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

, an eminent astronomer and mathematician, was born at Salfeldt in Thuringia, a province in Upper Saxony, the llth of October, 1511. H^ studied mathematics under James Milichi at Wittemberg, in which university he afterwards became professor of those sciences, which he taught with great applause. After writing a number of useful and learned works, he died February 19, 1553, at 42 years of age only. His writings are chiefly the following: 1. “Theorize novae Planetarum G. Purbachii,” augmented and illustrated with diagrams and Scholia in 8vo, 1542; and again in 1580. In this work, among other things worthy of notice, he teaches (p. 75 and 76) that the centre of the lunar epicycle describes an ovalfgure in each monthly period, and that the or hit of Mercury is also of the same oval figure. 2. “Ptolomy’s Almagest,” the first book, in Greek, with a Latin version, and Scholia, explaining the more obscure passages, 1549, 8vo. At the end of p. 123 he promises an edition of Theon’s Commentaries, which are wry useful for understanding Ptolomy’s meaning; but his immature death prevented Reinhold from giving this and other works which he had projected. 3. “Prutenicse Tabulae Ccelestiurn Motuum,” 1551, 4to; again in 1571; and also iii 1585. Reinhold spent seven years labour upon this work, in which he was assisted by the munificence of Albert, duke of Prussia, from whence the tables had their name. Reinhold compared the observations of Copernicus with those of Ptolomy and Hipparchus, from whence he constructed these new tables, the uses of which he has fully explained in a great number of precepts and canons, forming a complete introduction to practical astronomy. 4. “Primus liber Tabularum Directionum” to which are added, the “Canon Fcecundus,” or Table of Tangents, to every minute of the quadrant and New Tables of Climates, Parallels, and Shadows, with an Appendix containing the second Book of the Canon of Directions; 1554, 4to. Reinhold here supplies what was omitted by Regiomontanus in his Table of Directions, &c.; shewing the finding of the sines, and the construction of the tangents, the sines being found to every minute of the quadrant, to the radius 10,000,000; and he produced the Oblique Ascensions from 60 degrees to the end of the quadrant. He teaches also the use of these tables in the solution of spherical problems.

Reinhold prepared likewise an edition of many other works, which are enumerated in the Emperor’s Privileg;e, prefixed to the Prutenic Tables; such as, Ephemerides for several years to come, computed from the new tables; Tables of the rising and setting of several Fixed Stars, for many different climates and times; the illustration and establishment of Chronology, by the eclipses of the luminaries, and the great conjunctions of the planets, and by the appearance of comets, &c. the Ecclesiastical Calendar; the History of Years, or Astronomical Calendar; “Isagoge Spherica,” or Elements of the doctrine of the Primum Mobile “Hypotyposes Orbium Ccelestium,” or the Theory of Planets Construction of a New Quadrant; the doctrine of Plane and Spherical Triangles Commentaries on the work of Copernicus also Commentaries on the 15 books of Euclid, on Ptolomy’s Geography, and on the Optics of Alhazen the Arabian. Reinhold also made Astronomical Observations, but with a wooden quadrant, which observations were seen by Tycho Brahe when he passed through Wittemberg in 1575, who wondered that so great a cultivator of astronomy was not furnished with better instruments.

, an extraordinary scholar, and equally extraordinary man, who has furnished us with very curious memoirs of his life, was born Dec. 25, 1716, at Zorbig, a small town near Leipsic, of ancestors of whom he knew nothing, except that his grandfather was an innkeeper. He was educated at the school of Zorbig until ten years old, then was removed to Soschen, where a gentleman, to whom he afterwards in gratitude dedicated his remarks on the “Tusculan questions,” brought him very forward. Thence he went to school at Halle, where he complains of the length of the prayers, and of the ignorance of his teacher, who knew nothing of Latin. In 1733 he removed to the university of Leipsic; but instead of attending to Greek, mathematics, and polite literature, gave himself, “in an evil hour,” to Rabbinical learning, and Arabic. Such, however, was his oeconomy, that although during the five years he remained here, he received from home only two hundred dollars, he contrived not only to live, but to purchase most of the Arabic books then extant, and in 1736 he had read them all. The last year, indeed, he obtained a scholarship of twenty dollars a-year, which he might have enjoyed longer, had he not in 1738 determined to visit Holland, without ever considering how he was to travel without money. He set out, however, from Leipsic to Lunenburg in the common waggon, and thence by the Elbe to Hamburgh, where he visited Reimarus, who at first received him coolly, but on discovering his learning, gave him letters, and became his fast friend; nor, he adds, did the worthy men of Hamburgh send him penniless on the way.

On his arrival at Amsterdam, he was well received by a friend of his mother’s, who had married a linen-draper there. Nextr day he visited Dorville, to whom he had a letter of recommendation from professor Wolfe. Dorville offered him 600 florins a-year to live with him and be his amanuensis; but Reiske told him that he was not come to Holland to make his fortune, which he could have done better in his own country, but to look for Arabic manuscripts. Dorville seemed surprized and a little angry at such an answer from a man who had not a shilling; but afterwards, Reiske says, “we were very good friends, though I wonder we did so well together, for we were much of the same temper, hasty, passionate, and selfwilled.” He then went to Leyden, where he had the mortification to be told that there was no provision in Holland for strangers, that it was vacation time, that the scholars were all gone, and the library quite inaccessible. He contrived, however, to pick up a livelihood, by being corrector of the press for Alberti’s Hesychius, and giving a few lessons, when he could procure pupils. At length he got introduced to Schultens, who allowed him to copy Oriental Mss. at his house, and teach his son Arabic. At the desire of Schultens, he applied himself to the Arabic poets, and published an edition of the “Moallakat” in 1740; but they did not quite agree about some passages in it, and this laid the foundation of the misunderstanding between them. In the mean time he made a catalogue of Arabic Mss. in the Leyden library, a work which employed him some months, and for which he was rewarded with nine guilders, about eighteen shillings!

All this, however, he called “going on well,” and proceeds to date his misfortunes from his displeasing the friends of Burman. When Burman sent his “Petronius” to press, he was old and bed-ridden, and the correction of the work fell upon Reiske. He made some alterations in the first volume, which Burman lived to see and was pleased with; but happening to take some greater liberties with the text of Petronius, in the second, all Barman* s friends became his enemies; his scholars deserted him, and Dorville broke with him. Peter Burman, the son, wrote a preface against Reiske, which he answered in the “Acta Eruditorum.” During his residence here, as he saw nothing was to be done in divinity, he made some progress in the study of physic, and intended to return home and practise; but, he informs us, “straightness of circumstances, oddness of humour, and the love of Arabic, always kept him from it.”

Two things determined him to leave Holland, the one was that he had offended Schultens by some remarks on the study of Arabic; the other, that in the thesis which he wrote for his medical degree, he incurred the suspicion of materialism; but having got this degree June 10, 1746, he bade adieu to Holland. After a long apostrophe in admiration of Holland, which, he says, he wishes he had never seen, or never left, he informs us that while with Dorville, he translated into Latin, some small French tracts, which that author inserted in his “Miscellanea Critica;” made collections for him from Mss. or other literary curiosities; translated his “Charito” into Latin, and collated the copy which Dorville had received from Cocchi at Florence. They quarrelled, however, because Dorville not only altered some parts of this translation, but obliged Reiske to do the same himself before his face.

After some stay at his native place Zorbig, where he could find no opportunity of settling advantageously, he was obliged to return to Leipsic. In 1747, he tells us he was made professor for the publication of a tract, entitled “De principibus Mahummedanis literarum laude claris.” From this time he lived, during many years, in want and obscurity, frequently not knowing where to get bread to eat. What he did get, he says, was hardly earned, by private instruction, writing books, correcting for the press, translations, and working for reviews; and thus he went on from 1746 to 1758. In the mean time, in 1748, he wrote his “Prograrmna de epocha Arabum, &c.” for which he was made Arabic professor, but in tins office he complains of being rewarded by an ill-paid salary of one hundred dollars a year. In the autumn of that year a bookseller at Leyden agreed with him for a publication of Abulfeda’s History in Latin and Arabic: the first sheet was accordingly printed, and made him known in France and England; and the whole, he says, would have followed, if it had not been for his quarrel with Schultens. Reiske appears to have had an extraordinary propensity to quarrelling, and being a reviewer, vva& not sparing of the means, by reviewing in an arrogant and petulant style the works of those persons with whom he was living in apparent friendship. He even unblushingly avows that a sort of revenge led him to speak ill of the works of some of his friends. He speaks at the same time of the bitter remorse with which he reflected on his treatment of Schultens, who “had been a father to him,” acknowledges the acid of youthful pride which mixed with his criticisms, and yet talks of being influenced by the “conscience and duty” of a reviewer

In 1755, he was chosen fellow of Gotsched’s society of the fine arts. This produced two small papers, which are in the Transactions of that society, and an acquaintance with his wife, the sister of Probst, who came with him to Leipsic. Her modesty, goodness of heart, and love of learned men, caught his heart; but the war broke out, and he did not marry till nine years after. In 1756 he made a catalogue of the Arabic coins in x the library at Dresden, and translated Thograi in a couple of days. It came out with a preface and notes, containing accounts of the Arabic poets. There were only two hundred copies printed.

The war now raged very fiercely all over Saxony, and poor Reiske was obliged to avail himself of Ernesti’s generosity* who gave him his table for two years; but in 1758, his fortunes took a surprizing and most unexpected turn, and he was made independent, by being appointed rector of the school of St. Nicholas. This he tells us he had had an omen of at the beginning of the year; for, rising on new year’s day, at three o'clock in the morning, as was his constant custom, to pursue his translation of Libanius’s letters, he found that he had come to a letter written to Anatolius, and the first word he read was Anatolius. “Now,” says he, “thought I, the year is come in which God will let the light of his countenance shine upon thee; and in five weeks after Haltaus (his predecessor) died.”

About 1763 he translated Demosthenes and Thucydides into German, and married Mrs. Reiske, a woman of great literary accomplishments. In 1768 he issued proposals for his edition of Demosthenes, which forms the first two volumes of his “Oratores Graeci.” On this occasion we have an interesting note from Mrs. Reiske. “When the work went to press, only twenty thalers of the subscription money had come in. The good man was quite struck down with this, and seemed to have thrown away all hope. His grief went to my soul, and I comforted him as well as I could, and persuaded him to sell mv jewels, which he at length came into, after I had convinced him that a few shining stones were not necessary to my happiness.” The work at length appeared in 1770. His “Theocritus,” published in 1765, he calls a bookseller’s job, and it certainly is not the best of his critical efforts. It was published iti 2 vols. 4to, to which he would have added a third, could he have agreed with his bookseller. His “Plutarch” and “Dionysius Halicarnassensis” were also edited by him for the booksellers but the “Oratores Graeci” was the work of his choice, and one on which his reputation may safely rest.

Reiske died August 14, 1774. Much of his character may be learned from what he has himself told us. Mrs. Reiske, who completes his memoirs, attributes to him a high degree of rectitude, and adds, that he often blamed himself in cases where he deserved no blame, and always thought he ought to be better than he was. He thought ill of mankind, and we have seen that some part of his own practice was not very well calculated to lessen that bad opinion in other minds. When speaking of his ill-treatment of Schultens, who had accused him of irreligion, he denies this, and adds, “the worst he could say of me, happily for me, was, that I was a proud, insolent, and ungrateful young man.”

Mrs. Reiske informs us that his unexampled love of letters produced not only all the works he has published, and all the Mss. he left behind him; but every man who had any thing to publish, might depend upon his countenance and protection. He gave books, advice, subscription, even all that he had. Nay, he made up to several people that had treated him ill, only in order that he might make their works better. He was also a man of great charity. As a scholar his character is too well known to require a prolix detail of his various knowledge. He had read all the Greek and Latin authors, and all the Arabic ones, more than once, and was likewise acquainted with the best Italian, French, English, and German writers. He read Tillotson’s and Barrow’s sermons constantly, and used to translate them for his wife into French. His memory was so wonderful that he remembered all he had heard, and could repeat a sermon he had heard almost verbatim. In the last days of his life he called all his learned works trifles. “All these troublesome labours,” said he, “cannot preserve me from the judgment seat, at which I must soon appear my only confidence proceeds from the thoughts of having lived uprightly before God.”

His commerce with the learned was most extensive. Among his correspondents he enumerates Abresch, Alberti* Albinus, Askew, Bandini, Bartholomei, Bernard, Bianconi, Bilder, Bondam, Findley, Gesner, Gronovius, Havercamp, Hemsterhuys, Michaelis, Osel, cardinal Quirini, Reimarus, Sebusch, Wolfe, and Wittembach. Of some of these, however, he speaks with little respect. Of his works, twenty-seven of which are enumerated by Harles, we have noticed the principal. He wrote his own life as far as 1771, which was continued by Mrs. Reiske, and published in 1783.

, an eminent orientalist, was born at Ryp, a village in North-Holland, July 17, 1676. His father was minister of that village, but afterwards removed to Alkmaar, and then to Amsterdam, in which last city Reland was educated with great care; and at eleven years of age, having passed through the usual courses at school, was placed in the college under Surenhusius. During three years of study under this professor, he made a great progress in the Hebrew, Syriac, Chaldee, and Arabic languages; and at his leisure hours applied himself to poetry, in which he was thought to succeed. At fourteen, he was sent to Utrecht; where he studied under Grrevius and Leusden, acquired a more perfect knowledge of the Latin and oriental tongues, and applied himself aiso to philosophy, in which he afterwards took the degree of doctor. At seventeen, he entered upon divinity under the direction of Herman Witsius and others; but did not abandon the oriental languages, which were always his favourite study. After he had resided six years at Utrecht, his father sent him to Leyden, to continue his theological studies under Frederic Spanheim and others; where he soon received the offer of a professorship at Linden, either in philosophy or the oriental languages. This he would have accepted, though only two and twenty; but his father’s ill state of health would not allow him to remove so far from Amsterdam. In 1699, he was elected professor of philosophy at Harderwick, but did not continue there long; for, king William having recommended him to the magistrates of Utrecht, he was offered in 1701 the professorship of oriental languages and ecclesiastical history, which he readily accepted. In 1703, he took a wife, by whom he had three children. In 1713, a society for the advancement of Christian knowledge was established in England, as was that for the propagation of the gospel in foreign parts the year after; of both which Reland became a member. He died of the small-pox, at Utrecht, Feb. 5, 1718, in his forty-second year. He was a man of an excellent disposition, and of great humanity and modesty, of great learning, and had a correspondence with the most eminent scholars of his time.

He wrote and published a great number of works, in order to promote and illustrate sacred and oriental learning; the chief of which are these: “De Religione Moharnmedica libri duo,” 1705, 12mo. The first book contains a short account of the faith of the Mahometans, in an Arabic manuscript with a Latin translation; the second vindicates them from doctrines and imputations falsely charged opon them. A second edition, with great additions, was printed in 1717, 12mo. “Dissertationum Miscellanearum Partes Tres,” 1706, 1707, 1708, 12mo. These three parts are not always found together. They comprize thirteen dissertations upon the following curious subjects: ' De situ Paradisi Terrestris“” De Mari Rubro“” De Monte Garizim;“” De Ophir“” De Diis Cabiris“”De Veteri Lingua Indica“” De Samaritanis“” De Reliquiis veteris lingure Persicse“” De Persicis vocabulis Talmudis;“” De jure Militari Mohammedanorum contra Christianos bellum gerentium;“” De linguis Insularum quarunclam orientaliuro;“” De linguis Americauis;“” De Gemmis Arabicis.“His next work was,” Antiquitates Sacrse Veterum Hebrseorum,“1708, 12mo; but the best edition is that of 1717, 12mo, there being many additions. He then published” Dissertationes Quinque de Nummis veterum Hebraeorum, qui ab inscriptarum literarum forma Samaritani appellantur. Accedit dissertatio de marmoribus Arabicis Puteolanis,“1709, 12mo. But his greatest work was” Palsestinaex monumentis veteribus illustrata, chartis Geographicis accuratioribus adornata,“Traject. 1714, 2 vols. 4to. This edition is superior in all respects to that of Nuremberg, 1716, 4to.” De Spoliis Templis Hierosolymitani in arcu Titiano Romas conspicuis liber, cum figuris," 1716, 12mo. Reland published many smaller things of his own, among which were Latin poems and orations; and was also concerned as an editor of books written by others. His works are all in Latin, and neatly printed.

, an eminent painter and engraver, was born at a village near Leyden, in 1606. The real name of his family was Gerretsz, but from having resided early in life at a village upon the banks of the Rhine, he obtained that of Van Ryn. Of his personal history we have very few particulars. His father was a miller. After an unsuccessful attempt to avail himself of the advantages of a college education at Leyden, he is said to have been indebted for his earliest instruction as a painter to Jacques Vanzwanenburg. He afterwards studied under Peter Lastman at Amsterdam, under whose name a print is in circulation, which the author of the supplement to the works of Rembrandt denominates “Lot and his Daughter,” but which is intended to represent Judah and Tamar. Had this print, says Rembrandt’s late biographer, been in fact the production of Lastman, it would have appeared that Rembrandt had been much indebted to his preceptor, as well for the manner of his execution in his etchings, as for the style of his design; but it is the work of Van Noordt, probably after a design of Lastman, and is certainly posterior in point of time to many of those of Rembrandt.

Rembrandt was first brought into notice by having taken a picture to the Hague, and Coffered it for sale to an able connoisseur; who, conscious of his merit, treated him with kindness, and gave him a hundred florins for it. By this incident both himself and the public were made acquainted with his worth; and hence arose the reputation and success he afterwards enjoyed. Incessant occupation soon crowded upon him, and many pupils applied for admission into his school, with each of whom he received 100 florins a year; and whose copies of his pictures he not unfrcquently sold as originals, after bestowing a short time upon them himself. By these means, aided by incessant industry, and the sale of etchings, which he produced with great facility and skill, he accumulated considerable wealth: his income, according to Sandrart, being, for a. length of time, at least 2500 florins yearly. His place of residence, during this successful display of his talents, was Amsterdam, where his peculiarities procured him the character of a humourist, whilst his abilities astonished and delighted his contemporaries, and he produced those works which still gratify succeeding ages. The peculiarities of his mind are as much observable in the manner of producing his effects, as in the choice of the materials. The execution of his earlier works was in a style highly laboured, with great neatness, and patient completion of the figures; such is that of the picture of the woman taken in adultery at Mr. Angerstein’s. As he advanced in art, he took liberties with the pencil, wrought with all the broad fulness of the brush, and left the touch undisturbed: he even employed the stick, the pallet-knife, or his fingers, accordingly as they were most capable of producing the effect he desired when seen at a proper distance, disregarding the appearance of the work upon a closer inspection.

It is not, however, the approval of his power in the technical part of the art, which can or ought to satisfy the observer of the works of Rembrandt. He was, says Fuseli, a meteor in art. Disdaining to acknowledge the usual laws of admission to the Temple of Fame, he boldly forged his own keys, and entered and took possession of a most conspicuous place by his own power. He was undoubtedly a genius of the first class in whatever is not immediately related to form or taste. In spite of the most portentous deformity, and without considering the spell of his chiaroscuro, such were his powers of nature, such the grandeur, pathos, or simplicity, of his composition, from the most elevated or extensive arrangement to the meanest or most homely, that the most untutored and the best cultivated eye, plain common sense and the most refined sensibility, dwell on them equally enthralled. Shakspeare alone excepted, no one combined with such transcendant excel* lence, so many, in all other men, unpardonable faults, and reconciled us to them. He possessed the full empire of light and shade, and the tints that float between them. He tinged his pencil with equal success in the cool of dawn, in the noon-tide ray, in the vivid flash, in evanescent twilight, and rendered darkness visible. Though made to bend a steadfast eye on the bolder phenomena of nature, yet he knew how to follow her into her calmest abodes, gave interest to insipidity or baldness, and plucked a flower in every desert. Few like Rembrandt knew how to improve an accident into a beauty, or give importance to a trifle. If ever he had a master, he had no followers. Holland was not made to comprehend his power: the succeeding school consisted of colourists, content to tip the cottage, the hamlet, the boor, the ale-pot, the shambles, and the haze of winter, with orient hues, or the glow of setting summer suns.

Mr. Daulby, who, in his late “Catalogue of the works of Rembrandt,” has appreciated his character with great precision and perspicuity, and differs not much, upon the whole, from Mr. Fuseli, observes, that whatever may be thought of Rembrandt as a historical painter, his portraits are deservedly held in the highest esteem. The accuracy of his pencil insured a striking resemblance, whilst his skill in the management of light and shadow, and his thorough acquaintance with the harmony and effect of his tints, enabled him to give to his subjects an appearance of reality so striking, as in some instances to have actually imposed on the senses of the spectators. Thus, a picture of his maid-servant placed at the window of his house in Amsterdam, where he fixed his permanent residence about 1630, is said to have deceived the passengers for several days. This fact is at least authenticated by De Piles, who had the curiosity when he was in Holland, to inquire after this picture, and finding it was well penciled, and possessed a great force, purchased it, and esteemed it as one of the highest ornaments of his cabinet. All Rembrandt’s pictures can be purchased only at very high prices. There are many fine specimens of them in this country, and many in the royal collection at Paris. We know not, however, whether Rembrandt’s merits are not more familiar, in general, from his prints, than from his pictures. Of these, ever since his time, collections have been formed in every part of Europe, and even the emulation of sovereigns has been excited, and the treasures of royalty expended in their acquisition.

There is perhaps no branch of collectorship that exhibits more caprice than that of prints in general, or of Rembrandt’s prints in particular, which appears by the different estimation in which the same subject is held, merely on account of a slight alteration in some unimportant part. Mr. Daulby instances this in the Juno without the crown, the Coppenol with the white back-ground, the Joseph with the face unshaded, and the good Samaritan with the horse’s tail white, which are regarded as inestimable; whilst the same subjects, without these distinctions, are considered as of little comparative value. Strutt mentions that, in consequence of a commission from an eminent coin lector, he gave forty-six guineas for the Coppenol with the white back-ground, i. e. before it was finished; when, the same evening, at the same sale, he bought a most beautiful impression of the same print finished, distinguished by having a black back-ground, &c. which had an address to Rembrandt at the bottom, written by Coppenol himself (for he was a writing-master of Amsterdam, and this print is his portrait), for fourteen guineas and a half. In the second instance, he adds, that he exceeded his commission by the half guinea; but in the first did not reach it by nearly twenty guineas. Mr. Daulby seems to be of opinion that Rembrandt, who loved money, availed himself of this humour in collectors. The facility with which he could change the effect of his etchings, by altering, obliterating, or working on them again, enabled him to provide sufficient amusement for his admirers; and hence varieties frequently occur which are not easily explicable. He is even said to have frequently suffered himself to be solicited before he would consent to dispose of them; and it is a well-attested fact, that the print of “Christ healing the sick,” usually denominated the “Hundred Guelder,” was so called because he refused to sell an impression of it under that price. Of this print we may remark that it is generally esteemed the chef d'aeuvre of Rembrandt, being highly finished, the characters full of expression, and the effect of the chiaroscuro very fine. Gilpin mentions twenty guineas, as the price of a good impression of this print; Mr. Daulby thirty, to which twenty more, we are assured, must now be added. Captain Baillie purchased the plate in Holland, and retouched it for publication, in 1776, at four guineas to subscribers, and five to non-subscribers. It has since been cut up, but there are impressions of the two groups from the left extremity, one above the other. Rembrandt’s rarest and most expensive portraits are those of Wtenbogardus, called in Holland, “the Goldweigher,” and in France “the Banker;” Van Tol, the advocate, sold as high as fifty-guineas; and the burgomaster Six, of equal value. This burgomaster was Rembrandt’s particular friend and patron, and had the largest collection of his prints that ever was formed in his life-time. Strutt gives 340 as the number of Rembrandt’s prints; but the largest collection known, that of M. De Burgy, at the Hague, collected between the years 1728 and 1755, consisted in the whole, including the varieties, of 655 prints. This great artist died at Amsterdam in 1688, or, according to some, in 1674. The little known of his personal character is not favourable. He was extremely fond of money, and not very scrupulous in his mode of procuring it. He is also represented as being fond of low company; a degrading taste, which seldom fails to affect a man’s profession, whatever it may be.

, a very celebrated archbishop of Rheims, was born of an illustrious family, and heir to great wealth. He was raised to the see of Rheims about the year 460; distinguished himself by his learning and virtue, converted and baptised king Clovis, and died about January 23, in the year 533. Some Letters, and a Testament, in the library of the Fathers, and in Marlot’s History of Rheims, are attributed to him.

, was a learned French Benedictine monk in the ninth century, and brought up in the abbey of St. Germain, at Auxerre, whence he derived that appendix to his name by which he is distinguished. Having made great proficiency in profane and sacred literature, he was appointed principal teacher in the schools belonging to his monastery, and afterwards taught at Rheims with great reputation, until he went to Paris, and opened the first public school in that city, after learning had sunk under the ravages of the Normans. His works are, 1. “Commentarius in omnes Davidis Psalmos,” Cologne, 1536, a methodized collection of opinions from the fathers. 2. “Enarrationes in posteriores XI. minores Prophetas,” Antwerp, 1545, with the “Commentaries” of Oecumenius upon the Acts of the Apostles, and their Epistles, and those of Aretbas upon the book of Revelation and “Expositio Missa;.” A “Commentary upon the Epistles of St. Paul,” has been also ascribed to him, but on doubtful authority. It is move certain that he left behind him “A Commentary on the Musical Treatise of Martianus Capella,” which is among the Mss. in the king of France’s library, No. 5304.

, an able naval architect, was born in 1652, in Beurn, descended from the ancient house of Elisagaray in Navarre. The count de Vermandois, admiral of France, engaged his services in 1679, by a pension of a thousand crowns; and his opinion concerning the construction of ships was preferred to that of M. Duguesne, even by that gentleman himself. In consequence of this, Renau received orders to visit Brest and the other ports, that he might instruct the ship-builders, whose sons of fifteen or twenty years old he taught to build the largest ships, which had till then required the experience of twenty or thirty years. Having advised the bombardment of Algiers in 1680, he invented bomb-boats for that expedition, and the undertaking succeeded. After the admiral’s decease, M. Vauban placed M. Renau in a situation to conduct the sieges of Cadaquiers in Catalonia, of Philipsburg, Manheim, and Frankendal. In the midst of this tumultuous life he wrote his “Theorie de la manoeuvre des Vaisseaux,” which was published 1689, 8vo. The king, as a reward for M. Renau’s services, made him captain of a ship, with orders that he should have free access to, and a deliberative voice in the councils of the generals, an unlimited inspection of the navy, and authority to teach the officers any new methods of his invention; to which was added a pension of 12,000 livres. The grand master of Malta requested his assistance to defend that island against the Turks, who were expected to besiege it; but the siege not taking place, M. Renau went back to France, and on his return was appointed counsellor to the navy, and grand croix of St. Louis. He died Sept. 30, 1719. He had been admitted an honorary member of the Academy of Sciences in 1699. He has left several Letters, in answer to the objections raised by Huygens and Bernouilli against his Theory abovementioned. He was a man of reflection, read little, but thought much; and, what appears a greater singularity, he meditated more deeply when in the midst of company, where he was frequently found, than in solitude, to which he seldom retired. He was very short, almost a dwarf, but adroit, lively, witty, brave, and the best engineer which France has produced, except M. de Vauban.

, a French writer, very learned in Oriental history and languages, was born at Paris in 1646; and, being taught classical literature by the Jesuits, and philosophy in the college of Harcourt, afterwards entered into the congregation of the oratory, where he did not continue long. His father being first physician to the dauphin, he was early introdued to scenes, where his parts, his learning, and his politeness, made him admired. His reputation was afterwards advanced and established by several learned works, which he published. In 1700, heattended cardinal de Noailles to Rome; and received great honours, together with the priory of Frossey in Bretagne, from pope Clement V. Returning by Florence he was honoured in the same manner by the great duke; and was also made a member of the academy de la Crusca. On his return to France he devoted himself entirely to letters, and composed a great number of learned dissertations, which are printed in the “Memoirs of the Academy of Inscriptions,” of which he was a member, as well as of the French academy. He died in 1720. Voltaire blames him for having prevented Bayle’s dictionary from being printed in France. This is very natural in Voltaire and Voltaire’s followers; but it is a more serious objection to Renaudot, that, while his love of learning made him glad to correspond with learned Protestants, his cowardly bigotry prevented him from avowing the connection. Not long before Dr. Pocock’s death that eminent orientalist received a letter from Renaudot, in which he professes a very high esteem for the doctor, desires the liberty of consulting him in all the doubts that should occur in preparing his “Collection of Liturgies,” &c. and promises, in return for this favour, to make a public acknowledgment of it, and preserve a perpetual memory of the obligation; yet, when the above work appeared, he travelled out of his way to reproach Dr. Pocock with a mistake, which was perhaps the only one that could be discovered in his writings.

, a physician, and a man learned in many respects, is said to have been the first author of Gazettes in France in 1631. He was born at Loudun in 1583, and died at Paris, where he had spent the greatest part of his life, in 1653. He left besides his Gazettes, a continuation of the “Mercure Frai^oise” from 1635 to 1643, in 25 vols. 8vo, the last six of which are the worst; but the most scarce were published by Renaudot. He wrote also “Abre*ge de la Vie et de la mort de Henri de Bourbon, prince de Conde,” 1646, 4to; “La vie et la mort du Marechal de Gassion,” 1647, 4to, and “The Life of Cardinal Michael de Mazarin,” brother of the prime minister of that name, 1648, 4to.

, or, as Wood says, commonly called Rhanger, a learned divine and Latin poet, was born in Hampshire, in 1529, and educated at Magdalen college, Oxford. Here he took his bachelor’s degree, in March 1545; was chosen fellow in 1547, and afterwards completed his master’s degree. In king Edward’s reign, he was much esteemed as a pious preacher, and learned man; but as he had embraced the reformed religion, he was obliged to leave the kingdom on the accession of queen Mary, and lived mostly with some other English exiles at Strasburgh. When queen Elizabeth came to the throne, he was made one of her chaplains, and proved a zealous champion for the reformation. Wood says he refused several preferments, accepting only a prebend in the church of Winchester, and about the same time the rectory of Crawley near that city. In 1567 he was installed precentor and prebendary of Empingham in the church of Lincoln. In 1573, he took his degrees in divinity, and in 1575 was made archdeacon of Winchester. In 1583, he had the prebend of Reculverland, in the church of St. Paul, London, bestowed on him. He died Aug. 26, 1609, aged eighty-nine, and was buried in the church of Crawley, under the communion table.

