. Apost.” ibid. 1575, 4to. 4. “Elucidationes in omnia S. S. apostolorum scripta, &c.” ibid. 1588, 4to. 5. “De optimo imperio, sive in Librum Josue commentarius,” ibid. 1583. 6. “De varia Republica, sive Comment, in librum Judicum,” ibid. 1592, 4to. 7. “Antiquitatum Judaicarum, lib. novem,” Leyden, 1593. 8. “Liber generationis et regenerationis Adam, sive historia generis humani,” Antwerp, 1593, 4to; a second' part in 1601. y. “Davidis, aliorumque Psalmi ex Heb. in Lat. carmen conversi,” ibid. 1574, 4to. 10. “Conimentarii in triginta priores Psalmos,” ibid. 1605: with a few other works enumerated by Antonio and Niceron.

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

, a French naturalist, was born in 1720, at Semur, in Auxois. He spent the early part of his youth at Dijon, and afterwards came to Paris, where he made himself known as a man of science. He continued with reputation, the “Collection Academique,” a periodical work, which gave a view of every thing interesting contained in the “Memoirs” of the different learned societies in Europe. He was chosen by Buffon to be his associate in his great work on natural history, and the continuation of his ornithology was committed to him. He is described by Buffon, “as of all men, the person whose manner of seeing, judging, and writing, was most conformable to his own.” When the class of birds was finished, Montbeliard undertook that of insects, relative to which he had already furnished several articles to the New Encyclopedia, but his progress was cut short by his death, which took place at Semur, Nov. 28, 1785.

, a very celebrated Austrian general, was born in 1608, of a distinguished family in the Modenese. Ernest Montecuculi, his uncle, who was general of artillery in the imperial troops, made him pass through aJl the military ranks, before he was raised to that of commander. The young man’s first exploit was in 1634, when at the head of 2000 horse, he surprised 10,000 Swedes who were besieging Nemeslaw, in Silesia, and took their baggage and artillery; but he was shortly after defeated and made prisoner by general Bannier. Having obtained his liberty at the end of two years, he joined his forces to those of J. de Wert, in Bohemia, and conquered general Wrangel, who was killed in the battle. In 1627, the emperor appointed Montecuculi marechal de camp general, and sent him to assist John Casimir, king of Poland. He defeated Razolzi, prince of Transylvania, drove out the Swedes, and distinguished himself greatly against the Turks in Transylvania, and in Hungary, by gaining the battle of St. Gothard, in 1664. Montecuculi commanded the imperial forces against France in 1673, and acquired great honour from the capture of Bonn, which was preceded by a march, conducted with many stratagems to deceive M. Turenne. The command of this army was nevertheless taken from him the year following, but he received it again in 1675, that he might oppose the great Turenne, on the Rhine. Montecuculi had soon to bewail the death of this formidable enemy, on whom he bestowed the highest encomiums: “I lament,” said he, “and I can never too much lament, the loss of a man who appeared more than man; one who did honour to human nature.” The great prince of Cond6 was the only person who ould contest with Montecuculi, the superiority which M. de Turenne’s death gave him. That prince was therefore sent to the Rhine, and stopped the imperial general’s progress, who nevertheless considered this last campaign as his most glorious one; not because he was a conqueror, but because he was not conquered by two such opponents as Turenne and Conde. He spent the remainder of his life at the emperor’s court, devoting himself to the belles lettres; and the academy of naturalists owes its establishment to him. He died October 16, 1680, at Linez, aged seventy-two. This great general left some very excellent “Memoires” on the military art; the best French edition of which is that of Strasburg, 1735; to which that of Paris, 1746, 12mo, is similar.

, a celebrated Castillian poet, was born at Monte-mayor, whence he took his name, probably in the early part of the sixteenth century, one authority says in 1520. It is thought he owed his reputation more to genius than study; in his early years he was in the army, and amidst the engagements of a military life, cultivated music and poetry. He appears to have afterwards obtained an employment, on account of his musical talents, in the suite of Philip II.; and was also patronized by queen Catherine, sister to the emperor Charles V. He died in the prime of life in 1562. His reputation now rests on his “Diana,” a pastoral romance, which has always been admired on the continent, and translated into various languages. The last edition of the original is that of Madrid, 1795, 8vo. Caspar Polo published a continuation, “La Diana enamoradacinco libros que prosequen los VII. de Jorge de Montemayor,” Madrid, 1778, 8vo, a work which, Brunet says, is more esteemed than that of Montemayor.

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

Montesquieu is said not to have been eager to shew himself to the public, but rather to wait for “an age ripe for writing.” It was not till 1721, when he was thirty-two years of age, that he published his “Persian Letters.” The description of oriental manners, real or supposed, of the prirle and phlegm of Asiatic love, is but the smallest object of these “Letters;” which were more particularly intended as a satire upon French manners, and treat of everai important subjects, which the author investigates rather fully, while he only seems to glance at them. Though this work was. exceedingly admired, yet he did not openly declare himself the author of it. He expresses himself sometimes freely about matters of religion, and therefore as soon as he was known to be the author, he had to encounter much censure and serious opposition, for at that time the philosophizing spirit was not tolerated in France. In 1725, he opened the parliament with a speech, the depth and eloquence of which were convincing proofs of his great abilities as an orator; and the year following he quitted his charge.

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

During his travels to gain a personal acquaintance with the manners, genius, and laws of the different nations of Europe, he met with some singular adventures. Whilst he was at Venice he wrote much and inquired more: his writings, which he did not keep sufficiently secret, had alarmtd the state; he was informed of it, and it was hinted to him that he had some reason to be apprehensive that in crossing from Venice to Fucina, he might probably be arrested. With this information he embarked: about the middle of the passage, he saw several gondolas approach, and row round his vessel: terror seized him, and in his panic he collected all his papers which contained his observations on Venice, and cast them into the sea. The author of the “New Memoirs of Italy” says, that the state had no design against his person, but only to discover what plans he might have formed.

After his return, he retired for two years to his estate at Brede, and there finished his work “On the Causes of the Grandeur and Declension of the Romans,” which appeared in 1734, and in which he has rendered a common topic highly interesting. By seizing only the most fruitful branches of his subject, he has contrived to present within G small compass a great variety of objects. But whatever reputation he acquired by this work, it was but preparatory to the more extensive fame of his “Spirit of Laws,” of which he had, as already noticed, long formed the design. Yet scarcely was it published, in 1748, when it was attacked by the same adversaries who had objected to the “Persian Letters,” who at first treated it with levity, and even the title of it was made a-subject of ridicule; but the more serious objections made to it on the score of religion alarmed the author, who therefore drew up “A Defence* of the Spirit of Laws;” in which, while he could not pretend that it was without faults, he endeavoured to prove that it had not all the faults ascribed to it. It is said that when the “Spirit of Laws” made its appearance, the Sorbonne found in it several propositions contrary to the doctrine of the catholic church. These doctors entered into a critical investigation of the work, which they generally censured; but as among the propositions condemned, there were found some concerning ecclesiastical jurisdiction which were attended with many difficulties, and as Montesquieu had promised to give a new edition, in which he would correct any passages that had appeared against religion, this censure of the Sorbonne did not appear.

The systematical part of the “Spirit of Laws” was that of which Montesquieu seemed the most tenacious; this indeed was the most important and the most difficult. His system, however, of the climates, inconclusive and illfounded as it is, appears borrowed from Bodin’s “Method of studying History,” and Charron’s “Treatise on Wisdom.” Still the numerous useful observations, ingenious reflections, salutary plans, and strong images, that are diffused through the work, added to the admirable maxims we there meet with for the good of society, gave the work a very high reputation in France, as well as throughout Europe in general. It has now lost much of its popularity, but at one time no book was more read and studied.

The admirers of Montesquieu have wished that he had applied himself to the writing of history; but it may be doubted whether his imagination would not have proved too lively for that attention to facts and authorities which is absolutely necessary to historical narrative. He had, however, finished the history of Lewis XI. of France, and the public was upon the point of reaping the benefit of his labours, when a singular mistake deprived them of it. Montesquieu one day left the rough draught and the copy of this history upon his table, when he ordered his secretary to burn the draught, and lock up the copy. The secretary obeyed in part, but left the copy upon the table: Montesquieu returning some hours after into his study, observed this copy, which he took for the draught, and threw it into the fire. On this and the preceding anecdote, one of his countrymen, in the true spirit of French compliment, observes, “that the elements, as well as men in power, seemed jealous of his superior merit, as water and fire deprived us of two of his most valuable productions.”

