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

, usually known by the name of the projector, was born at Edinburgh, in April 1671; and on the death of his father, who was a goldsmith or banker, inherited a considerable estate, called Lauriston. He is said to have made some progress in polite literature, but his more favourite study was that of financial matters, banks, taxes, &c. and he was at the same time a man of pleasure, and distinguished by the appellation of Beau Law. Having visited London in 1694, his wit and accomplishments procured him admission into the first circles, and he became noted for his gallant attentions to the ladies. One of his intrigues having involved him in a quarrel with a Mr. Wilson, a duel took place, and Mr. Law killed his antagonist. He was then apprehended, and committed to the king’s-bench prison, from which he made his escape, and is supposed to have retired to the continent. In 1700, however, he returned to Edinburgh, as he appears in that year to have written his “Proposals and reasons for constituting a Council of Trade,” which, although it met with no encouragement from the supremo judicature of the kingdom, procured him the patronage of some noblemen, under which he was induced in 1705, to publish another plan for removing the difficulties the kingdom was then, exposed to by the great scarcity of money, and the insolvency of the bank. The object of his plan was to issue notes, which were to be lent on landed property, upon the principle, that being so secured, they would be equal in value to gold and silver money of the same denomination, and even preferred to those metals, as not being liable to fall in value like them. This plausible scheme being also rejected as an improper expedient, Mr. Law now abandoned his native country, and went to Holland, on purpose to improve himself in that great school of banking and finance. He aftewards resided at Brussels, where his profound skill in calculation is said to have contributed to his extraordinary success at play.

Mr. Law, however, was named director-general of this royal bank, and branches of it were established at Lyons, Rochelle, Tours, Orleans, and Amiens. In 1720, he began to develope his grand project, so well known to all Europe, under the name of the Missisippi scheme. This scheme was no less than the vesting the whole privileges, effects, and possessions of all the foreign trading companies, the great farms, the profits of the mint, the general receipt of the king’s revenue, and the management and property of the bank, in one great company, who thus having in their hands all the trade, taxes, and royal revenues, might be enabled to multiply the notes of the bank to any extent they pleased, doubling or even trebling at will the circulating cash of the kingdom; and by the greatness of their funds, possessed of a power to carry the foreign trade, and the culture of the colonies, to a height altogether impracticable by any other means. This monstrous and impracticable monopoly was approved of by the regent, who issued letters patent for erecting the “Company of the West,” to which he granted at the same time, the whole province of Louisiana, or the country on the river Missisippi, from which the scheme took its name. That part of America having been represented as a region abounding in gold and silver, and possessing a fertile and luxurious soil, the actions or shares were bought up with great avidity; and such was the rage for speculation, that the unimproved parts of the colony were actually sold for 30,000 livres the square league.

After waiting for some time, in expectation of being recalled to France, he travelled through part of Europe, and at length, in consequence of an invitation from the British ministry, arrived in England in Oct. 1721, was presented to the king, George I. and afterwards hired a house in Conduit-street, Hanover-square, where he was daily visited by people of the first quality and distinction. In 1722 he repaired once more to the continent, and concluded the chequered course of his life at Venice, in March 1729, in the fifty-eighth year of his age. He was at this time in a state little removed from indigence. Various opinions have been entertained respecting the merit of his project, but it seems generally agreed that if it had not been violently interrupted by the regent’s arret, it was too insecure in its principles to have been permanent. His family estate of Lauriston is still in the possession of his descendants, one of whom, the eldest sou of John Law de Lauriston, governor of Pondicherry, was one of the officers who perished in the unfortunate voyage of De la Perouse, and was succeeded as the head of the family, by general Lauriston, known in this country as the bearer of the ratification of the preliminaries of the short-lived peace between Great Britain and France in 1802.

As a theologian, Law held certain tenets peculiar to himself which, either from being misunderstood, or misrepresented, subjected him at different times, to two very opposite imputations, that of being a Socinian and that of being a Methodist. What, however, was really erroneous in his opinions has been ably pointed out by bishop Home in a small tract, printed with his life, entitled “Cautions to the readers of Mr. Law.” It was in his latter days that Mr. Law became most confused in his ideas, from having bewildered his imagination with the reveries of Jacob Behmen, for whose sake he learned German that he might read his works, and whom he pronounces “the strongest, the plainest, the most open, intelligible, awakening, convincing writer, that ever was.” Although it is as a devotional writer that he is now best known, and there can be no doubt that his “Serious call*,” and “Christian perfection” have been singularly useful, it is as a controversial writer, that he ought to be more highly praised. His letters to bishop Hoadly are among the finest specimens of controversial writing in our language, with respect to style, wit, and argument.

, an English physician and writer, was the son of a clergyman who was curate of Ainstable in Cumberland. He was educated partly at Croglin, and partly at the grammar-school at Bishop Auckland. He then went to London, intending to engage in the military profession: but finding some promises, with which he had been flattered, were not likely soon to be realized, he turned his attention to medicine. After attending the hospitals, and being admitted a member of the corporation of surgeons, an opportunity presented itself of improving himself in foreign schools; he embarked for Lisbon, and afterwards visited Italy. On his return, he established himself as a surgeon and accoucheur in the neighbourhood of Piccadilly; and about that time published “A Dissertation on the Properties and Efficacy of the Lisbon Dietdrink,” which he professed to administer with success in many desperate cases of scrophula, scurvy, &c. Where he obtained his doctor’s diploma is not known; but he became ere long a licentiate of the College of Physicians, and removed to Craven-street, where he began to lecture on the obstetric art, and invited the faculty to attend. ID 1765 he purchased a piece of ground on a building lease, and afterwards published the plan for the institution of the Westminster Lying-in- Hospital and as soon as the building was raised, he voluntarily, and without any consideration, assigned over to the governors all his right in the premises, in favour of the hospital. He enjoyed a considerable share of reputation and practice as an accoucheur, anJ as a lecturer; and was esteemed a polite and accomplished man. He added nothing, however, in the way of improvement, to his profession, and his writings are not characterized by any extraordinary acuteness, or depth of research; but are plain, correct, and practical. He was attacked, in the summer of 1792, with a disorder of the chest, with which he had been previously affected, and was found dead in his bed on the 8th of August of that year. He published, in 1773, a volume of “Practical Observations on Child-bed Fever;” and, in 1774, “A Lecture introductory to the Theory and Practice of Midwifery, including the history, nature, and tendency of that science,” &c. This was afterwards considerably altered and enlarged, and published in two volumes, under the title of “Medical Instructions towards the prevention and cure of various Diseases incident to Women,” &c. The work passed through seven or eight editions, and was translated into the French and German languages. In the beginning of 1792, ^a short time before his death, he published “A practical Essay on the Diseases of the Viscera, particularly those of the Stomach and Bowels.”