, a learned Spanish Jesuit, was born in Grenada about 1730. After a liberal education, in which he made great proficiency in philosophy and mathematics, and discovered much taste for the fine arts, he retired to Italy on the expulsion of his order. In 1782 he sent to the society opened in Madrid for the fine arts, a memoir which gained the first prize; and in 1788 he carried off the prize proposed by the academy of Seville. These two memoirs, which were printed in 1789, at Seville, met with the approbation of all the foreign literary journals. He had already obtained considerable fame on the continent from his elaborate work, printed at Seville in 1766, on the “Roman Antiquities in Spain,” and had contributed very much to Masdeu’s critical and literary history of Spain, printed in 1781, &c. But perhaps he is best known to artists and men of taste, by his “Saggi sul ristabilimento clelP antica arte de‘ Greci, e de’ Romani Pittori,” vol. I. Venice, 1784. The second edition of this elegant work was published in 2 vols. 8vo, at Parma, by Mr. Joseph Molini in 1787. The author’s object was, as the title indicates, to investigate and restore the ancient art of Grecian and Roman painting, and therefore in his first volume he gives a circumstantial account of encaustic painting as practised by the ancients, by which the lustre of their works is preserved to this day. He proves that they not only used the encaustic art in painting, but employed it in varnishing their statues, and even their utensils, ships, houses, &c. After descanting on the disadvantages that arise from painting in oil, he discloses the method of preparing the materials employed in encaustic painting, with the manner of using them; and substantiates this system by the opinions of many members of the Clementine academy of Bologne, and of several professors of the academies of Venice, Verona, Padua, &c. also of others who, beside himself, have tried them; particularly at Mantua, where under the patronage of the marquis Bianchi, many pictures were painted, of which Requeno gives an account. Artists, however, have not in general been very forward to adopt this plan, which, as the author explains it, differs very much from what has been proposed by Count de Caylus, Cochin, Bachelier, Muntz, and others. The abbe Requeno died at Venice in 1799.

, a learned Danish divine, was the son of a Lutheran clergyman, and born in Jutland, Feb. 2, 1561. After his grammatical education, he went to the university of Copenhagen, and was afterwards made corector of the school of Vibourg. In 1585, being appointed tutor to the young Frederick Rosenkrantz, he travelled with him through Germany, France, Italy, &c. for seven years, part of which we must suppose was spent in studying at some of the universities. On his return in 1592, he was appointed philosophical professor in ordinary, and afterwards extraordinary professor of divinity in the university of Copenhagen. In 1594, having been created doctor in that faculty, he removed to the chair of ordinary professor. In 1606, when the king, Christiern VI. paid a visit to his relation, king James, in England, who had married his sister, Resenius accompanied him as his chaplain. In 1615 he was appointed bishop of Roschildt in Zealand, which he held until his death, Sept. 14, 1638, aged seventy-seven. He was a man of great liberality, and bestowed in the course of his life 5500 crowns on schools and hospitals. Besides a translation of the Bible into the Danish language, published in 1605 7, he published a great number of theological dissertations and sermons in the same language; and the following works: “Parva logica,” Latin and Danish, 1605, 1610; “Institutiones geometricae,” 1612; “Parva rhetorica,” 1619; “Scholia in arithmeticam Gemmae Frisii,” 1611; and “De sancta fide in Deum, libellus apologeticus,” Latin and Danish, 1614.

, probably of the same family as the preceding, a counsellor and professor in Copenhagen, was born there June 17, 1625. His father and his grandfathers, both by the father’s and mother’s side, were bishops of Zealand. He was appointed sub-principal of the college of Copenhagen in 1646; and having quitted that employment the following year, he set out to visit foreign countries. He studied, during four years, polite literature and law in the university of Leyden, after which he went into France, Spain, and Italy. He remained a whole year in Padua, where he applied himself chiefly to the study of the civil law; was elected counsellor of the German nation in that city; and vice-syndic of the university, in which quality he made a speech in the senate of Venice, and obtained a privilege for that university; and before he left Padua he took his doctor’s degree in law, the 11th of September, 1653. He returned to Denmark by the way of Germany, and was appointed professor of moral philosophy in the university of Copenhagen, November 25, 1657, afterwards consul of that city, counsellor of the supreme council; and lastly, president of Copenhagen, and counsellor of justice. He Was ennobled the 18th of January, 1680, and created counsellor of state the 6th of May, 1684. He formed a very fine library, which he left to the university of Copenhagen, the catalogue of which was printed at Copenhagen, 1685, 4to.

, ar celebrated cardinal, was born in 1613. He was a doctor of the Sorbonne, and afterwards coadjutor to his uncle the archbishop of Paris; and at length, after many intrigues, in which his restless and unbounded ambition engaged him, became a cardinal. This extraordinary man has drawn his own character in his Memoirs,- which are written in a very unequal manner, but are generally bold, free, animating, and pleasing, and give us a very lively representation of his conduct. He was a man who, from the greatest degree of debauchery, and still languishing under its consequences, preached to the people, and made himself adored by them. He breathed nothing but the spirit of faction and sedition. At the age of twenty-three, he had been at the head of a conspiracy against the life of cardinal Richelieu, It has been said that he was the first bishop who carried on a war without the mask of religion; but his schemes were so unsuccessful, that he was obliged to quit France. He then went into Spain and Italy, and assisted at the conclave at Rome, which raised Alexander VII. to the pontificate; but this pontiff not making good his promises to the cardinal, he left Italy, and went into Germany, Holland, and England. After having spent the life of an exile for five or six years, he obtained leave upon certain terms to return to his own country; which was the more safe, as his friend cardinal Mazarine died in 1661. He was afterwards at Rome, and assisted in the conclave which chose Clement IX.; but, upon his return to France, gave up all thoughts of public affairs, and died at Paris, Aug. 24, 1679. The latter part of his life is said to have been tranquil and exemplary. At this period he wrote his Memoirs, in which there is a considerable air of impartiality. In order to judge of this, however, the reader is advised to compare them with those of Claude Joli, his private secretary. Both works have been published in English, the former in 1774, 4 vols. the latter in 1775, 3 vols., 12fno. Some friends, nith whom the cardinal entrusted the original ms. fixed a mark on those passages, where they thought he had dishonoured himself, in order to have them omitted, as they were in the first edition; but they have since been restored. The best French editions of these Memoirs are those of Amsterdam, 1719, 7 vols. 12mo, and 1731, 4 vols. small 8vo. This cardinal was the author of other pieces; but these, being of a temporary kind, written as party pamphlets to serve particular purposes, are forgotten.

, a learned German, who contributed much to the restoration of letters in Europe, was born at Pforzheim in 1450. His parents, perceiving his talents and turn for books, were easily persuaded to give him a liberal education, and sent him to Paris, then the seat of literature in these western parts, with the bishop of Utrecht; where he studied grammar under Joannes a Lapide, rhetoric under Gaguinus, Greek under Tiphernas, and Hebrew under Wesselus. Being returned to his own country, he took the degree of doctor in philosophy at Basil, where he lived four years; then went to Orleans to study the law, and was admitted doctor in 1479. He taught the Greek language at Orleans, as he had done at Basil; and composed and printed a grammar, a lexicon, some vocabularies, and other works of alike nature, to facilitate the study of that language. By all this he gained Extraordinary reputation; for, the knowledge of the two languages was at that time so rare an accomplishment, that it was actually made a title of honour. This appears from the following inscription of a letter: “Andronicus Contoblacas, natione Graecus, utriusque linguae peritus, Joanni Reuchlino,” &c. that is, “Andronicus Contoblacas, a Greek, skilled in both languages, to John Reuchlin,” &c.

After some time, Eberhard, count of Wirtemberg, being to make the tour of Italy, Reuchlin was chosen among others to attend him; chiefly because, during his residence in France, he had corrected his own German pronunciation of the Latin, which appeared so rude and savage to the Italians. They were handsomely received at Florence by Lorenzo de Medicis, the father of Leo X. and became acquainted with many learned men there, as ChalcondylaSj Ficinus, Politian, Picus earl of Mirandula, &c. They proceeded to Rome, where Hermolaus Barbarus prevailed with Reuchlin to change his name to Capnio, which signifies the same in Greek as Reuchlin does in German; that is, smoke. Count Eberhard entertained so great an esteem for Capnio, so he was afterwards called, thatj upon his return to Germany, he made him ambassador to the emperor Frederic III.; who conferred many honours upon him, and made him many presents. He gave him. in particular an ancient Hebrew manuscript bible, very neatly written, with the text and paraphrase of Onkelos, &c. Frederic died in 1493; and Capnio returned to count Eberhard, who died also about three months after the emperor: when, an usurpation succeeding, Capnio was banished. He retired to Worms, and continued his studies: hut the elector Palatine, having a cause to defend at Rome some time after, selected him as the ablest man for his purpose; and accordingly, in 1498, Capnio made an oration before the pope and cardinals concerning the rights of the German princes, and the privileges o the German churches. He remained more than a year at Rome; and had so much leisure as to perfect himself in the Hebrew tongue under Abdias, a Jew, and also in the Greek under Argyropylus. He had some trouble in his old age by an unhappy difference with the divines of Cologne, occasioned by a Jew named Pfefferkorn. This man, of whom we have already given a brief account (see Pfeffekcorn), to shew his zeal for Christianity, advised that all the Jewish books, except the Bible, should be burnt; but the Jews having prevailed on the emperor to allow them to be examined first, Capnio, who was universally acknowledged to excel in this kind of learning, was appointed by the elector of Mentz, under the authority of the emperor, to pass a judgment upon these writings. Capnio, who had too much good sense to adopt, in its full extent, this wretched policy, gave it as his opinion, that no other books should be destroyed, but those which were found to be written expressly against Jesus Christ, lest, with the Jewish books on liberal arts and sciences, their language itself, so important to the church, should perish. This opinion was approved by the emperor, and the books were by his authority restored to the Jews. Pfefferkorn and his supporters were exceedingly enraged against Capnio, and pursued him with invectives and accusations even to the court of Home. His high reputation in the learned world, however, protected him; and bigotry met with a most mortifying defeat in his honourable acquittal.

The spleen of the ecclesiastics against Capnio was still further increased by a comedy abounding with keen satire, which this writer, whose genius was not inferior to his learning, produced; the chief design of which was to expose the ignorance of the monks. Jt was at first only circulated in manuscript, but afterwards found its way into the press, and was published in 150?. In the latter part of his life, the adversaries of Capnio had too much reason to exult over him; for notwithstanding all his learning and celebrity, he was scarcely able, by teaching the Greek and Hebrew languages (which he did in several different schools) to preserve himself from absolute want; nor must it be forgot that he was the preceptor of Melancthon. He spent his last days at Trebingen, where he died in 1522. His faculties, which were naturally vigorous, were cultivated with great industry. His mind was richly stored with various erudition, and his character was eminently distinguished by probity and urbanity. His principal works were, “An Epitome of the History of the four Empires;” the “Life of Constantino the Great,” from Eusebius; “De Verbo mirifico,” “De Arte Cabalistica,” and “Letters from learned men,” Zurich, 1558. He is also supposed, but unjustly, to have been the chief author of the celebrated work, entitled “Epistolae Obscurorum Virorum.”

, or Revius, a learned Dutch divine, the son of a burgomaster of Deventer, was born in 1586, and educated at Amsterdam, Leyden, and Franeker. In 1610 he travelled into France for farther improvement, and resided two years at Saumur, Rochelle, and Orleans. Having taken orders, he was, in 1641, chosen principal and first professor of the theological college of the states of Holland and West Friesland at Leyden. He died at Leyden in 1658, at the age of 72. His works are very numerous; the principal are, “Belgicarum Ecclesiasticarum Doctrina et Ordo,” &c.; “Historia Pontificum Romanorum contracta, et ad Annum 1632 continuata;” “Daventriae illustrate, sive Historiae Urbis Daventriensis,” Lib. vi. 1651, 4to. He also published an improved edition of “The Book of Psalms,” in Dutch verse, by Peter Dathsenus, and he was concerned in revising the Dutch yersion of the Old Testament, which was printed at Leyden in 1637.

, a German statesman, but more known as an accomplished scholar and bibliographer, was born in Hungary Nov. 4, 1737. Among his other diplomatic appointments he resided for some years in London as envoy from the Imperial court, and afterwards in a private capacity. He died at Vienna in August 1793.

With great judgment, and at a considerable expence, he collected a library most rich in scarce, valuable, and beautiful books, and obtained such fame in this department of literature, as to be ranked with the Vallieres, Pinellis, and Lomenies of the day. Of this excellent library, he printed a descriptive catalogue under the title of “Bibliotheca Grseca et Latina, complectens auctores fere omnes Grteciae et Latii veteris, &c. cum delectu editionum turn primariarum, principum, et rarissimarum, quum etiam optima rum, splendidissimarum, atque nitidissimarum, quas usui mei paravi Periergus Deltophilus,” Berlin, 1784, 1794, 8vo. To some of these catalogues were prefixed a letter to M. L. A. D. i. e. Denina, and a preface. Three supplements to this catalogue were afterwards published by him, which are not easily procurable. Although the superlatives in the title smack a little of the dealer, rather than the private gentleman, the count has not exceeded the bounds of truth, and perhaps few men were better qualified to form a collection deserving of such praise. With the boundless zeal, he had also the extensive knowledge of a collector, and understood and spoke readily the principal ancient and modern languages. His frequent removes made him acquainted with every public and private library on the continent; and he never missed an opportunity to add to his collection whatever was most curious and valuable at sales, or booksellers’ shops. This library is now in England, and in the possession of a nobleman who knows its value, and whose own library at present exceeds that of any subject in Europe. When count Revickzky came to London, he made an offer to earl Spenser to dispose of the whole collection to his lordship. What the terms were is variously reported. It seems agreed, however, that it was for a sum of money to be paid immediately, and an annuity, which last the count did not live long to enjoy. The count was himself an author, and published the “Odes of Hafez,” known here by Richardson’s translation; a treatise on Turkish tactics; and an edition of Petronius, Berlin, 1785, 8vo, formed on the editions of Burman and Antonius.

, a German lawyer and mathematician, was born April 19, 1635, at Schleusingen in the county of Henneberg, and was educated at Leipsic and Leyden. He was afterwards appointed preceptor to the young prince of Gotha, then professor of mathematics at Kiel, 1655, and some years after professor of law in the same place, where he died Nov. 22, 1714, being then counsellor to the duke of Saxe Gotha, and member of the Royal Academy of Sciences at Berlin. Reyher translated Euclid’s works into German with algebraical demonstrations, and wrote several works in Latin, among which, that entitled “Mathesis Biblica,” and a very curious Dissertation on the Inscriptions upon our Saviour’s cross and the hour of his crucifixion, are particularly esteemed.

, commonly called Father Reyneau, a noted French mathematician, was born at Brissac, in the province of Anjou, in 1656. At twenty years of age he entered himself in the congregation of the Oratory at Paris, and was soon after sent, by his superiors, to teach philosophy at Pezenas, and then at Toulon. His employment requiring some acquaintance with geometry, he contracted a great affection for this science, which he cultivated and improved to so great an extent, that he was called to Angers in 1683, to fill the mathematical chair; and the academy of Angers elected him a member in 1694.

In this occupation Father Reyneau, not content with making himself master of every thing worth knowing, which the modern analysis, so fruitful in sublime speculations and ingenious discoveries, had already produced, undertook to reduce into one body, for the use of his scholars, the principal theories scattered here and there in Newton, Descartes, Leibnitz, Bernoulli, the Leipsic Acts, the Memoirs of the Paris Academy, and in other works; treasures which by being so widely dispersed, proved much less useful than they otherwise might have been. The fruit of this undertaking, was his “Analyse Demontree,” or Analysis Demonstrated, which he published in 1708, 2 vols. 4to. He gave it the name of “Analysis Demonstrated,” because he demonstrates in it several methods which had not been handled by the authors of them, with sufficient perspicuity and exactness. The book was so well approved, that it soon became a maxim, at least in France, that to follow him was the best, if not the only way, to make any extraordinary progress in the mathematics; and he was considered as the first master, as the Euclid of the sublime geometry.

Reyneau, after thus giving lessons to those who understood something of geometry, thought proper to draw up some for such as were utterly unacquainted with that science. This produced in 1714, a volume in 4to, on calculation, under the title of “Science du Caicul des Grandeurs,” of which the then censor royal, a very intelligent and impartial judge, says, in his approbation of it, that “though several books had already appeared upon the same subject, such a treatise as that before him was still wanting, as in it every thing was handled in a manner sufficiently extensive, and at the same time with all possible exactness and perspicuity.” In fact, though most branches of the mathematics had been well treated of before that period, there were yet no good elements, even of practical geometry. Those who knew no more than what precisely such a book ought to contain, knew too little to complete a good one; and those that knew more, thought themselves probably above the task, for which Reyneau was well qualified. In J 716 he was admitted into the royal academy of sciences of Paris, as what was then called a free associate. The works already mentioned are all he published except a small piece on “Logic.” He left, however, in ms. materials for a second volume of his “Science du Calcul.” He died much regretted, as he had always been highly respected, in 1728, at the age of seventy-two.

, an English prelate of great eminence and talents, the son of Austin Reynolds, one of the customers of Southampton, was born there in November 1599, and educated at the free-school. In 1615 he became post-master of Merton-college, Oxford, and in 3620 probationer-fellow, for which preferment he was indebted to his proficiency in the Greek language, and his talents as a disputant and orator. After he had taken his master’s degree he went into orders, and was made preacher at Lincoln r s-inn, where he acquired much popularity. He also was preferred to the rectory of Braynton in Northamptonshire. Finding himself inclined to acquiesce in the breach that was to be made in the church at least, if not the state, when the rebellion broke out in 1642, he joined the presbyterian party? and in 1643 was nominated one of the assembly of divines, took the covenant, and frequently preached before the long parliament. That he was in their eyes a man of high consideration, appears from their naming him, in September 1646, one of the seven divines authorized by parliament to go to Oxford, and to preach in any church of that city, in lieu of the preachers appointed by the university.

In this mission he and his colleagues were at first interrupted by certain enthusiasts among the soldiers, headed by one Erbury, who maintained that the ordination of these divines was unlawful, and that no ordination was necessary for any man who had gifts. This was a favourite topic in those days, and is not yet exhausted. In the following year he was nominated to the more obnoxious office of one of thevisitors of the university, and in Feb. 1 648 was chosen vice-chancellor, on the recommendation of the earl of Pembroke, then chancellor of the university. ID this last office he was to continue until August 1649. He was also, by a mandate from parliament, which now was supreme in all matters, created D. D. In March 1648 he was appointed dean of Christ church, in the room of Dr. Fell, who was ejected with no common degree of violence, Mrs. Fell and her family being literally dragged out of the deanery house by force. Dr. Reynolds being admitted into office in form, Wood says, “made a polite and accurate oration,” in Latin, in which “he spoke very modestly of himself, and how difficult it Was for a man that had sequestered himself from secular employments to be called to government, especially to sit at the stern in these rough and troublesome times; but since he had subjected himself to those that have authority to command him, he did desire that good example and counsel might prevail more in this reformation than severity and punishments.”

Notwithstanding his acting with his brother-visitors in all the changes and ejectments they brought about in the university, he at length refused the engagement “to be true and faithful to the commonwealth of England, as established without a King and a House of Lords,” and therefore was in his turn ejected from his deanery, in 1651. He lived afterwards mostly in London, and preached there, as vicar of St. Lawrence-Jury. On the prospect of the restoration he joined with general Monk, to bring in the king, using his interest for that purpose in London, where he was the pride and glory of the presbyterian party. Dr. Pierce, in the introduction to his “Divine Purity defended,” says he was a person of great authority as well as fame among the Calvinists.

When the secluded members were admitted again to parliament, they restored him to his deanery of Christchurch, in May 1659. And in May following, 1660, he, with Mr. Edmund Calamy, was made chaplain to his majesty, then at Canterbury. After this he preached several times before the King and both Houses of Parliament; and in the latter end of June, being desired to quit his deanery, he was the next month elected, by virtue of the king’s letter, warden of Merton-college, and was consecrated bishop of Norwich Jan. 6, the same year. Sir Thomas Browne, who knew him well, gives him the character of a person of singular affability, meekness, and humility, of great learning, a frequent preacher, and constant resident. But a more full account of our author is given in a funeral sermon preached at Norwich by the reverend Mr. Riveley, in July 1676, in which his character as a man of piety and learning, and as a divine and prelate, is highly praised. Wood, in his “Athenae,” says he was “a person of excellent parts and endowments, of a very good wit, fancy, and judgment, a great divine, and much esteemed by all parties, for his preaching, and fluid style.” In his “Annals” he is inclined to be less favourable. It was perhaps naturally to be expected that one who had taken so active a part in the revolutionary changes of the times, and yet afterwards accepted a bishopric, should not be much a favourite with either party. Wood also insinuates that Dr. Reynolds was much under the government of his wife, whom he calls “covetous and insatiable,” and concludes in these words: “In this I must commend him, that he hath been a benefactor (though not great) to Merton-college, that gave him all his academical education (for which in some manner the society hath shewed themselves grateful), and 'tis very probable that greater he would have been, if not hindered by his beloved consort.”

Dr. Reynolds assisted at the Savoy conference, and on the first day, according to Neal, spoke much for abatements and moderation, but afterwards sitting among the bishops, he only spoke now and then a qualifying word, but was heartily grieved for the fruitless issue of the conference.“The same author says that he was” prevailed with to accept a bishopric on the terms of the king’s declaration, which never took place.“But another of his biographers says,” His education gave him no prejudice to monarchy or episcopacy; and when a man can advance himself with a good conscience, why may he not leave what interest only had engaged him in? Let them that blame his last turn, justify him, if they can, in the former. He was now submitting to authority, however he had opposed it. Their standing out, and keeping up a schism, when they were put upon nothing but what they owned indifferent, has a worse look than returning from wrong to right," &c. Dr. Reynolds, however, after the government was completely re-established, became a constant resident in his diocese, and mixed no more with affairs of state. He died at the episcopal palace at Norwich Jan. 16, 1676, aged seventy-six. He was buried at the upper end of the chapel (built by himself in 1662) joining to the bishop’s palace in Norwich. Over his grave, soon after his death, was fastened to the wall a marble table, on which his epitaph in Latin was engraven.

His works are, “The Vanity of the Creature,” on Eccies. i. 14. “Sinfulness of Sin,” on Rom. vii. 9, and on vi. 12. “Use of the Law,” on Horn. vii. 13. “Life of Christ,” on 1 John, v. 12. “An Explication of the ex Psalm.” “Meditations on the Holy Sacrament of the Lord’s last Supper.” “Explication of the 14 Chapter of Hosea, in seven Humiliation Sermons.” “A Treatise of the Passions and Faculties of the Soul of Man;” all or most of which having been printed several times in 4to, were collected in one large folio at London in 1658, with the author’s portrait, and went by the name of “Bishop Reynolds’s Works.” They were much bought up, read and recommended by men of several persuasions; and are written in a style superior to the generality of works of divinity in that age. “Thirty Sermons” preached on several occasions, between 1634, and his death, some of which had been printed several times, were reprinted in the second edition of his works, at London, 1679, folio. Among them is his Latin Sermon preached at Oxon. 1649, entitled “Animalis Homo,” on 1 Cor. ii. 14. He also wrote the “Assembly of Divines’ Annotations,” on Ecclesiastes, which were so much admired that many learne'd men of [the presbyterian persuasion, wished that the rest had been all wrote parifilo K. eruditione. He also was the author of the “Epistolary Preface to William Barlee’s Correptory Correction,” c. of some notes of Thomas Pierce concerning God’s decrees, especially of reprobation; which book, with the Epistolary preface, a second of Thomas Whitfield, and a third of Daniel Cawdrey, sometime of Cambridge, were printed at London, 1656, 4to. He is also said to be the author of “The humble Proposals of sundry learned, pious Divines within this Kingdom, concerning the engagement intended to be imposed on them for their subscriptions,” London, 1650, 4to. One sheet was published in December 1649. John Ducy published an answer, entitled “Just Re-proposals to humble Proposals or, an impartial consideration of,” &c. London, 1650, 4to, four sheets. And it is probable that he wrote several other things besides those above-mentioned; particularly his “Meditations on the Fall of Peter,” a short tvrelves, never inserted in any of the folio editions.

Of the family of bishop Reynolds we find mention of his son Edward, who was educated at St. Paul’s school, and a fellow of Magdalen-college, Oxford, archdeacon of Norwich, and prebendary of Worcester. He was also for forty years rector of St. Peter’s Northampton, and died in his sixty-ninth year, June 28, 1698. He was buried in Kingsthorpe chqrch, near Northampton, where is a monument and inscription to his memory. Dr. Knight says, he was “a very able and judicious divine, and a very worthy son of so good a father.” Some notices of two of the bishop’s descendants may be found in Cumberland’s life.

, a late eminent pbysijcian, was born in the county of Nottingham, Sept. 26, 1745; and his father having died about a month before, the care of him devolved on his maternal great-uncle and godfather, Mr. Henry Revell, of Gainsborough; by whom he was sent, at an early age, to a school at Beverley in Yorkshire, then in great repute under the government of Mr. Ward. Having early shewn a disposition for his profession, his uncle placed him, at the age of eighteen, as a commoner at Lincoln college, Oxford. It was in the second year of his residence at this university that he had the misfortune to lose his uncle and benefactor, the memory of whom was ever cherished by him with a pious and grateful affection, and who left him a small landed property in Lincolnshire, by which he was enabled to prosecute the object that he had in view. He continued at Oxford till the early part of 1766, when, in order to the obtaining of his medical degrees sooner, he was admitted, by a benc decessit from Oxford, ad eundem to Trinity college, Cambridge, and he kept a term at that university. In the summer of this year he went to Edinburgh, and resided there two years, and after attending a course of medical studies, returned in 1768 to Cambridge, when the degree of bachelor of physic being conferred upon him, he went to London, and attended as pupil at the Middlesex hospital. The following year he became a resident physician at Guildford; and married Miss Wilson, in the month of April 1770. By the advice, however, of his friend, Dr. Huck, afterwards Dr. Huck Saumders, he settled in London, in Lamb’s Conduit-street, in the summer of 1772. The next year he took the degree of doctor of physic at Cambridge, and was immediately afterwards elected physician to the Middlesex hospital. In 1774 he was chosen a fellow, and at the same time a censor, of tke college of physicians. He soon became the object of particular notice and regard by the eminent physicians of that day, doctors Huck, Fothergill, and sir Richard Jebb; and the high opinion which the latter gentleman had formed of his professional abilities, and personal character and manners, and the consequent expression of that opinion, and recommendation of Dr. Reynolds to his majesty, were the original cause of his being called into attendance upon the king in the memorable period of 1788. In 1776 he was appointed to speak the Harveian oration; and, although, his modesty would not suffer him to print it, it has been thought worthy of being compared with the most classical of these harangues. In the course of it, he exactly described that mode, which he ever observed, of performing the various duties of his profession, and of dispensing its various benefits. In 1777 Dr. Reynolds was elected physician to St. Thomas’s hospital; and from this period his business gradually increased, till, in the progress of a few years, he attained to the highest fame and practice in his profession. In every successive illness of our revered sovereign since 1788, Dr. Reynolds’s attendance on his majesty was always required; and his public examinations before parliament are recorded proofs of his high merits as a physician, a gentleman, and a scholar; while his appointments to the situations of physician extraordinary to the king in 1797, and physician in ordinary in 1806, evince the estimation in which his sovereign held his character and his services. When he was called into attendance at Windsor, he was suffering under a rheumatic affection, which had been oppressing him for some time. The anxiety attached to such an attendance as the illness of his majesty required, had oil this occasion a very powerful, if not a fatal, influence. The first day that he seriously felt the fatigues of mind and body was, after his examination before the House of Lords, the etiquette of this branch of parliament not allowing a witness to sit down, Dr. Reynolds, who, in consequence of his having attended his majesty in all his previous similar illnesses, was examined at greater length than his other brethren were, was kept standing fur two hours, and the riext clay was reluctantly compelled to remain the whole of it in his bed. On the following, however, he returned to Windsor; but from this time his appetite began to fail, and his strength and flesh visibly to diminish. In the month of March, 1811, these symptoms had so much increased, that his friends besought him to retire from his anxious attendance at Windsor, to spare his mind and body entirely, and to devote himself solely to the re-establishment of his own health; but unfortunately for his family, his friends, and the public, he would not be persuaded. While any powers were left, to his majesty’s service he resolved that they should be devoted: and thus he persevered till the 4th of May, when he returned to London extremely ill; and from that day his professional career was stopped. Having been confined to his room for nearly three weeks, he was prevailed upon, by his excellent friends Dr. Latham and Dr. Ainslie, to go to Brighton, where he remained two months. Sometimes during this anxious period he would seem to rally, but the appearances were deceitful; they were the mere struggles of a naturally good constitution, unimpaired by any intemperance, against the inroads of a disease. At the end of the month of July, he returned to his house in Bedford-square, where he lingered Until Oct. 23, on which day he expired, very deeply regretted for his talents, virtues, and professional skill and humanity.

, the most illustrious painter of the English school, was born at Plympton, in Devonshire, July 16, 1723. His ancestors on both sides were clergymen. His father had no adequate provision for the maintenance of his large family, but appears to have liberally encouraged his son’s early attempts in that art, of which he afterwards became so illustrious a professor. When but eight years of age, Joshua had made himself master of a treatise, entitled “The Jesuit’s Perspective,” and increased his love of the art still more, by studying Richardson’s “Treatise on Painting.” In his seventeenth year, he was placed as a pupil under his countryman, Mr. Hudson, whom, in consequence of some disagreement, he left in 1743, and removed to Devonshire for three years, during which, after some waste of time, which he ever lamented, he sat down seriously to the study and practice of his art. The first of his performances, which brought him into notice, was the portrait of captain Hamilton, father of the present marquis of Abercorn, painted in 1746. About this time he appears to have returned to London.

In 1746, by the friendship of captain (afterwards lord) Keppel, he had an opportunity to visit the shores of the Mediterranean, and to pass some time at Rome. The sketch he wrote of his feelings when he first contemplated the works of Raphael in the Vatican, so honourable to his modesty and candour, has been presented to the public by Mr. Malone, and is a present on which every artist must set a high value. He returned to London in 1752, and soon rose to the head of his profession; an honour which did not depend so much on those he eclipsed, as on his retaining that situation for the whole of a long life, by powers unrivalled in his own or any other country. Soon, after his return from Italy, his acquaintance with Dr. Johnson commenced. Mr. Boswell has furnished us with abundant proofs of their mutual esteem and congenial spirit, and Mr. Malone has added the more deliberate opinion of sir Joshua respecting Dr. Johnson, which may be introduced here without impropriety. It reflects indeed as much honour on the writer as on the subject, and was to have formed part of a discourse to the academy, which, from the specimen Mr. Malone has given, it is much to be regretted he did not live to finish.

Speaking of his own discourses, our great artist says, “Whatever merit they have, must be imputed, in a great measure, to the education which I may be said to have had under Dr. Johnson. I do not mean to say, though it certainly would be to the credit of these discourses if I could say it with truth, that he contributed even a single sentiment to them but he qualified my mind to think justly. No man had, like him, the faculty of teaching inferior minds the art of thinking. Perhaps other men might havg equal knowledge, but few were so communicative. His great pleasure was to talk to those who looked up to him. It was here he exhibited his wonderful powers. In mixed company, and frequently in company that ought to have looked up to him, many, thinking they had a character for learning to support, considered it as beneath them to enlist in the train of his auditors and to such persons he certainly did not appear to advantage, being often i tuous and overbearing. The desire of shining in conversation was in him indeed a predominant passion; and if it must be attributed to vanity, let it at the same time be recollected, that it produced that loquaciousness from which his more intimate friends derived considerable advantage. The observations which he made on poetry, on life, and on every thing about us, I applied to our art, with what success others must judge.” This short extract is not unconnected with a conjecture which many entertained, that sir Joshua did not compose his lectures himself. In addition to his own declaration here, as far as respects Dr. Johnson, who was chiefly suspected as having a hand in these lectures, Mr. Northcote, who lived some years in his house, says, in his memoirs, “At the period when it was expected he should have composed them, I have heard him walking at intervals in his room till one or two o'clock in the mjorning, and I have on the following day, at an early hour, seen the papers on the subject of his art which had been written the preceding night. I have had the rude manuscript from himself, in his own hand-writing, in order to make a fair copy from it for him to read in public: I have seen the manuscript also after it had been revised by Dr. Johnson, who has’ sometimes altered it to a wrong meaning, from his total ignorance of the subject and of art; but never, to my knowledge, saw the marks of Burke’s pen in any of the manuscripts. The bishop of Rochester, also, who examined the writings of Mr. Burke since his death, and lately edited a part of them, informed a friend that he could discover no reason to think that Mr. Burke had the least hand in the discourses of Reynolds.” And Burke himself, in a letter to Mr. Malone, after the publication of sir Joshua’s life and works, Says, “I have read over some part of the discourses with an unusual sort of pleasure, partly because being faded a little in my memory, they have a sort of appearance of novelty; partly by reviving recollections mixed with melancholy and satisfaction. The Flemish journal I had never seen before. You trace in that, every where, the spirit of the discourses, supported by new examples. He is always the same man; the same philosophical, the same artist-like critic, the same sagacious observer, with the same minuteness, without the smallest degree of trifling.” We may safely say, this is dot the language of one who had himself contributed much to those discourses. And if neither Johnson nor Burke wrote for Reynolds, to whom else among his contemporaries shall the praise due to those invaluable compositions be given, if Reynolds is to be deprived of it!