About this time, among other marks of esteem bestowed on Montesquieu, Dassier, who was celebrated for cutting of medals, and particularly the English coin, went from London to Paris, to engrave that of the author of the Spirit of Laws; but Montesquieu modestly declined it. The artist said to him one day, “Do not you think there is as much pride in refusing my proposal, as if you accepted it?” Disarmed by this pleasantry, he yielded to Dassier’s request.

Montesquieu was peaceably enjoying that esteem which his merits had procured him, when he fell sick at Paris in 1755. His health, naturally delicate, had begun to decay for some time, partly by the slow but sure effect of deep study, and partly by the way of life he was obliged to lead at Paris. He was oppressed with cruel pains soon after he fell sick, nor had he his family, or any relations, near him; yet he preserved to his last moments great firmness and tranquillity of mind. “In short,” says his elogist, " after having performed every duty which decency required, he died with the ease and well-grounded assurance of a man who had never employed his talents but in the cause of virtue and humanity.' 7 His last hours are said to have been disturbed by the Jesuits, who wished him to retract some of his opinions on religion; and some say he made a formal disavowal of these. He died February 10, 1755, aged 66.

Besides the works already mentioned, Montesquieu wrote others of less reputation, but which might have conferred celebrity on a tvriter of inferior merit. The most remarkable of them is the “Temple of Gnidus,” which was published soon after the “Persian Letters.” Montesquieu, says D'Alembert, after having been Horace, Theophrastus, and Lucian, in those, was Ovid and Anacreon in this new essay. In this he professes to describe the delicacy and simplicity of pastoral love, such as it is in an inexperienced heart, not yet corrupted with the commerce of the world and this he has painted in a sort of poem in prose for, such we may reasonably call a piece so full of images and descriptions as the “Temple of Gnidus.” Its voluptuous style at first made it be read with avidity, but it is now considered as unworthy of the author. Besides this, there is a small piece, called “Lysimachus,” and another, still smaller, " On Taste;' 1 but this is indeed only a fragment. Several of his works have been translated at different times into English, but are not now much read in this country. In France, however, he is still considered as one of their standard authors, and within these few years, several splendid editions of his collected works have been published both in 4to and 8vo, with additions from the author’s manuscripts.

To the personal character of Montesquieu, as given by his eulogists and biographers, we have never heard any objection. He was not less amiable, say they, for the qualities of his heart, than those of his mind. He ever appeared in the commerce of the world with good humour, cheerfulness, and gaiety. His conversation was easy, agreeable, and instructive, from the great number of men he had lived with, and the variety of manners he had studied. It was poignant like his style, full of salt and pleasant sallies, free from invective and satire. No one could relate a narration with more vivacity, readiness, grace, and propriety. He knew that the close of a pleasing story is always the chief object; he therefore hastened to reach it, and always produced a happy effect, without creating too great an expectation. His frequent flights were very entertaining; and he constantly recovered himself by some unexpected stroke, which revived a conversation when it was drooping; but they were neither theatrically played off, forced, or impertinent. The fire of his wit gave them birth; but his judgment suppressed them in the course of a serious conversation: the wish of pleasing always made him suit himself to his company, without affectation or the desire of being clever. The agreeableness of his company was not only owing to his disposition and genius, but also to the peculiar method he observed in his studies. Though capable of the deepest and most intricate meditations, he never exhausted his powers, but always quitted his lucubrations before he felt the impulse of fatigue. He had a sense of glory; but he was not desirous of obtaining without meriting it. He never attempted to increase his reputation by those obscure and shameful means which dishonour the man, without increasing the fame of the author. Worthy of the highest distinction and the greatest rewards, he required nothing, and was not astonished at being forgotten: but he dared, even in the most critical circumstances, to protect, at Court, men of letters who were persecuted, celebrated, and unhappy, and obtained them favour. Although he lived with the great, as well from his rank as a taste for society, their company was not essential to his happiness. He sequestered himself, whenever he could, in his villa: there with joy, he embraced philosophy, erudition, and ease. Surrounded in his leisure hours with rustics, after having studied man in the commerce of the world and the history of nations, he studied him even in those simple beings, whose sole instructor was nature, and in them he found information. He cheerfully conversed with them: like Socrates he traced their genius, and he was as much pleased with their unadorned narrations as with the polished harangues of the great, particularly when he terminated their differences, and alleviated their grievances by his benefactions. He was in general very kind to his servants: nevertheless, he was compelled one day to reprove them; when turning towards a visitor, he said with a smile, “These are clocks that must be occasionally wound up.” Nothing does greater honour to his memory than the ceconomy with which he lived; it has "indeed been deemed excessive in an avaricious and fastidious world, little formed to judge of the motive of his conduct, and still less to feel it. Beneficent and just, Montesquieu would not injure his family by the succours with which he aided the distressed, nor the extraordinary expence occasioned by his travels, the weakness of his sight, and the printing of his works. He transmitted to his children, without diminution or increase, the inheritance he received from his ancestors: he added nothing to it but his fame, and the example of his life.

Montesquieu married, in 1715, Jeanne de Lartigue, daughter to Peter de Lartigue, lieutenant-colonel of the regiment of Maulevrier. By this lady he had two daughters and a son, John. Baptista de Secondat, counsellor of the parliament of Bourdeaux, who died in that city in 1796, at the age of seventy-nine. He was author of many works; particularly of “Observations de Physique et d'Histoire Naturelle sur les Eaux Minerales de Pyrenees,” 1750; “Considerations sur la Commerce et la Navigation de la Grande Bretagne,” 1740; “Considerations sur la Marine Militaire de France,” 1756. He resided a considerable time in London, and was elected a member of the Royal Society.

, a Scotch historian, was born at Salmonet, between Airth and Grange, on the suuch-side of the Firth-of-Forth, whence he was called abroad Salmonettus Scoto-Britannus. Of his life we fcave been able to discover very few particulars. The tradition is, that he was obliged to leave Scotland upon his being suspected of adultery with the wife of sir James Hamilton of Preston-field. Monteith appears to have been a chaplain of cardinal de Retz, who also made him a canon of Notre Dame, and encouraged him in writing his history. See Joli, Memoires, torn. Ij. page 86, where he is called “homme scavant & de merite.” Cardinal de Retz also mentions him, vol. III. p. 323. His brother was lieutenant-colonel of Douglas’s regiment (the royal), and killed in Alsace. In the privilege for printing Monteith’s History, granted the 13th of September 1660, to Jaques St. Clair. de Roselin, he is styled “le defunct St. Montet” In the title-page he is called Messire. This work embraces the period of Scotch history from the coronation of Charles I. to the conclusion of the rebellion. In his preface he professes the utmost impartiality, and as far as we have been able to look into the work, he appears to have treated the history of those tumultuous times with much candour. His leaning is of course to the regal side of the question. In 17.35 a translation of this work, which was originally published in French, and was become very rare, was executed at London in one vol. fol. by J. Ogilvie, under the title of a “History of the Troubles of Great Britain.” The author was held in high esteem by Menage, who wrote two Latin epigrams in his praise. The time of his death we have not been able to discover. He must be distinguished from a Robert Monteith, the compiler of a scarce and valuable collection of all the epitaphs of Scotland, published in 1704, 8vo, under the title of “An Theater of Mortality.”

, a Benedictine of the congregation of St. Maur, and one of the most learned antiquaries France has produced, was born Jan. 17, 1655, at Soulage in Langnedoc, whither his parents had removed on some business; and was educated at the castle of Roquetaillade in the diocese of Alet, where they ordinarily resided. His family was originally of Gascony, and of the ancient lords of Montfaucon-le-Vieux, first barons of the comte de Comminges. The pedigree of a man of learning is not of much importance, but Montfaucon was an antiquary, and has given us his genealogy in his “Bibl. Bibliothecarum manuscriptorum,” and it must not, therefore, be forgotten, that besides his honourable ancestors of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, he was the son of Timoleon de Montfaucon, lord of Roquetaillacle and Conillac in the diocrse of Alet, by Flora de Maignan, daughter of the baron d'Albieres. He was the second of four brothers. From his early studies in his father’s house he was removed to Limoux, where he continued them under the fathers of the Christian doctrine, and it is said that the reading of Plutarch’s Lives inspired him first with a love for history and criticism. A literary profession, however, was not his original destination, for we find that he set out with being a cadet in the regiment of Perpignan, and served one or two campaigns in Germany in the army of marshal Turenne. He also gave a proof of his courage by accepting a challenge from a brother bfficer who wished to put it to the tfcst. About two years after entering the army, the death of his parents, and of an officer of distinction under whom he served, with other circumstances that occurred about the same time, appear to have given him a dislike to the military life, and induced him to enter the congregation of St. Maur in 1675 at the age of twenty. In this learned society, for such it was for many years, he had every opportunity to improve his early education, and follow the literary pursuits most agreeable to him. The first fruits of his application appeared in a kind of supplement to Cottelerius, entitled “Analecta Graeca sive vuria opuscula, Gr. & Lat.” Paris, 4to, 1688, with notes by him, Antony Pouget and James Lopin. In 1690 he published a small volume 12mo, entitled “La verite de l'Histoire de Judith,” in which he attempts to vindicate the authenticity of that apocryphal book, and throws considerable light on the history of the Medes and Assyrians. His next publication of much importance was a new edition in Gr. & Lat. of the works of St. Athanasius, which came out in 1698, 3 vols. fol. This, which is generally known by the name of the Benedictine edition, gave the world the first favourable impression of Montfaucon’s extensive learning and judgment. He had some assistance in it from father Lopin, before-mentioned, who, however, died before the publication.