, a native of America, of a very enterprising turn, was born at Groton in Connecticut. Having lost his father in his infancy, he was taken undef the care of a relation, who sent him to a grammar-school, and he studied for some time at Dartmouth college, in New Hampshire. Here it appears to have been his intention to apply to theological studies, l>ut the friend who sent him to college being dead, he was obliged to quit it, and by means of a canoe of Ins own const ruction, he found his way to Hartford, and thence to New York, where he went on board ship as a common sailor, and in this capacity arrived at London in 1771. When at college, there were several young Indians there for their education, with whom he used to associate, and learned their manners and hearing of capt. Cook’s intentions to sail on his third voyage, Ledyard engaged himself with him in the situation of a corporal of marines and on his return from that memorable voyage, during which his curiosity was rather excited than gratified, feeling an anxious desire of penetrating from the north-western coast of America, which Cook had partly explored, to the eastern coast, with which he himself was perfectly familiar, he determined to traverse the vast continent from the Pacific to the Atlantic ocean. His first plan for the purpose was that of embarking in a vessel, which was then preparing to sail, on a voyage of commercial adventure, to Nootka sound, on the western coast of America; and with this view he expended in sea-stores the greatest part of the money with which he had been supplied by the liberality of sirJoseph Banks, who has eminently distinguished himself in this way on other occasions for the promotion of every kind of useful science. But this scheme was frustrated by the rapacity of a customhouse officer; and therefore Mr. Ledyard determined to travel over land to Kamtschatka, from whence the passage is extremely short to the opposite coast of America. Accordingly, with no more than ten guineas in his purse, which was all that he had left, he crossed the British channel to Ostend, towards the close of 1786, and by the way of Denmark and the Sound, proceeded to the capital of Sweden. As it was winter, he attempted to traverse the gulf of Bothnia on the ice, in order to reach Kamtschatka by the shortest course; but finding, when he came to the middle of the sea, that the water was not frozen, he returned to Stockholm, and taking his course northward, walked to the Arctic circle, and passing round the head of the gulf, descended on its eastern side to Petersburg, where he arrived in the beginning of March 1787. Here fae was noticed as a person of an extraordinary character; and though he had neither stockings nor shoes, nor means to provide himself with any, he received and accepted an, invitation to dine with the Portuguese ambassador. From him he obtained twenty guineas for a bill, which he took the liberty, without being previously authorized, to draw on sir Joseph Banks, concluding, from his well-known disposition, that he would not be unwilling to pay it. By the interest of the ambassador, as we may conceive to have been probably the case, he obtained permission to accompany a detachment of stores, winch the empress had ordered to be sent to Yakutz, for the use of Mr. Billings, an Englishman, at that time in her service. Thus accommodated, he left Petersburg on the 2 1st of May, and travelling eastward through Siberia, reached Irkutsk in August; and from thence he proceeded to Yakutz, where he was kindly received by Mr. Billings, whom he recollected on board captain Cook’s ship, in the situation of the astronomer’s servant, but who was now entrusted by the empress in accomplishing her schemes of discovery. He returned to Irkutsk, where he spent part of the winter; and in the spring proceeded to Oczakow, on the coast of the Kamtschatkan sea, intending, in the spring, to have passed over to that peninsula, and to have embarked on the eastern side in one of the Russian vessels that trade to the western shores of America; but, finding that the navigation was completely obstructed, he returned to Yakutz, in order to wait for the termination of the winter. But whilst he was amusing himself with these prospects, an express arrived, in January 1788, from the empress, and he was seized, for reasons that have not been explained, by two Russian soldiers, who conveyed him in a sledge through the deserts of Northern Tartary to Moscow, without his clothes, money, and papers. From Moscow he was removed to the city of Moialoff, in White Russia, and from thence to the town of Tolochin, on the frontiers of the Polish dominions. As his conductors parted with him, they informed him, that if he returned to Russia he would be hanged, but that if he chose to go back to England, they wished him a pleasant journey. Distressed by poverty, covered with rags, infested with the usual accompaniments of such clothing, harassed with continual hardships, exhausted by disease, without friends, without credit, unknown, and reduced to the most wretched state, he found his way to Konigsberg. In this hour of deep distress, he resolved once more to have recourse to his former benefactor, and fortunately found a person who was willing to take his draft for five guineas on the president of the royal society. With this assistance he arrived in England, and immediately waited on sir Joseph Banks. Sir Joseph, knowing his disposition, and conceiving, as we may well imagine, that he would be gratified by the information, told him, that he could recommend him, as he believed, to an adventure almost as perilous as that from which he had just returned; and then communicated to him the wishes of the Association for discovering the Inland Countries of Africa. Mr. Ledyard replied, that he had always determined to traverse the continent of Africa, as soon as he had explored the interior of North America, and with a letter of introduction by sir Joseph Banks, he waited on Henry Beaufoy, esq. an active member of the fore-mentioned association. Mr. Beaufoy spread before him a map of Africa, and tracing a line from Cairo to Sennar, and from thence westward in the latitude and supposed direction of the Niger, informed him that this was the route by which he was anxious that Africa might, if possible, be explored. Mr. Ledyard expressed great pleasure in the hope of being employed in this adventure. Being asked when he would set out? “To-morrow morning” was his answer. The committee of the society assigned to him, at his own desire, as an enterprise of obvious peril and of difficult success, the task of traversing from east to west, in the latitude attributed to the Niger, the widest part of the continent of Africa. On the 30th of June 1788, Mr. Ledyard left London; and after a journey of thirty-six days, seven of which were consumed at Paris, and two at Marseilles, he arrived in the city of Alexandria. On die 14th of August, at midnight, he left Alexandria, and sailing up the Nile, arrived at Cairo on the 19th. From Cairo he communicated to the committee of the society all the information which he was able to collect during his stay there: and they were thus sufficiently apprized of the ardent spirit of inquiry, the unwearied attention, the persevering research, and the laborious, indefatigable, anxious zeal, with which he pursued the object of his mission. The next dispatch which they were led to expect, was to be dated at Sennar; the terms of his passage had been settied, and the day of his departure was appointed. The committee, however, after having expected with impatience the description of his journey, received with great concern and grievous disappointment, by letters from Egypt, the melancholy tidings of his death. By a bilious complaint, occasioned probably by vexatious delay at Cairo, and by too free an use of the acid of vitriol and tartar emetic, the termination of his life was hastened. He was decently interred in the neighbourhood of such of the English as had ended their days in the capital of Egypt,

His distemper being made known to Edward VI. his majesty, by letters patents, dated March 5, 1550, granted the custody of him, by the name of John Lay I on d, junior, of St. Micuael’s parish in le Q aerne, clerk, to his hrother John Laylond, senior and, for his maintenance, to receive the profits of Hasely, Popeling, and his Salisbury prebend above-mentioned. In this distraction he continued) without ever recovering his senses, two years, when tue disorder put a period to his life, April 18, 1552. He was interred in the church of St. Michael le Querne, which stood at the west end of Cheapside, between the conduit there and Paternoster- row but, being burnt in the gri-at tire of 1666, the site of it was laid out to enlarge the street.

This event, as his illness before had, was deemed a national misfortune, greatly lamented by contemporaries, and by succeeding ages. On his demise, Leland’s papers were sought after by persons of the lirst rank and learning in the kingdom. King Edward, aware of their value, committed them to the custody of sir John Cheke, his tutor, who probably would have made some important use of them had he not been hindered by the confusions which followed the death of his sovereign. Sir John, being then obliged to go abroad, left four folio volumes of Leland’s collections to Humphrey Purefoy, esq. and these descended to Burton, the author of the History of Leicestershire, who obtained possession also of eight other volumes of Leland’s Mss. called his “Itinerary,” all which he deposited, in 1632, in the Bodleian library. The only other portion of Leland’s Mss. is in the Cottonian collection. Of all these, Holinshed, Drayton, Camden, Dugdale, Stowe, Lambard, Battely, Wood, &c. &c. have made much use in their historical researches; but we cannot too deeply regret that the author did not live to execute his own plans. His collections were in truth but labores incepti, begun, not completed. In that light he mentions them himself in an address to archbishop Cranmer, intreating the favour of that prelate’s protection of his indigested papers. Yet in this imperfect state they have been justly deemed a national treasure, have always been consulted by our best antiquaries, and their authority is cited as equal, if not superior to any, in points that concern antiquities. Dr. Tanner had once formed a plan for publishing Leland’s papers, but various avocations prevented him: at length Hearne undertook the task, and produced those two invaluable collections, the “Itinerary,” and “Collectanea,” both too well known to require a more minute description. To these may be added a work not so well edited, “Commentarii tie scriptoribus Britannicis,” Oxon. 1709, 2 vols. 8vo.(See Amthony Hall.) Some unpublished Mss. still remain, and it appears that Leland had prepared a large work entitled “De Antiquitate Britannica, sive, Historia Civilis.” It also appears that he had made large collections towards the antiquities of London, but these have long been lost to the public, as well as his quadrate table on silver, mentioned in the preceding note, and the “Description of England,” which he said would be published in twelve months.