In consequence of his connexion with Dr. Johnson, Mr. Reynolds furnished three essays in the Idler, No. 76, on false criticisms on painting, which may be recommended to the serious perusal of many modern connoisseurs; No. 79, on the grand style of painting; and No. 82, on the true idea of beauty; of which Mr. Boswell informs us the last words, “and pollute his canvass with deformity,” were added by Dr. Johnson. These essays have been very properly incorporated with sir Joshua’s works, by Mr. Malone, as they were his first literary attempts, the earnest of those talents which afterwards proved that he was as eminent in the theory as in the practice of his art.

It is much to be lamented, that the world was deprived of this great artist before he had put into execution a plan which his biographer, Mr. Malone says, appears, from some loose papers, to have been revolved in his mind. “I have found,” says that author, “among sir Joshua’s papers, some detached and unconnected thoughts, written occasionally, as hints for a discourse, on a new and singular plan, which he seems to have intended as a history of his mind, so far as concerned his art; and of his progress, studies, and practice; together with a view of the advantages he had enjoyed, and the disadvantages he had laboured under, in the course that he had run: a scheme, from which, however liable it might be to the ridicule of wits and scoffers (of which, he says, he was perfectly aware), he conceived the students might derive some useful documents for the regulation of their own conduct and practice.” Such a composition, from such a man, written after he had spent a long life in successful practice, with none to guide him who had chosen a line of art for himself, stamped with originality; and in which he had to unfold principles, and elucidate them by practice and competent as he was to explain the operations of his own mind could not fail of being interesting and useful in the highest degree.

In 1781, during the summer, he made a tour through Holland and the Netherlands, with a view of examining critically the works of the celebrated masters of the Dutch and Flemish schools. An account of this journey, written by himself, containing much excellent criticism on the works of Ruhens, Vandyke, Rembrandt, &c. in the churches and different collections at Antwerp, Brussels, Ghent, the Dusseldorf gallery, and at Amsterdam, was published after his death; it concludes with a masterly-drawn character of Rubens. In 1783, in consequence of the emperor’s suppression of some religious houses, he again visited Flanders, purchased some pictures by Rubens, and devoted several more days to the contemplation and further investigation of the performances of that great man. On his return, he remarked that his own pictures wanted force and brilliancy, and he appeared, by his subsequent practice, to have benefited by the observations he had made. This year, on the death of Ramsay, he was made principal painter in ordinary to his majesty, and continued so till his death.

For a very long period he had enjoyed an almost uninterrupted state of good health, except that in 1782 he was for a short time afflicted with a paralytic stroke. A fewweeks, however, perfectly restored him, and he suffered no inconvenience from it afterwards. But in July 1789, whilst he was painting the portrait of lady Beauchamp, he found his sight so much affected, that it was with difficulty he could proceed with his work; and notwithstanding every assistance that could be procured, he was in a few months totally deprived of the use of his left eye. After some struggles, he determined, lest his remaining eye should also suffer, to paint no more: and though he was thus deprived of a constant employment and amusement, he retained his usual spirits, and partook of the society of his friends with apparently the same pleasure to which he had been accustomed; and was amused by reading, or hearing others read to him. In October 1791, however, his spirits began to fail him, and he became dejected, from an apprehension that an inflamed tumour, which took place over *he eye that had perished, might occasion the destruction of the other also. Meanwhile he laboured under a more dangerous disease, which deprived him both of his spirits and his appetite. During this period of great affliction to all his friends, his malady was by many supposed to be imaginary, and it was erroneously conceived, that by exertion he might shake it off; for he was wholly unable to explain to the physicians the nature or seat of his disorder. Jt was only about a fortnight before his death that it was found to be in the liver; the inordinate growth of which, as it afterwards appeared, had incommoded all the functions of life. Of this disease, which he bore with great fortitude and patience, he died, after a confinement of three months, at his house in Leicester-square, on Thursday evening, February 23, 1792, at the age of sixty-nine.

In stature, sir Joshua Reynolds was rather under the middle size, of a florid complexion, roundish, blunt features, and a lively pleasing aspect; not corpulent, though somewhat inclined to it; and extremely active. With manners uncommonly polished and agreeable, he possessed a constant flow of spirits, which rendered him at all times a most desirable companion: always ready to be amused, and to contribute to the amusement of others, and anxious to receive information on every subject that presented itself: and though he had been deaf almost from the time of his return from Italy; yet, by the aid of an ear-trumpet, he was enabled to partake of the conversation of his friends with great facility and convenience. On the 3d of March his remains were interred in the crypt of St. Paul’s, near the tomb of sir Christopher Wren, with every honour that could be shewn to worth and genius by an enlightened nation; a great number of the most distinguished persons attending the funeral ceremony, and his pall being supported by three dukes, two marquisses, and five other noblemen.

In many respects, both as a man and a painter, sir Joshua Reynolds cannot be too much studied, praised, and imitated by every one who wishes to attain the like eminence. His incessant industry was never wearied into despondency by miscarriage, nor elated into neglect by success. Either in his painting-room, or wherever else he passed his time, his mind was devoted to the charms of his profession. All nature, and all art, was his academj r and his reflection was ever on the wing, comprehensive, vigorous, discriminating, and retentive. With taste to perceive all* the varieties of the picturesque, judgment to select, and skill to combine what would serve his purpose, few have ever been empowered by nature to do more from the fund of their own genius: and none ever endeavoured more to take advantage of the labours of others. He made a splendid and useful collection, in which no expence wa? spared. His house was filled, to the remotest corners, with casts from the antique statues, pictures, drawings, and prints, by various masters of all the different schools. Those he looked upon as his library, at once objects of amusement, of study, and competition. After his death they were sold by auction, with his unclaimed and unfinished works, and, together, produced the sum of 16,947l. 7s. 6d. The substance of his whole property, accumulated entirely by his pencil, and left behind after a life in which he freely parted with his wealth, amounted to about 80,000l.

His early education was not strictly academic, as he himself regrets; nor to any extent did he ever cultivate the elementary principles of design, but, as portraits were to shape his fortune, facility of composition, or laborious application to the refinements of an outline, were less necessary. Whether he would have been as eminent in historical painting as he was in that department which it was his lot to pursue, would be now an inquiry as useless as unsatisfactory. That his powers were great in whatever way they were employed, will be readily acknowledged; his taste was too refined, and his judgment too correct, to tolerate defects which were not counterbalanced by some advantages; but as his early practice was exclusively devoted to portraits, and as it was the chief employment of his whole life, it cannot remain a subject of choice to what branch of his profession a fair analysis of his merit ought to be referred.

From the first examples of sir Joshua, as well as from his own confession, on seeing the works of Raphael in the Vatican, it would seem evident that the ornamental parts of the art had absorbed his previous studies, and made the deepest impression on his mind. Little, therefore, could be wanting to induce him to pursue that plan of study, which at the same time that it was the most congenial to his feelings, was in the highest degree important to give interest to individual representation. In pursuing his studies when abroad, he embraced the whole field before him: but his time was not spent in collecting or making servile copies, but in contemplating the principles of the great masters, that he might the more effectually do what he has recommended to others, follow them in the road without treading in their steps; and no man ever appropriated to himself with more admirable skill their extensive and varied powers.

The style of portrait-painting by Hudson and Ramsay, who were the only persons of any practice when sir Joshua returned from abroad, was uniformly dry and hard, without any feeling for chiar-oscura, and with little diversity of attitude and expression; the full dress, which the custom of the day prescribed, prescribed also limits to their imaginations, and they never gave themselves the trouble to discriminate between the character of nature, and the character of fashion. Sir Joshua, with a more comprehensive view of his art, shewed how portrait might be generalized, so as to identify the individual man with the dignity of his thinking powers. In dress, he selected and adopted what was most conformable to the character of his subject, without implicitly following the fashion or offending the prejudice which it begets.

His works of the historical kind shew great strength of mind, and leave us to regret that this land of portrait painting had not given him equal opportunity to cultivate it; but, from the want of that habit which practice would have given him, he was used to say that historical effort cost him too much. He better knew what he wanted than possessed a promptitude of giving form and substance to his feelings. His count Ugolino, for pathos and grandeur of design, perhaps yields to no composition that was ever made of that subject; and his Holy Family, when combined with it, will serve to show, at one view, the comprehensiveness and diversity of his genius.

The colouring of sir Joshua, which has been deservedly the subject of the highest admiration and praise, has also been the most familiar topic of animadversion and censure. By the jocose he has been charged with “coming off with flying colours,” but by less indulgent friends, with the more serious accusation of having made experiments at their expense. In the pursuit of excellence, he was certainly not content with the common routine of practice; and, as he thought for himself, so he invented new methods of embodying those thoughts. That he was sometimes unsuccessful cannot be denied; but one failure seems to have had a hundred voices to report it, and in arithmetical proportion to have increased as envy was created by his transcendant superiority. Upon due reflection, however, when the space is considered through which he passed to arrive at the high professional rank he acquired, there can be little doubt that the astonishment will be, not at the many, but the few exceptionable works he produced; and even of these it is no hyperbole to say, that as long as the true principles of art are admired, his “faded pictures” will be found to possess a power of mind which has not often been surpassed even by the best productions of his own time.

an excellent scholar, marshal of the camp, chamberlain to his royal highness the infant duke of Parma, and governor of that citadel, was born atComo in 1709. He acquired distinction in the army and at court, but must have devoted much of his life to literary pursuits. His first publication was a folio volume, printed at Como in 1742, entitled “De suppositis militaribus stipendiis Benedicti Odeschalci, qui pontifex maxiinus anno 1676, Innocentii prsenomine fuit renunciatus.” His next was a volume of poetry, “Musarum Epinicia,” addressed to Louis XV. Parma, 1757; but that which most entitles him to notice was his “Disquisitiones Plinianae, sive de utriusque Flinii patria, scriptis, codicibus, editionibus, atque interpretibus,” Parma, 1763, 2 vols. fol. Of this Ernesti speaks very highly in his edition of.Fabricius’s Bibl. Latina. Brunet mentions some “Academical Discourses” in Italian, published by count Rezzonico in 1772, 8vo. He died March 16, 1785. His son, the Count Gastone Della Torre Rezzonico, was born in Parma about 1740. He was early initiated into science and polite literature; and so considerable were his attainments, that in his earliest youth he was chosen fellow of the poetical academy in Rome, known under the name of Arcadia. The reigning duke of Parma havingerected in his metropolis an academy of fine arts, count Rezzonico was appointed its president; but, by some vicissitudes, was utterly disgraced at court, and deprived, not only of the place of president of the academy, but even of that of hereditary chamberlain. He was therefore obliged to leave Parma. He first undertook long tours through Europe, especially in France and England, during which he became completely master of both languages; and at his return to Italy he fixed his residence in Rome, though he often made long excursions to Naples and Florence. Availing himself of his ample leisure, he wrote several works in prose and poetry, the former of no great merit, but from his poetical works he deserves to be placed among the best Italian poets of his age. He was distinguished by liveliness of imagery, propriety of diction, exactness of epithet, and by a nobleness of expression acquired by deep study of the Greek and Latin classics. His versification, however, was something harsh, and the meaning of some phrases obscure. He died in 1795, fifty-five years of age. He was highly esteemed by the Italian nobility, and men of letters, for the elegance of his manners and the eloquence of his conversation. These qualities were, however, in the opinion of some, obscured by an immoderate self-love, and an irrational predilection for his own works. A complete collection of his poetical works in two volumes was printed at Parma by the celebrated Bodoni.

, called also Albubecar Mohamed, one of the most distinguished of the Arabian physicians, was born at Rei, in the province of Chorosan, about the year 852. He was first much addicted to music, and is said not to have studied medicine until he was thirty years of age, when he removed to Bagdad, became indefatigable in his application, and having obtained the highest reputation, was selected out of a hundred eminent physicians, who were then resident at Bagdad, to superintend the celebrated hospital of that city. His biographers speak of him as the Galen of the Arabians; and from his long life and constant practice, during which he paid the most assiduous attention to the varieties of disease, he obtained the appellation of the experimenter, or the experienced. He was said also to be profoundly skilled in all the sciences, especially in philosophy, astronomy, and music. He travelled much in pursuit of knowledge, and made frequent journies into Persia, his native country, and was much consulted by several princes, particularly by Almanzor, the chief of Chorasan, with whom he frequently corresponded, and to whom he dedicated several of his writings. Two hundred and twenty-six treatises are said to have been composed by Rhazes, among which the ten books addressed to his patron Almanzor, were designed as a complete body of physic, and may be deemed the great magazine of all the Arabian medicine; the ninth book, indeed, which treats of the cure of diseases, was in such general estimation for several centuries, that it was the text-book of the public schools, and was commented upon by the most learned professors. Yet, like the rest of the Arabian writings, it contains very little more than the substance of the works of the Greeks, from whom the Arabians borrowed almost all their medical knowledge. They have, indeed, and Rhazes in particular, given the first distinct account of the small-pox; and Rhazes wrote also the first treatise ever composed respecting the diseases of children. His book on the affections of the joints contains an account of some remarkable cures, effected chiefly by copious blood-letting. He describes the symptoms of hydrophobia very well; and also some diseases peculiar to eastern countries, and first noticed the disease called spina ventosa. Rhazes had the reputation of being a skilful alchemist; and is the first, as Dr. Freind has shewn, who mentions the use of chemical preparations in medicine. He has a chapter on the qualifications of a physician; and a singular tract on quacks and impostors, who appear to have been at least as numerous, and ingenious in their contrivances as in more recent times.

, a very eminent scholar and editor, was born, in 1485, at Schelestat, a town of Alsace. The name of his family was Bilde; that of Rhenanus had been adopted by his father, who had considerable property at Rhenac, his native place. His mother died in his infancy, and his father, who never married again, bestowed his whole attention for some years on his education. After some instruction in his own country, he was sent to Paris, where he studied Greek, rhetoric, and poetry, under the best masters. He then pursued his studies for some years at Strasburgh, and afterwards at Basil, where he contracted an intimacy with Erasmus that lasted during their lives, accompanied with mutual respect and friendship. In 1520, he returned to Scheiestat, in his thirty-fifth year, just in time to take leave of his father, who died the day after his arrival.

Dupin remarks, that Rhenanus was one of those learned men, who embrace no particular profession, and whose only business it is to cultivate the sciences, and their only ambition to become benefactors to the republic of letters. Rhenanus was so much disposed to this kind of life, that he obtained from Charles V. an exemption from all employment of a public nature. He had even no thoughts of marriage until near the end of his life, nor was that made public, as soon after he found himself attacked by the disorder which at last proved fatal. His physicians prescribed the waters of Baden, in Swisserland, but finding his disorder increase, he returned to Strasburgh, where he died, May 20, 1547, in his sixty-second year. He made no will but a verbal one. He left his library to his native place, Schelestat. He was a man of extraordinary mildness of temper, an enemy to contests, and of singular modesty and probity. Although, by his intimacy with Erasmus, and some of the early reformers, he was enabled to see many of the errors of the church of Rome, he adhered to her communion to the last: he said and wrote enough, however, to be classed with some protestant writers on their side. Beza, who is one of those, attempts to distinguish the share he had in encouraging the efforts of the reformers, with that more general fame he derived from his services to literature, and joins cordially in the praises bestowed on his talents and amiable disposition. One only objection is mentioned by most of his biographers, and that is his parsimony, of which, however, no very clear proof is afforded, except a pun upon his name, “Beatus est beatus, attamen sibi.”

His works are, l. a very valuable edition of “Tertulliani Opera,” Basil, 1521, fol. from original Mss. Dupin speaks highly of the notes and prefaces, as well as of the author of them. 2. “Auctores historic Ecclesiasticae,” viz. Eusebius, Pamphilus, Nicephorus, Theodoret, &c. Basil, 1523, 1535, and Paris, 1541, 2 vols. fol. 3. “S. Basil. Sermo de differentia Usiaa et Hypostasis,” Paris, 1513, fol. 4. “Synopsis de laudibus Calvitii cum scholiis,” Basil, 1519, 4to, 1521 and 1551, 8vo, added also at the end of Erasmus’s “Moriae Encomium.” 5. “S. Gregorii Nanzianzeni oratio et Epistolae duae ad Themistium,” Paris, 1513,. fol. 6. “A Latin translation of the works of Origen,” which Erasmus left unfinished, and was completed by our author, at Basil, 1536, fol. with a preface addressed to Herman, archbishop of Cologne, containing a life of Erasmus. This last he also incorporated in the dedication to Charles V. of the edition of Erasmus’s works, printed at Basil in 1540. 7. “Maximus Tyrius,” Basil, 1519, fol. with Paccius’s translation, and a preface and corrections by Rhenanus. 8. “Baptista Guarinus de modo et ordine docendi ac discendi,” Strasburgh, 1514, 8vo. 9. “Marcelli Virgilii de militias laudibus,” &c. Basil, 1518, 4to. 10. “Luu. Bigi opusculorum metricorum libri, et Pontii Paulini carmen lambicum,” Strasburgh, 15C9, 4to. 11. “Thorns Mori epigrammata Latina, pleraque e Graecis versa, ad emendatum ipsius exemplar excusa,” Basil, 1520.

, a celebrated oriental scholar, was born at Mulheim, in Westphalia, Aug. 15, 1654. After studying at the college of Meurs, a city in the duchy of Cleves, and travelling for some time, he accepted an invitation to become rector of the Latin college in the city of Franeker; but resigned it in 1680, and removed to Amsterdam, where he was employed in the capacity of tutor, and enjoyed, at the same time, a favourable opportunity for conversing with learned rabbis, and improving his knowledge of rabbinical learning. In 1683 he was appointed professor of the oriental languages and philosophy at the university of Franeker; and remained in this office nearly thirty years, during which he was thrice chosen rector of the university. He died Nov. 7, 1712, in the 59th year of his age. His learning was extensive; but most profound in the Hebrew, including the Rabbinical, the Chaldee, and Syriac languages. Among his works may be mentioned, 1. “De Antiquitate Characters hodierni Judaici,” 1696, 4to, in which he endeavoured to establish the claim of the present Hebrew characters to the highest antiquity, and to prove that the Samaritan characters were borrowed from the Hebrews;“2.” Comparatio Expiationis anniversariae Pontificis maximi in Vet. Test, cum unica atque aeterna Expiationis Christi Domini,“1696. 3.” Investigatio Prsefectorum et Ministrorum Synagogae,“1700, 4to. 4.” Dissertationum Theologico-philologicarum de Stylo Novi Testament! Syntagma, quo continentur Olearii, Cocceii, &c. de hoc genere Libelli,“&c. 1701, 4to. 5.” Arabarcha, seu, Ethnarcha Judaeorum,“1702, 4to. 6.” De Statuis et Aris, f'alsis verisque DeietHominum Internunciis,“in illustration of Exod. xx. 23, 24, 1705, 4to. 7.” Observationum selectarum ad Loca Hebraea Nov. Test, partes sive Disput. Tres,“1705, 4to, &c. He also left unfinished, but partly printed, a work, entitled” Rudimenta Grammatical Harmonicas Linguarum Orientalium, Hebrceae, Chaldaicae, Syriaca3, et Arabicse."

, a celebrated German astronomer and mathematician, was born at Feldkirk in Tyrol, February 15, 1514. After imbibing the elements of the mathematics at Zurick with Oswald Mycone, he went to Wittemberg, where he diligently cultivated that science, and was made master of philosophy in 1535, and professor in 1537. He quitted this situation, however, two years after, and went to Fruenburg to profit by the instructions of the celebrated Copernicus, who had then acquired great fame. Rheticus assisted this astronomer for some years, and constantly exhorted him to perfect his work “De Revolutionibus,” which he published after the death of Copernicus, viz. in 1543, folio, atNorimberg, together with an illustration of the same, dedicated to Schoner. Here too, to render astronomical calculations more accurate, he began his very elaborate canon of sines, tangents and secants, to 15 places of figures, and to every 10 seconds of the quadrant, a design which he did not live quite to complete. The canon of sines however to that radius, for every 10 seconds, and for every single second in the first and last degree of the quadrant, computed by him, was published in folio at Francfort, 1613, by Pitiscus, who himself added a few of the first sines computed to 22 places of figures. But the larger work, or canon of sines, tangents, and secants, to every 10 seconds, was perfected and published after his death, viz. in 1596, by his disciple Valentine Otho, mathematician to the electoral prince palatine; a particular account and analysis of which work may be seen in the Historical Introduction to Dr. Button’s Logarithms.

After the death of Copernicus, Rheticus returned to Wittemberg, viz. in 1541 or 1542, and was again admitted to his office of professor of mathematics. The same year, by the recommendation of Melancthon, he went to Norimberg, where he found certain manuscripts of Werner and Regiomontanus. He afterwards taught mathematics at Leipsic. From Saxony he departed a second time, for what reason is not known, and went to Poland; and from thence to Cassovia in Hungary, where he died December 4, 1576, near sixty-three years of age.

His “Narratio de Libris Revolutionum Copernici,” was first published at Dantzick in 1540, 4to; and afterwards added to the editions of Copernicus’s work. He composed and published “Ephemerides,” according to the doctrine of Copernicus, till 1551, and projected other works, and partly executed them, though they were never published, of various kinds, astronomical, astrological, geographical, chemical, &c. All these are mentioned in his letter to Peter Ramus in the year 1568, which Adrian Romanus inserted in the preface to the first part of his Idea of Mathematics.

, by Scaliger named the Varro of the age, was a learned Italian, whose proper name was Ludovico Celio Richeri. He was born at Rovigo' about 1450, and studied at Ferrara and Padua, and France. On his return to Italy, he filled the office of public professor at Rovigo for some years, but in 1503 opened a school at Vicenza, where he continued till 1508, when he was in* vited to Ferrara by duke Alfonzo I. In the year 1515, Francis I. nominated him to the chair of Greek and Latin eloquence in Milan, as successor to Demetrius Chalcondylas. In 1521 he returned to Padua, and in 1523 he was deputed from his native place to Venice, to congratulate the new doge. In 1525 he died of grief, on account of the defeat and capture of Francis at the battle of Pavia. His principal work is entitled “Antiques Lectiones,” of which he published sixteen books at Venice, in 1516, fol. and fourteen more were added after his death in the editions of Basil, 1566, and Francforr, 1666. Vossius expresses his wonder, and even indignation, that so learned a miscellany was so little known.

, a learned German, was born in 1546, at Sassowerf, belonging to the counts of Stolberg in Upper Saxony, who, induced by an early display of talents, bore the expence of his education at the college of Ilfield. He continued there six years; and made so great a progress in literature, that he was thought fit to teach in the most eminent schools and the most flourishing universities. He was especially skilled in the Greek tongue, and composed some Greek verses, which were much admired, but Scaliger did not think him equally happy in Latin poetry. He was very successful in a Latin translation of “Diodorus Siculus,” which Henry Stephens prevailed on him to undertake; and it was published in 1604, with Stephens^ text. He translated also into Latin the Greek poem of Quintus Calaber, concerning the taking of Troy; and added some corrections to it. At last, he was appointed professor of history in the university of Wittemberg, and died there in 1606. His other works were, 1. “Historia vitae & doctrincE Martini Lutheri carmine heroico descripta.” 2. “Descriptio Historian Ecclesiae, sive popult Dei, Politiae ejusdem, & rerum praecipuarum quae in illopopulo acciderum, Graeco carmine, cum versione Latina e regione textus Graeci,” Francof. 1581, 8vo. 3. “Poesis Christiana, id est, Palestine seu Historic sacra? Grseco-Latinae libri 9,” Marpnrgi, 15S9; Francof. 1590, 1630, 4to. 4. “Tabulae Etymologice Grseca?,” Francof. 1590, Svq. 5. “Memnonis Historia de Republica Heracliensium, & rebus Ponticis Eclogoe seu excerptae & abbreviates narrationes in Sermonem Latinum translatae,” Helmstadii, 1591, 4to. 6. “Epithalamia sacra,” Jenae, 1594, 4to. 7. “Ex Memnone, de Tyrannis Heracleae Ponticas Ctesia & Agatharchide excerptae Historiac Greece & Latine partim ex Laur. Rhodomani interpretatione,” Geneva, 1593, 8vo. 8. “Theologiae Christianæ tyrocinia, carmine heroico Græco-Latino in 5 libros digesta,” Lips. 1597, 8vo.

, ao eminent scholar, was born at Stolpe in Pomerania, on the 2d of January, 1723. His parents, being in good circumstances, and of the better order of the burgesses, destined him, from his early years, for the church. After receiving some instruction in the school of Stolpe, in the principles of his mother-tongue, he was sent first to Schlave, and afterwards to Koenigsberg, for education in the classical languages, the usual course of which studies he finished at the age of twenty-two. With some difficulty he then obtained his parents’ consent to repair to Gottingen, and study Greek under Matthew Gesner, at that time the great ornament of that university. On. his way to Gottingen, he passed through Berlin, and went to visit the Saxon university of Wittemberg. There he was so much pleased with the lectures and conversation of J. D. Kutter, professor of history and civil law, and of J. W. Berger, professor of oratory and antiquities, that he persuaded his parents to allow him to continue his studies for some time at Wittemberg, before he should proceed to Gottingen. He remained with these professors two years, and, under their auspices, took a degree in laws. He went then to perfect his knowledge of Greek, not with Gesnerat Gottingen, as he intended, but under the celebrated Hemsterhuis of Leyden. Hemsterhuis received this ingenuous youth with great kindness, gave him the readiest assistance in his favourite studies, recommended him to good employment as a tutor, and at length used every means to secure his appointment to a professorship in the university in which, he himself taught. Rhunken applied with great zeal to Greek and Roman literature, and at the same time made himself highly acceptable by the gentleness of his manners, the liveliness of his conversation, and by his taste and skill in the favourite amusements of the place.

His first printed display of critical Greek erudition, was in an epistle upon certain Greek commentaries on the title in the Digest De Advocatis et Procuratoribus. He gave next, at Hemsterhuis’s persuasion, an edition of the Greek Lexicon of Timseus, for the illustration of words and phrases peculiar to Plato. This was published in 1754, 8vo. Next year he went to Paris, with a view chiefly to inspect th libraries of that city and their manuscript treasures. Here he formed an acquaintance with Dr. S. Musgrave and Mr. T. Tyrwhitt, who was then examining some of the Mss., particularly those of Euripides. During a year’s residence in that metropolis, Rhunken passed most of his time in the king’s library, and in that of the Benedictines of St, Germain’s, transcribed a number of unprinted remains of ancient literature, and collated many manuscripts and rare editions of the most popular classical authors. In October 1757 he was appointed reader in Greek literature, and thus became assistant to Hernsterhuis in the university of Leyden, and upon the death of Oeudendorp, professor of Latin oratory and history, he was advanced to the vacant chair of that eminent scholar. In 1763, he married Marianne Heirmans, a young lady of uncommon beauty and accomplishments, the daughter of a gentleman who had long resided as Dutch consul at Leghorn.

In the course of his studies he discovered in Aldus’s collection of the “Rhetores Graeci,” a valuable fragment, unknown to modern scholars, of the treatise of Longinuson the Sublime, which was, by his favour, afterwards published in Toup’s excellent edition of that work. On the death of his old master Hemsterhuis, he did justice to his memory in an elaborate eulogy, from which our account of Hemsterhuis was taken. He soon after published an excellent edition of the rhetorical treatise of Rutilius Lupus, and in 1779, a most valuable edition of Velleius Paterculus. Next year he gratified the learned world with the Hymns of Homer. One of his last labours was the superintending a new edition of Scheller’s Latin dictionary. With all these studies, as well as his professional engagements, he found leisure to attend to the pleasures of the chase, of which he was very fond. He died May 14, 1798, in the 76th year of his age. He left a niece and a daughter totally unprovided for, but the government of Batavia purchased his library for a pension granted to them. This library was rich in scarce books, and valuable transcripts from other collections.

Whyttembach, whom we have followed in this sketch, draws the character of Rhunkenius at some length. His knowledge and his learning are unquestioned. In other respects he was lively, cheerful, and gay, almost to criminal indifference, but he knew his own value and consequence. He said once to Villoison, “Why did not you come to Leyden to attend Valckenaer and me?” He once showed, with pride, a chest of Mss. of Joseph Scaliger to a Swede called Biornsthall “Ah” said Biornsthall, “this is a man who wants judgment,” alluding to his epitaph, but playing a little too severely on the equivoque. Rhunkenius grew angry, and replied with warmth, “Be gone with your ignorance” “aufer te hinc cum tuo stupore.” A German professor, to whom he showed the same collection, observed, “We now write in Germany in our own language, and cannot comprehend the obstinacy of those who continue to write in Latin.” “Professor,” replied Rhunkenius, “look then for a library of German books,” refusing to show him any thing more.

, a celebrated Spanish Jesuit, was born at Toledo, in 1527, and was enrolled by St. Ignatius among his favourite disciples in 1540, before the society of the Jesuits had received the papal sanction. In 1542 he studied at Paris, and afterwards at Padua, where he was sent to Palermo to teach rhetoric. After many,' and long travels for the propagation of the interests of the society in various parts of Europe, he died at Madrid, Oct. 1, 1611. One of his visits was with the duke of Feria to England, in 1558, and his inquiries here, or what he made subsequently, encouraged him to publish a treatise “On the English schism,” 1594, 8vo, in which, it is said, there is less rancour and acrimony than might have been expected, and some curious anecdotes respecting the personal character of queen Mary. He is, however, chiefly known for his Lives of various Saints and Jesuits, and as the founder of that biography of the Jesuits which Alegambe and others afterwards improved into a work of some importance. One of his principal lives, published separately, is that of the founder, St. Ignatius de Loyola. Of this work there have been several editions, the first in 1572, and the second with additions in 1587, in neither of which he ascribes any miracles to his master, and is so far from supposing any, that he enters into an inquiry, whence it could happen that so holy a man had not the gift of miracles bestowed upon him, and really assigns very sensible reasons. But notwithstanding all this, in an abridged edition of his life of Ignatius, published at Ipres in 1612, miracles are ascribed to Ignatius, and Ribadeneira is made to assign, as his reason for not inserting such accounts before, that though he heard of them in 1572, they were not sufficiently authenticated. Bishop Douglas, who is inclined to blame Ribadeneira for this insufficient apology, has omitted to notice that this Ipres edition of the life was published a year after Ribadeneira’s death, and therefore it is barely possible that the miracles, and all that is said about them, might have been supplied by some zealous brother of the order. His “Lives of the Saints” were translated into English, and published in 2 vols. 8vo.