In the same year, Montfaucon, who had turned his thoughts to more extensive collections of antiquities than had ever yet appeared, determined to visit Italy for the sake of the libraries, and employed three years in consulting their manuscript treasures. After his return, he published in 1702, an account of his journey and researches, under the title of “Diarium Italicum, sive monumentum veterum, bibliothecarum, musitorum, &c. notitias singulares, itinerario Itaiico collects; additis schematibus et figuris,” Paris, 4to. Of this an English translation was published in 1725, folio, by as great a curiosity as any that father Montfaticon had met with in his travels, the famous orator Henley, who had not, however, at that time disgraced his character and profession. In 1709, Ficorini published a criticism on the “Diarium” which Montfaucon answered in the “Journal des Scavans,” and some time after he met with a defender in a work entitled “Apologia del diario Itaiico,” by father Busbaldi, of Mont-Cassin. During Montfau con’s residence at Rome, he exercised the function of procurator-general of his congregation at that court; and it was also while there, in 1699, that he had occasion to take up his pen in defence of an edition of the works of St. Augustine published by some able men of his order, but which had been attacked, as he thought, very illiberally. His vindication was a 12mo volume, entitled “Vindiciae editionis sancti Augustiui a Benedictis adornata, adversus epistolam abbatis Germani autore D. B. de Hiviere.” The edition referred to is that very complete one by the Benedictions, begun to be published in 1679, at Antwerp, and completed in 1700,11 vols. folio.

In 1706, Montfaucon published in 2 vols. folio, a collection of the ancient Greek ecclesiastical writers, with a Latin translation, notes, dissertations, &c. The most considerable part of this collection is “Eusebius of Caesarea’s Commentary upon the Psalms,” mentioned by St. Jerome, and which we overlooked in our account of Eusebius. Here is also Eusebius’s commentary on Isaiah, and some inedited works of St. Athanasius, for which reason this ic Collectio nova patrum“(for such is its title) is recommended as a companion to Montfaucon’s edition of Athanasius’s works. A second edition of both was published at Padua in 1777, 4 vols. folio; but although it professes to be improved” curis novissimis,“it does not enjoy the reputation of the originals. In 1708 he published one of his most important works, and which alone would have given him strong claims on the learned world, his” PaltEOgraphia Graeca, sive de ortu et progressu literarum Graecarum, et devariis omnium sasculorum scriptionis Graecye generibus; itemque de abbreviationibus et notis variarum artiam et disciplinarum. Additis figuris et schematibus ad fidem manuscriptorum codicum,“folio. This invaluable work has done the same in reference to the discovery of the age of Greek Mss. which the” De re diploir.atica" of Mabillon has done to ascertain the age of those in Latin. At the end of this work, are John Comnenus’s description of Mount Athos, Gr. and Lat. with a learned preface; and a dissertation by the president Bouhier on the ancient Greek and Latin letters.

In 1709 Montfaucon published Philo-Juda&us an a contemplative life, in French, “Le Livre de Philon de la vie contemplative, &c.” translated from the Greek with notes, and an attempt to prove that the Therapeutee of whom Philo- speaks were Christians. Having sent a copy of this to president Bouhier, the latter returned him a polite letter of thanks, but stated that he could not agree with, him in his opinion respecting the religion of the Therapeutse. This brought on a correspondence which was published at Paris in 17 12, 12mo, under the title of “Lettres pour & contre sur la fameuse question, si les solitaires appelles Therapeutes etoient Chretiens.” The learned Gisbert Cuper was also against the opinion of Montfaucon on this question; and it is, we believe, now generally thought that his arguments were more ingenious than convincing. In 1710^ Montfaucon published an “Epistola” on the fact, mentioned by Rufinus, that St. Athanasius baptised children when himself a child. In this work he investigates the date of the death of St. Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, and that of the death of St. Athanasius. This was followed in 1713 by an edition of what remains of the “Hexapla of Origen,” 2 vols. folio, and a fine edition of the works of St. Chrysostom, begun in 1718, and completed in 1738 in 13 vols. folio.

In 1715 appeared his “Bibliotheca Cosliniana, olim Seguieriana, seu Mss. omnium Graecorum quae in ea conjinentur accurata descriptio,” Paris, folio. This contains a list of 400 Greek Mss. with the age of each, and often a specimen of the style, &c. In 1719, the year in which he was chosen a member of the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres, appeared his great work, and such as no nation had yet produced, entitled “L'Antiquite expliquee et representee en figures,” Paris, 5 vols. usually bound in 10; to which wa, added in 1724, a supplement, in 5 vob. the whole illustrated by a vast number of elegant, accurate, and expensive engravings, representing nearly 40,000 objects of antiquity, engraved from statues, medals, &c. in the various cabinets of Europe. In such a vast collection as this, it is as unnecessary to add that there are many errors, as it would be unjust to censure them with all the parade of criticism. In the case of a work which so many hundred recent scholars and antiquaries have quoted, and which laid the foundation for the improvements of later times, it would be fastidious to withhold the praises so justly due to the laborious author. Whole societies, indeed, would think much of their joint efforts, if they had accomplished a similar undertaking. It remains to be noticed, however, that the first edition of the above dates, is the most valuable. That reprinted in 1722 with the supplement of 1757 is by no means of equal reputation. Some copies made up from the edition in 10 vols. of 1719, and the supplement of 1757, are also in little esteem. This was followed by another interesting work, which is now become scarce, “Les Monumens de la monarchic Francoise, avec les fig. de chaque regne, que Pinjure du temps a epargnees,” Paris, 1729 1733, 5 vols. folio. This collection, of which he published a prospectus in 1725, may be properly called “The Antiquities of France,” and includes all those classes, civil, ecclesiastical, warlike, manners, &c. which form a work of that title in modern language. His last, and not the least important of his works, was published in 1739, 2 vols. folio, under the title of “Bibliotheca bibliothecarum Mss. nova, ubi quae innumeris pcene manuscriptorum bibliothecis continentur ad quod vis litteraturx genus spectantia et notatu digna, describuntur, et indicantur.” Two years after the learned author died suddenly at the abbey of St. Germain des Pres, Dec. 21, 1741, at the advanced age of eighty-seven. Besides the works above mentioned, Montfaucon contributed many curious and valuable essays on subjects of antiquity, &c. to the memoirs of the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres, and other literary journals.

Montfaucon enjoyed during his long life the esteem of the learned world, and was not more regarded for the extensive learning than the amiable qualities of his private character. He was modest, polite, affable, and always ready to communicate the information with which his indefatigable studies and copious reading supplied him. Foreigners who sought to be introduced to him, returned from his conversation, equally delighted with his manners, and astonished at his stores of learning. The popes Benedict XIII. and Clement XL and the emperor Charles VI. honoured him with particular marks of their regard; but honours or praise, in no shape, appeared to affect the humility and simplicity of his manners.