, a learned uivine and translator, the son of a citizen of Dublin, was born in that city in 1722. The first rudiments of classical education he received at the seuool kept by the celebrated Dr. Sheridan, whose talents and success in forming excellent scholars, were then well known. In 17^7 he entered a pensioner in Trinity college; and in 1741 was elected a scholar commenced bachelor of arts in 1742, and was a candidate for a fellowship in 1745, in which he failed at this time, but succeeded the following year by the unanimous voice of the electors, On bein^ thus placed in a state of independence, he did not resign himself to ease and indolence, but was conspicuous for the same ardent love of knowledge which appeared in the commencement of his studies, and was predominant throughout his whole life. In 1748 he entered into holy orders, and from a deep sense of the importance of his profession, drew up a discourse “On the helps and impediments to the acquisition of knowledge in religious and moral subjects,” wtiich was much admired at that time, but no copy is now to be found In 1754, in conjunction with Dr. John Stokes, he published, at the desire of the university, an edition of the “Orations of Demosthenes,” with a Latin version and notes, which we do not find mentioned by any of our classical bibliographers, except Harwood, who says it is in 2 vols. 12mo. In 1760 Dr. Leiand published the first volume of his English “Translation of Demosthenes,” 4to, with notes critical and historical; the second volume of which appeared in 1761, and the third in 1770. This raised his reputation very high as a classical scholar and critic, and public expectation was farther gratified in 1758 by his “History of the Life and Reign of Philip king of Macedon, the father of Alexander,” 2 vols. 4to. His attention to the orations of Demosthenes and Æschmes, and to Grecian politics, eminently qualified him for treating the life of Philip with copiousness and accuracy. After this he proceeded with translations of Æschines, and the other orations of Demosthenes. In 1762, he is supposed to have written, although he never formally avowed it, the ingenious historical romance of “Longsword, earl or Salisbury.”

In 1672, having made the tour of France, he returned to Paris, where he commenced an acquaintance with Mr. Marty n, apothecary to monsieur the prince; and making use of the laboratory which this apothecary had in the hotel de Conde, he performed several courses of chemistry, which brought him into the knowledge and esteem of the prince. At length he provided himself with a laboratory of his own, and might have been made a doctor of physic, but his attachment to chemistry induced him to remain an apothecary, and his lectures were frequented by so great a number of scholars, that he had scarce room to perform his operations. Chemistry was then coming into great vogue in that metropolis; and Lemery contributed greatly to its advancement, by treating it in a simple and perspicuous manner, divesting it of the jargon of mysticism in which it had been hitherto obscured, and, by the dexterity of his experiments, exhibiting the facts which it discloses to the comprehension of every understanding. By these means he established such a character for superior chemical skill, as enabled him to make a fortune by the sale of his preparations, which were in great request both in Paris and the provinces. One article in particular was the source of great profit, namely, the oxyd, or, as it was then called, the magistery of bismuth, and known as a cosmetic by the name of Spanish white, which no other person in Paris knew how to prepare. In 1675 he published his “Coura de Chymie,” which was received with general approbation and applause, and passed through numerous editions: indeed seldom has a work on a subject of science been so popular. It sold, says Fontenelle, like a novel or a satire; netf editions followed year after year; and it was translated into Latin, and into various modern languages. Its chief value consisted in the clearness and accuracy with which the processes and operations were detailed: the science was not yet sufficiently advanced for a rational theory of them. Indeed he seems to have worked rather with the view of directing apothecaries how to multiply their preparations, than as a philosophical chemist; and his materials are not arranged in the most favourable manner for the instruction of beginners "in the science. Nor did he divulge the whole of his pharmaceutical knowledge in this treatise; he kept the preparation of several of his chemical remedies secret, in order to obtain the greater profit by their sale.

, a learned French writer in the eighteenth century, was born at Bazoches, in Beausse, April 13, 1661. He was son of Paul Lenfant, minister at Chatillon, who died at Marbourg, in June 1686. He studied divinity at Saumur, where he lodged at the house of James Cappel, professor of Hebrew, by whom he was always highly esteemed; and afterwards went to Geneva, to continue his studies there. Leaving Geneva towards the end of 1683, he went to Heidelberg, where he was ordained in August, 1684. He discharged the duties of his function there with great reputation as chaplain of the electress dowager of Palatine, and pastor in ordinary to the French church. The descent of the French into the Palatinate, however, obliged him to depart from Heidelberg in 1688. Two letters which he had written against the Jesuits, and which are jnserted at the end of his “Preservatif,” ren r dered it somewhat hazardous to continue at the mercy of a society whose power was then in its plenitude. He left the Palatinate, therefore, in October 1688, with the consent of his church and superiors, and arrived at Berlin in November following. Though the French church of Berlin had already a sufficient number of ministers, the elector Frederic, afterwards king of Prussia, appointed Mr. Lenfant one of them, who began his functions on Easter-day, March the 21st, 1689, and continued them thirty-nine years and four months, and during this time added greatly to his reputation by his writings. His merit was so fully acknowledged, as to be rewarded with every mark of distinction suitable to his profession. He was preacher to the queen of Prussia, Charlotta-Sophia, who was eminent for her sense and extensive knowledge, and after her death he became chaplain to the king of Prussia. He was counsellor of the superior consistory, and member of the French council, which were formed to direct the general affairs of that nation. In 1710 he was chosen a member of the society for propagating the gospel established in England; and March the 2d, 1724, was elected member of the academy of sciences at Berlin. In 1707 he took a journey to Holland and England, where he had the honour to preach before queen Anne; and if he had thought proper to leave his church at Berlin, for which he had a great respect, he might have had a settlement at London, with the rank of chaplain to her majesty. In 1712, he went to Helmstad; in 1715 to Leipsic; and in 1725, to Breslaw, to search for rare books and manuscripts necessary for the histories which he was writing. In those excursions he was honoured with several valuable materials from the electress of Brunswic-Lunebourg, princess Palatine; the princess of Wales, afterwards Caroline queen of Great Britain; the count de Fleming; mons. Daguesseau, chancellor of France; and a great number of learned men, both protestants and papists, among the latter of whom was the abbé Bignon. It is not certain whether he first formed thedesign of the “Bibliotheque Germanique,” which began in 1720; or whether it was suggested to him by one of the society of learned men, which took the name of Anonymous; but they ordinarily met at his house, and he was a frequent contributor to that journal. When the king of Poland was at Berlin, in the end of May and beginning of June 1728, Mr. Lenfant, we are told, dreamt that he was ordered to preach. He excused himself that he was not prepared; and not knowing what subject he should pitch upon, was directed to preach upon these words, Isaiah XxxtiiL 1. “Set thine house in order, for thou shalt die, and not live.” He related this dream to some of his friends, and although not a credulous man, it is thought to have made some impression on him, for he applied with additional vigour to finish his “History of the War of the Hussites and the Council of Basil.” On Sunday July the 25tn following, he had preached in his turn at his church; but on Thursday, July the 29th, he had a slight attack of the palsy, which was followed by one more violent, of which he died on the 7th of the next month, in his sixtyeighthyear. He was interred at Berlin, at the foot of the pulpit of the French church, where he ordinarily preached since 1715, when his Prussian majesty appointed particular ministers to every church, which before were served by the same ministers in their turns. His stature was a little below the common height. His eye was very lively anil penetrating. He did not talk much, but always well. Whenever any dispute arose in conversation, he spoke without any heat; a proper and delicate irony was the only weapon he made use of on such occasions. He loved company, and passed but few days without seeing some of his friends. He was a sincere friend, and remarkable for a disinterested and generous disposition. In preaching, his voice was good; his pronunciation distinct and varied; his style clear, grave, and elegant without affectation; and he entered into the true sense of a text with great force. His publications were numerous in divinity, ecclesiastical history, criticism, and polite literature. Those which are held in the highest estimation, are his Histories of the Councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basil, each in 2 vols. 4to. These are written with great ability and impartiality, and they abound with interesting facts and curious researches. Lenfant, in conjunction with M. Beausobre, published “The New Testament, translated from the original Greek into French,” in 2 vols. 4to, with notes, and a general preface, or introduction to the reading of the Holy Scriptures, useful for students in divinity. He is known also by his “De iuquirenda Veritate,” which is a translation of Malebranche’s “Search after Truth” “The History of Pope Joan” “Poggiana or, the life, character,- opinions, c. of Poggio the Florentine, with the History of the Republic of Florence,” and the abovementioned “History of the Wars of the Hussites,” Utrecht, 1731, 2 vols. in 4to, dedicated by his widow to the prince royal of Prussia. This was the last work in which our author was engaged. He had revised the copy of the first volume, and was reading over that of the second, when he was seized with the apoplexy. But for this it appears to have been his intention to continue his History to about 1460. To this History is added monsieur Beausobre’s “Dissertation upon the Adamites of Bohemia.”