, a learned French writer, was bora at Toulouse, March 25, 1741, and entered into the congregation of the Christian doctrine, and became a distinguished professor in it. He quitted the society after some years, and took up his residence at Paris, where he employed himself in instructing youth, and in literary pursuits. He was celebrated for his deep knowledge in the Greek language, and engaged in the great task of translating the whole works of Plutarch. Between the years 1783 and 1795 he published his version of that philosopher’s moral works, in 17 vols. 12mo; of the Lives he only published 4 vols. 12mo. He published likewise a poem, entitled <c La Sphere," in eight cantos, 1796, 8vo, which contains a system of astronomy and geography, enriched with notes, and notices of Greek, Latin, and French poems, treating on astronomical subjects. Ricard died in 1803, lamented as a man of most friendly and benevolent disposition.

, an English traveller, was the tenth son of sir Peter Ricaut, probably a mer* chant in London, and the author of some useful works, who was one of the persons excepted in the “Propositions of the Lords and Commons,” assembled in parliament, “for a safe and well-grounded peace, July 11, 1646, sent to Charles I. at Newcastle.” He also paid o.1500 for his composition, and taking part with his unhappy sovereign. His son Paul was born in London, and admitted scholar of Trinity college, Cambridge, in 1647, where he took his bachelor’s degree^ in 1650. After this he travelled many years, not only in Europe, but also in Asia and Africa; and was employed in some public services. In 1661, when the earl of Winchelsea was sent ambassador extraordinary to the Ottoman Porte, he went as his secretary; and while he continued in that station, which was eight years, he wrote “The present State of the Ottoman Empire, in three books; containing the Maxims of the Turkish Politic, their Religion, and Military Discipline,” illustrated with figures, and printed at London, 1670, in folio, and 1675 in 8vo, and translated into French by Bespier, with notes, and anittoadversions on some mistakes. During the same time, he had occasion to take two voyages from Constantinople to London; one of them was by land, through Hungary, where he remained some time in the Turkish camp with the famous vizier, Kuperlee, on business relating to England. In 1663 he published the “Capitulations, articles of peace,” &C; concluded between England and the Porte^ which were very much to our mercantile advantage, one article being that English ships should be free from search or visit under pretence of foreign goods, a point never secured in any former treaty. After having meritoriously discharged his office of secretary to lord Winchelsea, he was made consul for the English nation at Smyrna; and during his residence there, at the command of Charles II. composed “The present State of the Greek and Armenian Churchesjanno Christi 1678,” which, upon his return to England, he presented with his own hands to his majesty; and it was published in 1679, 8vo. Having acquitted himself, for the space of eleven years, to the entire satisfaction of the Turkey company, he obtained leave to return to England, where he lived in honour and good esteem; The earl of Clarendon > being appointed lord lieutenant of Ireland in 1685, made him his principal secretary for the provinces of Leinster and Connaught; and James II. knighted him, constituted him one of the privy council for Ireland, and judge of the high court of admiralty* which he enjoyed till the revolution in 1688, Soon after this, he was employed by king William as his resident with the Hanse-towns in Lower Saxony, namely, Hamburg, Lubeck, and Bremen; where he continued for ten years, and gave the utmost satisfaction. At length, worn out with age and infirmities, he had leave in 1700 to return to England, where he died, Dec. 16 of that year. He was fellow of the Royal Society for many years before his decease; and a paper of his, upon the “Sable Mice,” or “Mures Norwegici,” is published in the Philosophical Transactions. He understood perfectly the Greek, both ancient and modern, the Turkish, Latin, Italian, and French languages.

He was the author of other productions^ besides those already mentioned. He wrote a continuation of Knolles’s “History of the Turks,” from 1623 to 1677, 1680, in folio; and again from 1679 to 1699, 1700, in folio, making, together with Knolles’s, three volumes. He was, from his great knowledge of Turkish affairs, better qualified than any other person for this work, but he is inferior to Knolles in historical merit. He continued Platina’s “Lives of the Popes,” from 1471 to his own time, and translated from the Spanish of Garcilasso de la Vega, into English, “The Royal Commentaries of Peru, in two parts,” folio and “The Spanish Critic,” 1681, 8vo, from Gratian.

, an able mathematician, was born in 1707 at Castel Franco, in the territory of Treviso, and in 1726 entered among the Jesuits, and taught mathematics at Bologna, till the suppression of his order in 1773. At this period he returned to his native place, and died there of a cholic, in 1775, aged sixty-eight, leaving some good mathematical works among others, a large treatise on the “Integral Calculus,” 3 vols. 4to. He had been much employed in hydraulics, and such was the importance of his services in this branch, that the republic of Venice ordered a gold medal, worth a thousand livres, to be struck in honour of him, in 1774.

, a celebrated Jesuit, was born Oct. 6, 1552, of a good family at Macerata. He went to the Indies, finished his theological studies at Goa, taught rhetoric there, and being in the mean time appointed missionary to China, learnt the language of that country, nor did he neglect mathematics, which he had studied at Rome under the learned Clavius. After many troubles and difficulties, he arrived at Pekin, where he was esteemed by the emperor, the mandarins, and all the learned, acquired great reputation, drew a map for the Chinese, and was permitted to preach the Christian religion. He purchased a house at Pekin, where he built a church, and died there, in 1610, aged fifty-eight, leaving some very curious memoirs respecting China, which father Frigualt has made use of in writing his history of that vast empire. Father d'Orleans, a Jesuit, who published a “Life of Ricci,” in 1693, 12mo, says, that this father drew up a short catechism for the Chinese, in which he introduced scarcely any but such points of morality and religion as are most conformable to Christianity. These words of father d‘Orleans, says L’Avocat, have furnished the enemies of the Jesuits, with abundant matter for critical reflections.

, a learned Italian ecclesiastic, was born at Rome in 1619. He was created a cardinal in 1681, but did not long enjoy that dignity, as he died in 1633, at the age of sixty-four. He was well skilled in the pure mathematical sciences, and published at Rome, in 4to, “Exercitatio Geometrica,” a small tract, which was reprinted at London, and annexed to Mercator’s “Logarithmotechnia,” chiefly on account of the excellency of the argument “de maximis et minimis,” or the doctrine of limits; where the author shows a deep judgment in exhibiting the means of reducing that lately discovered doctrine to pure geometry.

, an artist of temporary fame, was born at Belluno, near Trevisano, in 1659; and having discovered an early genius for painting, was conducted by his father to Venice, and placed as a disciple with Fred. Cervelli, a Milanese artist of good reputation, with whom he studied for nine years. He afterwards improved his practice at Bologna, &c. by copying, and obtained the favour and patronage of Rannuccio, the second duke of Parma. By the liberality of that prince, he was honourably maintained at Rome, studying the productions of the best ancient and modern masters; and there he formed that manner which distinguishes his productions, and for a while raised him into the highest esteem. Having quitted Rome, he returned to Venice, where he was so eagerly solicited for his paintings, that he had scarcely time to take even necessary refreshment. His fame spread through Europe, and he received an invitation to the court of the emperor at Vienna, to adorn the magnificent palace of Schoenbrun. From thence he was encouraged to visit London, where he was immediately and incessantly employed by the court, the nobility, and persons of fortune. Here he remained ten years, with his nephew and coadjutor, IVfarco Ricci, who painted skilfully scenes of architecture and landscape at Burlington house and Bulstrode. He acquired great wealth by the immense occupation he found; and then returned to Venice, where he remained until his death, in 1734, in the seventy-fifth year of his. age.

Ricci was one of the few, comparatively speaking, who enjoy during their lives the utmost extent of their fame. In his history, that portion of renown which attaches to him died with him, or nearly so. In fact, he w*s a machinist, one who, being conversant in the rules of art, and skilful in the application of the means, dazzled where he could not instruct, anJ deluded by ingenuity without judgment, and art without expression. His works are to be found in many of our great houses, as well as those of his nephew. At Chelsea, where he painted the altar-piece, and at the British Museum, there are considerable pictures of his painting, but they do not rise in esteem by continued observation; and yet, unfortunately, they had sufficient influence in their day to lead the artists astray from the contemplation and imitation of the works of Raphael, and the greater masters of the Italian school. Walpole informs us that Sebastian excelled particularly in imitations of Paul Veronese, many of which he sold for originals; and once deceived even La Fosse. When the latter was convinced of the imposition, he gave this severe but just reprimand to Sebastian: “For the future take my advice; paint nothing but Paul Veroneses, and no more Riccis.” Lord Orford adds that Ricci left England on finding it determined “that sir James Thqrnhill should paint the cupola, of St. Paul’s.”

, a learned Italian astronomer, philosopher, and mathematician, was born in 1598, at Ferrara, a city in Italy, in the dominions of the pope. At sixteen years of age he was admitted into the society of the Jesuits, and the progress he made in every branch of literature and science was surprising. He was first appointed to teach rhetoric, poetry, philosophy, and scholastic divinity, in the Jesuits’ colleges at Parma and Bologna; yet applied himself in the mean time to making observations in geography, chronology, and astronomy. This was his natural bent, and at length he obtained leave from his superiors to quit all other employment, that he might devote himself entirely to those sciences.

He projected a large work, to be divided into three parts, and to contain a complete system of philosophical, mathematical, and astronomical, knowledge. The first of these parts, which regards astronomy, came out at Bologna in 1651, 2 vols. folio, with this title, “J. B. Riccioli Almagestum Novum, Astronomiam veterem novamque compleotens, observationibus aliorum et propriis, novisque theorematibus, problematibus ac tabulis promotam.” Riccioli imitated Ptolemy in this work, by collecting and digesting into proper order, with observations, every thing ancient and modern, which related to his subject; so that Gassendus very justly called his work, “Promptuarium et thesaurum ingentem Astronomiae.” In the first volume of this work, he treats of the sphere of the world, of the sun and moon, with their eclipses; of the fixed stars, of the planets, of the comets, and new stars., of the several mundane systems, and six sections of general problems serving to astronomy, &c. In the second volume, he treats of trigonometry, or the doctrine of plane and spherical triangles; proposes to give a treatise of astronomical instruments, and the optical part of astronomy (which part was never published); treats of geography, hydrography, with an epitome of chronology. The third comprehends observations of the sun, moon, eclipses, fixed stars, and planets, with precepts and tables of the primary and secondary motions, and other astronomical tables. Riccioli printed also, two other works, in folio, at Bologna, viz. 2. “Astronomia Reformata,” 1665; the design of which was, that of considering the various hypotheses of several astronomers, and the difficulty thence arising of concluding any thing certain, by comparing together all the best observations, and examining what is most certain in them, thence to reform the principles of astronomy. 3. “Chronologia Reformata,” 1665. Riccioli died in 1671, at seventy-three years of age.

, a comic actor and writer, born at Modena in 1674, came to France in 1716, and distinguished himself as the best actor at the Theatre Italien. Religious motives induced him to quit the stage in 1729; and he died in 1753, much esteemed for the decency of his manners, and his amiable disposition. He was the anthor of a number of comedies, which had a temporary success, and which contain much comic humour. One of them, entitled “Les Coquets,” was revived a few years since. He also wrote “Pensées sur la Declamation” “Discours sur la Reformation du Theatre” “Observations sur la Comedie et sur le Genie de Moliere” “Rer flexions Historiques et Critiques sur les Theatres de l'jEurope;” and “Histoire du Theatre Italien,” 2 vols. 8vo, which, with his “Reflections Historical and Critical upon all the Theatres of Europe/' which appeared in 17J8, contains many judicious observations relative to the stage in general, and to the lyric theatre in particular. His second wife, Marie Laboras de Meziekes, was also an actress on the Italian theatre, which she quitted with her husband; but her writings are novels, the scenes of which sne frequently laid in England. They are all of the sentimental cast. She also translated Fielding’s” Amelia." Her works were printed collectively in 10 volumes, Neufchatel, 12mo, and Paris, 9 vols. 12 mo, and some of her novels have been translated into English. She died Dec. 6, 17,92, reduced by the troubles of the time to a state approaching to want; and soon after a new edition of her works, with a life, appeared in 18 vols. 12mo.

, abbot of St. Victor in the twelfth century, was a native of Scotland. After such education as his country afforded, in polite literature, the sacred scriptures, and mathematics, which we are told were the objects of his early studies, he went, as was much the custom then, to Paris, Here the fame of Hugh, abbot of St. Victor, induced him to retire into that monastery, that he might pursue his theological studies under so great a master. At the regular periods he took the habit, was admitted into holy orders, and so much acquired the esteem of his brethren, that in 1164, upon the death of Hugh, they unanimously chose him their prior, in which station he remained until his death, March 10, 1173. During this time he composed many treatises on subjects of practical divinity, and on scripture criticism, particularly on the description of Solomon’s temple, Ezekiel’s temple, and on the apparent contradictions in the books of Kings and Chronicles, respecting the reigns of the kings of Judah and Israel. Dupin speaks rather favourably of these treatises. They were all published at Paris in 1518, and 1540, in 2 vols. folio, at Venice in 1592, at Cologne in 1621, and at Rouen in 1650, which is reckoned the best edition.

, called Anglicus, was an English physician, who flourished about 1230. He is said to have studied first at Oxford, and then at Paris, and attained a high degree of eminence in his profession. Tanner gives a list of his works, none of which appear to have been published. Some of his Mss. are in the New college library, Oxford.

, archbishop of Armagh in the fourteenth century, called sometimes Armaciianus, and sometimes Fitz Ralph, which was his family name, is supposed to have been born in Devonshire, or, according to Harris, at Dunda'k, in the county of Louth. He was educated partly at University, and partly at Balliol, college, Oxford, under the tuition of John Baconthorp, whom we have already noticed as an eminent scholar of that age. He made great progress in philosophy, divinity, and civil law, and became so great a philosopher and logician, “and in both sorts of theology so famed, that the whole university ran to his lectures as bees to their hive.” He commenced doctor of divinity at Oxford, and in 1333 was commissary-general of that university, whence some authors have called him chancellor; but, according to Collier, the office he held was only somewhat superior to that of vice-chancellor. His first church promotion was to the chancellorship of the church of Lincoln, in July 1334; he was next made archdeacon of Chester in 1336, and dean of Lichfield in April 1337. These, or some f them, he owed to the favour of Edward III. to whom he was recommended as well deserving his patronage.

While at Oxford he had distinguished himself by his opposition to the mendicant friars, whose affectation of poverty, and other superstitions and irregularities, he exposed in his lectures. They were therefore not a little alarmed when, in 1347, he was advanced to the archbishopric of Armagh; and with some reason; for, when about ten years afterwards, he returned to England, and found the contest very warm concerning preaching, hearing confessions, and other points, in which the friars encroached on the jurisdiction of the parochial priests, he preached several sermons, the substance of which was; that in cai>es of confession the parish church is to be preferred to the church of the friars; that for confession the parishioners ought rather to apply to the parson or curate than to a friar; that notwithstanding our Lord Jesus Christ was poor, when he conversed on earth, yet it does not appear that he affected poverty; that he did never beg, nor make profession of voluntary poverty; that he never taught people to make a choice and profession of beggary; that on the contrary, he held that men ought not to beg by inclination, nor without being forced to it by necessity; that there is neither sense nor religion in vowing voluntary and perpetual beggary; that it is not agreeable to the rule of Observant or Friars Minorites, to be under engagements of voluntary poverty, &c. &c. The friars were so enraged at these propositions, which certainly shew considerable freedom of sentiment, that they procured him to be cited before pope Innocent VI. at Avignon, where he defended his opinions with great firmness, and maintained them, although with no little danger from the malice of his opponents, to the end of his life. The age, honwer, was not prepared to listen to him, and the pope decided in favour of the friars.

He died Nov. 16, 1360, at Avignon, not without suspicion of poison. Fox says that a certain cardinal, hearing of his death, declared openly, that a mighty pillar of Christ’s church was fallen. He was unquestionably a man. of great talents and sound judgment. Perhaps his best panegyric is his being ranked, by some catholic writers, among heretics. Archbishop Bramhall had so great an opinion of him, that in returning from a visitation by Dundalk, he made inquiry where he was buried, and determined to erect a monument to his memory, which it is supposed his death, which happened soon after, prevented. Richard’s body was brought over by Stephen de Valle, bishop of Meath, about 1370, and interred at Dundalk, where sir Thomas Ryves says there was a monument visible, although much defaced, in 1624.

His printed works are 1. “Sermonesquatuor, ad crucem Londinensem,” &c. Paris, 1612. 2. “Defensio curatorum adversus fratres mendicantes,” Paris, 1496. This was the substance of the defence of his principles at Avignon. Bale mentions the New Testament translated into Irish by Armachanus, which was found in the wall of his cathedral in 1530; but Fox, in his Martyrology, asserts that the whole Bible was translated into Irish by him, and preserved in the sixteenth century; and archbishop Usher says that there were several fragments of this translation in Ireland, in his time. Bale, &c. mention several Mss. left by him.

, an English historian, so named from his birth-place, flourished in the fourteenth century. No (races of his family or connections can be discovered, but they appear to have been such as to afford him a liberal education. In 13 50 “he entered into the Benedictine monastery of St. Peter, Westminster, and his name occurs in various documents of that establishment in 1387, 1397, and 1399. He devoted his leisure hours to the study of British and Anglo-Saxon history and antiquities, in which he made such proficiency, that he is said to have been honoured with the name of the Historiographer. Pits informs us, without specifying his authority, that Richard visited different libraries and ecclesiastical establishments in England, in order to collect materials. It is at least certain that he obtained a licence to visit Rome, from his abbot, William of Colchester, in 1391, and there can be little doubt that a man of his curiosity would improve his knowledge on such an occasion. He is supposed to Have performed this journey in the interval between 1391 and 1397, for he appears to have been confined in the abbey infirmary in 1401, and died in that or the following year. His works are,” Historia ab Hengista ad ann. 1348,“in two parts. The first contains the period from the coming of the Saxons to the death of Harold, and is preserved in the public library of Cambridge. Whitaker, the historian of Manchester, speaks of this as evincing very little knowledge or judgment; the second part is probably a ms. in the library of the Royal Society, p. 137, with the title of” Britonum Anglorum et Saxonurn Historia.“In the library of Bene't college, Cambridge, is” Epitome Chronic. Ric. Cor. West. Lib. I.“Other works of our author are supposed to be preserved in the Lambeth library, and at Oxford. His theological writings were,” Tractatus super Symbolum Majus et Minus,“and” Liber de Officiis Ecclesiasticis,“in the Peterborough library. But the treatise to which he owes his celebrity, is that on the ancient state of Great Britain,” De situ Britanniae,“first discovered by Charles Julius Bertram, professor of the English language in the royal marine academy at Copenhagen, who transmitted to Dr. Stukeley a transcript of the whole in letters, together with a copy of the map. From this transcript Stukeley published an analysis of the work, with the itinerary, first in a thin quarto, 1757, and afterwards in the second volume of his ” Itinerarium Curiosum.“In the same year the original itself was published by professor Bertram at Copenhagen, in a small octavo volume, with the remains of Gildas and Nennius, under the title” Britannicarum gentium Historiae Antiquæ scriptores tres, Ricardns Corinensis, Gildas Badonicus, Nennius Banchorensis, &c.“This work has long been scarce, and in very few libraries; but in 1809, a new edition, with an English translation, &c. was published at London. To this the editor, Mr. Hatchard, has prefixed an account of Richard’s life, from which we have extracted the above particulars, and an able defence of his merit and fidelity as a historian, against the objections of certain writers. Among these we observe that Gibbon cannot be reckoned, for he says that Richard of Cirencester” shews a genuine knowledge of antiquity, very extraordinary for a monk of the fourteenth century.“This useful and accurate republication is entitled” The Description of Britain, translated from Richard of Cirencester; with the original treatise de situ Britanniæ; and a commentary on the Itinerary; illustrated with maps," 8vo.

, John, a learned Irish prelate, was a native of Chester, but a doctor of divinity of the university of Dublin. Of his early life we have no particulars, except that he was appointed preacher to the state in 1601. He succeeded to the see of Ardagh, on the resignation of bishop Bedell, and was consecrated in 1633 by archbishop Usher. He held the archdeaconry of Derry, the rectory of Ardstra, and the vicarage of Granard in commendam for about a year after his promotion to Ardagh. In 1641, being in dread of the rebellion which broke out in October of that year, he removed to England, and died in London. August 11, 1654. He had the character of a man of profound learning, well versed in the scriptures, and skilled in sacred chronology. His works are, a “Sermon of the doctrine of Justification,” preached at Dublin Jan. 23, 1624, Dublin, 1625, 4to; and “Choice Observations and Explanations upon the Old Testament,” 1655, folio. These observations, which extend to all the books of the Old Testament, seem intended as a supplement to the “Assembly’s Annotations,” in which he wrote the annotations on Ezekiel; and they were prepared for publication by him some time before his death, at the express desire of archbishop Usher, with whom he appears to have long lived in intimacy.

, Jonathan, a painter, and a writer on the art of painting, was born about 1665. He was intended by his father-in-law, apprentice to a scrivener, with whom he lived six years, but by the death of his master, was enabled to follow the bent of his inclination for painting. He then became the disciple of Riley, with whom he lived four years, and finally connected himself by marrying his niece. The degree of skill which he attained, by no means corresponded with the ideas he entertained of the art, which were certainly of a just and elevated kind. There are, however, great strength, roundness, and boldness in the colouring of his heads, which are drawn and marked in the manner of Kneller, with freedom and firmness; though the attitudes in which they and his figures are placed, the draperies which clothe the latter, and the back-grounds from which they are relieved, are insipid and tasteless. It is certainly a very curious circumstance, that, when he wrote with so much fire and judgment, dived so deep into the inexhaustible stores of Raphael, and was so smitten with the native lustre of Vandyke, he should so ill apply to his own practice the sagacious rules and hints he gave to others. Full of theory, profound in reflections on the art, and possessed of a numerous and excellent collection of drawings, he appears to have possessed no portion of invention, as applicable to the painter’s art, and drew nothing well below the head; plainly manifesting the peculiarity of taste or feeling which leads to excellence in that profession.

Thus much, however, must be said of him, that when Kneller and Dahl were dead, he stood at the head of the portrait-painters in this country, and practised in it sufficiently long to acquire a tolerable competency. He quitted his occupation some years before his death, when Hudson, who had married one of his daughters, maintained the family honours for a while. Richardson himself, by temperance and tranquillity of mind, enjoyed a life, protracted amidst the blessings of domestic friendship, to the advanced age of eighty, and then died, May 23, 1745, respected and lamented. He had had, a short time previously, a paralytic stroke that affected his arm, yet never disabled him from taking his customary walks and exercise;-iind it was after having been in St. James’s park, he died suddenly, at his house in Queen-square, on his return home.

He had a son, with whom he lived in great harmony; as appears by the joint works they composed. The father, in 1719, published two discourses; 1. “An Essay on the whole art of Criticism as it relates to Painting.” 2. “An Argument in behalf of the Science of a Connoisseur.” In 1722, came out “An Account of some Statues, Bas-reliefs, Drawings, and Pictures, in Italy, &e.” The son made the journey; and, from his observations and letters, they both at his return compiled this valuable work. In 1734, they published a thick octavo of “Explanatory Notes and Remarks on Milton’s Paradise Lost, with the Life of the Author.” In apology for this last performance, and for not being very conversant in classic literature, the father said, “that he had looked into them through his son.” Hogarth, whom a quibble could furnish with wit, drew him peeping through the nether end of a telescope, with which his son was perforated, at a Virgil aloft on a shelf; but Hogarth, it is but justice to add, destroyed the plate upon due reflection, and recalled the prints, as far as he coukL The sale of his collection of drawings, in Feb. 1747, lasted eighteen days, and produced about 2060l. his pictures about 700l. Mr. Hudson, his son-in-law, bought in many of the drawings.

Besides the works published in conjunction with his father, there was published in 1776, five years after the son’s death, “Richarclsoniana; or, occasional Reflections on the Moral Nature of Man; suggested by various authors, an* cient and modern, and exemplified from those authors, with several anecdotes interspersed, by the late Jonathan Richardson, jun. esq. Vol.1.” an amusing work, although there are some opinions in it which are not altogether free from censure. He did not love to contemplate the bright side of human nature and actions. Besides this work, there appeared about the same time an 8vo volume of “Poems” by Jonathan Richardson, senior, with notes by his son, They are chiefly moral and religious meditations, but not greatly inspired by the Muse. The son, it remains to be added, never painted otherwise than for his amusement. He died in 1771, aged seventy-seven.

, a man of letters, was originally of Hexham in Northumberland; and was entered of St. John’s college, Cambridge, in 1774. Dr. Ferris, the present dean of Battle, and Dr. Pearce, now dean of Ely, were his tutors at the university. Under the superintendance of those two excellent scholars, he acquired sound learning and a correct taste. He possessed, indeed, an excellent understanding, and a sort of intuitive knowledge of mankind. He distinguished himself at college by the elegance, beauty, and vigour, of his prose and poetical compositions; a love of the Muses very early in life took possession of his mind, and often interfered with the laborious duties of his studies. He entered himself a student of the Middle Temple in 1779, and was called to the bar in 1784. But literary pursuits and political connections took up too much of his time to admit of his pursuing, with sufficient diligence, the study of the law; otherwise, it is highly probable that he would have become a distinguished ornament of the bar. The chief works in which he was publicly known to have taken a part were in those celebrated political satires, “The Rolliad,” and the “Probationary Odes,” in the composition of which his talents were conspicuous. He wrote also the comedy of “The Fugi* live,” which was honoured by a considerable share of applause, both on the stage and in the closet. In private life so happily was the suavity of his temper blended with the vigour of his understanding, that he was esteemed by his adversaries in political principles, as well as by a very large circle of private friends. He was brought into parliament by the duke of Northumberland, in whose friendship he held a distinguished place, and by whose loan of 2000l. (which the duke has given up to his family) he was enabled to become proprietor of a fourth part of Drury-Iane theatre. He was suddenly taken ill on June 8, 1803, and died next day, leaving a widow and four daughters, to lament the loss of their affectionate protector. He was interred in Egham churchyard.

, a celebrated writer of novels, or, as his have been called, moral romance’s, was born in 1689, in Derbyshire, but in what part of that county has not been ascertained. His father descended of a family of middling note in the county of Surrey, and his business was that of a joiner. He intended his son Samuel for the church, but from losses in business-, was unable to support the expence of a learned education, and all our author received was at the grammar school. It appears from his own statement that he had a love for letter-writing, that he was a general favourite of the ladies, and fond of their company, and that when no more than thirteen, three young women, unknown to each other, revealed to him their love secrets, in order to induce him to give them copies to write after, or correct, for answers to their lovers* letters. In this employment some readers may think they can trace the future inventor of the love secrets of Pamela and Clarissa, and letter-writing certainly grew into a habit with him.

In 1706 he was bound apprentice to Mr. John Wilde, a printer of some eminence in his day; whom, though a severe task-master, he served diligently for seven years. He afterwards worked as a journeyman and corrector of the press for about six years, when he, in 1719, took up his freedom, and commenced business on his own account, in a court in Fleet-street; and filled up his leisure hours in compiling indexes for the booksellers, and writing prefaces, and what he calls “honest dedications.” Dissimilar as their geniuses may seem, when the witty and wicked duke of Wharton (a kind of Lovelace), about 1723, fomented the spirit of opposition in the city, and became a member of the Waxchandlers’ company, Mr. Richardson, though his political principles were very different, was much connected with, and favoured by him, and for some little time was the printer of his “True Briton,” published twice a week. He so far exercised his judgment, however, in peremptorily refusing to be concerned in such papers as he apprehended might endanger his safety, that he stopt at the end of the sixth number, which was possibly his own production*. He printed for some time a newspaper called “The Daily Journal;” and afterwards “The Daily Gazetteer.” Through the interest of his friend Mr. Speaker Onslow, he printed the first edition of the “Journals of the House of Commons,” of which he completed 26 volumes. Mr. Onslow

Payne, the publisher, for Numbers 3, was found guilty; and Mr. Richardson

branch of the legislature, but mani- in future still more cautions festly tended to make the constitution had a high esteem for him; and not only might, but actually would, have promoted him to some honourable and profitable station at court; but Mr. Richardson, whose business was extensive and profitable, neither desired nor, would accept of such a favour.

His “Pamela,” the first work that procured him a name as a writer, was published in 1741, and arose out of a scheme proposed to him by two reputable booksellers, Mr. Rivington and Mr. Osborne, of writing a volume of “Familiar Letters to and from several persons upon business and other subjects;” which he performed with great readiness; and in the progress of it was soon led to expand his thoughts in* the two volumes of the “History of Pamela,” which appear to have been written in less than three months. Never was a book read with more avidity, for these two volumes went through five editions in one year. It was even recommended from the pulpit, particularly by Dr. Slocock, of Christ church, Surrey, although its defects as to moral tendency are now universally acknowledged to be so obvious, that the wonder is, it ever obtained the approbation of men of any reflection. For this it undoubtedly was indebted to the novelty of the plan, as well as to many individual passages of great beauty, and many interesting traits of character. Its imperfections, however, were not totally undiscovered even during its popularity. The indelicate scenes could not escape observation; and his late biographer, who has given an excellent criticism on the work, informs us that Dr. Watts, to whom Richardson sent the volumes, instead of compliments, writes to him, that “he understands the ladies complain they cannot read them without blushing.” Other inconsistencies in the history of Pamela were admirably ridiculed by Fielding in his “Joseph Andrews,” an injury which Richardson never forgave, and in his correspondence with his flattering friends, predicted that Fielding would soon be no more heard of Fielding, whose popularity has outlived Richardson’s by nearly half a century!

The success of Pamela occasioned a spurious continuation of it, called “Pamela in high Life; and on this the author prepared to give a second part, which appeared in two volumes, greatly inferior to the first. They are, as Mrs. Barbauld justly observes, superfluous, for the plan was already completed, and they are dull; for, instead of incident and passion, thev are filled with heavy sentiment, in diction far from elegant. A great part of it aims to palliate, by counter-criticism, the faults which Lad been found in the first part; awd it is less a continuation, than the author’s defence of himself. But if Richardson sunk in this second part, it was only to rise with new lustre in his” Clarissa," the first two volumes of which were published eight years after the preceding. This is unquestionably the production upon which the fame of Richardson is principally founded; and although it has lost much of its original popularity, owing to the change in the taste of novel-readers, wherever it is read it will appear a noble monument of the author’s genius. This will be allowed, even by those who can easily perceive that it has many blemishes. These have been pointed out, with just discrimination, by his biographer. Clarissa was much admired on the continent. The abbe Prevost gave a version of it into French; but rather an abridgment than a translation. It was afterwards rendered more faithfully by Le Tournetir; and was also translated into Dutch by Mr. Stinstra; and into German under the auspices of the celebrated Dr. Haller.

By these works, and by his business, which was very prosperous, Mr. Richardson gradually improved his fortune. In 1755, he was engaging in building, both in. Salisbury court, Fleet-street, and at Parson’s-green near Fulhara, where he fitted up a house. In 1760, he purchased a moiety of the patent of Law-printer, and carried on that department of business in partnership with Miss Catherine Lintot, afterwards the wife of Henry Fletcher, esq. M. P. for Westmoreland.