, born in 1686, at Paris, was the son of Guy Carre“, maitre des requetes. He was but twenty-five when he purchased a counsellor’s place in the parliament, and acquired some degree of credit in that situation by his wit and exterior accomplishments. He had, by his own account, given himself up to all manner of licentiousness, for which his conscience frequently checked him, and although he endeavoured to console himself with the principles of infidelity, his mind was still harassed, when accident or design led him to visit the tomb of M. Paris the deacon, September 7, 1731, with the crowd which, from various motives, were assembled there. If we may believe his own account, he went merely to scrutinize, with the utmost severity, the (pretended) miracles wrought there, but felt himself, as he says, suddenly struck and overwhelmed by a thousand rays of light, which illuminated him, and, from an infidel, he immediately became a Christian, but in truth was devoted from that moment to fanaticism, with the same violence and impetuosity of temper which had before led him into the most scandalous excesses. In 1732 he was involved in a quarrel which the parliament had with the court, and was, with others, banished to Auvergne. Here he formed a plan for collecting the proofs of the miracles wrought at the tomb of the abbe Paris, making them clear to demonstration, as he called it, and presenting them to the king. At his return to Paris, he prepared to put this plan in execution, went to Versailles, July 29, 1737, and presented the king with a quarto volume magnificently bound, which he accompanied with a speech. In consequence of this step Montgeron was sent to thebastile, then confined some months in a Benedictine abbey belonging to the diocese of Avignon, removed soon after to Viviers, and carried from thence to be shut up in the citadel of Valence, where he died in 1754, aged sixty-eight. The work which he presented to the king is entitled” La Verite des Miracles operes par l'Intercession de M. de Paris,“&c. 4to. This first volume by M. Montgeron has been followed by two more, and he is said also to have left a work in ms. against the incredulous, written while he was a prisoner. De Montgeron would, however, have scarcely deserved a place here, if bishop Douglas, in his” Criterion," had not bestowed so much pains on examining the pretended miracles which he records, and thus rendered his history an object of some curiosity.

, the inventor of air-balloons, was born at Aunonay, and was originally a paper-maker, and the first who made what is called vellumpaper. Whence he took the hint of the aerostatic balloons seems uncertain, but in 1782 he made his first experiment at Avignon, and after other trials, exhibited before the royal family on Sept. 19, 1783, a grand balloon, near sixty feet high and forty-three in diameter, which ascended with a cage containing a sheep, a cock, and a duck, and conveyed them through the air in safety to the distance of about 10,000 feet. This was followed by another machine of Montgolfier’s construction, with which a M. Pilatre de Rozier ascended. This daring adventurer lost his life afterwards along with his companion Romain, by the balloon catching fire, an event which did not prevent balloons from being introduced into this and other countries. After repeated trials, however, the utility of these expensive and hazardous machines seems doubtful, and for some years they have been of little use, except to fill the pockets of needy adventurers. Montgolfier was rewarded for the discovery by admission into the academy of sciences, the ribbon of St. Michael, and a pension. He died in 1799.

, an able mathematician, was born at Paris in the year 1678, and intended for the profession of the law, to enable him to qualify for a place in the magistracy. From dislike of this destination, he withdrew into England, whence he passed over into the Low Countries, and travelled into Germany, where he resided with a near relation, M. Chambois, the plenipotentiary of France at the diet of Ratisbon. He returned to France in 1699, and after the death of his father, who left him an ample fortune, devoted his talents to the study of philosophy and the mathematics, under the direction of the celebrated Malehranche, to whom he had, some years before, felt greatly indebted for the conviction of the truth of Christianity, by perusing his work on “The Search after Truth.” In 1700 he went a second time to England, and on his return, assumed the ecclesiastical habit, and was made a canon in the church of Notre-Dame, at Paris. About this time he edited, at his own expence, the works of M. Guisnee on “The Application of Algebra to Geometry,” and that of Newton on the “Quadrature of Curves.” In 1703 he published his “Analytical Essay on Games of Chance,” and an improved edition in 1714. This was most favourably received by men of science in all countries. In 1715 he paid a third visit to England, for the purpose of observing a solar eclipse, and was elected a fellow of the Royal Society, to which learned body he soon afterwards transmitted an important treatise on “Infinite Series,'” which was inserted in the Philosophical Transactions for the year 1717. He was elected an associate of the Royal Academy of Sciences at Paris in 1716, and died at the early age of forty-one, of the small-pox. He sustained all the relations of Hie in the most honourable manner, and though subject to fits’ of passion, yet his anger soon subsided, and he was ever ashamed of the irritability of his temper. Such was his steady attention that he could resolve the most difficult problems in company, and among the noise of playful children. He was employed several years in writing “A History of Geometry,” but he did not live to complete it.

, a celebrated mathematician, was born at Lyons in the year 1725, and giving early indications of a love of learning, was placed under the instructions of the Jesuits, with whom he acquired an intimate acquaintance with the ancient and modern languages, and some knowledge of the mathematics. At the age of sixteen he went to Toulouse to study the law, and was admitted an advocate, though without much intention of practising at the bar. Having completed his studies, he went to Paris, cultivated an acquaintance with the most distinguished literary characters, and it was owing to his intercourse with them, that he was induced to undertake his “History of the Mathematical Sciences.” But in the interim he published new editions, with additions and improvements, of several mathematical treatises which were already held in the highest estimation. The first of these was “Mathematical Recreations,” by M. Ozanam, which has been since translated into English, and published in London, in 4 vols. 8vo. To all the works which he edited, after Ozanam’s, he gave the initials of his name. He also contributed his assistance for some years to “The French Gazette;” and in 1755 he was elected a member of the Royal Academy of Sciences at Berlin. In the following year, when the experiment of inoculation was about to be tried on the first prince of the blood, Montucla translated from the English an account of all the recent cases of that practice, which had been sent from Constantinople, by lady Mary Wortley Montague. This translation he added to the memoir of De la Condamine on the subject. Previously to this publication, he had given to the world his “History of Inquiries relative to the Quadrature of the Circle.” The encouragement which this met with from very able judges of its merit, afforded him great encouragement to apply with ardour to his grand design, “The History of the Mathematics;” and in 1758 he published this “History,” in two volumes, 4to, which terminates with the close of the 17th century. It answered the expectations of all his friends, and of men of science in all countries, and the author was instantly elevated to a high rank in the learned world. His fame was widely diffused, and he was pressed from all quarters to proceed with the mathematical history of the 18th century, which he had announced for the subject of a third volume, and for which he had made considerable preparations; but he was diverted from his design, by receiving the appointment of secretary to the Intendance at Grenoble. Here he spent his leisure hours chiefly in retirement, and in scientific pursuits. In 1764, Turgot, being appointed to establish a colony at Cayenne, took Montucla with him as his “secretary,” to which was added the title of “astronomer to the king,” and although he returned without attaining any particular object with regard to the astronomical observations, for which he went out, he had an opportunity of collecting some valuable tropical plants, with which he enriched the king’s hothouses at Versailles. Soon after his return, he was appointed chief clerk in an official department, similar to that known in this country by the name of the “Board of Works,” which he retained till the place was abolished in 1792, when he was reduced to considerable pecuniary embarrassments. Under the pressure of these circumstances, he began to prepare a new and much enlarged edition of his “History,” which he presented to the world in 1799, in two volumes, quarto. In this edition are many important improvements; and many facts, which were barely announced in the former impression, are largely detailed and illustrated in this. After the publication of these two volumes, the author proceeded with the printing of the third; but death terminated his labours, when he had arrived at the 336th page. The remainder of the volume, and the whole of the fourth, were printed under the inspection of Lalande. Montucla had been a member of the National Institute from its original establishment. He had obtained various employments under the revolutionary government, though he was but meanly paid for his labour, and had to struggle with many difficulties to furnish his family with the bare necessaries of life. At length he was reduced to seek the scanty means of support by keeping a lottery-office, till the death of Saussure put him in the possession of a pension of about one hundred pounds per annum, which he enjoyed only four months. He died in December 1799, in the 75th year of his age. He was a man of great modesty, and distinguished by acts of generosity and liberality, when it was in his power. He was also friendly, cheerful, and of very amiable manners.

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

, a very learned divine of the Roman catholic persuasion, was born in Dublin in 164O. After being taught at a grammar-school for some time, he was sent to France, and had his first academical learning at the college of Nantz, whence he removed to Paris, and completed his studies in philosophy and divinity, in both which he attained great reputation, as he did likewise for his critical skill in the Greek language. He taught philosophy and rhetoric in the Grassin college for some years: but at length returning to Ireland, was, with considerable reluctance, prevailed upon to take priest’s orders, and had some preferment while the popish bishops had any influence. When James II. came to Ireland, Dr. Moor was recommended to him, often preached before him, and had influence enough to prevent his majesty from conferring Trinity-college, Dublin, on the Jesuits, to which he had been advised by his confessor father Peters. Dr. Moor being made provost of this college, by the recommendation of the Roman catholic bishops, was the means of preserving the valuable library, at a time when the college was a popish garrison, the chapel a magazine, and many of the chambers were employed as prisons for the protestants. But the Jesuits could not forgive him for preventing their gaining the entire property of the college, and took advantage to ruin him with the king, from a sermon he preached before James II. at Christ Church, His text was, Matt, xv, 14. “If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” In this discourse Dr. Moor had the boldness to impute the failure of the king’s affairs to his following too closely the councils of the Jesuits, and insinuated that they would be his utter ruin. Father Peters, who had a defect in his eyes, persuaded the king that the text was levelled at his majesty through his confessor, and urged that Moor was a dangerous subject, who endeavoured to stir tip sedition among the people. James was so weak as to believe all this, and ordered Dr. Moor immediately to quit his dominions. Moor complied, as became an obedient subject, but hinted at his departure, “that he only went as the king’s precursor, who would soon be obliged to follow him.” Moor accordingly went to Paris, where the reputation of his learning procured him a favourable reception; and king James, after the battle of the Boyne, followed him, as he had predicted. But here it appears that the king had influence enough to oblige Moor to leave France as he had done Ireland, probably by misrepresenting his conduct to the Jesuits.