, a voluminous French writer, was born October 5, 1674, at Beauvais. He entered the Sorbonne, as a student, under M. Pirot, a celebrated doctor of that house; but, being convicted of having privately obtained from this gentleman’s bureau, some papers relative to what was then transacting in the Sorbonne, respecting Maria d'Agreda’s “Mystical city of God,” and having published, 1696, a “Letter addressed to Messieurs the Syndics and doctors in divinity of the faculty of Paris,” concerning this censure, M. Pirot expelled him. Lenglet then went to the seminary of St. Magloire, entered into sacred orders, and took his licentiate’s degree, 1703. He was sent to Lisle, 1705, by M. Torcey, minister for foreign affairs, as first secretary for the Latin and French languages, and with a charge to watch that the elector of Cologn’s ministers, who were then at Lisle, might do nothing against the king’s interest; and was also entrusted by the elector with the foreign correspondence of Brussels and Holland. When Lisle was taken in 1708, Lenglet obtained a safeguard for the elector of Cologn’s furniture and property from prince Eugene. Having made himself known to that prince through M. Hoendorf, he desired the latter to tell his highness, that he would give up the memoirs of the Intendants for fifty pistoles, which the prince sent him; but be wrote to M. Hoendorf eight days after, to say that the papers had been seized at his house by the minister’s order, and kept the money. He discovered a conspiracy formed by a captain at the gates of Mons, who had promised not only to deliver up that city, but also the electors of Cologn and Bavaria, who had retired thither, for a hundred thousand piastres. Lenglet was arrested at the Hague fur his “Memoirs sur la Collation des Canonicats de Tournay,” which he had published there, to exclude the disciples of Jansenius from this collation; but he obtained his liberty six weeks after, at prince Eugene’s solicitation. After his return to France, the prince de Cellemare’s conspiracy, which cardinal Albtjroni had planned, being discovered in Dec. 1718, he was chosen to find out the number and designs of the conspirators, which he did, after receiving a promise that none of those so discovered should be sentenced to death; this promise the court kept, and gave Lenglet a pension. In 1721, he went to Vienna, pretending to solicit the removal of M. Ernest, whom the Dutch had made dean of Tournay; but having no orders from France for the journey, was arrested at Strasburgh on his return, and confined six months in prison. This disgrace the abbé Lenglet attributed to the celebrated Rousseau, whom he had seen at Vienna, and from whom he had received every possible service in that city; and thence originated his aversion to him, and the satire which he wrote against him, under the title of “Eloge historique de Rousseau, par Brossette,” which that friend of Rousseau’s disavowed, and the latter found means to have suppressed in Holland, where it had been printed, in 1731. Lenglet refused to attach himself to cardinal Passionei, who wished to have him at Rome, and, indeed, he was so far from deriving any advantage from the favourable circumstances he found himself in, or from the powerful patrons which he had acquired by his talents and services, that his life was one continued series of adventures and misfortunes. His passion was to write, think, act, and live, with a kind of cynical freedom; and though badly lodged, clothed, and fed, he was still satisfied, while at liberty to say and write what he pleased; which liberty, however, he carried to so great an extreme, and so strangely abused, that he was sent to the bastille ten or twelve times. Lenglet bore all this without murmuring, and no sooner found himself out of prison, than he laboured to deserve a fresh confinement. The bastille was become so familiar to him, that when Tapin (one of the life guards) who usually conducted him thither, entered his chamber, he did not wait to hear his commission, but began himself by saying, “Ah M. Tapin, good morning” then turning to the woman who waited upon him, cried, “Bring my little bundle of linen and snuff directly,” and followed M. Tapin with the utmost cheerfulness. This spirit of freedom and independence, and this rage for writing, never left him; he chose rather to work and live alone in a kind of garret, than reside with a rich sister, who was fond of him, and offered him a convenient apartment at her house in Paris, with the use of her table and servants. Lenglet would have enjoyed greater plenty in this situation, but every thing would have fatigued him, and he would have thought regularity in meals quite a slavery. Some have supposed that he studied chymistry, and endeavoured to discover the philosopher’s stone, to which operations he desired no witnesses. He owed his death to a melancholy accident; for going home about six in the evening, Jan. 15, 1755, after having dined with his sister, he fell asleep, while reading a new book which had been sent him, and fell into the tire. The neighbours went to his assistance, but too late, his head being almost entirely burnt. He had attained the age of eighty-two. The abbé Lenglet’s works are numerous their subjects extremely various, and many of them very extravagant. Those which are most likely to live are his, “Méthode pour etudier l'Histoire, avec un Catalogue des principaux Historiens,” 12 vols.; “Methode pour Etudier la Geographic,” with maps; “Histoire de la Philosophic Hermetique,” and “Tablettes Chronologiques de T Histoire Universelle,” 1744-, two vols. An enlarged edition of this work was published in 1777. His “Chronological Tables” were published in English, in 8vo. It is a work of great accuracy, and of some whim, for he lays down a calculation according to which a reader may go through an entire course of universal history, sacred and profane, in the space of ten years and six months at the rate of six hours per day.

, a lady long distinguished for her genius and literary merit, and highly respected by Johnson and Richardson, was born in 1720. Her father, colonel James Ramsay, was a field-officer, and lieutenant-­governor of New-York, who sent her over, at the age of fifteen, to. England, to an opulent aunt, but whom, on ner arrival, she found incurably insane. The father died soon after, leaving his widow (who died at New York in Aug. 1765), and this daughter, without any provision. Who Mr. Lennox was, or when she married, we have not been able to learn, and, indeed, very little is known of her early history by her few surviving friends, who became acquainted with her only in her Tatter days. We are told, that from the death of her father she supported herself by her literary talents, which she always employed usefully.