By many family misfortunes, and his own writings, which in a manner realized every feigned distress, his nerves naturally weak, or, as Pope expresses it, “tremblingly alive all o'er,” were so unhinged, that for many years before his death his hand shook, he had frequent vertigoes, and would sometimes have fallen, had he not supported himself by his cane under his coat. His paralytic disorder affected his nerves to such a degree, for a considerable time before his death, that he could not lift a glass of wine to his mouth without assistance. This disorder at length terminating in an apoplexy, deprived the world of this amiable man, and truly original genius, on July 4, 1761, at the age of seventy-two. He was buried, by his own direction, with his first wife, in the middle aile, near the pulpit of St. Bride’s church. His picture was painted by Mr. High more, whence a mezzotinto has been taken.

His first wife was Martha Wilde, daughter of Mr. Ailington Wilde, printer, in Clerkenwell, by whom he had five sons and a daughter, who all died young. His second wife (who survived him many years) was Elizabeth sister of Mr. Leake, bookseller, of Bath. By her he had a son and five daughters. The son died young; but four of the daughters survived him; viz. Mary, married in 1757 to Mr. Ditcher, an eminent surgeon of Bath; Martha, married in 1762 to Edward Bridgen, esq. F. R. and A. Ss.; Anne, unmarried; and Sarah, married to Mr. Crowther, surgeon of Boswell-court. All these, are now dead.

Mr. Richardson was a plain man, who seldom exhibited his talents in mixed company. He heard the sentiments of others with attention, but seldom gave his own; rather desirous of gaining friendship by his modesty than his parts. Besides his being a great genius, he was truly a good man in all respects; in his family, in commerce, in conversation, and in every instance of conduct. He was pious, virtuous, exemplary, benevolent, friendly, generous, and humane, to an uncommon degree; glad of every opportunity of doing good offices to his fellow -creatures in distress, and relieving many without their knowledge. His chief delight was doing good. He was highly revered and beloved by his domestics for his happy temper and discreet conduct. He had great tenderness towards his wife and children, and great condescension towards his servants. He was always very sedulous in business, and almost always employed in it; and dispatched a great deal by the prudence of his management. His turn of temper led him to improve his fortune with mechanical assiduity; and having no violent passions, nor any desire of being triflingly distinguished from others, he at last became rich, and left his family in easy independence, though his house and table, both in town and country, were ever open to his numerous friends.

Besides his three great works, his “Pamela, Clarissa, and Grandison,” he published, 1. “The Negotiation of Sir Thomas Roe, in his Embassy to the Ottoman Porte, from 1621 to 1628 inclusive,” &c. 1740, folio, inscribed to the King in a short dedication, which does honour to the ingenious writer. 2. An edition of “^sop’s Fables, with Reflections.” And, 3. A volume of “Familiar Letters to and from several persons upon business, and other subjects.” He had also a share in “The Christian Magazine, by Dr. James Mauclerc, 1748;” and in the additions to the sixth edition of De Foe’s “Tour through Great Britain.” “Six original Letters upon Duelling” were printed after his death, in “The Literary Repository, 1765,” p. 227. A letter of his to Mr. Duncombe is in the “Letters of eminent Persons, 1733,” vol. III. p. 71; and some verses in the “Anecdotes of Bowyer,” p. 160. Mr. Richardson also published a large single sheet, relative to the married state, entitled “The Duties of Wives to Husbands;” and was under the disagreeable necessity of publishing “The Case of Samuel Richardson of London, Printer, on the Invasion of his Property in the History of Sir Charles Grandison, before publication, by certain Booksellers in Dublin,” which bears date Sept. 14, 1753. “A Collection of the moral sentences in Pamela, Clarissa, and Grandison,” was printed in 1755, 12mo.

No. 97, vol. II. of the “Rambler,” it is well known, was written by Mr. Richardson in the preamble to which Dr. Johnson styles him “an author from whom the age has received greater favours, who has enlarged the knowledge of human nature, and taught the passions to move at the command of virtue.” In 1804, was published “The Correspondence of Samuel Richardson,” in six volumes octavo. The best consequence of the design of publishing this collection of letters, is the excellent life and criticism on his works by Mrs. Barbauld. As to the letters, every real admirer of Richardson must peruse them with regret. Such a display of human weakness has seldom been permitted to sully the reputation of any man.

In our last edition some testimonies of a different kind to the merits and memory of Richardson were given. Of these we may still retain the sentiments of Mr. Sherlock, the celebrated English traveller, who observes, “The greatest effort of genius that perhaps was ever made was, forming the plan of Clarissa Harlowe.” “Richardson is not yet arrived at the fulness of his glory.” “Richardson is admirable for every species of delicacy; for delicacy of wit, sentiment, language, action, every thing.” “His genius was immense. His misfortune was, that he did not know the ancients. Had he but been acquainted with one single principle, l Omne supervacuum pleno de pectore manat,' (all superfluities tire); he would not have satiated his reader as he has done. There might be made out of Clarissa and Sir Charles Grandison Two works, which would be both the most entertaining, and the most useful, that ever were written. His views were grand. His soul was noble, and his heart was excellent. He formed a plan that embraced all human nature. His object was to benefit mankind. His knowledge of the world shewed him, that happiness was to be attained by man only in proportion as he practised virtue. His good sense then shewed him, that no practical system of morality existed; and the same good sense told him, that nothing but a body of morality, put into action, could work with efficacy on the minds of youth.”

Dr. Johnson, in his preface to Rowe observes, “The character of Lothario seems to have been expanded by Richardson into Lovelace; but he has excelled his original in the moral effect of the fiction. Lothario, with gaiety which cannot be hated, and bravery which cannot be despised, retains too much of the spectator’s kindness. It was in the power of Richardson alone to teach us at once esteem and detestation; to make virtuous resentment overpower all the benevolence which wit, and -elegance, and courage, naturally excite; and to lose at last the hero in the villain.”

, a learned English divine, was the son of the rev. Samuel Richardson, B. D. vicar of Wilshamstead near Bedford, by Elizabeth, daughter of the rev. Samuel Bentham, rector of Knebworth and Paul’s Walden, in Hertfordshire. His grandfather was the rev. John Richardson, a nonconformist, who was ejected, in 1662, from the living of St Michael’s, Stamford, in Lincolnshire, and died in 1687. He was born at Wilshamstead, July 23, 1698, and educated partly in the school of Oakham, and partly in that of Westminster. In March 1716 he was admitted of Emanuel college, Cambridge, of which he afterwards was a scholar, and took his degrees of A. B. in 1719, and A. M. in 1723. In the mean time, in September 1720 he was ordained deacon by Gibson, bishop of Lincoln, at St. Peter’s, Cornhill, London, and priest, by the same, at Buckden, in Sept. 1722. He was then appointed curate of St. Olave’s Southwark, which he held until 1726, when the parish chose him their lecturer. About this time he married Anne, the widow of capt. David Durell, the daughter of William Howe, of an ancient family of the county of Chester. He published in 1727, 2 vols. 8vo, the “Priclectiones Ecclesiastical' of his learned uncle John Richardson, B. D. author of a masterly” Vindication of the Canon of the New Testament," against Toland. In 1724 he was collated to the prebend of Welton-Rivall, in the church of Lincoln.

In 1730 he published “The Usefulness and Necessity of Revelation; in four Sermons preached at St. Olave’s Southwark,” 8vo; and, in 1733, “Relative Holiness, a Sermon preached at the consecration of the parish church of St. John’s Southwark.” He next undertook, at the request of the bishops Gibson and Potter, to publish a new edition of “Godwin de Prassulibus.” On this he returned to Cambridge in 1734, for the convenience of the libraries and more easy communication with his learned contemporaries; and in 1735 proceeded D. D. After the death of Dr. Savage, he was chosen unanimously, and without his knowledge, master of Emanuel college, Aug. 10, 1736; a rare and almost unprecedented compliment to a man of letters, for he had never been fellow of the college. He served the office of vice-chancellor in 1738, and again in 1769. In 1746 he was appointed one of his majesty’s chaplains, which he resigned in 1768. In 1743 he published at Cambridge his new edition of Godwin, in a splendid folio volume, with a continuation of the lives of the bishops to the time of publication; a work of unquestionable utility and accuracy. He was named in the will of archbishop Potter for an option, on condition that he cancelled a leaf of this work, relating to archbishop Tenison’s lukewarmness in the matter of the Prussian liturgy and bishops. Accordingly a new leaf was printed and sent to all the subscribers; “but,” in Mr. Cole’s opinion, “rather confirming the fact than disproving it.” Both the original and the substitute may be seen in the supplement to the old edition of the “Biographia Britannica,” art. Grabe, note, p. 78. The option, however, was not so easily obtained. It was the precentorship of Lincoln, and was contested by archbishop Potter’s chaplain, Dr. Chapman. The lord- keeper Henley gave it in favour of Chapman, but Dr. Richardson appealing to the House of Lords, the decree was unanimously reversed, and Dr. Richardson admitted into the precentorship in 1760. This affair appears to have been considered of importance. Warburton writes on it to his correspondent Hurd in approving terms. “I would not omit to give you the early news (in two words) that Dr. Richardson is come off victorious in the appeal. The precentorship of Lincoln is decreed for him; the keeper’s decree reversed with costs of suit. Lord Mansfield spoke admirably. It has been three days in trying.” Burn has inserted a full account of this cause in his “Ecclesiastical Law.”

Dr. Richardson died March 15, 1775, at his lodgings at Emanuel college, at the age of seventy-seven, after a lingering decay, and was buried in the college chapel, in the same vault with his wife, who died March 21, 1759.

He was many years an honour to the Society of Antiquaries, and left in ms. some valuable collections relative to the constitution of the university; many biographical anecdotes preparatory to an “Athense Cantabrigienses,” which he once intended to publish, and an accurate alphabet in his own writing of all the graduates of the university from 1500 to 1735 inclusive. He printed also a sermon preached before the House of Commons in 1764.

His only son, Robert Richardson, D. D. F. R. S. and S. A. was prebendary of Lincoln, rector of St. Anne’s Westminster, and of Wallington in Hertfordshire, which last was given to him by sir Joseph Yorke, with whom he resided as chaplain many years at the Hague. Whilst in that employment, the papers on both sides, previous to the trial of the great cause, Douglas against Hamilton, being sent over to his excellency, Dr. Richardson, for his own curiosity, digested them, and drew up the state of the question, which was printed in 4to for private distribution, and so well approved by the gentlemen of the bar, that it was put into the hands of the counsel for the party he espoused as their brief; of which perhaps there never was a similar instance. He had the honour to see the opinion he supported confirmed by the House of Peers. After the trial he was offered 400l. in the handsomest manner, but declined accepting it. He died Sept. 27, 1781, at his house in Dean-street, Soho, in his fiftieth year. He printed only two occasional sermons.

, a French writer, and noted as the first who published a dictionary almost entirely satirical, was born at Cheminon in Champagne, in 1631. He was the friend of Patru and d'Ablancourt; and, like them, applied himself to the study of the French language with success. He composed a dictionary full of new and useful remarks, which would have been more acceptable if it had not been also full of satirical reflections and indecencies; but these were expunged in the latter editions. It was first published at Geneva, 1680, in one vol. 4to; but, after the death of the author, which happened in 1698, enlarged with a great number of new articles to 2 vols. folio, as is the edition of Lyons in 1721. Another edition, 3 vols. folio, was published at Lyons in 1727; and a very neat one in 2 vols. 4to, at Amsterdam in 1732; and, lastly, in 3 vols. folio, at Lyons, 1759 1763, by the abbe Gouget. The abridgment of it by Galtel, 1797 and 1803, 2 vols. 8vo, is now in most demand in France.

, a celebrated cardinal and minister of France, was the third son of Francis du Plessis, seigneur de Richelieu, knight of the king’s orders, and grand provost of France, and was born Sept. 5, 1585, at Paris. He was admitted into the Sorbonne at the age of twenty-two, obtained a dispensation from pope Paul V. for the bishopric of Lucon, and was consecrated at Rome in 1607. On his return, he acquired considerable interest at court, and was appointed by Mary de Medicis, then regent, her grand almoner; and in 1616 was raised to the post of secretary of state. After the death of one of his friends, the marshal D'Ancre, in 1617, when Mary was banished to Blois, he followed her thither; but, the duke de Luynes becoming jealous of him, he was ordered to retire to Avignon, and there he wrote his “Method of Controversy,” on the principal points of faith.

In 1619 the king recalled Richelieu, and sent him into Angouleme, where he persuaded the queen to a reconciliation, which was concluded in 1620; and in consequence of this treaty, the duke de Luynes obtained a cardinal’s hat for him from pope Gregory XV. Richelieu, continuing his services after the duke’s decease, was admitted, in 1624, into the council, through the interest of the queen, and almost against the will of the king, who, devout and scrupulous, considered him as a knave, because he had been informed of his gallantries. It is even said that he was insolent enough to aspire to queen Anne of Austria, and that the railleries to which this subjected him were the cause of his subsequent aversion to her. Cardinal Richelieu was afterwards appointed prime minister, head of the councils, high steward, chief, and superintendant-generai of the French trade and navigation. He preserved the Isle of Rhe in 1627, and undertook the siege of Rochelle against the protestants the same year. He completed the conquest of Rochelle in October 1628, in spite of the king of Spain, who had withdrawn his forces, of the king of England, who could not relieve it, and of the French king, who grew daily more weary of the undertaking, by means of that famous mole, executed by his orders, but planned by Lewis Metezeau and John Tiriot. The capture of Rochelle proved a mortal blow to the protestants, but in France was reckoned the most glorious and beneficial circumstance of cardinal Richelieu’s administration. He also attended his majesty to the relief of the duke of Mantua in 1629, raised the siege of Casal, and, at his return, compelled the protestants to accept the treaty of peace which had been concluded at Alais, and completed the ruin of their party. Six months after this, cardinal Richelieu, having procured himself to be appointed lieutenant-general of the army beyond the mountains, took Pignerol, relieved Casal a second time, which was besieged by the marquis Spinola, defeated general Doria, by means of the duke de Monttnorenci at Vegliana, July 10, 1630, and made himself master of all Savoy. Louis XIII. having returned to Lyons, in consequence of sickness, the queenmother, and most of the nobility, took advantage of this circumstance to form plots against Richelieu, and speak ill of his conduct to the king, which they did with so much success, that Louis promised the queen to discard him. The cardinal’s ruin now seemed inevitable, and he was actually preparing to set out for Havre-de Grace, which he had chosen for his retreat, when cardinal de la Valette, knowing that the queen had not followed her son to Versailles, advised him first to see his majesty. In this interview, he immediately cleared himself from all the accusations of his enemies, justified his conduct, displayed the advantages and necessity of his administration, and wrought so forcibly upon the king’s mind by his reasoning, that, instead of being discarded, he became from that moment more powerful than ever. He inflicted the same punishments upon his enemies which they had advised for him; and this day, so fortunate for Richelieu, was called “The Day of Dupes.” Those who had the misfortune to incur his displeasure, certainly did not all deserve the penalties to which he doomed them; but he knew how to make himself master of their fate, by appointing such judges to try them as were at his disposal. That abominable method of taking the accused from their lawful judges, had, in the preceding century, served as a means for the families of condemned persons to get their characters restored; after which the French had no reason to fear its revival; but Richelieu hesitated not to adopt it, though at the risque of general odium, as being favourable to his designs. By thus making himself master of the lives and fortunes of the mal-contents, he imposed silence even on their murmurs. This artful minister, being now secure of his lasting ascendancy over the king, and having already accomplished one of the two great objects which he had proposed to himself from the beginning of his administration, which were, the destruction of the protestants, and the humbling the too great power of the house of Austria, began now to contrive means for executing this second undertaking. The principal and most efficacious method employed by the cardinal with that view, was a treaty he concluded, January 23, 1631, with Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden, for currying the war into the heart of Germany. He also formed a league with the duke of Bavaria, secured to himself Lorrain, raised part of the German princes against the emperor, treated with Holland to continue the war wirh Spain, favoured the Catalonians and Portuguese when they shook off the Spanish yoke, and, in short, made use of so many measures and stratagems, that he completely accomplished his design. Cardinal Richelieu was carrying on the war with success, and meditating on that glorious peace, which was not concluded till 1648, when h died in his palace at Paris, worn out by his long toils, December 4,“1642, aged fifty-eight. He was buried at the Sorbonne, where his mausoleum (the celebrated Girardon’s master-piece) may be seen. He is considered as one of the most complete statesmen, and ablest politicians, that France ever had. Amidst all the anxieties which the fear of his enemies must necessarily occasion, he formed the most extensive and complicated plans, and executed them with great superiority of genius. It was cardinal Richelieu who established the throne, while yet shaken by the protestant factions, and the power of the House of Austria, and made the royal authority completely absolute, and independent, by the extinction of the petty tyrants who wasted the kingdom. In the mean time he omitted nothing which could contribute to the glory of France. He promoted arts and sciences; founded the botanical garden at Paris called the king’s garden; also the French academy, and the royal printing-office; built the palace since called the Palais Royal, and gave it to his majesty; rebuilt the Sorbonne (of which he was provisor) in a style of kingly magnificence; and prepared for all the splendour of Louis the Fourteenth’s reign. His enemies, says the abbe L'Atocat, unable to deny his great talents, have reproached him with great faults; irregularity of conduct, unbounded ambition, universal despotism, from which even the king, his master, did not escape; for he left him, as they express it, only the power of curing the evil; a vanity and ostentation which exceeded the dignity of the throne itself, where all was simplicity and negligence, while the cardinal’s court exhibited nothing but pomp and splendour; unexampled ingratitude to his benefactress, queen Mary de Medicis, whom he inhumanly compelled to end her da*ys in Germany, in obscurity and indigence; and, finally, his revengeful temper, which occasioned so many cruel executions; as those of Chalais, Grandier, the marechal de Marillac, M. de Montmorenci, Cinqmars, M. de Thou, &c. Even the queen, for having written to the duchess de Chevreuse, Richelieu’s enemy, and a fugitive, saw all her papers seized, and was examined before the chancellor Sequier. Mad. de la Fayette, mad. de Hautefort, and father Caussin, the king’s confessors, were all disgraced in consequence of having offended this despotic minister. But, says his apologist, there are many points to be considered with respect to these accusations: it appears certain, from a thousand passages in the life of this celebrated cardinal, that he was naturally very grateful, and never proceeded to punishment but when he thought state affairs required it; for which reason, when in his last sickness, his confessor asked” if he forgave his enemies?“he replied,” I never had any but those of the state.“At the head of his” Political Testament“may be seen his justification of himself on the subject of these bloody executions, with which he has been so much reproached. It is equally certain, that he never oppressed the people by taxes or exorbitant subsidies, notwithstanding the long wars he had to carry on; and that, if he was severe in punishing crimes, he knew how to distinguish merit, and reward it generously. He bestowed the highest ecclesiastical dignities on such bishops and doctors as he knew to be men of virtue and learning; placed able and experienced generals at the head of the armies, and entrusted public business with wise, punctual, and intelligent men. It was this minister who established a navy. His vigilance extended through every part of the government; and, notwithstanding the cabals, plots, and factions, which were incessantly forming against him during the whole course of his administration (and which must have employed great part of his time) he left sufficient sums behind him to carry on the war with glory; and France was in a more powerful and flourishing state at the time of his decease than when Louis XIV. died. After stating these facts, Richelieu’s enemies areinvited to determine whether France would have derived more advantage from being governed by Mary de Medicis, Gaston of Orleans, &c. than by this cardinal The estate of Richelieu was made a dukedom in his favour, in 1631, and he received other honours and preferments. Besides the” Method of Controversy“he wrote, 2.” The principal points of the Catholic Faith defended, against the writing addressed to the king by the ministers of Charenton.“3.” The most easy and certain Method of converting those who are separated from the Church.“These pieces are written with force and vivacity. He wrote also,” A Catechism,“in which he lays down the doctrine of the church, in a clear and concise manner and a treatise of piety, called,” The Perfection of a Christian.“These are his theological works; and they have been often printed: but that which is most read, and most worthy of being read, is his” Political Testament," the authenticity of which has been doubted by some French writers, particularly Voltaire. The cardinal also had the ambition to be thought a dramatic poet; and, says lord Chesterfield, while he absolutely governed both his king and country, and was, in a great degree, the arbiter of the fate of all Europe, he was more jealous of the great reputation of Corneille, than of the power of Spain; and more flattered with being thought (what he was not) the best poet, than with being thought (what he certainly was) the greatest statesman in Europe; and affairs stood still, while he was concerting the criticism upon the Cid.

, a learned French divine, was born September 30, 1560, at Chaource, in the diocese of Langres. He had been at first drawn into the party and sentiments of the Leaguers, and even ventured to defend James Clement, but soon hastened to acknowledge his legitimate sovereign, after having taken his doctor’s degree, 1590. Richer became grand master of the college of Le Moine, then syndic of the faculty of divinity at Paris, January 2, 1603, in which office he strenuously defended the ancient maxims of the doctors of this faculty, and opposed the thesis of a Dominican in 1611, who maintained the pope’s infallibility, and his superiority over the council. He published a small tract the same year, “On the Civil and Ecclesiastical Power,” 8vo, to establish the principles on which he asserted that the doctrine of the French church, and the Sorhonne, respecting papal authority, and the authority of the general council, were founded. This little book made much noise, and raised its author enemies in the Nuncio, and some doctors undertook to have him deposed from the syndicate, and his work condemned by the faculty of theology; but the parliament prohibited the faculty from interfering in that affair. In the mean time cardinal du Perron, archbishop of Sens, assembled eight bishops of his province at Paris, and made them censure Richer’s book, March 9, 1612. Richer entered an appeal (Comme tfabus) from this censure, to the parliament, and was admitted as an appellant; but the matter rested there. His book was also censured by the archbishop of Aix, and three bishops of his province, May 24, the same year, and he was proscribed and condemned at Rome. A profusion or pamphlets now appeared to refute him, and he received an express order from court, not to write in his defence. The animosity against Richer rose at length to such a height that his enemies obtained from the king and the queen regent letters, ordering the faculty to elect another syndic. Richer made his protestations, read a paper in his defence, and retired. A new syndic was chosen in 1612, and they have ever since been elected once in two years, although before that time their office was perpetual. Richer afterwards ceased to attend the meetings of the faculty, and confined himself to solitude, being wholly employed in study; but his enemies having involved him in several fresh troubles, he was seized, sent to the prisons of St. Victor, and would even have been delivered up to the pope, had no,t the parliament and chancellor of France prevented it, on complaints made by the university. He refused to attend the censure passed on the books of Anthony de Dominis in 1617, and published a declaration in 1620, at the solicitation of the court of Rome, protesting that he was ready to give an account of the propositions in his book “on the Ecclesiatical and Civil Power,” and explain them in an orthodox sense; and farther, that he submitted his work to the judgment of the Holy See, and of the Catholic church. He even published a second declaration; but all being insufficient to satisfy his adversaries, he was obliged to reprint his book in 1629, with the proofs of the propositions advanced in it, and the two declarations, to which cardinal Richelieu is said to have forced him to add a third. He died Nov. 28, 1631, in his seventy-second year. He was buried at the Sorbonne, where a mass used to be said annually for the repose of his soul. Besides his treatise on “Ecclesiastical Power,” reprinted with additions at Cologii in 1701, 2 vols. 4to, he was the author of a “History of general Councils,” 4 vols. 4to a “History of his Syndicate,” 8vo, and some other works, in which learning and great powers of reasoning are obvious. Baillet published a life of him in 12mo.

, an ingenious French botanist, was born in 1558, at Chalons in Champagne, and studied medicine. The humane and skilful services he rendered to the people of Pezenas, during an epidemic disorder, recommended him to the patronage of the constable de Montmorency, by whose interest he was appointed professor of botany and anatomy in the university of Montpellier, and Henry IV. committed to him the care of establishing a public garden in that university. This design was executed in the most skilful and splendid manner. Belleval published a catalogue of the garden in 1598, and a French treatise, in 1605, recommending an inquiry into the native plants of Languedoc. This last was accompanied by five plates, intended as a specimen of a future work, for which he subsequently prepared a number of engravings, rude and stiff in execution, but exhibiting many rare species. He never lived to publish these, and the plates remained neglected in the hands of his family, till Gouan recovered them, and sent impressions to Linnaeus. At length Gillibert obtained the plates, and published them in 1796. The two pamphlets above mentioned were republished in 1785, by the celebrated and unfortunate Broussonet; along with a treatise on the white mulberry, by Olivier de Serres, originally printed in 1603. Richer de Belleval lived to see his garden destroyed by the fury of civil war, and was beginning to restore it, when he died in 1623. His nephew accomplished the re-establishment of the garden, on a more extensive scale. M. Dorthes of Montpellier published, in 1786, “Recherches sur la Vie et les Ouvrages de Pierre Richer de Belleval,” in which every thing that could be collected on the subject is recorded. Some writers erroneously mention Belleval as the first botanist who gave copper-plate figures of plants. This honour is due to Fabius Columns, whose “Phytobasanos” appeared in 1592. We must not omit to mention, that Scopoli has named a genus BeUcvalio t a name, or something like it, which Belleval himself was fond of giving to the lily of the valley. 1

11ICIUS (Paul), was a learned German Jew, who, having been converted, taught philosophy with great credit at Padua, and was afterwards invited into Germany, by the emperor Maximilian, and appointed one of his physicians. There are no particulars of his life upon record, except the above general facts. He published many works against the Jews, and on different subjects, in which he maintains that the heavens are animated, and advances other paradoxes. “De Ccelesti Agricultural,” Bas. 1587, in folio; “Talmudica Commentariola,” Augsburg, 1519, 4to; “De 73 Mosaicae Sanctionis Edictis,” Augsburg, 1515, 4to. His candour, honesty, moderation, and learning, are much praised. He lived in the sixteenth century, and Erasmus has given his eulogy in the last letter of his first book.

, an Irish prelate, was born at Carrington in Cheshire, about 1562, and was entered of Jesus college, Oxford, in 1576, where he took his degrees in arts, and continued some years in the university, teaching grammar chiefly. His first preferment in the church appears to have been to the living of Waterstock in Oxfordshire, in 1580, which he resigned in 158!. In 1583, he was admitted to that of South Wokingdon, which he resigned in 1590. He was also rector of St. Mary Magdalen, Bermondsey, and of Winwick in Lancashire. He was afterwards made archdeacon of Meath in Ireland, thence preferred to the deanery of St. Patrick’s, Dublin, and in 1612 to the bishopric of Killaloe. He died in 1632, and was buried in his cathedral. To this dry catalogue of preferments, we can only add generally that he was much respected for piety and learning; but there are no particulars of his life and progress from a state of comparative obscurity to the bishopric. As he was an eminent tutor, he might owe some of his preferments to the gratitude of his pupils. He published “A Letter concerning the News out of Ireland, and of the Spaniards landing, and the present state there,” Lond. 1601, 4to; and “Claim of antiquity in behalf of the Protestant Religion,” ibid. 1608, 4to; a tract written in controversy with Fitz Simon the Jesuit, whose answer is entitled “A catholic confutation of Mr. John Rider’s Claim of Antiquity, and a calming comfort against his caveat,” Roan, 1608, 8vo. To this was added a “Reply to Mr. Rider’s postscript, and a discovery of puritan partiality in his behalf.” But this prelate is most remembered on account of his dictionary, “A Dictionary, English and Latin, and Latin and English,” Oxon. 1589, 4to. This must have been at that time a work of great utility, although Fuller accuses him of borrowing from Thomasius. Wood says it was the first that had the English before the Latin, which is not correct, as this was the case in the “Promptorium parvulum,” printed by Pynson in 1499, and the “Ortus Vocabulorum,” by W. de Worde, in 1516 but it certainly was the first Latin Dictionary in which the English part was placed at the beginning of the book, before the Latin part.

, an eminent dissenter, was born in London about 1667, and educated at a private academy in Wiltshire. Having entered into the ministry, he was in 1695 chosen assistant to ~Mr. Thomas Gouge in his meeting near the Three Cranes, London, and about four years afterwards became his successor. In 1712, in conjunction with Mr. John Eames, he began to conduct an academy, supported by the independents of London, as divinity tutor; his qualifications for which office were very considerable, both as to learning and abilities, and a judicious manner of conveying knowledge. It was in the course of lecturing to his pupils, that he delivered an exposition of the “Assembly’s Larger Catechism,” which he published in 1731, as a “Body of Divinity,” in 2 vols. folio. This has been frequently reprinted, and is still held in high estimation among the Calvinislic dissenters, with whom he ranks; but he held some few speculative opinions, respecting the doctrines of the Trinity, and of a future state, which are peculiar to himself. The university of Aberdeen bestowed on him the degree of D. D. as a testimony of their approbation of this work. His other publications were, various single sermons, and two tracts occasioned by the controversy among the dissenting ministers on the subject of subscription to creeds. As a preacher he officiated at other places, besides his own meeting, and was much tollowed. He died March 27, 1734, in the sixty-seventh year of his age.

, an eminent English prelate, and martyr to the cause of the reformed religion, descended from an ancient family in Northumberland, was born early in the sixteenth century, in Tynedale, at a place called Wilmomswick in the above county. As he exhibited early proofs of good natural abilities, he was placed in a grammar-school at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, in which he made such progress, that he was taken from thence and entered of Pembroke-hall, Cambridge, about 15 18, when Luther was preaching against indulgences in Germany. His disposition was open and ingenuous, and his application to his studies unremitting both at school and university. He was taught Greek by Robert Crook, who had begun a course of that language at Cambridge. His religious sentiments were those of the Romish church in which he had been brought up, and in which he would probably be encouraged by his uncle, Dr. Robert Ridley, then fellow of Queen’s college. In 1522 he took the degree of B. A.; and to his knowledge of the learned languages, now added that of the philosophy and theology then in vogue. In 1524 his abilities were so generally acknowledged, that the master and fellows of University college, Oxford, invited him to accept of an exhibition there; but this he declined, and the same year was chosen fellow of his own college in Cambridge. Next year he took the degree of M. A. and in 1526 was appointed by the college their general agent in all causes belonging to the churches of Tilney, Soham, and Saxthorpe, belonging to Pembroke-hall. But as his studies were now directed to divinity, his uncle, at hjs own charge, sent him for farther improvement to the Sorbonne at Paris; and from thence to Louvain; continuing on the continent till 1529. In 1530, he was chosen junior treasurer of his college, and about this time appears to have been more than ordinarily intent on the study of the scriptures. For this purpose he used to walk in the orchard at Pembroke-hall, and there commit to memory almost all the epistles in Greek; which walk is still called Ridley’swaik. He also distinguished himself by his skill in disputation, but frequently upon frivolous questions, as was the custom of the time. In 1533 he was chosen senior proctor of the university, and while in that office, the important point of the pope’s supremacy came to be examined upon the authority of scripture. The decision of the university was, that “the bishop of Rome had no more authority and jurisdiction derived to him from God, in this kingdom of England, than any other foreign bishop;” which was signed by the vicechancellor, and by Nicholas Ridley, and Richard Wilkes, proctors. In 1534, on the expiration of his proctorship, he took the degree of B. D. and was chosen chaplain of the university, and public reader, which archbishop Tenison calls pradicater publicus, and in the Pembroke ms. he is also called Magister Glonieriaf, which office is supposed to be that of university orator. In the year 1537 his great reputation as an excellent preacher, and his intimate acquaintance with the scriptures and fathers, occasioned Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury, to invite him to his house, where he appointed him one of his chaplains, and admitted him into his confidence. As a farther mark of his esteem, he collated him, in April 1538, to the vicarage of Herne in Kent. Here he was diligent to instruct his charge in the pure doctrines of the gospel, as far as they were discovered to him, except in the point of transubstantiation, on which he had as yet received no light; and to enliven the devotion of his parishioners, he used to have the Te Deum sung in his parish church in English, which was afterwards urged in accusation against him.