Moor now went to Rome, where his learning procured him very high distinction. He was first made censor of booksj and then invited to Montefiascone, and appointed rector of a seminary newly founded by cardinal Mark Antony Barbarigo, and also professor of philosophy and Greek. Pope Innocent XII. was so much satisfied with his conduct in the government of this seminary, that he contributed the sum of two thousand Roman crowns yearly towards its maintenance; and Clement XI. had such a high opinion of Moor that he would have placed his nephew under his tuition, had he not been prevented, as was supposed, by the persuasions of the Jesuits. On the death of James II. Dr. Moor was invited to France, and such was his reputation there, that he was made twice rector of the university of Paris, and principal of the college of Navarre, and was appointed regius professor of philosophy, Greek, and Hebrew. He died, in his eighty-fifth year, at his apartments in the college of Navarre, Aug. 22, 1726. It is evident he could have been no common character, who attained so many honours in a foreign land. His writings, however, are perhaps not much known. One of them, “DeExistentiaDei, et humanae mentis immortalitaie,” &c. published at Paris, 1692, 8vo, is said by Harris to have been translated into English by Mr. Blackmore, perhaps sir Richard, but we have not been able to find this work in any of our public libraries. Dr. Moor also published “Hortatio ad studium lingua; Graecae et Hebraicae,” Montefiascone, 1700, 12mo; and “Vera sciendi Methodus,” Paris, 1716, 8vo, against the philosophy of Des Cartes.

, an English poetical and miscellaneous writer, was the grandson of the rev. John Moore of Devonshire, one of the ejected non-conformists, who died Aug. 23, 1717, leaving two sons in the dissenting ministry. Of these, Thomas, the father of our poet, removed to Abingdon Hi Berkshire, where he died in 1721, and where Edward was born March 22,. 1711-12, and for some time brought up under the care of his uncle. He was afterwards placed at the school of East Orchard in Dorsetshire, where he probably received no higher education than would qualify him for trade. For some years he followed the business of a linen-draper, both in London and in Ireland, but with so little success that he became disgusted with his occupation, and, as he informs us in his preface, “more from necessity than inclination,” began to encounter the vicissitudes of a literary life. His first attempts were of the poetical kind, which still preserve his name among the minor poets of his country. In 174-4, he published his “Fables for the Female Sex,” which were so favourably received as tointroducehim into the society of some learned and some opulent contemporaries. The hon. Mr. Pelham was one of his early patrons; and, by his “Trial of Selim,” he gained the friendship of lord Lyttelton, who felt himself flattered by a compliment turned with much ingenuity, and decorated by wit and spirit. But as, for some time, Moore derived no substantial advantage from patronage, his chief dependance was on the stage, to which, within five years, he supplied three pieces of considerable, although unequal, merit. “The Foundling,” a comedy, which was first acted in 1748, was decried from a fancied resemblance to the “Conscious Lovers.” His “Gil Bias,” which appeared in 1751, met with a more severe fate, and, notwithstanding the sprightliness of the dialogue, not altogether unjustly. “The Gamester,” a tragedy, first acted Feb. 7, 1753, was our author’s most successful attempt, and is still a favourite. In this piece, however, he deviated from the custom of the modern stage, as Lilio had in his “George Barnwell,” by discarding blank verse; and perbaps nothing short of the power by which the catastrophe engages the feelings, could have reconciled the audience to this innovation. But hisobject was the misery of the life and death of a gamester, to which it would have been difficult to give a heroic colouring; and his language became what would be most impressive, that of truth and nature. Davies, in his Life of Garrick, seems inclined to share the reputation of the “Gamester” between Moore and Garrick. Moore acknowledges, in his preface, that he was indebted to that inimitable actor for “many popular passages,” and Davies believes that the scene between Lewson and Stukely, in the fourth act, was almost entirely his, because he expressed, during the time of action, uncommon pleasure at the applause given to it. Whatever may be in this conjecture, the play, after having been acted to crowded houses for eleven nights, was suddenly withdrawn. The report of the day attributed this to the intervention of the leading members of some gaming clubs. Davies thinks this a mere report “to give more consequence to those assemblies than they could really boast.” From a letter, in our possession, written by Moore to Dr. Warton, it appears that Garrick suffered so much from, the fatigue of acting the principal character as to require some repose. Yet this will not account for the total neglect, for some years afterwards, of a play, not only popular, but so obviously calculated to give the alarm to reclaimable gamesters, and perhaps bring the whole gang into discredit. The author mentions, in his letter to Dr. Warton, that he expected to clear about four hundred pounds by his tragedy, exclusive of the profits by the sale of the copy. It is asserted by Dr. Johnson, in his life of lord Lyttelton, that, in return for Moore’s elegant compliment, “The Trial of Selim,” his lordship paid him with “kind words, which, as is common, raised great hopes, that at last were disappointed.” It is possible, however, that these hopes were of another kind than it was in his lordship’s power to gratify*; and it is certain that he substituted a method of serving Moore, which was not only successful for a considerable time, but must have been agreeable to the feelings of a delicate and independent mind. Abouttheyears 175 1-2, periodical writing began to revive in its most pleasing form, but had hitherto been executed by men of learning only. Lord Lyttelton projected a paper, in concert with Dodsiey, which should unite the talents of certain men of rank, and receive such a tone and consequence from that circumstance, as mere scholars can seldom hope to command or attain. Such was the origin of the “World,” for every paper of which Dodsiey stipulated to pay Moore three guineas, whether the papers were written by him, or by the volunteer contributors. Lord Lyttelton, to render this bargain more productive to the editor, solicited and obtained the assistance of the earls of Chesterfield, Bath, and Corke, and of Messrs. Walpole, Cambridge, Jenyns, and other men of rank and taste, who gave their assistance, some with great regularity, and all so effectually as to render the “World” far more popular than any of its contemporaries.

In this work, Moore wrote sixty-one papers, in a style easy and unaffected, and treated the whims and follies of the day with genuine humour. His thoughts are often original, and his ludicrous combinations argue a copious fancy. Some of his papers, indeed, are mere playful exercises which have no direct object in view, but in general, in his essays, as well as in all his works, he shews himself the friend of morality and public decency. In the last number, the conclusion of the work is made to depend on a fictitious accident which had occasioned the author’s

had a higher claim, he behaved in such own secret, and performed the office of

a manner to his patron as to occasion mediator. Walpole’s Letters, in Works, cTeath. When the papers were collected into volumes for a second edition, Moore superintended the publication, and actually died while this last number was in the press; a circumstance which induces the wish that death may be less frequently included among the topic’s of wit.

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

In 1750, he married Miss Hamilton, daughter of Mr. Charles Hamilton, table-decker to the princesses; a lady who had herself a poetical turn. By this lady, who in 1758 obtained the place of necessary-woman to the queen’s apartments, and who still survives, he had a son Edward, who died in the naval service in 1773. Moore’s personal character appears to have been unexceptionable, and his pleasing manners and humble demeanour rendered his society acceptable to a very numerous class of friends. His productions were those of a genius somewhat above the common order, unassisted by learning. His professed exclusion of Greek and Latin mottoes from the papers of the World (although they were not rejected when sent), induces us to think that he had little acquaintance with the classics, and there is indeed nothing in any of Ins works that indicates the study of a particular branch of science. When he projected the Magazine above mentioned, he told the Wartons, “in confidence, that he wanted a dull plodding fellow of one of the universities, who understood Latin and Greek.”

Of his poetry, simplicity and smoothness appear to be the leading features; hence he is easily intelligible, and consequently instructive, and his “Fables” have always been popular. Ail his pieces are of the light kind, produced with little effort, and to answer temporary purposes. We find nowhere indications that he could have succeeded in the higher species of poetry. His songs have much originality of thought, but sometimes a looseness of expression which would not now be tolerated. The “Trial of Selim” is an ingenious and elegant panegyric, but it ought to have sufficed to have once versified the forms of law. The “Trial of Sarah *** alias Slim Sal,” has too much the air of a copy. He ranks but low as a writer of odes, yet " The Discovery,' 1 addressed to Mr. Pel ham, has many beauties, and among those the two last stanzas may be safely enumerated.