From the preceding circumstances, gleaned from Mr. Roscoe’s elaborate account of Leo, a judgment may be formed of his character, in which, although some things may have been exaggerated by the enemies of the Romish church, enough remains uncontested to prove that he had many of the worst vices, and, when it became necessary to his aggrandizement, practised the worst crimes of his predecessors. His biographer, by embodying the history of literature and the arts in the life of Leo, one of the most pleasing and truly valuable parts of the work, has, we think, failed, in attributing much of their advancement to Leo. And indeed it has been too much a fashion to speak of the “age of Leo” as of a glorious period which his patronage created. Too much stress, perhaps, is frequently laid on patronage; and we ought to hesitate in declaring how much it has produced, when we consider how much in all ages has been produced without it. But Leo’s patronage was not general, for it excluded Ariosto and Erasmus, two of the greatest men of the age; nor was it judicious in selection, for he bestowed it on such worthless characters as Aretin and Niso, not to speak of a number of less known characters, whose merit rises no higher than that of being able to write amorous Italian sonnets, and panegyrical Latin verses. With respect to the arts, it has been justly remarked, that when he ascended the throne they were at their meridian. He found greater talents than he employed, and greater works commenced than he completed. Leonard Da Vinci, Michael Angelo, and Raffaello, performed their greatest works before the accession of Leo X.; Bramante, the architect of St. Peter’s, died in the second year of his pontificate; and Da Vinci and Michael Angelo shared none of his favours. It is from his attachment to Raflfaello that he derives his strongest claims as a patron of art; yet a part of his conduct to this great artist makes us question whether Leo had a refined taste. Raffaello made thirteen cartoons of religious subjects to complete the decoration of the hall of Constantine, and had sent them into Flanders, to be returned in worsted copies, without any care to preserve the originals, nor any inquiry made concerning them after the subjects were manufactured into tapestry. By accident, seven of these are yet to be seen in this country, and may enable us to estimate the taste of the pontiff who could so easily forget them. Yet Leo must not be deprived of the merit that justly belongs to him. He drew together the learned men of his time, and formed eminent schools, and he did much in promoting the art of printing, then of incalculable importance to literature. In these respects, and upon account of the share he had in precipitating the reformation, his short pontificate of eight years and eight months must be allowed to form one of the most interesting periods in papal history, and worthy of the illustration it has received.

, an Italian mathematician, who flourished at the commencement of the thirteenth century, was the first person who brought into Europe the knowledge of the Arabic cyphers and algebra. He travelled into the East for instruction, and being at Bugia, a town in Africa, was taught the Arabic method of keeping accounts, and finding it more convenient and preferable to the European method, he drew up a treatise for the purpose of introducing it into Italy, where it was cultivated with success, and became speedily known to all mathematicians From Italy the knowledge of the Arabic cyphers and algebra was afterwards communicated to the other countries of Europe. He was author of a treatise on surveying,preserved in the Magliabecchi library at Florence.

, a poet of Scotland, who flourished in the thirteenth century, is familiarly known by the name of Thomas the Rhymer. The history of his life is involved in much obscurity. What has been unravelled may be seen in our authority. He was a prophet as well as a poet. His merit in the former character may be disputed, but of his poetical talents, Mr. Walter Scott has enabled the public to judge, by giving an excellent edition of his metrical romance of “Sir Tristrem,” published in 1804, and very ably illustrated with notes, &c. by Mr. Scott, who has in this work shown that the most arduous labours of the antiquary are not incompatible with the genius and spirit of the poet.

Bishop Lesley’s writings are, 1. “Afflicti Aninw Consolationes, & tranquilli Animi Conservatio,” Paris, 1574, 8vo. 2. “De Origine, Moribus, & Rebus gestis Scotorum,” Romae, 1578, 4to. It consists of ten books, of which the three last, making half the volume, are dedicated to queen Mary; to whom they had been presented in English, seven years before the first publication in Latin. There are separate copies of them in several libraries. See Catalog, Mss. Oxon. This valuable history is carried down to the queen’s return from France in 1561. He seems unwilling to divulge what he knew of some transactions after that period. “Some things,” says he, “savoured so much of ingratitude and perfidy, that, although it were very proper they should be known, yet it were improper for me to record them, because often, with the danger of my life, I endeavoured to put a stop to them; and I ought to do all that is in me, not to let them be known unto strangers.” With this work are published, 3. “Paraenesis ad Nobilitatem Populumque Scotorum” and, 4. “Regionum & Insularum Scotiae Descriptio.” 5.“” Defence of the Honour of Mary Queen of Scotland; with a Declaration of her right, title, and interest, to the crown of England,“Liege, 1571, 8vo, which was immediately suppressed. 6.” A Treatise, shewing, that the Regimen of Women is conformable to the Law of God and Nature.“These two last are ascribed, by Parsons the Jesuit, to Morgan Philips, but Camden asserts them to be our author’s, Annal. Eliz. sub. ann. 1569. 7.” DeTitulo & Jure Marias Scotorum Reginae, quo Anglias Successionem Jure sibi vindicat,“Rheims, 1580, 4to. 8. There is a ms. upon the same subject in French, entitled” Remonstrance au Pape,“&c. Cotton library, Titus, cxii. 1. and F. 3. 14. 9.” An Account of his Embassage in. England, from 1568 to 1572,“ms. in the advocates’ library in Scotland. Catal. of Oxford Mss. 10.” An Apology for the Bishop of Ross, as to what is laid to his Charge concerning the Duke of Norfolk,“ms. in the library of the lord Longueville. 11.” Several Letters in the hands of Dr. George Mackenzie," who wrote his life.

As to his character, Bayle styles him “a man of merit and learning,” and tellsus, that he was the first who wrote in Great Britain against the errors of madam Bourignon. His books, adds he, are much esteemed, and especially his treatise of “The Snake in the Grass.” Salmon observes, that his works must transmit him to posterity as a man thoroughly learned and truly pious. Mr. Harris, the continuator of Ware, informs us that Leslie made several converts from popery; and says, that notwithstanding his mistaken opinions about government, and a few other matters, he deserves the highest praise for defending the Christian religion against Deists, Jews, Quakers, and for admirably well supporting the doctrines of the church of England against those of Rome. The author of the “Freeholder’s Journal/' immediately after the death of Mr, Leslie, observed, that when the popish emissaries were most active in poisoning the minds of the people, Mr. Leslie was equally vigilant in exposing, both in public and private, the errors and absurdities of the Romish doctrines. Yet, upon the abdication of king James, he resigned his livings, followed his fortunes, and adhered firmly to his interests; and, after his demise, to those of the Pretender. Notwithstanding his well-known attachment to the Jacobite interest, and, his frequent visits to the court of St. Germain’s, he was not much molested by the government till a little before Sacheverell’s trial, when he attacked Bp. Burnet rather warmly, in a pamphlet called” The good Old Cause, or Lying in Truth," in which he endeavoured to prove, from the bishop’s former works, the truth of that doctrine for which the doctor was prosecuted by the Commons, and violently inveighed against the bishop himself.

“But farther, Burnet bishop of Sarum was an excellent scholar, and well-readj as every one knows, in the works of foreign divines. Is it conceivable, that this prelate, when smarting under the lash of Leslie, would have let slip so good an opportunity of covering with disgrace his most formidable antagonist, had he known that antagonist to be guilty of plagiarism from the writings of the abbé St. Réal? Let it be granted, however, that Burnet was a stranger to these writings and to this plagiarism; it can hardly be supposed that Le Clerc was a stranger to them likewise. Yet this author, when, for reasons best known to himself, he chose (1706) to depreciate the argument of the” Short Method,“and to traduce its author as ignorant of ancient history, and as having brought forward his four marks for no other purpose than to put the deceitful traditions of popery on the same footing with the most authentic doctrines of the gospel, does not so much as insinuate that he borrowed these marks from a popish abbe, though such a charge, could he have established it, would have served his purpose more than all his rude railings and invective. But there was no room for such a charge. In the second volume of the works of St. Real, published in 1757, there is indeed a tract entitled” Methode courte et aisee pour combattre les Deistes,“and there can be little doubt but that the publisher wished it to be considered as the work of his countryman. Unfortunately, however, for his design, a catalogue of the abbe’s works is given in the first volume; and in that catalogue the * Methode courte et aisee' is not mentioned.”