In 1539, when the act of the six articles was passed, Mr. Ridley, who had now the character of a zealous scripturist, bore his testimony against it in the pulpit, although he was in no danger from its penalties, as he was still a believer in transubstantiation, was not married, and with respect to auricular confession, rather leaned to the practice, but made a difference between what he thought an useful appointment in the church, and pressing it on the conscience as a point necessary to salvation. At Herne he Continued to attract a great multitude of people to his sermons, and in 1540 went to Cambridge, and took his degree of doctor of divinity, probably at the persuasion of Cranmer, who wished to place him in a more conspicuous situation. This he attempted partly by recommending him to the king as one of his majesty’s chaplains, and partly by giving him a prebend in the church of Canterbury. About the same time the fellows of Pembroke-hall elected him master of that house.

At Canterbury he preached with so much zeal against the abuses of popery, as to provoke the other prebendaries, and preachers of what was called the old learning, to exhibit articles against him at the archbishop’s visitation in 1541, for preaching contrary to the statute of the six articles. The attempt, however, completely failed. Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, next endeavoured to entrap him; and articles were exhibited against him before the justices of the peace in Kent, and afterwards before the king and council, which charged him with preaching against auricular confession, and with directing the Te Deum to be sung in English; but the accusation being referred to Craumer, by the king, that prelate immediately crushed it, much to the mortification of Dr. Ridley’s enemies.

The greatest part of 1545 Dr. Ridley spent in retirement at Herne. He had, as we have noticed, been hitherto a believer in transubstantiation, influenced by the decrees of popes and councils, the rhetorical expressions of the fathers, and the letter of scripture; but it is supposed that a perusal of the controversy between Luther and the Zuinglians, with the writings of Ratramnus or Bertram, which had fallen into his hands, induced him to examine more closely into the scriptures, and opinions of the fathers; the result of which was, that this doctrine had no foundation. Cranmer also, to whom he communicated his discoveries, joined with him in the same opinion, as did Latimer. In the close of 1545, Cranmer gave him the eighth stall in St. Peter’s, Westminster. When Edward ascended the throne in 1547, Dr. Ridley was considered as a celebrated preacher, and in his sermons before the king, as well as on other occasions, exposed, with boldness and argument, the errors of popery. About this time, the fellows of Pembroke-hall presented him to the living of Soharo, in the diocese of Norwich; but the presentation being disputed by the bishop, Ridley was admitted to the living by command of the king. On Sept. 4 following, he was promoted to the bishopric of Rochester, vacant by the translation of Dr. Holbeach to the bishopric of Lincoln. He was consecrated Sept. 25, in the chapel belonging to Dr. May, dean of St. Paul’s, in the usual form, by chrism, or holy unction, and imposition of hands; and after an ath renouncing the usurped jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff, was vested, according to the ancient rites, with the robes and insignia appropriated to his dignity. Yet Dr. Brookes, in the subsequent reign, would not allow Ridley to have been a bishop, and only degraded him from his priest’s orders, which is not easy to be accounted for; because if the pretence was that his abjuration of the pope invalidated his consecration, the same objection might be made to Bonner, Tonstall, Gardiner, &c.

In 1548, bishop Ridley appears to have been employed in compiling the common prayer, in conjunction with archbishop Cranmer, and others; and in 1549, he was put into commission, together with Cranmer and several pthers, to search after all anabaptists, heretics, and contemners of the common prayer. This produced the execution of Joan Bocher and another, of which we have already spoken in our account of Cranmer, vol. X. p. 473. In May of this year, he was one of a commission to visit Cambridge, and abolish the statutes and ordinances which maintained popery and superstition; but, finding that another more concealed object was the suppression of Clare-hall, and the incorporation of it with Trinity-hall, as a new college of civilians, he opposed it, and by his firmness prevented this act of injustice. Another part of the business of the commissioners was more agreeable to him: this was to preside at a public disputation relating to the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, similar to one that had been held at Oxford a short time before. The decision on this occasion was against transubstantiation; and although Langdale, one of the disputants on the side of that doctrine, composed a pretended refutation of bishop Ridley’s determination, he did not venture to print it until 1558, when he was secure that Ridley could make no reply.

In October 154-9, Bonner, bishop of London, was deprived, and Ridley, who was one of the commissioners before whom his cause was determined, was thought the most proper person to fill that important see, on account of his great learning and zeal for the reformation; and he was accordingly installed in April 1550. flis conduct towards his predecessor Bonner, and his family, after taking possession of the episcopal palace, was honourable to his integrity and benevolence, of which the following facts are sufficient proofs. He took care to preserve from injury the goods, &c. belonging to Bonner, allowing him full liberty to remove them when he pleased, Such materials as Bonner had purchased for the repair of his house and church, the new bishop employed to the uses for which they -were designed; hut he repaid him the money which he had. advanced for them. He took upon himself the discharge of the sums which were due to Bonner’s servants for liveries and wages; and that the mother and sister of that prelate, who lived near the palace at Fulham, and had their board there, might not be losers in consequence of his promotion, he always sent for them to dinner and supper, constantly placing Mrs. Bonner at the head of the table, even when persons of high rank were his guests, often saying, “By your lordship’s favour, this place of right and custom is for my mother Bonner,” as if he had succeeded to the relation, as well as office of her son.

Our prelate filled this high station with great dignity, and was a pattern of piety, temperance, and regularity, to all around him. He spent much of his time in prayer and contemplation; and took great pains in the instruction and improvement of his family. His mode of life was, as soon as he had risen and dressed himself, to continue in private prayer half an hour; then, if no other business interrupted him, he retired to his study, where he continued until ten o'clock, at which hour he went to prayers with his family. He also daily read a lecture to them, beginning at the Acts of the Apostles, and so going regularly through St. Paul’s epistles, giving to every one that could read, a New Testament, and encouraging them to learn by heart some chosen chapters. After prayers he went to dinner, where he was not very forward to begin discourse; but when he did, he entered into it with great wisdom and discretion, and sometimes with facetiousness. This conversation he would indulge for an hour after dinner, or otherwise amuse himself during that time with playing at chess. The hour for unbending being expired, he returned to his study, where he continued till five, except suitors, or business abroad, required otherwise. He then went to prayers with his family as in the morning, after which he supped; then diverting himself for another hour after supper, as he did after dinner, he went back to his study, and continued there till eleven at night, when he retired to private prayer, and then went to bed.

Soon after his promotion to the see of London, he was the person thought the fittest to reconcile Dr. Hooper, the bishop elect of Gloucester, to the vestments, against which the latter had conceived very strong prejudices. In June 1550 bishop Ridley visited his diocese, and directed that the altars should be taken down in the churches, and tables substituted in their room, for the celebration of the Lord’s supper; hi order to take away the false persuasion which the people had, of sacrifices to be offered upon altars. In 1551 the sweating sickness prevailed in London, and in the space of a few days carried off eight or nine hundred persons; but in the midst of the alarm which this necessarily occasioned, Ridley administered in the duties of his office, trusting himself entirely to the good providence of God for safety, in the danger to which he was every moment exposed; and he endeavoured, with all the zeal of an exemplary spiritual pastor, to improve the public calamity to the reformation of the manners of the people. To promote more generally a reformation in the doctrine of the church, the council, this year, appointed Cranmer and Ridley to prepare a book of articles of faith. With this view they drew up forty-two articles, and sent copies of them to the other bishops and learned divines, for their corrections and amendments; after which the archbishop reviewed them a second time, and then presented them to the council, where they received the royal sanction, and were published by the king’s authority.

In 1552, Ridley visited his old coHege at Cambridge, and upon his return called at Hunsdon,- to pay his respects to the princess Mary. Their interview forms a curious narrative. She thanked him for his civility, and entering into conversation with him for about a quarter of an hour, told him that she remembered him at court, and mentioned particularly a sermon of his before her father; and then, leaving her chamber of presence, dismissed him to dine with her officers. After dinner she sent for him again, when the bishop said that he did not only come to pay his duty to her grace, but also to offer to preach before her next Sunday, if she would be pleased to permit him. On this she changed countenance, and after some minutes’ silence, said, “As for this matter, I pray you, my lord, make the answer to it yourself;” and, on the bishop’s urging his offer, as a matter of conscience and duty, she repeated the same words, yet at last told him, that the doors of the parish church should be open to him, where he might preach if he pleased, but that neither herself nor any of her servants should hear him. “Madam,” said the bishop, “I trust you will not refuse God’s word.” “I cannot tell what you call God’s word. That is not God’s word now, which was God’s word in my father’s days.” The bishop observed, that God’s word is the same at all times, but has been better understood and practised in some ages than in others. Mary, enraged at this, answered, “You durst not for your ears have avouched that for God’s word in my father’s days, that you do now;” and then, to shew how well she had prepared herself to argue with the prelate, she added, “As for your new books, I thank God, I never read any of them; I never did and never will.” She then, after making use of much harsh language, parted from him, with these words, “My lord, for your civility in coming to see me, I thank you; but for your offering to preach before me, I thank you not a whit.” After this the bishop was conducted to the room where they had dined, and where sir Thomas Wharton now gave him a glass of wine. When he had drank it, he seemed concerned, and said, “Surely I have done amiss.” Upon being asked why? he vehemently reproached himself for having drank in that place, where God’s word had been refused; “whereas,” said he, “if I had remembered my duty, I ought to have departed immediately, and to have shaken off the dust from my feet for a testimony against this house.” On this interview, his biographer remarks, “One of our learned historians suggests, that as the princess was under no excommunication, the bishop discovered his resentment too far. Too far in worldly prudence he certainly did, for the princess never forgave him; but Christ’s directions to his apostles were not given to persons who had been cast out of their communion, but to persons of a different belief refusing to be instructed. And the princess having avowed an obstinate persevering refusal of every mean of instruction, reading and hearing, no wonder if the bishop blamed himself for so far forgetting his master’s command, as to accept a pledge of friendship in the house of one who had so wilfully rejected the word of God. This bigotry of her’s gave him a sorrowful prospect of what was to be expected, if ever the princess came to the throne.”

When the parliament assembled in 1553, the kins:, who was languishing under the decline which soon put an end to his life, ordered the two houses to attend him at Whitehall, where bishop Ridley preached before him, recommending with such energy the duties of beneficence and charity, that his majesty sent for him, to inquire how he could best put in practice the duties which he had so welt and so strongly enforced; and the result of this sermon and conference was a determination in the king to found, or incorporate anew, and endow with ample revenues, those noble institutions, Christ’s, Bartholomew’s, Bridewell, and St. Thomas’s hospitals.

Upon the death of Edward VI., Ridley was earnest in attempting to set lady Jane Grey on the throne; but, when the design had miscarried, he went to Mary, to do her homage, and submit himself to her clemency. His reception was such as he might have expected: he was im mediately committed to the Tower, where, however, he was treated with much less rigour than Cranmer and Latimer, who were likewise prisoners in the same fortress. Rid ley, it has been thought, might have recovered the queen’s favour, if he would have brought the weight of his learning and authority to countenance her proceedings in religion. He was, however, too honest to act against his conviction; and he was, after eight months’ imprisonment in the Tower, conveyed from thence to Oxford, where he was, on the 1st of October, 1555, condemned to death for heresy. During the fortnight between his condemnation and execution, the priests tried all their means of persuasion to gain him over to their cause; but he was deaf to their remonstrances, and was not to be shaken in the principles which he had adopted.

Anthony Wood says of bishop Ridley, that “he was a person of small stature, but great in learning, and profoundly read in divinity.” He ascribes to him the following works: 1. “A treatise concerning Images not to be set up, nor worshipped in churches.” 2. “Brief declaration of the Lord’s Supper,” 1555 and 1586, 8vo, written during his imprisonment at Oxford, and afterwards translated into Latin by William Whittingham. 3. ^ A friendly farewell, written during his imprisonment at Oxford,“15,59, 8yo. 4.” A piteous lamentation of the miserable state of the church of England, in the time of the late revolt from the Gospel,“1567, 8vo. 5.” A comparison between the comfortable doctrine of the Gospel and the traditions of popish religion.“6.” Account of the disputation held at Oxford,“1688, 4to. 7.” A treatise of the Blessed Sacrament.“To these we are enabled to add, from another authority, 8.” Injunctions of Nicholas Ridley, bishop of London, to his diocese,“1550, 4to. 9.” The way of peace among all Protestants, in a Letter to bishop Hooper,“Lond. 1688, 4to. 10. '^ A Letter of reconciliation to bishop H6oper,” ibid. 1689, 4to. Many of his letters are in Fox’s “Acts and Monuments,” and in Dr. Gloster Ridley’s valuable account of bishop Ridley’s life, from which chiefly we have taken the preceding particulars.

, a learned divine, descended collaterally from the preceding bishop Ridley, was born at sea, in 1702, on-board the Gloucester East Indiaman, to which circumstance he was indebted for his Christian name. He received his education at Winchester-school, and thence was elected to a fellowship at New college, Oxford, where he proceeded B. C. L. April 29, 1729. In those two seminaries he cultivated an early acquaintance with the Muses, and laid the foundation of those elegant and solid acquirements for which he was afterwards so eminently distinguished as a poet, an historian, and a divine. During a vacancy in 1728, he joined with four friends, viz. Mr. Thomas Fletcher (afterwards bishop of Kildare), Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Eyre, Mr. Morrison, and Mr. Jennens, in writing a tragedy, called “The Fruitless Redress,” each Undertaking an act, on a plan previously concerted. When they delivered in their several proportions, at their meeting in the winter, few readers, it is said, would have known that the whole was not the production of a single hand. This tragedy, which was offered to Mr. Wilks, but never acted, is still in ms. with another called “Jugurtha.” - Dr. Ridley in his youth was much addicted to theatrical performances. Midhurst, in Sussex, was the place where they were exhibited; and the company of gentlemen actors to which he belonged, consisted chiefly of his coadjutors in the tragedy already mentioned. He is said to have performed the characters of Marc Antony, Jaffier, Horatio, and Moneses, with distinguished applause. Young Gibber, being likewise a Wykehamist, called on Dr. Ridley soon after he had been appointed chaplain to the East India Company at Poplar, and would have persuaded him to quit the church for the stage, observing that “it usually paid the larger salaries of the two,” an advice which he had too much sense to follow. For great part of his life, he had no other preferment than the small college living of Weston, in Norfolk, and the donative of Poplar, in Middlesex, where he resided. To these his college added, some years after, the donative of Romfbrd, in Essex. “Between these two places the curricle of his life had,” as he expressed it, “rolled for some time almost perpetually upon post-chaise wheels, and left him not time for even the proper studies of ceconomy, or the necessary ones of his profession.” Yet in this obscure situation he remained in possession of, and content with, domestic happiness; and was honoured with the intimate friendship of some who were not less distinguished for learning than for worth: among these, it maybe sufficient to mention Dr. Lowth, Mr. Christopher Pitt, Mr. Spence, and Dr. Berriman. To the last of these he was curate and executor, and preached his funeral sermon. In 1740 and 1741, he preached “Eight Sermons at Lady Moyer’s lecture,” which were published in 1742, 8vo, and at different times, several occasional sermons. In 1756, he declined an offer of going to Ireland as first chaplain to the duke of Bedford; in return for which he was to have had the choice of promotion, either at Christ-church, Canterbury, Westminster, or Windsor. His modesty inducing him to leave the choice of these to hispatron, the consequence was, that he obtained none of them. In 1761 he published, in 4to, “De Syriacarum novi fcederis versionum indole atque usu, dissertatio,” occasioned by a Syriac version, which, with two others, were sent to him nearly thirty years before, by one Mr. Samuel Palmer from Amida, in Mesopotamia. His age and growing infirmities, the great expence of printing, and the want of a patron, prevented him from availing himself of these Mss.; yet at intervals he employed himself on a transcript, which being put into the hands of professor White, was published a few years ago, with a literal Latin translation, in 2 vols. 4to, at the expence of the delegates of the Clarendon press. In 1763 he published the “Life of bishop Ridley,” in quarto, by subscription, and cleared by it as much as brought him 800l. in the public funds. In this, which is the most useful of all his works, he proved himself worthy of the name he bore, a thorough master of the popish controversy, and an able advocate for the reformation. In 1765 he published his “Review of Philips’ s Life of Cardinal Pole” (see Philips); and in 17 6S, in reward for his labours in this controversy, and in another which “The Confessional” produced, he was presented by archbishop Seeker to a golden prebend in the cathedral church of Salisbury (an option), but it is probably a mistake that Seeker honoured him with the degree of D. D. that honour having been conferred upon him by the university of Oxford in 1767, by diploma, the highest mark of distinction they can confer. At length, worn out with infirmities, he departed this life in Nov. 1774, leaving a widow and four daughters. An elegant epitaph, written by Dr. Lowth, bishop of London, is inscribed upon his monument. Two poems by Dr. Ridley, one styled “Jovi Eleutherio, or an Offering to Liberty,” the other called “Psyche,” are in the third volume of Dodsley’s Collection. The sequel of the latter poem, entitled, “Melampus,” with “Psyche,” its natural introduction, was printed in 1782, by subscription, for the benefit of his widow. Many others are in the 8th volume of Nichols’s “Collection.” The Mss. Codex Heraclensis, Codex Barsalibaei, &c. (of which a particular account may be seen in his Dissertation “De Syriacarum Novi Fcederis versionum indole atque usu, 1761,”) were bequeathed by Dr. Ridley to the library of New college, Oxford. Of these ancient Mss. a fac-simile specimen was published in his Dissertation above mentioned. A copy of “The Confessional,” with ms notes by Dr. Ridley," was in the library of the- late Dr. Winchester.

, son to the preceding, was educated at Winchester, and New college, Oxford, and, after taking orders, succeeded his father in the living of Rumford, in Essex. In 1761, while attending his duty as chaplain to a marching regiment at the siege of Belleisle, he laid the foundation of some disorders, from which, to the unspeakable grief of his family and friends, he never recovered, and which some years after, being then happily married and preferred in the church, terminated his life in February 1765. The following extract from a letter which his father wrote about this time to a friend, affords a proof of his sorrow, and the only scanty notices which have been preserved of his son’s merits.

The “Schemer,” here noticed, was a very humorous periodical paper, originally written for the London Chronicle, but afterwards collected into a volume and published. He was also the author of the “History of James Lovegrove,” esq.; but the “Tales of the Genii” is the work on which his fame principally rests, and the many editions through which it has passed sufficiently attest its popularity. The Tales are introduced with the life of Horam, the supposed original author, which contains some animadvert sdous equally ingenious and just, on the difference between the professions;xnd practice of many Christians. The story, indeed, is so contrived as to include a very keen satire.

, an eminent civilian, descended of a family of that name in Northumberland, was born in the city of Ely, and became master of Eton school, afterwards one of the masters in chancery, chancellor to the bishop of Winchester, and vicar-general to archbishop Abbot. He also received the honour of knighthood. He died Jan. 22 or 23, 1629, and was buried in the parish church of St. Bennet, Paul’s Wharf, London. He was a general schoJar, and published “A view of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Law,” which was much admired by king James, and was afterwards reprinted by the learned, but unfortunate Gregory, chaplain to bishop Duppa. This work, says Dr. Coote, while it established the reputation of the author, contributed to revive the declining credit of that jurisdiction.

, who, from a low and despicable situation, raised himself to sovereign authority in Rome, in the 14th century, assuming the title of tribune, and proposing to restore the ancient free republic, was born at Rome, and was the son of no greater a personage than a mean vintner, or, as others say, a miller, named Lawrence Gabrini, and Magdalen, a laundress. However, Nicolas Rienzi, by which appellation he was commonly distinguished, did not form his sentiments from the meanness of his birth. To a good natural understanding he joined an uncommon assiduity, and made a great proficiency in ancient literature. Every thing he read he compared with similar passages that occurred within his own observation; whence he made reflections, by which he regulated his conduct. To this he added a great knowledge in the laws and customs of nations. He had a vast memory: he retained much of Cicero, Valerius Maximus, Livy, the two Senecas, and Cassar’s Commentaries especially, which he read continually, and often quoted and applied to the events of his own times. This fund of learning proved the foundation of his rise: the desire he had to distinguish himself in the knowledge of monumental history, drew him to another sort of science, then little understood. He passed whole days among the inscriptions which are to be found at Rome, and acquired soon the reputation of a great antiquary. Having hence formed within himself the most exalted notions of the justice, liberty, and ancient grandeur of the old Romans, words he was perpetually repeating to the people, he at length persuaded not only himself, but the giddy mob his followers, that he should one day become the restorer of the Roman republic. His advantageous stature, his countenance, and that air of importance which he well knew how to assume, deeply imprinted all he said in the minds of his audience: nor was it only by the populace that he was admired; he also found means to insinuate himself into the favour of those who partook of the administration. Rienzi’s talents procured him to be nominated one of the deputies, sent by the Romans to pope Clement VI. who resided at Avignon. The intention of this deputation was to make his holiness sensible, how prejudicial his absence was, as well to himself as to the interest of Rome. At his first audience, our hero charmed the court of Avignon by his eloquence, and the sprightliness of his conversation. Encouraged by success, he one day took the liberty to tell the pope, that the grandees of Rome were avowed robbers, public thieves, infamous adulterers, and illustrious profligates; who by their example authorized the most horrid crimes. To them he attributed the desolation of Rome, of which he drew so lively a picture, that the holy father was moved, and exceedingly incensed against the Roman nobility. Cardinal Colonna, in other respects a lover of real merit, could not help considering these reproaches as reflecting upon some of his family; and therefore found means of disgracing Rienzi, so that he fell into extreme misery, vexation, and sickness, which, joined, with indigence, brought him to an hospital. Nevertheless, the same hand that threw him down, raised him up again. The cardinal, who was all compassion, caused him to appear before the pope, in assurance of his being a good man, and a great partizan for justice and equity. The pope approved of him more than ever and, as proofs of his esteem and confidence, made him apostolicnotary, and sent him back loaded with favours. Yet his subsequent behaviour shewed, that resentment had a greater ascendancy over him than gratitude. Being returned to Rome, he began ta execute the functions of his office, and by affability, candour, assiduity, and impartiality, in the administration of justice, he arrived at a superior degree of popularity; which he still improved by continued invectives against the vices of the great, whom he strove to render as odious as possible; till at last, for some ill-timed freedoms of speech, he was not only severely reprimanded, but displaced. His dismission did not make him desist from inveighing against the debauched, though he conducted himself with more prudence. From this time it was his constant endeavour to inspire the people with a fondness for their ancient liberties; to which purpose, he caused to be hung up in the most public places emblematic pictures, expressive of the former splendour and present decline of Rome. To these he added frequent harangues and predictions upon the same subject, in this manner he proceeded till one party looked on him only as a madman, while others caressed him as their protector. Thus he infatuated the minds of the people, and many of the nobility began to come into his views, while the senate in no wise mistrusted a man, whom they judged to have neither interest nor ability. At length he ventured to disclose his designs to such as he believed mal-contents, first separately, but afterwards, when he thought he had firmly attached a sufficient number to his interest, he assembled them together, and represented to them the deplorable state of the city, over-run with debaucheries, and the incapacities of their governors to correct or amend them. As a necessary foundation for the enterprize, he gave them a statement of the immense revenues of the apostolic chamber; demonstrating that the pope could, only at the rate of four-pence, raise a hundred thousand florins by firing, as much by salt, and as much more by the customs and other duties. “As for the rest,” said he, “I would not have you imagine, that it is without the pope’s consent I lay hands on the revenues. Alas! how many others in this city plunder the effects of the church contrary to his will 1”

By this artful falsehood, he so animated his auditors, that they declared they would make no scruple of securing these treasures for whatever end might be most convenient, and that they were devoted to his will. Having obtained so much to secure his adherents from a revolt, he tendered them a paper, superscribed, “an oath to procure the good establishment;” and made them subscribe and swear to it, before he dismissed them. By what means he prevailed on the pope’s vicar to give a tacit sanction to his project is not certainly known; that he did procure that sanction, and that it was looked on as a master-piece of policy, is generally admitted. The 20th of May, being Whitsunday, he fixed upon to sanctify in some sort his enterprize; and pretended, that all he acted was by particular inspiration of the Holy Ghost. About nine, he came out of the church bare-headed, accompanied by the pope’s vicar, surrounded by an hundred armed men. A vast crowd followed him with shouts and acclamations. The gentlemen conspirators carried three standards before him, on which were wrought devices, insinuating, that his design was to re-establish liberty, justice, and peace. In this manner he proceeded directly to the capitol, where he mounted the rostrum; and, with more boldness and energy than ever, expatiated on the miseries to which the Romans were reduced; at the same time telling them, without hesitation, *' that the happy hour of their deliverance was at length come, and that he was to be their deliverer, regardless of the dangers he was exposed to for the service of the holy father and the people’s safety.“After which, he ordered the laws of what he called the good establishment to be read: and assured that the Romans would resolve to observe these laws, he engaged in a short time to re-establish them in their ancient grandeur. The laws of the good establishment promised plenty and security, which were greatly wanted; and the humiliation of the nobility, who were deemed common oppressors. Such laws could not fail of being agreeable to a people who found in them these double advantages; and therefore enraptured with the pleasing ideas of a liberty to which they were at present strangers, and the hope of gain, they adopted most zealously the fanaticism of Rienzi.-^­They resumed the pretended authority of the Romans; they declared him sovereign of Rome, and granted him the power of life and death, of rewards and punishments, of enacting and repealing the laws, of treating with foreign powers; in a word, they gave him the full and supreme authority over all the extensive territories of the Romans. Rienzi, arrived at the summit of his wishes, kept at a great distance his artifice: he pretended to be very unwilling to accept of their offers, but upon two conditions; the first, that they should nominate the pope’s vicar (the bishop of Orvieto) his co-partner the second, that the pope’s consent should be granted him, which (he told them) he flattered himself he should obtain. On the one hand, he hazarded nothing in thus making his court to the holy father, and, on the other, he well knew, that the bishop of Orvieto would carry a title only, and no authority. The people granted his request, but paid all the honours to him: he possessed the authority without restriction; the good bishop appeared a mere shadow and veil to his enterprizes. Rienzi was seated in his triumphal chariot, like an idol, to triumph with the greater splendor. He dismissed the people replete with joy and hope. He ^eized upon the palace, where he continued after he had turned out the senate; and, the same day, he began to dictate his laws in the capitol. This election, though not very pleasing to the pope, was ratified by him; yet Rienzi meditated the obtaining of a title, exclusive of the papal prerogative. Well versed in the Roman history, he was no stranger to the extent of the tribunitial authority; and, as he owed his elevation to the people, he chose to have the title of their magistrate. He asked it, and it was conferred on him and his co- partner, with the addition of deliverers of their country. Our adventurer’s behaviour in his elevation was at first such as commanded esteem and respect, not only from the Romans, but from all the neighbouring states. His contemporary, the celebrated Petrarch, in a letter to Charles, king of the Romans, gives the following account of him:” Not long since a most remarkable man, of the plebeian race, a person whom neither titles nor virtues had distinguished until he presumed to set himself up for a restorer or the Roman liberty, has obtained the highest authority at Rome. So sudden, so great is his success, that this man has already won Tuscany and all Italy. Already Europe and the whole world are in motion; to speak the whole in one word, I protest to you, not as a reader, but as an eye-witness, that he has restored to us the justice, peace, integrity, and every other token of the golden age.“But it is difficult for a person of mean birth, elevated at once, by the caprice of fortune, to the most exalted station, to move rightly in a sphere in which he must breathe an air he has been unaccustomed to. Rienzi ascended by degrees the summit of his fortune. Riches softened, power dazzled, the pomp of his cavalcades animated, and formed in his mind ideas adequate to those of princes born to empire. Hence luxury invaded his table, and tyranny took possession of his heart. The pop conceived his designs contrary to the interests of the holy see, and the nobles, whose power it had been his constant endeavours to depress, conspired against him; and Rienzi was forced to quit an authority he had possessed little more than six months. It was to a precipitate flight that he was indebted, at this juncture, for his life; and to different disguises for his subsequent preservation. Having made an ineffectual effort at Rome, and not knowing where to find a new resource to carry on his designs, he took a most bold step, conformable to that rashness which had so often assisted him in his former exploits. He determined to go to Prague, to Charles, king of the Romans, whom the year before he had summoned to his tribunal, and who he foresaw would deliver him up to a pope highly incensed against him. He was accordingly soon after sent to Avignon, and there thrown into a prison, where he continued three years. The divisions and disturbances in Italy, occa* sioned by the number of petty tyrants that had established themselves in the ecclesiastical territories, and even at Rome, occasioned his enlargement. Innocent VI. who succeeded Clement in the papacy, sensible that the Romans still entertained an affection for our hero, and believing that his chastisement would teach him to act with more moderation than he had formerly done, as well as that gratitude would oblige him, for the remainder of his life, to preserve au inviolable attachment to the holy see (by whose favour he should be re-established), thought him a proper instrument to assist his design of reducing those other tyrants; and therefore, not only gave him his liberty, but also appointed him governor and senator of Rome. He met with many obstacles to the assumption of this newly-granted authority, all which, by cunning and resolution, he at length over> came. But giving way to his passions, which were immoderately warm, and inclined him to cruelty, he excited so general a resentment against him, that he was murdered, Oct. 8, 1354.” Such,“say his biographers,” was the end of Nicolas Rienzi, one of the most renowned men of the age; who, after forming a conspiracy full of extravagance, and executing it in the sight of almost the whole world, with such success that he became sovereign of Rome; after causing plenty, justice, and liberty to flourish among the Romans; after protecting potentates, and terrifying sovereign princes; after being arbiter of crowned heads; after re-establishing the ancient majesty and power of the Roman republic, and filling all Europe with his fame during the seven months of his first reign after having compelled his masters themselves to confirm him in the authority he bad usurped against their interests; fell at length at the end of his second, which lasted not four months, a sacrifice to the nobility whose ruin he had vowed, and to those vast projects which his death prevented him from putting into execution."

, a very ingenious and learned man, was the son of a physician, and born at Paris in 1577. He was brought up among the Jesuits, and afterwards admitted advocate; but, not being able to conquer the disgust he had conceived to the profession of the law, he devoted himself entirely to the pursuit of polite literature The public received the first fruits of his labours in his “Funus Parasiticum,” printed in 1596; the ingenuity and learning of which so charmed Thuanus, thathe immediately took him into his friendship, and made him the companion of his studies. This excellent person conceived a particular esteem for him; as appeared, when he died in 1617, from naming him in his will, to superintend the education of his children. He was chosen, with Isaac Casaubon, to put the king’s library into order; and in 1610, when that learned man went over to spend some time in England with James [. succeeded him in the office of librarian to the king. His majesty conferred on him other marks of distinction made him procurator- general of the supreme court of Nancy, counsellor of the parliament of Metz, and then intendant of that province. He died in 1654, after having given numerous proofs of uncommon erudition in editions of “Minutius Foelix,” “Phaedrus,” “Martial,” “Rei accipitrarii scriptores,” “Rei agrarige scriptores,” the works of “Cyprian” and “Tertullian,” &c. His notes upon these last two are learned and critical; but the matter of some of them shews him to have been not a rigid catholic. He takes occasion to observe, from a passage in Tertullian’s “Exhortation to Chastity,” that Jaymen have a right and power to consecrate the eucharist, when there is no opportunity of recurring to the regular ministers; and this, with other opinions of a similar kind, not only gave offence to those of his own communion, but even to some- of“ours.” Rigaltius,“says Mr. Dodwell,” though an ingenious and learned critic, is by no means exact upon the subjects he treats of: for, though of the Roman communion, he is often fou/)d on the side of the Calvinists; and, when he meets with anything in the authors he publishes that appears contrary to the customs, not oflly of his own, but of the universal church, he remarks it with great care; perhaps to render his notes more agreeable to the reader, by presenting him with something new and unexpected." It is probable, that many persons may not think the worse of Rigakius, as an editor, for the censure here passed on him by Mr. Dodtvell. Rigaltius was also concerned in the edition of Thuanus, published at Geneva in 1620.