, an eminent English prelate, was the son of Thomas Moore of Market- Harborough in Leicestershire, where he was born. He was admitted June 28, 1662, of Clare-hall college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1665, M. A. in 1669, and D. D. in 1681. He was also fellow of that college, and afterwards became chaplain to Heneage Finch, earl of Nottingham, by whose interest he rose to considerable preferments, and in particular, was promoted to the first prebendal stall in the cathedral church of Ely. His next preferment was the rectory of St. Austin’s, London, to which he was admitted Dec, 3, 1687, but he quitted that Oct. 26, 1689, on his being presented by king William and queen Mary (to whom he was then chaplain in ordinary) to the rectory of St. Andrew’s, Holborn, vacant by the promotion of Dr. Stillingfleet to the see of Worcester. On the deprivation of Dr. William Lloyd, bishop of Norwich, for not taking the oaths to their majesties, he was advanced to that see, and consecrated July 5, 1691, and was thence translated to Ely, July 31, 1707, in which he remained until his death f He died'at Ely-house, in Holborn, July 31, 1714, in his sixty-eighth year. He was interred on the north side of the presbytery of his cathedral church, near his predecessor bishop Patrick, where an elegant monument was erected to his memory.

This divine was, after his advancement to the episcopal dignity, one of the most eminent patrons of learning and learned men in his time; and his name will be carried down to posterity, not only by his sermons published by Dr. Samuel Clarke, his chaplain (1715, 2 vols. 8vo), but by the curious and magnificent library collected by him, and purchased after his death by George I. who presented it to the university of Cambridge. Burnet ranks him among those who were an honour to the church and the age in which they lived. He assisted him (as he did many learned men) from his valuable library, when writing his History of the Reformation. He contributed also to Clark’s Caesar, and to Wilkins’s “Ecclesiastes,” by pointing out a multitude of celebrated authors who deserved notice in that useful, but now much-neglected work. His sermons were held in such estimation as to be translated into Dutch, and published at Delft in 1700. His library, consisting of 30,000 volumes, fills upthe rooms on the north and west sides of the court over the philosophy and divinity schools, and is arranged in 26 classes. It ought not to be omitted that his present majesty gave 2000l. towards fitting up this library.

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

After his return from his third and last journey to France, he resided the remainder of his days in his house in Clifford-street, where he died Feb. 20, 1802, leaving a daughter and five sons. Dr. Moore was a man of considederable general knowledge, but excelled in no particular branch of science. After he had once begun his travels as tutor, he assumed the character of a man of wit and humour, both which entered largely into the composition of his subsequent publications. His travels were at one time very popular, on account of the frequent recurrence of scenes of dry humour, but his constant attempts in this way made them be read, more for sprightliness of narrative than accuracy of information, or depth of remark. Of his novels, “Zeluco” only has stood its ground.

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

In consequence of a disagreement with the viceroy, who had occasioned the recall of general Stuart, colonel Moore arrived in England in Nov. 1795, and was immediately appointed a brigadier-general in the West Indies, and attached to a brigade of foreign corps, which consisted of Choiseul’s hussars, and two corps of emigrants. On Feb. 25, 1796, he received an order to take charge of, and embark with general Perryn’s brigade, going out with the expedition to the West Indies, under sir Ralph Abercrombie; that officer having unexpectedly sailed in the Vengeance, 74, and left his brigade behind. General Moore, although he had no previous intimation that he was to embark, hurried to Portsmouth, and having time only to prepare a few necessaries, sailed for the West Indies with the fleet at day-light on the 28th, with no other baggage than a small portmanteau, and not one regiment of his own brigade was in the fleet. On his arrival at Barbadoes, on the 13th of April, 1796, having had an opportunity of waiting on the commander-in-chief, sir Ralph Abercrombie, that sagacious and attentive observer very soon distinguished him, and in the course of the operations against St. LuciCj wjiich immediately followed, employed him in very arduous and difficult service which occurred. He had, in particular, opportunities, during the siege of Morne Fortunée at St. Lucie, which lasted from the 26th of April to the same day in May, of eminently distinguishing himself; and his conduct, as sir Ralph expressed in his public orders, was the admiration of the whole army. Sir Ralph, immediately on the capitulation, bestowed the command and government of the island on general Moore, who did all he could to induce sir Ralph to keep him with the army, and employ him in the reduction of the other islands, but without effect. Sir Ralph, in a manner, forced this important command upon him, at the same time giving him the most flattering reasons for wishing him to accept of it. The admiral and general sailed from St. Lucie on the 3d of June, leaving brigadier-general Moore in a situation which required, from what remained to be done in such a climate, perhaps more military talent, and a greater degree of exertion and personal risk, than even there had been occasion for during the reduction of the island; for, although the French commanding officer, and the principal post in the island, had surrendered, numerous bands of armed negroes remained in the woods; yet he at length succeeded in completely reducing these. Having, however, had two narrow escapes from violent attacks of yellovr fever, the last rendered it necessary that he should be relieved from the command of the island, and he returned to England in the month of July or August 1797. In Nov. following, sir Ralph Abercrombie having been appointed commander of the forces in Ireland, desired that brigadier-­general Moore might be put upon the staff in that country, which was done, and he accompanied sir Ralph to Dublin on the 2ddayof December 1797. During the period immediately preceding the rebellion in 1798, Moore had an important command in the south of Ireland, which was very disaffected, and was also the quarter where the enemy were expected to make a landing. His head-quarters were at Bandon, and his troops, amounting to 3000 men, were considered as the advanced corps of the south. When the rebellion broke out, he was employed first under major-general Johnstone, at New Ross, where the insurgents suffered much, and immediately afterwards was detached towards Wexford, at that time in the hands of the rebels. He had on this occasion only the 60th yagers, or sharp shooters, 900 light infantry, 50 of Hompesch’s cavalry, and six pieces of artillery. With these he had not marched above a mile before a large body of rebels appeared on the road, marching to attack him. He had examined the ground, as well as the short time would allow, in the morning, and thus was able to form his men to advantage. The rebels attacked with great spirit, but, after an obstinate contest, were driven from the field, and pursued with great loss. They amounted to about 6000 men, and were commanded by general Roche, a priest. After the action, the two regiments under lord Dalhousie arrived from Duncannon fort. It then being too late to proceed toTaghmone, which was his intention, the brigadier took post for the night on the ground where the action began. Next day on his march he was met by two men from Wexford with proposals from the rebels to lay down their arms, on certain conditions. As general Moore had no power to treat, he made no answer, but proceeded on to Wexford, which he delivered from the power of the rebels, who had piked or shot forty of their prisoners the day before, and intended to have murdered the rest if they had not been thus prevented.