This appearance at the court of Cromwell was much censured, after the restoration, by some of the royal party, who also objected to him, that he had once been heard playing in a concert where the usurper was present, and, therefore, they nick-named him “Oliver’s Fidler.” He was charged also with having bribed some of the protector’s people, but he positively disavows it; averring, he never spoke to Thurloe but once in his life about his discharge; and that, though during the dependency of that affair he might well be seen at Whitehall, yet he never spoke to Cromwell on any other business, or had the least commerce of any kind with him. From this to the time of the restoration, he seems to have lived free from any disturbance from the then governing powers; and perhaps the obscurity into which he had fallen made him be overlooked by Charles II. and his ministry, on that prince’s recovering his throne. He did not, however, so undervalue his own sufferings and merits, as to put up quietly with this usage, and therefore addressed a warm expostulation to the earl of Clarendon, in the dedication to that minister of his “Memento,” published in 1662; where he joins himself with other neglected cavaliers, who had suffered for their attachment to the royal family during the civil wars and the succeeding usurpation, at the same tima acknowledging the personal obligations he had received from Clarendon. For some time his remonstrances appear to have produced little effect, but at length he was made licenser of the press, a profitable post, which he enjoyed till the eve of the revolution. This, however, was all the recompence he ever received, except being in the commission of the peace, after more than twenty years, as he says, spent in serving the royal cause, near six of them in gaols, and almost four under a sentence of death in Newgate. It is true, he hints at greater things promised him; and, in these hopes, exerted his talents, on behalf of the crown, in publishing several pieces. In 1663, for a farther support, he set up a paper, called “The Public Intelligencer, and the News;' f the first of which came out the 1st of August, and continued to be published twice a week, till January 19, 1665; when he laid it down, on the design then concerted of publishing the” London Gazette,“the first of which papers made its appearance on. Saturday Feb. 4. After the dissolution of Charles’s second parliament, in 1679, he set up a paper, called” The Observator;“the design of which was to vindicate the measures of the court, and the character of the king, from the charge of being popislily affected. With the same spirit he exerted himself in 1681, in ridiculing the popish plot; which he did with such vehemence, that it raised him many enemies, who endeavoured, notwithstanding his known loyalty, to render him obnoxious to the government. But he appeared with no less vehemence against the fanatic plot in 1682; and, in 1683, was particularly employed by the court to publish Dr. Tillotson’s papers exhorting lord Russel to avow the doctrine of non-resistance, a little before his execution. In this manner he weathered all the storms raised against him during that reign, and, in the next, unrewarded with the honour of knighthood, accompanied with this declaration,” that it was in consideration of his eminent services and unshaken loyalty to the crown, in all extremities; and as a mark of the singular satisfaction of his majesty, in his present as well as his past services.“In 1687, he was obliged to lay down his” Observator,“now swelled to three volumes; as he could not agree with the toleration proposed by his majesty, though, in all other respects, he had gone the utmost lengths. He had even written strenuously in defence of the dispensing power, claimed by that infatuated prince; and this was probably one reason, why some accused him of having become a proselyte to the church of Home, an accusation which gave him much uneasiness, and which was heightened by his daughter’s defection to that church. To clear himself from this aspersion, he drew up a formal declaration, directed to his kinsman, sir Nicolas L'Estrange, on the truth of which he received the sacrament at the time of publishing the same, which is supposed to be in 1690 . By this declaration we find he was married his lady’s name was Anne Doleman but what issue he had by her, besides the just- mentioned daughter, has not come to our knowledge. After the revolution, he seems to have been left out of the commission of the peace; and, it is said, queen Mary shewed her contempt of him by the following anagram she made upon his name,” Lying- Strange Roger:" and it is certain he met with some trouble, for the remainder of his life, on account of his being a disaffected person.

Leusden, as far as we know, published very little that was original; but as a critical editor, he is entitled to high commendation for skill and accuracy, and many of his publications are well known in this country. Among these we may notice, 1. “Philologus Hebraeus,” Utrecht, 1652, 4to, twice reprinted. 2. “Jonas illustratus Heb. dial, et Latin.” &c. ibid. 1656, 1692, 8vo. 3. “Joel explicatus per paraplirasim Chaldaicam,” ibid. 1657, 8vo. The book of Obadiah is added to this. 4. “Philologus Hebraeo-mixtus, una cum spicilegio Philologico,” containing various critical dissertations, ibid. 1663, Leyden, 1682, and 1699, 4to. 5. “Onomasticum Sacrum,” au explanation of all the names in the Old and New Testament, ibid. 1665, and 1684, 8vo. Crenius notices a singular mistake of his, making Bernice the name of a man. 6. “Psalterium Hebrseum,” Amst. 1666, 8vo. 7. “Biblia Hebraea,” Amst. 1667, 2 vols. 8vo. 8. “Clavis Grxca Nov. Test.” 1672, 8vo. 9. “Nov. Test. Gracum,” Utrecht, 1675, 12mo, repeatedly printed, and well known in this country. 10. “Versio Septuaginta Interpretum,” Amst. 1683. 11. “Lexicon novum Hebroeo-Latinum,” in the manner of Schrevelius, Utrecht, 1687, 8vo. 12, An edition of “Pool’s Synopsis,” ibid. 5 vols. fol.; an edition of Bochart’s works, and another of Lightfoot’s.

, a learned French writer, who spent a long life in the study of history and general literature, was born at Paris, March 28, 1736. Of his private life we have no account; and our authority apologizes for this by assuring us that it contained none of those incidents that are interesting in biography, and that he was known only by his numerous publications. He was, however, in the course of his life, professor of morals and history in the college of France, a member of the old academy of inscriptions and belles-lettres, a member of the institute of the class of ancient history, and a knight of the legion of honour. He died at Paris, March 12, 1812, leaving the following proofs of his talents and industry. 1. “Le reves d‘Aristobule, philosophe Grec, suivis d’un abrege de la vie de Formose, philosophe Francais,” Paris, 1761, 12mo. 2. “Choix-de poesies de Petrarque,” translated from the Italian, 1774, 8vo, reprinted in 1787, 2 vols. 12mo. This translation is faithful, but wants the spirit and graces of the original. 3. “L'homme moral,” Amst. 1775, a work which has been often reprinted, and is said to have been written at Petersburgh, for the use of the Russian youth. Its object seems to be to take a survey of man in the savage and social state, and during all the modifications of the latter; and its contents are a series of remarks on all subjects connected with happiness, not always profound, but often striking, lively, and agreeable. From its being printed oftener in Holland than in France, it is probable that this work, as well as the following, was written with more freedom of sentiment than was then agreeable. 4. “L‘homme pensant, ou Essai sur l’histoire de l'esprit humain,” Amst. 1779, 12mo. 5. “Histoire de Russie,” Paris, 1785, 5 vols. 12mo. This is esteemed a very accurate sketch of Russian history and was followed by a sequel, 6. “Histoire des differens peuples soumis a la domination des Russes,” 2 vols. Both were reprinted in 1800, with a continuation to the end of the reign of Catherine, 8 vols. 8vo. In this last, he offers a very able vindication of the conduct of that empress in the early part of her reign. 7. “Eloge historique de l'abbé Mably,” Paris, 1787, 8vo. This obtained the prize of the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres. 8. “La France sous les cinq premier Valois,” Paris, 1788, 4 vols. 12mo. 9. “Dictionnaire des arts, de peinture, sculpture, et gravure,” Paris, 1792, 5 vols. 8vo. He compiled this dictionary in conjunction with Watelet, to whom our authority attributes the principal merit of it. 10. A translation, highly praised, of “Thucydides,” Paris, 1795, 4 vols. 4to. Levesque also contributed various essays to the memoirs of the institute, and wrote many of the articles in that collection of the ancient moralists which was published by Didot and Debure. Not long before his death he published “L‘etude de l’histoire de la Grece,” 4 vols. 8vo; not, as is said, a learned work, but a popular introduction to the knowledge of Grecian history.