, an eminent grammarian, was born at Sawl, in Norfolk, and educated at Eton, and was admitted of King’s college, Cambridge, in 1508. He was first usher to the celebrated William Lilly, master of St. Paul’s school, and afterwards second master, but succeeded Lilly, as head master, in 1522, which situation he retained until his death, in 1532. He composed a tragedy of “Dido” out of Virgil, which was performed at St. Paul’s school by him and his pupils, before cardinal Wolsey, but deserves more notice for the improvements he introduced in Lilly’s Latin grammar, in the edition published at Antwerp in 1533. He had married Dionysia, the daughter of Lilly; and after his death she was again married to James Jacob, one of the masters of St. Paul’s, by whom she had a son, Polydore Jacob, who was probably the god-son of Polydore Virgil, who speaks of Rightwise with great respect.

, an English artist of very considerable merit, was born at London, in 1646, and, instructed in the art of painting by Fuller and Zoust. Lord Orford asserts, that he was one of the best native painters that had flourished in England; and that there are draperies and hands painted by him that would do honour either to Lely or Kneller; the portrait of the lord-keeper North, at Wroxton, being in every respect a capital performance. After the death of sir Peter Lely, he advanced in the esteem of the public, and had the honour to paint the portraits of king Charles II. king James and his queen, and was appointed state painter. He made nature his principal study, without adopting the manner of any master, and as far as he thought it prudent he improved or embellished it in his pictures; and, like many other men of parts, he seems to be more respected by posterity, than by the age in which he flourished. He was, in truth, humble, modest, and of an amiable character. He had the greatest diffidence of himself, and was easily disgusted with his own works, the source probably, says lord Orford, of the objections made to him. With a quarter of Kneller’s vanity, he might have persuaded the world he was as great a master. The gout put an end to his progress, for he died in 1691, at the age of forty-five, and was buried in Bishopsgate church, in which parish he was born. One Thomas Riley was an actor, and has a copy of verses in Randolph’s Poems. This, lord Orford thinks, might be the painter’s father. In the same place are some Latin verses by Riley, whom the same biographer takes to be our painter himself. Richardson married a near relation of Riley, and inherited about SOOl. in pictures, drawings, and effects.

There was a more recent artist of this name, but nowise related to the preceding, Charles Reuben Riley, who died in 1798, about forty-six years of age. He was placed under Mortimer, and in 1778 obtained the gold medal at the Royal Academy, for the best painting in oil, the subject, the Sacrifice of Iphigenia. He was employed in the decorations of some noblemen’s and gentlemen’s houses, but chiefly in making drawings and designs for the booksellers.

, a learned Italian ecclesiastical historian of the seventeenth century, was a native of Treviso, and was brought up in the congregation of the oratory at Rome, of which Baronius had been a member. After the death of that cardinal, Rinaldi wrote a continuation of his 46 Ecclesiastical Annals," from 1198, where Baronius left off, to 1564, and with no inferiority to the preceding volumes. It consists often large volumes in folio, published at Rome at different periods, from 1646 to 1677. Rinaldi also was the author of a sufficiently copious abridgment, in Italian, of the whole annals, compiled both by Baronius and himself.

, in German Sterck, an eminent Flemish philosopher and mathematician, was born at Antwerp, and first studied in the emperor Maximilian the First’s palace, and afterwards at the university of Lou vain, where he acquired the learned languages, philosophy, and the mathematical sciences. He became a public professor in that university, and taught various sciences; and in 1528 went into Germany, and taught the mathematical sciences and the Greek tongue in various seminaries of that country, and afterwards at Parig, Orleans, and Bourdeaux, and other places. He died about 1536. Among his most esteemed works were, “De Ratione Studii,” Antwerp, 1529, in which are many particulars of his own studies; various treatises on grammar; Dialectica, et Tabulae Dialectics,“Ley den, 1547;” De conscribendis Epistolis Lib.“” Rhetoricae, et quat ad earn spectant“” Sententiae“” Sphiera, sive Institutionum Astronomicarum, Lib. III.,“Basil, 1528, 8vo;” Cosmographia“” Optica“” Chaos Mathematicum“”Arithraetica" all which were collected and published at Leyden, in 1531.

, an excellent Swiss artist, wa born at Zuric, January 27th, 1575, but of his master, his travels, or the progress of his younger years, his biographer has not informed us. He must have enjoyed some celebrity, as he was chosen by the magistracy of Berne to decorate with paintings of large dimensions the senate-house and minster of that metropolis, and had the freedom of their city conferred on him. These pictures, which represented facts relative to the foundations of Berne, or allegories alluding to the peculiarities of its situation and customs, were equally distinguished by picturesque con* ception, boldness of style, and correct execution. In the senate-house especially, the third picture, whose subject was the building of the town, shewed great intelligence of foreshortening, and of what is by the Italians termed “di sotto in su.” For the public library of Zuric he painted the arms of the state and of its dependencies, supported by Religion and Liberty; Death lies at the feet of Religion, but to the usual allegoric implements in her hands he added a bridle, to distinguish her from Fanaticism and Superstition.

, an Italian poet of Florence, who went into France in the suite of Mary of Medicis, queen to Henry IV. is the reputed inventor of the musical drama or opera, that is, of the manner of writing, or representing comedies or tragedies in music, to which the first recitative was applied. Others give this invention to a Roman gentleman of the name of Emilio del Cavaliere, who was more properly the inventor of the sacred drama or oratorio, in a similar species of music or recitative, so nearly at the same time that it is difficult to determine which was first: both had their beginning in 1600. Rinucciui was author of three lyric pieces, “Daphne,” “Euridice,” and “Ariadne,” which all Italy applauded. Euridice, written for the nuptials of Mary of Medicis, was first performed with great splendor and magnificence at Florence, at the court and expence of the grand duke. The poetry is truly lyrical, smooth, polished, and mellifluous. He died in 1621, at Florence; and a collection, or rather selection, of his works were published in 1622, in the same city, in 4*o, by his son, Pietro Francesco Rinuccini, and another entitled “Drammi Musicale,” in 1802, 8vo, at Leghorn. The family is noble, and was subsisting in 1770. More of Ottavio may be seen in the appendix to Walker’s “Life of Tassoni,” just published, 1816.

, an able French physician, a native of Amiens, and distinguished by his attainments both in literature and science, is said not only to have written and spoken the learned languages with facility, but to have been thoroughly intimate with the contents of almost all the writings of the ancients. We have, however, very few particulars of his life, unless that he gave lessons in natural philosophy at the college of Boncour, at Paris, where he took his degree in 1574, and held the office of dean of the faculty in 1586 and 1587. He died Oct. 18, 1606. He was a strenuous advocate for the doctrine of Hippocrates and the ancients, whom he defended with great ardour against the chemists. His works, which are indicative of genius, were collected and published, together with some posthumous tracts, at Paris, in 1610, under the title of “Opera Omnia,” and some were separately published, particularly one against the ignorance of the practitioners of surgery in his time, entitled “Ad Impudentiam quorundam Chirurgorum, qui Medicis suquari et Chirurgiam publice profiteri volunt; proveteri dignitate Medicinal Apologia philosophica,” Paris, 1567. This was followed by several pieces on both sides.

, son of the preceding, was born at Paris in the year 1577. While his father afforded every encouragement to his rising talents, his mind was naturally directed to the study of medicine, in which his progress was uncommonly rapid. He took his degree in 160-1, and a very few years after acquired great reputation as an author. In 1613, he was appointed royal professor of anatomy and botany by Louis XIII.; and in this latter capacity he petitioned the king for the establishment of a botanic garden in the university of Paris. He subsequently held the appointment of physician to queen Mary de Medicis, and accompanied that princess in her travels; he arrived at Cologne after her death, in July 1642, and returned to Paris, where he resumed his profession. After having twice undergone the operation of lithotomy, he lived to the age of eighty years, and died at Paris February 19, 1657.

Riolan, although one of the most expert and learned anatomists of his time, was hindered in his progress as a discoverer, by tiis extreme devotion to the ancients; and yet was arrogant in his claims to originality, and by his pertinacity, and contempt of others, he raised himself many opponents and enemies. He published several new observations, however, respecting many parts of anatomical science, especially the structure of the colon, the biliary ducts, the uterus and vagina, the tongue, os hyoides, &c. but he did not illustrate them by engravings, as it was a maxim with him, that no representations could supersede the study of nature. His principal works, which were by no means confined to anatomy, are noticed in the following list. 1. “Brevis excursus in Battologiam Quercetani, quo Alchemias principia funditus diruuntur, et Artis veritas demonstratur,” Par. 1604. 2. “Comparatio veteris Medictate cum nova, Hippocraticae in Hermetica, Dogrnaticae cum Spargyrica,” 1605. 3. “Disputatio de Monstro Lutetiae 1605 nato.” 4. “Incursionum Quercetani depulsio,” id. 5. “Censura demonstrations Harveti pro veritate Alchymiae,” 1606. 6. “Scholu Anatomica novis et raris observationibus illustrata. Adjuncta est accurata fcetus humani historia,” 1607; enlarged by the author with the title of “Anatome corporis humani,” 1610. 7. “In Librum Cl. Galeni de Ossibus, ad Tyrones explanationes apologeticae pro Galeno, adversus novitios et novatores Anatomicos,” 1G13. 8. “Gigantomachie,” 1613, written in refutation of Habicot’s account of the discovery of the bones of the giant Teutobochus. Riolan published two other tracts, or more, upon this controversy, which ended with the appearance of his, 9. “Gigantologie; discours sur la grandeur des Grants, &c.” in 1618. 10. “Osteologia ex veterum et recentiorum praeceptis descripta,” 1614. 11. “Discours sur les Hermaphrodits, ou il est demontre*, centre l‘opinion commune, qu’il n'y a point de vrais Hermaphrodits,” 1614. 12. “Anatomica, seu Anthropographia,” 1618. 13. “Enchiridium anatomicum et pathologicum,” 164S, and many times reprinted; the best edition is of Paris, 1658. 14. “Opuscula anatomica nova,” Lond. 1649, containing remarks on the anatomical works of the most celebrated physicians, and an attack upon Harvey, and his doctrine of the circulation,' of which Riolan was a great antagonist. 15. “Curieuses Recherches sur les e*coles de Medecine de Paris et de Montpelier,” 1651. He also published three different works, entitled “Opuscula anatomica,” in 1650, and the three following years, opposing the doctrines of Bartholine and Pecquet, respecting the absorbents and lacteals, and Harvey’s on the circulation; and two more on the same subjects, with the titles of “Responsio prima, et altera,” 1652 and 1655.

, a chemist and poet in the time of Henry VII. was a canon of Bricllington, and accomplished in many branches of erudition; and still maintains his reputation as a learned chemist of the lower ages. He was a great traveller, and studied both in France and Italy. At his return from abroad, pope Innocent VIII. absolved him from the observance of the rules of his order, that he might prosecute his studies with more convenience and freedom. But his convent not concurring with this very liberal indulgence, he turned Carmelite at St. Botolph’s in Lincolnshire, and died in that fraternity in 1490. His chemical poems are nothing more than the doctrines of alchemy cloathed in plain language, and a very rugged versification. His capital performance is the “Compound of Alchemic,” written in 1471, in the octave metre, and dedicated to Edward IV. He has left a few other compositions on his favourite science, printed by Ashmole, who was an enthusiast in this abused species of philosophy; and some lives of saints in ms.

, a learned Spanish ecclesiastic of the Augustine order, was born at Haro about 1730, and acquired such reputation for knowledge in ecclesiastical history, that he was appointed by the king, Charles III. to continue that history of which Florez published 29 Vols. 4to. To these he accordingly added six volumes more, written, according to our authority, with equal ability, and equal liberality of sentiment. Some notice of this work, entitled “Espana Sagrada,” is taken in our account of Florez. Risco died about the end of the last century, but the exact time is not specified.

, an English topographer, was the son of Thomas Risdon, bencher of the Inner Temple, afterwards treasurer of that society, and lastly, recorder of Totness, who published some law “Readings,” and died in 1641. His son was educated at Great Torrington, Devonshire, previous to his studying at Exeter college, Oxford, which he left without a degree, in consequence, as Prince supposes, of his coming to some family property which required his presence, and rendered him independent. On this, which was an estate at Winscot, be appears to have lived in retirement, and died in 1640. He drew up an account of Devonshire, which remained in ms. of which there were several copies, until 1714, when it was printed, under the title of “The Chorographical Description or Survey of the County of Devon, &c.” William Chappie, of Exeter, intended a new edition of this work, and actually issued proposals; but dying in 1781, his design was not completed, although in 1785 a portion of it, printed at Exeter, appeared in 4to, with many notes and additions. There is a “continuation” of Risdon’s Survey, which is paged on from the first part, and very rarely to be met with, but there are copies in the Bodleian and in the library of St. John’s, given by Dr. Rawlinson.

, a poetical critic and editor, was born Oct. 2, 1752, at Stockton-upon-Tees, in the county of Durham, and was bred to the profession of the law, which he practised chiefly in the conveyancing branch. In 1785 he purchased the office of high bailiff of the liberties of the Savoy, and retained it until his death. These seem the only particulars of Mr. Ritson’s progress in his profession, which have been recorded by his friends. He became, however, far better known for his researches into the antiquities of English literature, particularly poetry; and these he was enabled to carry on for many years, by dint of memory and extraordinary industry. In recovering dates, assigning anonymous fragments to their authors, and those other minute particulars which are important to poetical antiquaries, Mr. Ritson had perhaps few superiors; but all he performed was disgraced by a harsh, rugged, and barren style, and an affectation of a new orthography, and yet more by the contempt, approaching to malignity, with which hfe treated Mr. Warton, Mr. Malone, and his other contemporaries who had acquired any name in the world. Although not absolutely incapable of civility, his conversation partook much of the harshness of his writings; and giving the lie was not uncommon with him, even when the subject in dispute had nothing in it to excite passion. His wretched temper seems also to have been exasperated by the state of public affairs, his hatred of the reigning family, and his attachment to republicanism. Many instances might be given of his unhappy prejudices, but it appeared at last that the whole might be traced to a diseased mind, which was completely overthrown by insanity. When this became too visible to be neglected, he was removed to a receptacle for insane persons at Hoxton, where he died a few days after, Sept. 3, 1803, leaving many works which will prove useful and interesting to poetical antiquaries long after the peculiarities of his temper are forgotten. His first publication was an anonymous quarto pamphlet of “Observations on the three volumes of Warton’s History of English Poetry;” one of the most illiberal productions that had then appeared. He wrote, also anonymously, three sets of. remarks on the editors of Shakspeare: I. On Mr. Sieevens’s edition, 1773, entitled “Remarks, critical and illustrative, on the Text and Notes of the last edition of Shakspeare,” 8vo; 2. “The Quip modest,” &c. on Mr. Reed’s republication of that edition, particularly illiberal 3. “Cursory Criticisms,” &c. on Mr. Malone’s edition. He published also a select collection of English Songs, in 3 vols. 8vo. Ancient Songs, from the time of Henry III. to the Revolution, 8vo. A volume of pieces of ancient popular poetry, 8vo. “The English Anthology,” a selection of poetry, in 3 small octavo volumes. “Robin Hood; a collection of all the ancient Poems, Songs, affd Ballads, now extant, relative to that celebrated Outlaw. To which are added, Historical Anecdotes of his Life,” 1795, 2 vols. 8vo. A collection of Scotch Songs, with the genuine Music, 2 vols. 12mo. “Biographia Poetica a Catalogue of English Poets of the twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries; with a short Account of their Works.” 1801, 12mo. He put his name to “Ancient English Metrical Romances; selected and published by Joseph Ritson,” 1802, 3 vols. 12mo. This last publication is perhaps the least interesting of the list.

His last work was, a “Treatise on abstinence from animal food,” in which he collected so many impious and extravagant sentiments, that he could not for some time find a publisher. His catastrophe, however, followed soon after publication, and the book was forgotten.

, a young man of very considerable literary talents, was a native of Emont- bridge, near Penritb, and was born in 1761. At the age of sixteen, he began to teach school with credit to himself, and advantage to his pupils. After superintending a school for about four years, he relinquished the employment, and repaired to Edinburgh, where he studied medicine; and he maintained himself by writing medical theses for such of his fellow students as were too indolent, or too illiterate, to write for themselves. From Edinburgh he went to London, where he attended on the hospitals, and on lectures, and where he also supported himself by his literary exertions. In London he took a few private pupils, and was engaged for some time in writing the medical articles in the Monthly Review. Like Chatterton, however, whom in many particulars Ritson greatly resembled, he had to lament the neglect of the world, and after a short and irregular life in London, he died of a few weeks illness, at Islington, in 1789, and in the twenty-seventh year of his age.

Mr. Ritson published an excellent translation of Homer’s “Hymn to Venus,” 4to, which was well received by the public, and wrote one equally masterly of Hesiod’s “Theogony,” which, it is much to be regretted, was never published, and is now entirely lost. He wrote also “Essays on Moral and Philosophical Subjects,” which were never published; the preface to Clarke’s “Survey of the Lakes,” very ably executed; and several other pieces. He was a warm admirer of Shakspeare, and he frequently talked of producing a dramatic work on the Grecian model, similar in its kind to Mason’s Elfrida and Caractacus.

, a native of Forcheim, in the bishopric of Bamberg, is said by some writers to have been born a Jew; but others assert that he was first a Roman Catholic, then a Jew, and lastly, a Lutheran. This, however, is certain, that he published several books containing Judaical learning, was professor of Oriental languages in the academy of Konigsburg, and died about 1652. His works are, a Commentary on the book “Jezirah, or, the Creation,” attributed to Abraham, Amsterdam, 1642, 4to; a treatise “De veritate Religionis Christianas,” Franeker, 1699; “Libra veritatis,” 1698, in which he asserts that the Chaldee paraphrase furnishes arguments against the Jews and Anti-Trinitarians; “Letters;” a German translation of the Prayers used by the Jews in their synagogues, on the first day of each year; and other works. Rittangelius maintained this paradox, that the New Testament “contains nothing hut what was taken from the Jewish antiquities.”

, an American philosopher and mathematician, was born in Pennsylvania in 1732. By the dint of genius and application, he was enabled to mingle the pursuits of science with the active employments of a farmer and watch-maker. The latter of these occupations he filled with unrivalled eminence among his countrymen. In 17t9 he was with others invited by the American Philosophical Society to observe the transit of Venus, when he particularly distinguished himself by his observations and calculations. He afterwards constructed an observatory, where he made such valuable discoveries, as tended to the general diffusion of science. After the American war, as he was a strenuous advocate for independence, he successively filled the offices of treasurer of the state of Pennsylvania, and director of the national mint; in the first of which he manifested incorruptible integrity, and in the last, the rare talent of combining theories in such a way as to produce correct practical effects. He succeeded Dr. Franklin in the office of president of the American Philosophical Society; but towards the close of his days he withdrew from public life, and spent his time in retirement. After a very severe illness, but of no long continuance, he died July 10, 1796, about the age of 64. He had the degree of LL. D. conferred upon him. To the “Transactions” of the American Philosophical Society he contributed several excellent papers, chiefly on astronomical subjects.

, a learned civilian and philologer of Germany, was the son of Balthasar Rittershusius of Brunswic, and born there Sept. 25, 1560. He was taught Greek and Latin in his own country, at the school of which his mother’s brother, Matthias Berg, was rector; and, in 1580, went to Helmstad, where he applied himself to the civil law; but without neglecting the belles lettres, which formed his most lasting pursuit. After recovering from the plague, by which he was endangered in this town, he removed to Altorf in 1584, to profit by the lectures of Gifanius, for whom he conceived a particular esteem. He began to travel in 1587, went through part of Germany, and came to Bohemia. Being afterwards at Basil in 1592, he took the degree of doctor of law, and returned to Altorf, to fill the professor’s chair, which the curators of the university had given him some time before. He had many advantageous proposals from other universities of Germany and Holland, but his attachment to Altorf would not suffer him to accept them. He died at Altorf May 25, 1613, after having married two wives, by whom he had nine children. Two of his sons, George and Nicolas, distinguished themselves in the republic of letters; and George wrote the life of his father.

He was a man of extensive learning, and perfectly skilled in the Greek and Latin tongues. He is said to have had Homer and Hesiod so well by heart, as once, in a conversation with a learned young gentleman, to have expressed all he had occasion to say in the verses of Homer. He was also a judicious critic, and wrote notes upon many ancient Greek and Latin authors, Petronius, Phacdrus, Oppian, &c. which have been inserted in the best editions of those authors. Thus Burinan, in his edition of “Phsedrus,” 1698, 8vo, has carefully inserted the entire notes of Rittershusius, whom he calls in his preface “Germanise suae quondam ornamentum, & noil minoris Gallice-decus.” He published a great number of works, sixty-six of which are enumerated by Niceron, many on civil law, but most on the belles lettres and criticism. His edition. of “Oppian,” Greek and Latin, appeared in 1657, 8vo. His son Nicholas, born at Altdorf in 1597, was also a man of learning and a jurist, and particularly applied to historical and genealogical inquiries. He studied at Helmstadt, and afterwards travelled into various countries of Europe. On his return he took a doctor’s degree in 1634, and was appointed professor of feudal law at Altdorff. He died in 167O. Nicholas edited several of his father’s works, and in 163S published an oration on “Hanno’s Periplws.” v ' He was the author of a large work, entitled “Genealggia? Jmperatorum, Regum, Ducum, Comitum, &c. ab anno 1400 ad annum 1664,” 7 vols. in 4, folio, a work of rare occurrence. Several of his letters are printed in the “Epistolse celebrium Virorum,” 1705.

, a learned French writer, was born at Laval, in the province of Perche, about 1571. He wa* brought up in the family of the count de Laval, and for. some time followed the military profession, serving in Italy and in Holland. In 1603, Henry IV. appointed him one of the gentlemen of his bed-chamber. In 1605 he entered into tSie service of the emperor against the Turks: but ori his return he devoted himself to literary and scientific studies and in 1611 he was appointed preceptor to the young king, Lewis XIII. with a pension of 3000 livres, and the title of counsellor of state. An insult he received from his royal pupil obliged him to quit his office for some time. The king had a favourite dog, who was perpetually jumping on Rivault during his giving lessons, and Rivault one day gave him a kick. The king was so incensed as to strike Riv'lult, who retired; but it appears they were soon reconciled, and by the king’s orders Rivault accompanied ma* dame Elizabeth of France as far as Bayonne, on her way to be married to the king of Spain. On his return from that voyage he died at Tours, Jan. 1616, about the age of forty-five. He is spoken of with high esteem by several of the most celebrated writers of his time, particularly by Casaubon, Scaliger, Vossius, Erpenius, and Menage. His works consist of, 1. “Les Etats,” or “The States, or a discourse concerning the privileges of the prince, the nobles, and the Third Estate, &c.” 2. “Les Elemens d'Artillerie,” Paris, 1608, 8vo, a curious and very scarce work. 3. “Archimedis Opera quae extant, Gr. et Lat. novis detnonstrationibus illdstrata,” &c. Paris, 1615, folio; and ether pieces on education, &c.

, a French writer, chiefly on subjects of bibliography and literary history, was born May 19, 1730, at Apt in Provence, and was bred to the church. He was first professor of philosophy in the seminary of Sh Charles, at Avignon, a situation for which he was not very well qualified. He then became curate of Molleges, in the diocese of Aries, but was not much better satisfied with this than his preceding occupation, as he had more taste for bibliographical researches than for pastoral duties. While here he had the credit of an amour with a married woman, that did not advance him much in the public opinion; and when the husband reproached him, the abbe threw him headlong out of the window, from which, however, he received no great injury. In 1767 he came to Paris, and his turn for books being already known, the duke de Valliere appointed him his librarian, and in allusion to his arrogant manner of deciding on literary points, used to call him his bull-dog. On the revolution breaking out, he became one of the most implacable of the anarchists, and denounced vengeance on the clergy, the nobility, and especially those writers who were his rivals in bibliographical pursuits, particularly William Debure, and the abbe Mercier, to whom he was uncommonly abusive. He afterwards led a life of turbulence and hostility, which at last closed at Marseilles in 1792. Among his numerous publications, the most useful were, 1. “Eclaircissemens sur l'inyention des Cartes a jouer,” Paris, 1780, 8vo. 2. “Prospectus sur Tessai de verifier Page de Miniatures,” such as appear on manuscripts from the fourteenth to the seventeenth century; ibid. 1782, fol. 3. “Notices historiques et critiques sur deux manuscrits de la bibliotheque du due de la Valliere,” ibid. 1779, 4to. 4. “Notices sur le traite manuscrit de Galeotto Martio, intitule De Excelientibus,” ibid. 1785, 8vo. 5. “Histoire critique de la Pyramide de Caius Sestius,” &c. ibid. 1787, foi. 6. La Chasse aux Bibliographes et aux Antiquaires mal avises,“ibid. 1789, 2 vols. a receptacle of almost every kind of abuse and awkward wit against Le Long, Debure, Mercier, &c. 7.”Dictionnaire de critique litteraire," &c. with other works of a similar kind, which are very scarce even in France, as he printed but a small number of each edition.

, a celebrated French protestant divine, was born at St. Maxeut, in Poitou, Aug. I, 1572, and after some school education near home, was sent to Rochelle in 1585, where he studied the learned languages and philosophy. In 1590 he was removed to the college at Beam, where he took his master’s degree, and began the study of divinity. Having finished that course, he was in 1595 appointed minister of the church of Thoars, and chaplain to the duke of Thoars, who admitted him into his confidence, and frequently employed him in matters of importance. While in this situation he married the daughter of a divine at Thoars. He was frequently the representative of the protestant churches in national conventions and synods, and in some of these filled the chair of president, particularly in that of Vitry, in 1617. In 1620 he was appointed professor of divinity at Leyden, but about the same time had the misfortune to lose his wife. In 1621 he visiteci England, and going to Oxford was incorporated doctor in divinity, which degree had been conferred on him at Leyden just before. He gave, on this occasion, several books to the Bodleian library. While in England he married, as his second wife, Maria, the sister of Peter du Moulin, and widow of Anthony de Guyot, upon whose death in the civil wars in France, she took refuge in England. What served to introduce him at Oxford was his previous acquaintance wiih John Russe, or Rouse, who had lodged some time with him at Thoars, and was now in the situation of librarian of the Bodleian. After his return to Leyden he resumed his professorship, and passed the rest of his days in teaching and writing. He died in 1647, aged seventy-five. His works, consisting of commentaries on the scriptures, sermons, and controversial pieces, were very numerous, but it is unnecessary to specify them separately, as they were collected in 3 vols. fol. and printed at Rotterdam in 1651. His brother William, who was likewise in the church, published on “Justification,” and on “Ecclesiastical liberty.” We have in English,“A relation of the last hours of Dr. Andrew Rivet,” 12mo, translated and published by Nehemiah Coxe, by which it appears that Dr. Rivet was not more a man of great learning than of great piety.

, of the same family as the preceding, but descended from a catholic branch, was born October 30, 1683, at Confolens, a small town in Poictiers. He studied philosophy under the Jacobins at Poictiers, but an escape from very imminent danger determined him to put on the Benedictine habit, which he accordingly did at Marmoutier in 1704, and took his vows therein 1705. In 1716 he was transferred to the monastery of St. Cyprian, and summoned to Paris the year following, to assist some other monks in compiling a history of illustrious men of the Benedictine order; but this project failing, Rivet turned his thoughts entirely to the literary history of France, which he had before formed a design of writing, and which employed the rest of his trfe, He was-assisted in this work by three of his brethren, Joseph Duclou, Maurice Poncet, and John Colomb, who were all his particular friends, good critics, and accurate and industrious writers. In 1723 Rivet published at Amsterdam “Le Necrologe de Port Royal des Champs,” a work of which he was very fond, and added to it a long historical preface. This publication, joined to his warm opposition to the bull Unrgenitus, from which he had appealed, obliged him to retire -iiftb the abbey of St. Vincent at Mans, the same year, where he laboured assiduously during more than thirty years to complete his “Literary History of France.” >' He published the first volume in 1733, 4to, and was finishing the ninth, which contains the first years of the 12th century, when he died, February 7, 1749, in his sixty-sixth year, worn out with intense application, austerities, and the strict and rigorous observation of his rule, from which he never departed. His history was afterwards extended to 12 volumes, to which Clemencet added a 13th. It is a very useful work, but the French literati have never thought of completing it.

, an eminent French physicist, was born at Montpellier in 1589. He studied in the university of his native place, but having failed in his examinations for his degree, he was impelled to redouble his exertiotis, and in 16 11 was admitted to the degree of doctor with great credit. In 1622 he was appointed to the professorship of medicine in the university, an office which he continued to fill with great honour until his death in 1655. Riverius published “The Institutes of Medicine,” in five books, in Latin, which went through many editions; but the work which has gained him most reputation, is a course of medicine, entitled “Praxis Medica,” of which editions were long multiplied in France, Holland, and England. It treats of most of the diseases to which the body is subject, in seventeen books, in a clear style; but in many places he appears to have borrowed copiously from Sennertus. He published also a work entitled “Observationes Medic* et Curationes insignes,” which has been frequently reprinted, and is not now without its value. These works have been collected and published together, under the title of “Opera Medica Universa,” Geneva, 1737, and Leyden, 1758, fol. Eloy observes, that a friar, Bernardin Christin, who had been a pupil of Riverius, compiled some secrets of chemistry, which he published with the name of Riverius; and although it has been clearly proved that he was not the author of these papers, yet they have been frequently printed in the collections of his works, and separately, under the title of “Arcana Riverii.”

, an eminent botanist and physician, was the son of a learned physician and critic, Andrew Bachmann, whose name in Latin became Rivinus. He was born at Leipsic in 1652. After a successful course of study he became professor of physiology and botany in his native university. He was also a member of various learned societies, and died in 1723 r aged seventyone.

The botanical system of Rivinus is founded on the roost elegant and attractive, if not the most solid and important, parts of plants. His classes are marked by the number, the regularity, or irregularity, of the petals. He could not proceed far in this path without perceiving that he made most unnatural, and, as Haller justly terms them, paradoxical, combinations. He therefore asserted, and doubtless believed, the inutility and impracticability of 4 really natural classification. This principle brought him to one right conclusion, which even the philosophical Ray did not attain, or was afraid to admit, that the old primary distribution of vegetables into trees, shrubs^ and herbs, is unscientific and erroneous.