Brigadier-general Moore continued to serve in Ireland, where he succeeded to the rank of major-general, and had a regiment given him, until the latter end of June 1799, when he was ordered to return to England to be employed in the expedition under sir Ralph Abercrombie, which sailed August 13, and was destined to rescue Holland from the tyranny of the French' government. The general result, owing to circumstances which could not be foreseen, was unfavourable; but the English troops had an opportunity of displaying the greatest valour, and none were more distinguished than those under the more immediate command of general Moore, who, after being twice wounded, in the hand, and in the thigh, received a musket-ball through his face, by which he was disabled, and was brought from the ground with some difficulty. He was now carried back to his quarters, a distance of ten miles, and as soon, as he could be moved, he was taken to the Helder, where he embarked on board the Amethyst frigate, and arrived at the Nore on the 24th; from thence he proceeded to London. Soon after his return to England from the Helder, a second battalion was added to the 52d regiment, of which the command was bestowed oa him by the king, in the most gracious manner. Being of an excellent constitution, and temperate habits, his wounds closed in the course of five or six weeks. He joined his brigade at Chelmsford on the 24th of December, 1799. In the early part of 1800 it had been intended to send a body of troops to the Mediterranean under sir Charles Stuart; he wrote to general Moore, and proposed to him to serve under him, which was accepted with the greatest pleasure. It was at first intended that sir Charles should take out of England 15,000 men, but it was afterwards found that the regiments allotted for this service, and which had been part of the expedition to Holland, were insufficient, and only amounted to 10,000 effective. About the middle of March, the first division, amounting to 5000 men, embarked under major-general Pigot. At this time a change took place in the plan of the expedition; sir Charles had some disagreement with ministers, and resigned his situation. Sir Ralph Ahercrombie was appointed to the command, and majorgeneral Moore was named as one of his major-generals, with Hutchinson and Pigot, who sailed about the end of April* with the 5000 men. There was little opportunity during this expedition, the success of which was prevented by various unforeseen occurrences, for any exertions in which general Moore could distinguish himself, until, the armies being ordered to separate, his troops were ordered to go to Egypt under sir Ralph Abercrombie. Having arrived at Malta, major-general Moore was sent to Jaffa to visit the Turkish army, and form a judgment as to what aid was to be expected from it; but the result being unfavourable, sir Ralph determined to land in the bay of Aboukir, and march immediately upon Alexandria. Any satisfactory detail of this memorable expedition would extend this article too far we shall therefore confine oui selves to that part in which major-general Moore was more particularly concerned. As soon as the landing was begun, he, at the head of the grenadiers and light infantry of th< 40th, with the 23d and 28th regiments in line, ascencle< the sand-hill. They did not fire a shot until they gained the summit, when they charged the enemy, drove ther and took four pieces of cannon, with part of their hor& The French retreated to the border of a plain, where g< neral Moore halted, as upon the left a heavy fire of mus quetry was kept up. Brigadier-general Oakes, with tl left of the reserve, consisting of the 42d Highlanders, tin 58th regiment, and the Corsican rangers, landed to th< left of the sand-hill, and were attacked by both infantn and cavalry, which they repulsed and followed into thi plain, taking three pieces of artillery. The guards an< part of general Coote’s brigade landed to the left of tl reserve; they were vigorously opposed, but repulsed tt tenerhy, and followed them into the plain. The want ol cavalry and artillery (for it was some time before the gui that were landed could be dragged through the sand) saved the enemy from being destroyed. This was one of the most splendid instances of British intrepidity that perhaps ever happened. The enemy had eight days to assemble and prepare, and the ground was extremely favourable to them. The loss of the enemy was considerable, that of the British amounted to 600 killed and wounded, of which the reserve lost 400. In the course of the afternoon the rest of the army landed, and the whole moved forward a couple of miles, where they took post for the night.

On the morning of the 9th, major-general Moore and lieutenant-colonel Anstruther, the quarter-master-general, went forward with the 92d Highlanders, the Corsican, rangers, and some cavalry, to look fora new position. The country was unequal, sandy, and thickly interspersed with palm and date trees. He posted the 92d at a place about two miles in front, where there was a small redoubt, and where the space became more narrow than any where else, by the sea and lake Madie running up on each side. He then went forward with the cavalry, until they were met by a strong patrole of the" enemy, on which they retired. On reporting to sir Ralph, he directed major-general Moore to take post with the reserve on the ground where he had placed the 92d by noon he had taken possession of the post with the reserve, and placed his out- posts. On the lOth there was some skirmishing with the out-posts of the reserve and the enemy’s cavalry. The main body of the army was detained in their post-position till, by the exertions of the navy, the stores and provisions were landed and forwarded to them. On the llth sir Ralph went to the reserve, the brigade of guards moved forward, and took post half way between them and the rest of the army. The lake Madie was ordered to be examined, with a view to the practicability of conveying the army stores by it, which it was afterwards found could be done. On the 12th the army moved forward in two columns, each composed of a wing. The reserve, in two columns, formed the advanced guard to each column. The enemy’s cavalry retired, skirmishing as the army advanced. The army halted at a tower that they found evacuated, from the top of which a body of infantry was seen advancing. The line was instantly formed, and the army advanced with the utmost regularity and steadiness. The enemy, on seeing this movement, first halted, and afterwards retired to some heights which terminated a plain, where the British army took post for the night, and lay on their arms. Majorgeneral Moore had the direction of the advanced posts; and the 90th and 92d regiments, though not belonging to the reserve, were placed under his orders for the night. The out- posts of the enemy and the advanced guard of the British were so near each other, that it was impossible that either army could move without bringing on a general action. At six o'clock in the morning of the 13th the army moved forward in two columns from the left, each composed of a line. The reserve, in one column from the left, marched on the right of the other two, to cover the flank. Sir Ralph’s intention was to attack the enemy’s right, and, if possible, to turn it. The 90th and 92d regiments formed the advanced guards to the two columns of the army, and, having got too far a-head of the columns, were attacked by the main body of the enemy, and suffered severely before the columns could come to their support. These two regiments, however, maintained their ground, and defeated a body of cavalry that attempted to charge them. The action now became general along the line; the French, being forced back, retreated, covered by a numerous artillery, halting and firing wherever the ground favoured them. The British army advanced rapidly without artillery, as their guns, being dragged through sand by the seamen, could not keep up with the infantry. The reserve remained in column on the right flank covering the two lines, and though mowed down by the enemy’s cannon in front, and exposed to musketry from hussars and light infantry on their flank, continued to move forward with such steadiness and regularity, that at any time during the action and pursuit, they could have been wheeled to a flank without an interval. The two lines advanced with equal order until they reached a rising ground, where there were the ruins of an ancient building of considerable extent; from this height they saw the enemy retreating in confusion through a plain, under cover of the fortified heights in front of Alexandria. Sir Ralph followed them into the middle of the plain, where a consultation was held, and it was then intended that general Hutchinson, with part of the second line, which had been least engaged, should attack the enemy’s right, while major-general Moore, with the reserve supported by the guards, attacked their left near the sea.