Archbishop Wake’s character of him was that of vir sobrius, et bonus pradicator: and a considerable dignitary in the church used to say, that he looked upon his life to have been spent in the service of learning and virtue, and thought the world to be more concerned for its continuance than himself: that it would be happy for us if there were many more of the profession like him, &c. It was his misfortune, however, to live in a time of much party violence, and being a moderate man, he met with ill usage from both parties, particularly from the clergy of his own diocese. His only object was the security of our church-establishment as settled at the Revolution. He was so diligent a preacher, that we are told he composed more than a thousand sermons. He was always of opinion that a clergyman should compose his own sermons, and therefore ordered his executor to destroy his stock, lest they should contribute to the indolence of others. Having no family, for his wife died young without issue, he expended a great deal of money on his library and the repairs of his dilapidated parsonage-houses; and was, at the same time, a liberal benefactor to the poor. His chief, and indeed only, failing was a warmth of temper, which sometimes hurried him on to say what was inconsistent with his character and interest, and to resent imaginary injuries. Of all this, however, he was sensible, and deeply regretted it. Hearne and Mr. Lewis Vvere, it appears, accustomed to speak, disrespectfully of each other’s labours, but posterity has done justice to both. The political prejudices of antiquariss are of very little consequence. Mr. Lewis’s works are, 1> “The Church Catechism efcplained,” already mentioned, 1700, 12mo. 2. A short Defence of Infant Baptism,“1700, 8vo. 3.” A serious Address to the Anabaptists,“a single sheet, 1701, with a second in 1702. 4.” A Companion for the afflicted,“1706. 5.” Presbyters not always an authoritative part of provincial synods,“1710, 4to. 6.” An apologetical Vindication of the present Bishops,“1711. 7.” The Apology for the Church of England, in an examination of the rights of the Christian church,“published about this time, or perhaps in 1714. 8.” The poor Vicar’s plea against- his glebe being assessed to the Church,“1712. 9.” A Guide to young Communicants,“1715. 10.” A Vindication of the Bishop of Norwich“(Trimnell), 1714. 11.” The agreement of the Lutheran churches with the church of England, and an answer to some exceptions to it,“1715. 12.” Two Letters in defence of the English liturgy and reformation,“1716. 13.” Bishop Feme’s Church of England man’s reasons for not making the decisions of ecclesiastical synods the rule of his faith,“1717, 8vo. 14.” An Exposition of the xxxivth article of Religion,“1717. 15.” Short Remarks on the prolocutor’s answer, &c.“16.” The History, &c. of John Wicliffe, D. D.“1720, 8vo. 17.” The case of observing such Fasts and Festivals as are appointed by the king’s authority, considered,“1721. 18.” A Letter of thanks to the earl of Nottingham, &c.“1721. 19.” The History and Antiquities of the Isle of Thanet in Kent,“1723, 4 to, and again, with additions, in 1736. 20.” A Specimen of Errors in the second volume of Mr. Collier’s Ecclesiastical History, being a Vindication of Bur-net’s History of the Reformation,“1724, 8vo. 21.” History and Antiquities of the abbey church of Faversham, &c.“1727, $to. 22.” The New Testament, &c. translated out of the Latin vulgate by John WicklifFe; to which is prefixed, an History of the several Translations of the Holy Bible,“&c. 1731, folio. Of this only 160 copies were printed by subscription, and the copies unsubscribed for were advertised the same year at I/. 1*. each. Of the” New Testament“the rev. H. Baber, of the British Museum, has lately printed an edition, with valuable preliminary matter, in 4to. 23.” The History of the Translations, &c.“reprinted separately in 1739, 8vo. 24.” The Life of Caxton,“1737, 8vo. For an account of this work we may refer to Dibdiu’s new edition of Ames. 25.” A brief History of the Rise and Progress of Anabaptism, to which is prefixed a defence of Dr. Wicliffe from the false charge of his denying Infant-baptism,“1738. 26.” A Dissertation on the antiquity and use of Seals in England,“1710. 27.” A Vindication of the ancient Britons, &c. from being Anabaptists, with a letter of M. Bucer to bishop Hooper on ceremonies,“1741. 28.” A Defence of the Communion office and Catechism of the church of England from the charge of favouring transubstantiation,“1742. 29.” The Life of Reynold Pecock, bishop of St. Asaph and Chichester,“1744, 8vo. Mr. Lewis published also one or two occasional sermons, and an edition of Roper’s Life of sir Thomas More. After his death, according to the account of him in the‘ Biog. Britannica (which is unpardonably superficial, as Masters’s History of Bene’t College had appeared some years before), was published” A brief discovery of some of the arts of the popish protestant Missioners in England,“1750, 8vo. But there are other curious tracts which Mr. Lewis sent for publication to the Gentleman’s Magazine, and which, for reasons stated in vol. X. of that work, were printed in” The Miscellaneous Correspondence," 1742 1748, a scarce and valuable volume, very little known to the possessors of the Magazine, no set of which can be complete without it. Of these productions of Mr. Lewis, we can ascertain, on the authority of Mr. Cave, the following: an account of William Longbeard, and of John Smith, the first English anabaptist; the principles of Dr. Hickes, and Mr. Johnson; and an account of the oaths exacted by the Popes. Mr. Lewis left a great many manuscripts, some of which are still in public or private libraries, and are specified in our authorities,

“The ingenious and learned Mr. Thomas Richards (formerly a member of that college, and afterwards the most worthy rector of Lhanvyllin in North Wales) told me, in 1756,” that, in a year or two after his admission into the university, a consultation was held by the fellows of Jesus- college, about a proper person of that college, or any other native of Wales, (though of another college,) to answer the celebrated * Muscipula,‘ then lately published by the ingenious Mr. Holdsworth, of Magdalen-college, at the request, and by the direction, of Dr. Sacheverell. Those who knew, and had often observed, the collegiate exercises of Mr. Richards, were pleased to propose him, though of so low standing, as the fittest person that they could think of for such an undertaking. Mr. Lhuyd, being present, asked, ’ Has he the caput poeticum?‘ They assuring him that he usually wrote in a strong Virgilian verse, ’ Theji,‘ said Mr. Lhuyd, * I will give him a plan,’ which was that of the * Hoglandia,‘ since published and well known. Mr. Richards, as he told me (and a friend of his said the same), retired with leave, for about a week, out of college, taking lodgings at St. Thomas’s, and completed the poem. When finished, and corrected by Mr. Lhuyd, and Mr. Anthony Alsop, of Christ-church, Mr. Lhuyd drew up a preface, or dedication, in very elegant Latin, but in terms by much too severe, which made Mr. Richards very uneasy, for he must obey. Before the poem was sent to the press, Mr. Lhuyd died; Richards was then at liberty. He consulted with his friend Mr. Alsop (who was greatly offended with Dr. S.’s haughty carriage), and both together drew up the dedication as it now stands.