Rivinus published, at his own expence, in 1690, his splendid illustration of the first class of his system, comprising such plants as have a monopetabus irregular 6ower. This part consists of one hundred and twenty-five plates; bub the catalogue of species is imperfect, A learned “Introductio generalis in rem hdtfbariam” is prefixed and this introductory part was, at different times, republished in a smaller form. The second part of this sumptuous work came forth in 1691, and consists of two hundred and twentyone plates, of plants with four irregular petals; into which class, by means of some contrivance, and many grains of allowance, are admitted all the papilionaceous tribe, the cruciform genus Iberis, the Euphorbia, and a few things besides. In 1699 the third part, containing flowers with five irregular petals, was given to the world. Even more liberty is taken in the assemblage of genera here than in the former class. It consists of one hundred and thirtynine plates. A fourth part, the hexapetalse irregulares, consisting of the Orchideae, was finished, but not published, before the author’s death; nor indeed have any more than a very few copies of this ever got abroad into the world, so that it constitutes one of the greatest bibliothecal rarities. With respect to utility or beauty, those who are possessed of the transcendant engravings of this favourite tribe in Haller’s History of Swiss Plants, may dispense with the figures of Rivinus. The author had prepared several supplementary plates to his work, which never came forth, and of which perhaps the only specimens are to be seen in sir Joseph Banks’s fine copy of the whole work, except two duplicate plates presented by the learned baronet to the president of the Linnaean society. There is every reason to believe that the copy in question belonged to the author himself, or to his son, as may be gathered from its manuscript additions and corrections. A complete copy, of even the three first parts of Rivinus’s book is, indeed, difficult to be met with; for several of the plates having from time to time received additions of seed-vessels, or of entire plants; the earlier impressions of such plates are consequently imperfect. The best copies are required, by fastidious collectors, to have every plate with and without the additions.

As a medical writer, Rivinus has the merit of faithful observation and description, in his treatise “de Peste Lipsiensi,” published in 1680. He wrote also on dyspepsia, on intermittent fevers, and various other subjects. He did not scruple to attack whatever practice or opinion he found established on the basis of prejudice and ignorance. In this respect his “Censura Medicamentorum officinalium” ranks very high. His commendable aim, in this work, was to clear the materiamedica of its various disgraceful incumbrances; so many of which originated in error, imposition, or superstition. His attempts have been followed up by various men of ability and authority; and it is to the united labour and good sense of such that the world is indebted for the purified and improved state of our modern pharmacopeias.

Though not a great practical anatomist, or dissector, Rivinus is said to have discovered a new salivary duct. He Jeft a son, John Augustus Rivinus, who succeeded him as professor, and under whose presidency was published a dissertation, in 1723, on “Medicinal Earths.” This gentleman died in 1725, aged thirty-three, having survived his father but two years. His premature death seems to have prevented the publication of the fourth part of his father’s great botanical work, at least for some time. Haller says, Ludwig afterwards edited the plates of the Orchidece, without any letter-press; but this publication has never come under our inspection.

, a musician of the sixteenth century, whose misconduct or misfortunes have obtained him a place in the history of Scotland, was born at Turin, but brought up in France. His father was a musician and dancing-master, and the son probably possessed those talents which served to amuse a courtly circle. He appears to have come to Scotland about 1564, when, according to most accounts, he was neither young nor handsome. The count de Merezzo brought him hither in his suite, as ambassador from Savoy to the court of the unfortunate queen Mary. Sir James Melvil, in his “Memoirs,” tells us that “the queen had three valets of her chamber who sung in three parts, and wanted a base to sing the fourth part; therefore, telling her majesty of this man, Rizzio, as one fit to make the fourth in concert, he was drawn in sometimes to sing with the rest.” He quickly, however, crept into the queen’s favour; and her French secretary happening at that time to return to his own country, Rizzio was preferred by her majesty to that office. He began to make a figure at court, and to appear as a man of weight and consequence. Nor was he careful to abate that envy which always attends such an extraordinary and rapid change of fortune. On the contrary, he seems to have done every thing to increase it; yet it was not his exorbitant power alone which exasperated the Scots; they considered him as a dangerous enemy to the protestant religion, and believed that he held for this purpose a constant correspondence with the court of Rome. His prevalence, however, was very short-lived; for, in 1566, certain nobles, with lord Darnly at their head, conspired against him, and dispatched him in the queen’s presence with fifty-six wounds. The consequences of this murder to the queen and to the nation are amply detailed in Scotch history, and have been the subject of a very fertile controversy.

As a musician, Rizzio’s instrument was the lute, which was at that time the general favourite all over Europe; and an opinion has long prevailed that he was the great improver of Scotch music, and that he composed most of the Scotch tunes which have been heard with so much pleasure for two centuries past, and are in their style to be distinguished from all other national airs. This matter, however, has been investigated both by sir John Hawkins, from records, and by Dr. Barney, from personal inquiry at Turin; and the result is, that the opinion has no foundation. Some part of Dr. Burney’s sentiments on the subject xve have already given in our account of king James I. of Scotland. It does riot, in fact, appear that Rizzio was a compeser at all; and his stay in this country not exceeding two years, with the variety of business in which he was, 'fatally for himself and his royal mistress, engaged, could have left him little leisure for study, or for undertaking the improvement of the national music.

, an ingenious young writer and medallist, the third child and second son of Edward Roberts, esq. deputy-clerk of the pells of the exchequer, was born March 13, 1789, in St. Stephen’s court, Westminster. His frame and constitution were delicate, which probably created an aversion to the usual exercises of youth, and his early pursuits evinced vivacity without levity. They were of a nature to exercise, but not to weary the faculties; and, springing from a desire for knowledge, afforded to him a perpetual variety of objects. The first radiments of education, as far as it related to habits, he acquired himself, or perhaps he imbibed them from the situation in which he was placed. In his father’s house at Ealing, the well-ordered ceconomy of time which prevails in a regular family, taught him to appreciate and to profit by the means of tranquillity thus placed within his reach. The salubrity of the air, and the extent of the grounds, which allowed him as much exercise as he wished for, contributed to the health of his body; and he had the advantage of a well-chosen collection of books, which afforded him the opportunity of indulging his taste for reading.

In the earliest periods of his life he seemed to be fully impressed with the importance and value of time, no moment of which he suffered to be unemployed. Whatever was cnrious in literature attracted his attention, but subjects of antiquity were those which he most delighted to investigate. In these his patience and perseverance were very remarkable; and though he read with eagerness and rapidity, he never neglected to note down particular circumstances, or to mark for subsequent reference such things as he could not at once completely embrace. To a natural quickness of observation was added a retentive memory, and the exercise of these was matured into an habit of attention and arrangement.^ Fortunately for Barre these endowments did not escape the eye of him who was most interested by affection and consanguinity in his welfare. His father early discovered and cultivated them. Barre, when at home, was his constant companion, and, soon after the years of infancy were passed, became his most intimate friend. Indeed it is not possible to imagine a greater degree of confidence between two persons, even of similar ages, than that which existed between this youth and his parent; and so well was it supported and understood, that Barre never for a moment lost sight of his relative situation, nor transgressed the limits of respect which filial love, even had there been no other motive, would have taught him to observe. The clearness of his perceptions, and the correctness of his understanding, secured him from anv overrated idea of his own talents, and rather added than detracted from the docility of his disposition: a docility not in him the result of feebleness, or indolence, nor tending to the obliteration of his natural character, but derived from a comparison of his own inexperience with the matured judgment of advanced life, and a just estimate and conviction of his father’s love. Barre, in this free and confidential intercourse, imbibed all the advantages which a system of perfect intimacy with one so much his superior in age and worldly experience could produce, divested as it was, by the discriminating hand of a parent, of all the evils which attend on the formation of an artificial character. It would have been of the highest gratification to his father to have retained constantly under his own eye a son so much fhe object of his care and affection, and who seemed to court all the instruction which could be bestowed on him,; but as this would have demanded leisure, and qualifications which fall to the lot of but few persons, Barre was sent in May 1797, to Dr. Home’s school at Chiswick, and in June 1799, was placed under the care of the Rev. William Goodenough, at Ealing, between whose family and that of his pupil a long intimacy and friendship had subsisted. Here he remained six years, and acquired a competent knowledge of the classics, and some share of mathematics, history, and antiquities, the study of which last had been previously familiar to him while enjoying his father’s library at home.

It was during the same time that he formed his fine collection of coins, which is now in the British museum, having been purchased by the trustees with consent of parliament. This collection was begun to be formed when Barre was very young. He accidentally saw a few Roman coins in his father’s possession, which he presently got transferred to his own. They were hoarded by him with infantine care, and esteemed by him as invaluable property. The occasional presents of friends, and such specimens as a child’s pocket-money could procure, soon increased the store, which he would display and comment upon with the air and importance of a connoisseur. As he advanced in age, however, he perceived that to form a complete and universal collection of coins was an object only in the power of individuals possessed of larger means than he could ever expect to enjoy. He therefore relinquished it in this character, and confined his attention only to those connected with his own country. His father encouraged the pursuit, as he followed it in the light of a science, which illustrated and confirmed him in his historical studies; and his name as a collector soon became known among the dealers, who did not fail to bring him whatever could be discovered most rare and curious in their line of search.

On the 11th of October, 1805, he was entered as a commoner of Christ Church at Oxford, in which house he became a student at the Christmas following, by the presentation of Dr. Hay, obtained at the request of lord Viscount Sidmouth. As he never had been separated from his fa^­mily till this period, for a week together, the distance between Ealing and Oxford appeared to him a very considerable one, and a plan of correspondence was immediately established. His earliest letters contain a picture of his mind under the influence of new impressions, and new habits, while they display his conduct as uniformly correct and praise-worthy; and he took his first degree in Nov. 1808, with great approbation. Before this time he had been a frequent correspondent in the Gentleman’s Magazine on the subject of coins, and that not superficially, but with a degree of knowledge which would have been creditable to a veteran collector. He was also invited to contribute to one of those literary journals in which personal attack is more an object than sound criticism; but we are not sorry to find that he made little progress in an employment so unsuitable to an ingenuous mind.

The career, however, of this amiable young man was destined to be short. During his residence in the last two years at Oxford, he experienced attacks which indicated that all was not right about him; but their short duration, and the extreme repugnance that he felt towards drawing attention to himself on such accounts, which made him perhaps conceal their extent, prevented the alarm which otherwise his friends and family would have entertained. In the autumn of 1807 he was seized with a haemorrhage at the nose, and not long afterwards with frequent fits of giddiness. The excitement which he underwent in 1808, while qualifying himself to take his degree, rendered him still more obnoxious to these baneful influences. Under the constant agitation of his mind, the deterioration in his health became visible by caprice of appetite, and increased nervous irritability. In the summer of that year he was seized with a cough, which, though neither violent nor frequent, never left him afterwards. His illness, however, made no rapid advances; and when he returned home after his examination, he continued to mix in the society of his friends as usual. In a visit to London in the cold and unhealthy spring of 1809, his disposition to malady was increased by accidental causes, too minute to arrest his attention; and unfortunately also at this period he was summoned to Oxford by intelligence of the fire at Christ Church, by which his rooms were damaged, and his books endangered. The season, and the business he went upon, were peculiarly unfavourable to an invalid; he was necessarily involved in a good deal of bodily agitation, in order to; ascertain and secure his property, and exposed to the air at a time when repose and seclusion were of the utmost importance to him. As the summer advanced, his disorder did not abate, though the symptoms of it were too equivocal to enable his medical attendants to give it a decided name.

He was prevailed upon, with some entreaty, to make a journey early in July to Southampton, in the company of a near relation, with whom he had ever lired on terms of affectionate intimacy, and who rejoiced in offering him such attentions as he would accept. On his return to Eaiing at the end of September, the symptoms of his disorder had not increased in violence; but the effect of its secret ravages upon him were but too visible. During the whole progress of his ailment, his mind remained unaltered in its inclinations and desires. The thirst for knowledge continued, but the exhausted state of his corporeal system opposed physical obstacles to its gratification he bore up with cheerfulness and courage against evidences of that which certainly he himself could not be ignorant of, and lamented only the languor of nervous debility which rendered him unable to pursue his favourite and wonted occupations. He died Jan. I, 1810, and was buried on the 8th in Eaiing church, where, on a tablet of white marble, is an elegant Latin inscription from the pen of his early tutor and friend, the rev Mr. Goodenough. In 1814, a volume, in 4to, of his “Letters and Miscellaneous Papers,” was published with an elegant and affectionate memoir of his life, written by his cousin Grosvenor Charles Bedford, esq,

, a puritan divine, the son of Henry Roberts of Aslake, in Yorkshire, was born there or in that county in 1609, and entered a student of Trinity college, Oxford, in 1625. In 1632 he completed his degrees in arts, and was ordained. Where he first officiated does not appear but on the breaking out of the rebellion he went to London, took the covenant, and wns appointed minister of St. Augustine’s, Watlirtg-street, in room of Ephraim Udal, ejected for his loyalty. In 1649 he was presented to the rectory of WriiHTton in Somersetshire by his patron Arthur lord Capel, son of the beheaded lord Capel. While on this living he was appointed one of the commissioners for the “ejectment of those” who were called “ignorant and insufficient ministers and schoolmasters.” At the restoration, however^ he conformed, tired out, as many other’s were, by the distractions of the contending parties, and disappointed in every hope which the encouragers of rebellion had held forth. It does not appear whether he had any additional preferment, except that of chaplain to his patron lord Capel whenhe became earl of Essex; and when thrit nobleman was lord-lieutenant, of Ireland in 1672, it is suppose. i he procured him the degree of D. D. from the university of Dublin. He died at Wriugton about the end of 1675, and most probably wasi interred in that church. He published some single sermons: “The Believer’s evidence for Eternal Life,” &c, 1649, 1655, 8vo, and the “Communicant instructed,” 1651, 8vo, often reprinted; but his principal work is entitled “Chivis Bibliorum, the Key of the Bible,” in eluding the order, names, times, penmen, occasion, scope, and principal matter of the Old and New Testament. This was first printed at London and Edinburgh, 1649, in 2 vols, 8vo, and afterwards in 4to; and the fourth edition, 1675, in folio. Wood mentions another work, “Mysterium & Medulla Bibliorum, or the Mystery and Marrow of the Bible,” 1657, 2 vols. fol. as he says, but this is doubtful, and “The True way to the Tree of Life,” 1673, 8vo.

, a learned English divine and miscellaneous writer, was descended from a reputable family, which from time immemorial possessed a considerable estate at Mutter, in tae parish of Appleby, in Westmoreland. His father was an eminent maltster; and his mother, the only daughter of Mr. Edward Stevenson, of Knipe, in the same county, cousin to Edmund Gibson, bishop of London. He was born at this latter place, August 28, 1726; but his father soon afterwards removing to Rutter, he was sent, at a proper age, to the free-school at Appleby, where he received the rudiments of classical learning under Mr. Richard Yates, a man of eminent abilities, and distinguished character in his profession. From thence, in 1746, he went to Queen’s college, Oxford, where he took his degrees in arts, with considerable reputation for his ingenuity and learning. On his receiving orders he was, for some time, curate to the celebrated Dr. Sykes, at Rayleigh in Essex, and in 1758 he was instituted to the vicarage of Herriard in Hampshire; in 1770, to the rectory of Sutton in Essex; and in 1779, to the vicarage of Horucastle in Lincolnshire, to which he wns prcseuteU by his relation, Dr> Edtnund Law, bishop of Carlisle. In 1761 he published a sermon, entitled “The subversion of ancient Kingdoms considered,” preached at St. John’s, Westminster, Feb. 13, the day appointed for a general fast. In 1772, he revised and corrected for the press Dr. Gregory Sharpens posthumous sermons; and the same year completed a new edition of Algernon Sidney’s Discourses on Government, with historical notes, in one volume quarto, at the persuasion of Thomas Hollis, esq. who highly approved his performance.

In 1775 a remarkable incident happened, which excited the public attention. A Miss Butterfield was accused of poisoning Mr. Wm. Scawen, of Wooclcote lodge in Surrey. Mr. Robertson thought her very cruelly treated, and took an active part in her defence. On this occasion, he published a letter to Mr. Sanxay, a surgeon, on whose testimony Miss Butterfield had been committed to prison; in which he very severely animadverts on the conduct and evidence of that gentleman. After she had been honourably acquitted at the assizes at Croydon, he published a second pamphlet, containing “Observations on the case of Miss Butterfield,” shewing the hardships she had sustained, and the necessity of prosecuting her right in a court of justice: that is, her claim to a considerable legacy, which Mr. Scawen had bequeathed her by a will, executed with great formality, two or three years before his death. The cause was accordingly tried in Doctors 1 Commons. But, though it was universally agreed, that this unfortunate young woman had been unjustly accused, and that Mr. Scawen had been induced, by false suggestions, to sign another testamentary paper, in which her name was not mentioned, yet no redress could be obtained, as the judge observed, “that it was the business of the court to determine the cause, according to what the testator had done; not according to what he ought to have done.”

Mr. R. is said to have been the author of a useful tract, published in 178 1, “On Culinary Poisons.” In 1782, he published an elegant little volume for the improvement of young people in reading, entitled “An Introduction to the study of Polite Literature.” This performance was mentioned as the first volume of an intended series on the same subject; but the second never appeared, owing, as it is supposed, to part of it having been reprinted in a tract, for the use of Sunday-schools, without his consent, by archdeacon Paley . In the same year he revised and published a medical work of his friend sir Clifton Wintringham, “De Morbis quibusdam Commentarii,” in one vol. 8vo; to which a second volume was afterwards added in 1791.

In 1785 he published an“Essay on Punctuation,” in 12mo. In this treatise he has illustrated a dry and unpromising subject, with a variety of elegant and entertaining examples; a fourth edition of this essay was printed in 1796. In 1788 appeared “The Parian Chronicle, or the Chronicle of the Arundelian Marbles, with a Dissertation concerning its authenticity.” The tendency of this work is to shew, that the authenticity of this famous inscription, is extremely questionable; but although we may praise the ingenuity, acuteness, and learning, of the author, we may be permitted to doubt whether he has fully established his point.

In 1795 he published a translation of Telemachus, with notes, and the life of Fenelon, in two volumes 12mo; which bears the marks of his usual elegance, taste, and learning. By a note to the dissertation on the Parian Chronicle it appears, that he was concerned in writing the Critical Review “for twenty-one years, from August 1764, to September 1785, inclusive. During this period he was the author of above 2620 articles, on theological, classical, poetical, and miscellaneous publications.”

Mr Robertson’s health had been considerably impaired, owing to some fits of apoplexy which attacked him about 1799. During 1801 he seemed to have, in some measure, recovered; but on Jan. 18, 1802, he was seized with violent effusion of blood, which occasioned his death, on the very next day, in the seventy-seventh year of his age. He was tall, stout, and handsome, of a ruddy complexion, prepossessing look, gentle and unassuming manner?, and exceedingly polite in conversation: he was an accomplished moral character in every sense of the word. Without violently condemning any of the Christian persuasion, he was enthusiastically devoted to the church of England; and without indulging in any illiberal animadversions on foreign governments, he was duly sensible of the unrivalled advantages and the invaluable blessings of the British Constitution. As to his domestic virtues, one of his biographers thinks he cannot exhibit a more finished picture of them than by stating what Mrs. Robertson told him, “During the forty-four years we have lived together, never, for a single night, did he desert the domestic society, to seek elsewhere for amusement!”

The literary character of Mr. Robertson would rank high among those of his contemporaries in the same line, if he had concentrated his ideas in one large and compact work. Taken, however, as it is, it will unquestionably exhibit a learned critic and philologer, and one of the most accurate writers of his age. Although he was endowed with a vigorous understanding, and enriched with an uncommonly extensive knowledge, his predominant power was memory; and his favourite study, civil and literary history. In the last-mentioned branch he had, perhaps, no superior; and perhaps too, not many among the very professed bibliographers could rival him in the science of books, authors, and literary anecdotes.

, an eminent grammarian, was, according to Bale, “Eboracensis urbis alumnus” which may mean that he was educated at York; but Wood says, he was born at or near Wakefield in that county. He was originally of Queen’s college, Oxford, but afterwards a semi -commoner of Magdalen, and succeeded the famous John Stanbridge as master of the school adjoining to that college. He took his degree of M. A. in 1525, and was elected a fellow of Magdalen. In 1532 he was collated to the prebend of Welton-Westball in the cathedral of Lincoln; in the year following to that of Sleford, and in 1534, to that of Gretton, in the same church. It seems probable, but Wood does not mention it as certain, that he took his degree of U. D. in 1539, at which time he says, Robertson was esteemed the “fas et decus Oxonite” and was treasurer of the church of Salisbury. He held also the archdeaconry of Leicester and vicarage of Wakefield, to which Brownie Willis adds the rectory of St. Laud’s, at Sherrington, Bucks.

In 1549 he was associated with other divines, ordered by Edward VIth’s council to form the new liturgy or common prayer; and thus far, as Dodd remarks, he complied with the reformers; but it does not appear that he advanced much further. In queen Mary’s reign, 1557, he was made dean of Durham, and refused a bishopric. This dignity he might have retained when Elizabeth came to the throne, or have obtained an equivalent; but he refused to take the oath of supremacy. Nothing more is known with certainty of his history, unless that he died about 1560. Among the records collected at the end of Burnet’s History of the Reformation, are, of Robertson’s, “Resolutions of some questions concerning the Sacraments,” and “Resolutions of Questions relating to Bishops and Priests.” His grammatical tracts, entitled “Annotationes in Lib. Gulielmi Lilii.de Lat. Norn, generibus,” &c. were printed together at Basil, 1542, 4to. His reputation as a correct grammarian and successful teacher was very great. Strype says, that after refusing the oath of supremacy, he began to propagate his opinions against the reformation, and was overlooked; but Willis thinks he was taken into custody.

, a very learned divine, was born in Dublin, Oct. 16, 1705. His father was a native of Scotland, who carried on the linen-manufacture there; and his mother, Diana Allen, was of a very reputable family in the bishopric of Durham, and married to his father in England. From his childhood he was of a very tender and delicate constitution, with great weakness in his eyes till he was twelve years of age, at which period he was sent to school. He had his grammar-education under the celebrated Dr. Francis Hutcheson, who then taught in Dublin, but was afterwards professor of philosophy in the university of Glasgow. He went from Dr. Hutcheson to that university in 1722, where he remained till 1725, and took the degree of M. A. He had for his tutor Mr. John Lowdon, professor of philosophy; and attended the lectures of Mr Ross, professor of humanity; of Mr. Dunlop, professor of Greek; of Mr. Morthland, professor of the Oriental languages; of Mr. Simpson, professor of mathematics; and of Dr. John Simpson, professor of divinity. In the last-mentioned year, a dispute was revived, which had been often agitated before, between Mr. John Sterling the principal, and the students, about a right to chuse a rector, whose office and power is somewhat like that of the vice-chancellor of Oxford or Cambridge. Mr. Robertson took part with his fellow- students, and was appointed by them, together with William Campbell, esq. son of Campbell of Mamore, whose family has since succeeded to the estates and titles of Argyle, to wait upon the principal with a petition signed by more than threescore matriculated students, praying that he would, on the 1st day of March, according to the statutes, summon an university-meeting for the election of a rector; which petition he rejected with contempt. On this Mr. Campbell, in his own name and in the name of all the petitioners, protested against the principal’s refusal, and all the petitioners went to the house of Hugh Montgomery, esq. the unlawful rector, where Mr. Robertson read aloud the protest against him and his- authority. Mr. Robertson, by these proceedings, became the immediate and indeed the only object of prosecution. He was cited before the faculty, i. e. the principal and the professors of the university, of wbotn the principal was sure of a majority, and, after a trial which lasted several clays, had the sentence of expulsion pronounced against him; of which sentence he demanded a copy, and was so fully persuaded of the justice of his cause, and the propriety of his proceedings, that he openly and strenuously acknowledged and adhered to what he had done. Upon this, Mr. Lowdon, his tutor, and Mr. Dunlop, professor of Greek, wrote letters to Mr. Robertson’s father, acquainting him of what had happened, and assuring him that his son had been expelled, not for any crime or immorality, but for appearing very zealous in a dispute about a matter of right between the principal and the students. These letters Mr. Robertson sent inclosed hi 'one from himself, relating his proceedings and suffer! ngs in the cause of what he thought justice and right. Upon this his father desired him to take every step he might think proper, to assert and maintain his own and his fellowstudents claims; and accordingly Mr. Robertson went up to London, and presented a memorial to John duke of Argyle, containing the claims of the students of the university of Glasgow, their proceedings in the vindication of them, and his own particular sufferings in the cause. The duke received him very graciously, but said, that “he was little acquainted with things of this sort;” and advised him “to apply to his brother Archibald earl of Hay, who was better versed in such matters than he.” He then waited on lord Hay, who, upon reading the representation of the case, said “he would consider of it.” And, upon consideration of it, he was so affected, that he applied to the king for a commission to visit the university of Glasgow, with full power to examine into and rectify all abuses therein. In the summer of 1726, the earl of Hay with the other visitors repaired to Glasgow, and, upon a full examination into the several injuries and abuses complained of, they restored to the students the right of electing their rector; recovered the right of the university to send two gentlemen, upon plentiful exhibitions, to Baliol college in Oxford; took off the expulsion of Mr. Robertson, and ordered that particularly to be recorded in the proceedings of the commission; annulled the election uf the rector who had been named by the principal; and assembled the students, who immediately chose the master of Ross, son of lord Ross, to be their rector, &c. These things so affected Mr* Sterling, that he died soon after; but the university revived, and has since continued in a most flourishing condition.

Lord Hay had introduced Mn Robertson to bishop Hoadly, who mentioned him to archbishop Wake, and he was entertained with much civility by those great prelates. As he was then too young to be admitted into orders, he employed his time in London in visiting the public libraries, attending lectures, and improving himself as opportunities offered. He had the honour to be introduced to lord-chancellor King, by a very kind letter from Dr. Hort, bishop of Kilmore, and was often with his lordship. In 1727 Dr. John Hoadly, brother to the bishop of Salisbury, was nominated to the united bishoprics of Ferns and Leighlin in Ireland. Mr. Robertson was introduced to him by his brother; and, from a love of the natale solum, was desirous to go thither with him. Mr. Robertson then informed the archbishop of Canterbury of his design; and his Grace gave him a letter of recommendation to Dr. Goodwin, archbishop of Cashel, who received him in a most friendly manner, but died soon after. The first person whom Dr. Hoadly ordained, after he was consecrated bishop of Ferns, was Mr. Robertson, whose letters of deacon’s orders bear date January 14, 1727; and in February the bishop nominated him to the cure of Tullow in the county of Carlow: and here he continued till he was of age sufficient to be ordained a priest, which was done November 10, 1729; and the next day he was presented by lord Carteret, then lord-lieutenant of Ireland, to the rectory of Ravilly in the county of Carlow, and to the rectory of Kilravelo in the county of Widow; and soon after was collated to the vicarages of the said parishes by the bishop of Ferns. These were the only preferments he had till 1738, when Dr. Synge, bishop of Ferns, collated him to the vicarages of Rathmore and Straboe, and the perpetual cure of Rahil, all in the county of Carlow. These together produced art income of about 200l. a-year. But, as almost the whole lands of these parishes were employed in pasture, the tithes would have amounted to more than twice that sum if the herbage had been paid for black cattle, which was certainly due by law. Several of the clergy of Ireland had,, before him, sued for this herbage in the Court of Exchequer, and obtained decrees in their favour. Mr. Robertson, encouraged by the exhortations and examples of his brethren, commenced some suits in the Exchequer for this herbage, and succeeded in every one of them. But when he had, by this means, doubled the value of his benefices, the House of Commons in Ireland passed several severe resolutions against the clergy who had sued, or would sue, for this “nexv demand,” as they called it, which encouraged the graziers to oppose it so obstinately as to put a period to that demand. This proceeding of the Commons provoked Dean Swift to write “The Legion- Club.” Mr. Robertson soon after published a pamphlet, entitled “A Scheme for utterly abolishing the present heavy and vexatious Tax of Tithe;” the purport of which was, to pay the clergy and impropriators a tax upon the land in lieu of all tithes. This went through several editions: but nothing farther was done in it.

Mr. Robertson had, in 1723, married Elizabeth, daughter of major William Baxter, who, in his younger years, had been an officer in Ireland in the armies of king Charles II. and James 11.; but was cashiered by the earl of Tyrconnel, James’s lord-lieutenant of Ireland, as a person not to be depended upon in carrying on his and his master’s designs. Captain Baxter upon this repaired to London, and complained of it to the duke of Ormond. His father was at that time steward to the duke’s estate. His grace, who was then joined with other English noblemen in a correspondence with the prince of Orange, recommended him to that prince, who immediately gave him a company in his own forces. In this station he returned to England with the prince at the revolution, and acted his part vigorously in bringing about that great event. While the captain was in Holland, he wrote that remarkable letter to Dr. Burnet, afterwards bishop of Salisbury, which is inserted in the bishop’s life at the end of the “History of his own Times.” By this lady, who was extremely beautiful in her person, but much more so in her mind, Mr. Robertson had one and twenty children. There is a little poem written by him eight years after their marriage, and inscribed to her, upon her needle-work, inserted in the Gent. Mag. 1736. In 1743, Mr. Robertson obtained the bishop’s leave to nominate a curate at Ravilly, and to reside for some time in Dublin, for the education of his children. Here he was immediately invited to the cure of St. Luke’s parish; aud in this he continued five years, and then returned to Ravilly in 1748, the town air not agreeing with him. While he was in the cure of St. Luke’s, he, together with Mr. Kane Percival, then curate of St. Michan’s, formed a scheme to raise a fund for the support of widows and children of clergymen of the diocese of Dublin, which hath since produced very happy effects. In 1758 he lost his wife. In 1759 Dr. Richard Robinson was translated from the see of Killala to that of Ferns; and, in his visitation that year, he took Mr. Robertson aside, and told him, that the primate, Dr. Stone (who had been bishop of Ferns, and had kept up a correspondence with Mr. Robertson), had recommended him to his care and protection, and that he might therefore expect every thing in his power. Accordingly, the first benefice that became vacant in his lordship’s presentation was offered td him, and he thankfully accepted it. But, before he could be collated to it, he had the “Free and Candid Disquisitions” put into his hands, which he had never seen before. This inspired him with such doubts as made him defer his attendance on the good bishop. His lordship wrote to him again to come immediately for institution. Upon this, Mr. Robertson wrote him the letter which is at the end of a little book that he published some years after, entitled, “An Attempt to explain the words of Reason, Substance, Person, Creeds, Orthodoxy, Catholic Church, Subscription, and Index Expurgatorius;” in which letter Mr. Robertson returned his lordship the most grateful thanks for his kindness, but informed him that he could not comply with the terms required by law to qualify him for such preferment. However, Mr. Robertson continued at Ravilly performing his duty only, thenceforward, he omitted the Athanasian creed, &c. This gave o(Ferice and, therefore, he thought it the honestest course to resign all his benefices together, which he did in 1764; and, in 1766, he published his book by way of apology to his friends for what he had done; and soon after left Ireland, and returned to London. In 1767, Mr. Robertson presented one of his books to his old Alma Mater the university of Glasgow, and received in return a most obliging letter, with the degree of D. D. In 1768 the mastership of the freegrammar school at Wolverhampton in Staffordshire becoming vacant, the company of Merchant-Tailors, the patrons, unanimously conferred it on him. In 1772 he was chosen one of the committee to carry on the business of the society of clergymen, &c. in framing and presenting the famous petition to the House of Commons of Great Britain, praying to be relieved from the obligation of subscribing assent and consent to the thirty-nine articles, and all and every thing contained in the book of common-prayer. After this he lived several years at Wolverhampton, performing the duties of his office, in the greatest harmony with all sorts of people there; and died, of the gout in his stomach, at Wolverhampton, May 20, 1783, in the 79th year of his age; and was buried in the churchyard of the new church there.