General Hutchinson had a considerable circuit to make to get to the ground where he was to make his attack, and the attack of the reserve was to be regulated by his. When he got to his ground, the position of the French was found to be so strongly defended by a numerous artillery, and covered besides by the guns on the fortified heights near Alexandria, that the attempt was given up, and as the army were in their present position exposed to the enemy’s cannon without being able to retaliate, a position on the height in the rear was marked out, to which the army fell back as the evening advanced. This severe action cost the British army 1300 in killed and wounded. The situation of the British army at this period was certainly a very critical one, as it was quite evident that government had been deceived in their estimate of the French forces. Sir Raiph, therefore, was well aware of the difficult task he had to perform. The camp of the British was about four or five miles from Alexandria. In front of the reserve, which, formed the right of the army, was a very extensive ancient ruin, which the French called Caesar’s camp; it was twenty or thirty yards retired from the right flank of the redoubt, and commanded the space between the redoubt and the sea. In this redoubt and ruin major-general Moore had posted the 28th and 58th regiments. On the 21st the attack was made by the French, who were driven back by his troops, but he received a shot in the leg. The result, however, was, that every attack the French made was repulsed with great slaughter. In the early part of the action, and in the dark, some confusion was unavoidable, but wherever the French appeared, the British went boldly up to them, even the cavalry breaking in had not in the least dismayed them. As the day broke, the foreign brU gaJe, under brigadier-general, afterwards sir John Stuart, who fought the battle of Maida, came to the second line to the support of the reserve, shared in the action, and behaved with great spirit. Day-light enabled major-general Moore to get the reserve into order, but there was a great want of ammunition. The guns could not be fired for a very considerable time, otherwise the French must have suffered much more severely, while retreating from their different unsuccessful attacks, than they did. The enemy’s artillery continued to gall the British severely with shot and shells, after the infantry and cavalry had been repulsed. The British could not return a shot. Had the French attacked again, the British had nothing but their bayonets, which they unquestionably would have used, as never was an army more determined to do their duty. But the enemy laad suffered so severely, that the men could not be got to make another attempt. They continued in front at a distant musket-shot, until the ammunition for the English guns was brought up to enable them to fire, when theyvery soon retreated. While the attacks were made on the British right, a column attacked the guards on the left of the reserve, but were repulsed with loss. The French general, Menou, had concentrated the greatest part of the force in Egypt for this attack; the prisoners stated his force in the field at about 13,000 men, of whom between three and four thousand were killed or wounded. The British army lost about 1300 men, of which upwards of 500 belonged to the reserve. This battle commenced at half past four in the morning, and terminated about nine. The French made three different attacks, with superior numbers, the advantage of cavalry, and a numerous and well-served artillery. The British infantry here gave a decided proof of their superior firmness and hardihood. Sir Ralph, who always exposed his person very much, in this last battle carried the practice perhaps farther than he bad e?er done before. Major-general Moore met hjnv early in the anion, close in the rear of the 42d, without any of the officeFS of his family; and afterwards, when the French cavalry charged the second time, and penetrated the 42d, major-general Moore saw him again and waved to him to retire, but he was instantly surrounded by the hussars; he received a cut from a sabre ou the breast, which penetrated his clothes and just grazed the flesh. He received a shot in the thigh, but remained in the field until the battle was over, when he was conveyed on board the Foudroyant. Major-general Moore, at the close of the action, had the horse killed under him that major Honeyroan had lent him. Wnen the battle was over, the wound in his leg became so stiff and painful, that as soon as he could get a hurse, he gave the command of the reserve to coloi ei Spencer, and retired with brigadier-general Oakes, who commanded the reserve under him, and who was wounded in the leg also, to their tents in the rear. Brigadier-general Oakes was wounded nearly at the same time, and in the same part of the leg that major-general Moore was, but they both continued to head the reserve until the battle was over. When the surgeon had dressed their wounds, finding that they must be some time incapable of action, they returned to the Diadem troop-ship. Sir Ralph Abercrombie died of his wound on board the Foudroyant on the 28th day of March, and the command devolved on major-general Hutchinson. It is unnecessary here to detail the operations in Egypt that followed the battle of the 2 1st, as major-general Moore was confined on hoard the Diadem with his wound until the I Oth of May, when he was removed to Rosetta for the benefit of a change of air. He suffered very severely the ball had passed between the two bones of his leg he endured a long confinement and much torment, from inflammation and surgical operations. When at length he could move on crutches, and was removed to Rosetta, where he got a house on the banks of the Nile, agreeably situated, he began to recover rapidly, and afterwards continued to serve in the army of Egypt until after the surrender of Alexandria, when he returned to England, where he received the honour of knighthood, and the order of the bath. On the renewal of the war, the talents and services of sir John Moore pointed him out as deserving of the most important command. It was not, however, until 1808 that he was appointed to the chief command of an army to be employed in Spain, and Gallicia or the borders of Leon were fixed upon as the place for assembling the troops. Sir John was ordered to send the cavalry by land, but it was left to his own discretion to transport the infantry and artillery either by sea or land. He was also assured, that 15,000 men were ordered to Corunna, and he was directed to give such orders to sir David Baird, their commander, as would most readily effect a junction of the whole force. Both, however, soon discovered that little reliance could be placed on the Spaniards; and they had not got far into the country before their hopes were completely disappointed. Sir John Moore soon began to anticipate the result which followed. In the mean time the French army had advanced, and taken possession of the city of Valladolid, which is but twenty leagues from Salamanca. Sir John had been positively informed that his entry into Spain would be covered by 60 or 70,000 men; and that Burgos was the city intended for the point of union for the different divisions of the British army. But already not only Burgos, but Valladolid, was in possession of the enemy; and he found himself with an advanced corps in an open town, at three marches distance only from the French army, without even a Spanish piquet to cover his front He had at this time only three brigades of infantry, without a gun, in Salamanca. The remainder, it is true, vyere moving up in succession, but the whole could not arrive in less than ten days. At this critical time the Spanish main armies, instead of being united either among themselves, or with the British, were divided from each other almost by the whole breadth of the peninsula. The fatal consequences of this want of union were but too soon made apparent; Blake was defeated, and a report reached sir David Baird that the French were advancing upon his division in two different directions, so as to threaten to surround him. He, consequently, prepared to retreat upon Corunna; but sir John Moore, having ascertained that the report was unfounded, ordered sir David to advance, in order, if possible, to form a junction with him. On the 28th of November he received information that there was now no army remaining, against which the whole French force might be directed, except the British; and it was in vain to expect that they, even if they had been united, could have resisted or checked the enemy. Sir John Moore, therefore, determined to fall back on Portugal, to hasten the junction of general Hope, who had gone towards Madrid, and he ordered sir David Baird to regain Corunna as expeditiously as possible; and when he had thus determined upon a retreat, he communicated his design to the general officers, who, with the exception of general Hope, seemed to doubt the wisdom of his decision; he would, however, have carried it into execution, if he had not been induced, by pressing solicitations, and representations of encouragement, to advance to Madrid, which he was told not only held out, but was capable of opposing the French for a considerable length of time. Sir John, therefore, anxious to meet the wishes of his troops, by leading them against the enemy, determined to attack Soult, the French general, who was posted at Saldanha, by which he thought he should draw off the French armies to the north of Spain, and thus afford an opportunity for the Spanish armies to rally and re-unite. Soult was probably posted in that spot with so small a body of men for the purpose of enticing the British army farther into Spain, while Bonaparte, in person, with his whole disposable force, endeavoured to place himself between the British army and the sea. At length the two armies met; and the superiority of the British cavalry was eminently displayed in a most brilliant and successful skirmish, in which 600 of the imperial guards of Bonaparte were driven off the field by half the number of British, Reaving 55 killed and wounded, and 70 prisoners, among whom was general Le Febre, the commander of the imperial guard.

Yet, notwithstanding this and other advantages gained over the enemy, a retreat was become indispensably necessary: sir John’s troops did not amount to more than 27,000, while the French on the lowest calculation were 70,000, and so closely did this army, under Bonaparte, pursue the English, that the distance between them was scarcely thirty miles, while sir John was rather incommoded than benefited by the Spanish troops, and the Spanish peasantry offered no assistance to his troops, harassed by fatigue, and in want of every necessary. The difficulties and anxieties of the British commander were also increased by the relaxation which took place in the discipline of the army, arising from various causes, which compelled him to issue such orders as might unequivocally point out his knowledge of the extent to which the want of discipline Lad proceeded, the persons to whom he principally attributed it, and his positive and unalterable determination to punish it in the most severe and exemplary manner. At Lugo sir John Moore was anxious to engage the enemy; and he was satisfied that the general orders he had now given, had produced such an effect in his army, as to give an earnest of victory. A slight skirmish ensued, in which, the British rushed forward with charged bayonets, and drove the enemy’s column down the hill with considerable slaughter. After this, marshal Soult, having experienced the talents of the general, and the intrepidity of the troops he had to encounter, did not venture to renew the attack; from this it was concluded that his intention was to harass the British as much as possible during their march, and to defer his attack till the embarkation. Under these circumstances, the general quitted his ground in the night, leaving fires burning to deceive the enemy. The French did not discover their retreat till long after day-light, so that the British army got the start of them considerably. On the llth of January the whole of the British reached Corunna, the port where they hoped to embark, not, however, without the probability of a battle; and notwithstanding they were disappointed in not finding the transports at Corunna, the British army rejoiced that before they quitted the shores of Spain they should have an opportunity to front their enemies. The enemy gave no particular indipations of attack till about noon of the 16th of January: at this time sir John Moore was giving directions for the embarkation; but the moment intelligence was brought that the enemy’s line were getting under arms, he struck spurs to his horse, and flew to the field. The advanced piquets were already beginning to fire at the enemy’s light troops, who were pouring rapidly down the hill on the right wing of the British. Early in the action, sir David Baird, leading on his division, had his arm shattered with a grape-shot, and was forced to leave the field. At this instant the French artillery plunged from the heights, and the two hostile lines of infantry mutually advanced beneath a shower of balls. They were still separated from each other by stone-walls and hedges. A sudden and very able movement of the British gave the utmost satisfaction to sir John Moore, who had been watching the manoeuvre, and he cried out, “That is exactly what I wished to be done.” He then rode up to the 50th regiment, commanded by majors Napier and Charles Banks Stanhope, who had got over an inclosure in their front, and were charging most valiantly. The general, delighted with the gallantry of the two majors, who had been recommended by himself to the military rank they held, exclaimed, “Well done the 50th! Well done my majors!” The plaudits of their general and beloved friend excited them to new efforts, and they drove the enemy out of the village of Elvina with great slaughter. In the conflict, major Napier, advancing too far, was severely wounded and taken prisoner, and major Stanhope received a ball through his heart, which instantly put an end to a most valuable life. So instantaneous must have been the death of major Stanhope, that a sense of pain had not torn from his countenance the smile which the bravery of his soldiers and the applause of his commander had excited.

Sir John Moore proceeded to the 42d, and addressed them in these words, a Highlanders, remember Egypt.“They rushed on, driving the French before them. He sent captain Hardinge to order up a battalion of guards to the left flank of the Highlanders, upon which the oflicer commanding the light company, conceiving that, as their ammunition was nearly expended, they were to be relieved by the guards, began to fall back; but sir John, discovering the mistake, said,” My brave 42d, join your comrades, ammunition is coming, and you have your bayonets." They instantly obeyed, and moved forward. While the general was speaking, a cannon ball struck him to the ground. He raised himself, and sat up with an unaltered countenance, looking most intently at the Highlanders, who were warmly engaged; captain Hardinge assured him the 42d were advancing, upon which his countenance immediately brightened. The general was carried from the field, and on the way he ordered captain Hardinge to report his wound to general Hope, who assumed the command. Many of the soldiers knew that their two generals were carried off the field, yet they continued the fight till they had achieved a decisive and hrilliant victory, over a very superior force.