, a learned English antiquary in the sixteenth century, was son and heir of Mr. Robert Lhwyd alias Rossenhall of Denbigh in Denbighshire, by Joan his wife, daughter of Lewis Pigott. He was born at Denbigh, and was educated in the university of Oxford; but in what college is not known. It is certain, however, that after he had taken the degree of bachelor of arts, which was in 1547, he was commoner of Brasen-nose college; and in 1551 took the degree of master of arts as a member of that college; at which time he studied physic. Afterwards retiring to his own country, he lived mostly within the walls of Denbigh castle, but, Granger thinks, never practised as a physician, employing his time chiefly in his antiquarian researches. He died about 1570, and was interred near the church of Whitchurch near Denbigh; where a monument was erected to him. He had married Barbara daughter of George Lmnley, and sister of John lord Lumley, by whom he had issue Splendian and John, who both died without issue, Henry, who lived at Cheam in Surrey, and Jane the wife of Rob. Coytmore. Camden gives him a very great character, as one of the best antiquaries of his time; and be is by Daines Barrington esteemed very accurate in what relates to the history of Wales. He had a taste for the arts, particularly music, and executed the map of England for the “Theatrum Orbis.” He collected a great number of curious and useful books for his brother-in-law lord Lumley, which were purchased by James I. and became the foundation of the royal library. They are now a very valuable part of the British Museum.

, a celebrated sophist of antiquity, was born of an ancient and noble family at Antioch, on the Orontes, in the year 314. Suidas calls his father “Phasganius” but this was the name of one of his uncles; the other, who was the elder, was named Panolbius. His great-grandfather, who excelled in the art of divination, had published some pieces in Latin, which occasioned his being supposed by some, but falsely, to be an Italian. His maternal and paternal grandfathers were eminent in rank and in eloquence; the latter, with his brother Brasidas, was put to death by the order of Dioclesian, in the year 303, after the tumult of the tyrant Eugenius. Libanius, the second of his father’s three sons, in the fifteenth year of his age, wishing to devote himself entirely to literature, complains that he met with some “shadoxvs of sophists.” Then, assisted by a proper master, he began to read the ancient writers at Antioch; and thence, with Jasion, a Cappadocian, went to Athens, and residing there for more than four years, became intimately acquainted with Crispinus of Heraclea, who, he says, “enriched him afterwards with books at Nicomedia, and went, but seldom, to the schools of Diophantus.” At Constantinople he ingratiated himself with Nicocles of Lacedosmon (a grammarian, who was master to the emperor Julian), and the sophist Bermarchius. Returning to Athens, and soliciting the office of a professor, which the proconsul had before intended for him when he was twenty- five years of age, a certain Cappadocian happened to be preferred to him. But being encouraged by Dionysius, a Sicilian who had been prefect of Syria, some specimens of his eloquence, that were published at Constantinople, made him so generally known and applauded, that he collected more than eighty disciples, the two sophists, who then filled the chair there, raging in vain, and Bermarchius ineffectually opposing him in rival orations, and, when he could not excel him, having recourse to the frigid calumny of magic. At length, about the year 346, being expelled the city by his competitors, the prefect Limenius concurring, he repaired to Nice, and soon after to Nicomedia, the Athens of Bithynia, where his excellence in speaking began to be more and more approved by all; and Julian, if not a hearer, was a reader and admirer of his orations. In the dame'city, he says, “he was particularly delighted with the friendship of Aristaenetus;” and the five years which he passed there, he styles “the spring or any thing else that can be conceived pleasanter than spring, of his whole life.” Being invited again to Constantinople, and afterwards returning to Nicomedia, being also tired of Constantinople, where he found Phoenix and Xenobius, rival sophists, though he was patronised by Strategius, who succeeded Domitian as prefect of the East, not daring on account of his rivals to occupy the Athenian chair, he obtained permission from Gallus Cassar to visit for four months, his native city Antioch, where, after Gallus was killed, in the year 354, he fixed his residence for the remainder of his life, and initiated many in the sacred rites of eloquence. He was also much beloved by the emperor Julian, who heard his discourses with pleasure, received him with kindness, and imitated him in his writings. Honoured by that prince with the rank of quaestor, and with several epistles of which six only are extant, the‘ last written by the emperor during’ his fatal expedition against the Persians, he the more lamented his death in the flower of Ms age, as from him he had promised himself a certain and lasting support both in the worship of idols and in his own studies. There was afterwards a report, that Liba­Ihus, with the younger Jamblichus, the master of Proclus, inquired by divination who would be the successor of Valens, and ia consequence with difficulty escaped his cruelty, Irenaeus attesting the innocence of Libanius. In like manner he happily escaped another calumny, by the favour of duke Lupicinus, when he was accused by his enemy Fidelis, or Fidustius, of having written an eulogium on the tyrant Procopius. He was not, however, totally neglected by Valens, whom he not only celebrated in an oration, but obtained from him a confirmation of the law against entirely, excluding illegitimate children from the inheritance of their paternal estates, which he solicited from the emperor, no doubt for a private reason, since, as Eunapius informs us, he kept a mistress, and was never married. The remainder of his life he passed as before mentioned, at Antioch, to an advanced age, amidst various wrongs and oppressions from his rivals and the times, which he copiously relates in his life, though, tired of the manners of that city, be had thoughts, in his old age, of changing his abode, as he tells Eusebius. He continued there, however, and on various occasions was very serviceable to the city, either by appeasing seditions, and calming the disturbed minds of the citizens, or by reconciling to them the emperors Julian and Theodosius. That Libanius lived even to the reign of Arcadius, that is, beyond the seventieth year of his age, the learned collect from his oration on Lucian, and the testimony of Cedrenus; and of the same opinion is Godfrey Olearius, a man not more respectable for his exquisite knowledge of sacred and polite literature than for his judgment and probity, in his’ ms prelections, in which, when he was professor of both languages in the university of his own country, he has given an account of the life of this sophist.

, a celebrated physician and philosopher, was born at Rapallo, in the state of Genoa, Oct. 3, 1577, where his father was also a physician. After completing his education at Bologna, in 15J9, he obtained the professorship of philosophy at Pisa, which he filled with so. much reputation that he was invited to the same chair in the university of Padua in 1609, and occupied it until 1636. He removed at that time to Bologna, in consequence of failing to obtain the professorship of medicine, when vacant by the death of Cremonini. But the Venetian states very soon acknowledged the loss which the university of Padua had sustained by the retirement of Licetus; and the same vacancy occurring in 1645, he was induced, by the pressing invitations which were made to him, to return to Padua, and held that professorship till his death in 1657. He was a very copious writer, having published upwards of fifty treatises upon medical, moral, philosophical, antiquarian, and historical subjects; but they are no longer sufficiently interesting to require a detail of their titles, as, notwithstanding his erudition, he displays little acuteness in research or originality of conception. His treatise “De Monstrorum Causis, Natur&, et Differentiis,” which is best known, is replete with instances of credulity, and with the fables and superstitions of his predecessors, and contains a classification of the monsters which had been previously described, without any correction from his own observations. The best edition is that of Gerard Blasius, in 1668.

In 1772, the late Mr. Pennant invited Mr. Lightfoot to be the companion of his second tour to Scotland and the Hebrides, advising him to undertake the compilation, as he himself modestly calls it, of a “Flora Scotica,” which Mr. Pennant offered to publish at his own expence. Mr. Lightfoot gladly complied, and besides the knowledge acquired by his own observations, was ably assisted by the collections and communications of Dr. Hope, professor of botany at Edinburgh, the rev. Dr. John Stuart of Luss; the rev. Dr. Burgess of Kirkmichael, in Dumfriesshire, and of other gentlemen in England. The “Flora Scotica” was published in 1775, 2 vols. 8vo. The plan and execution of it appeared calculated to render it one of the most popular Flora’s, but for a long time it did not pay its expences, which certainly did not arise from any want of merit; for its only great and radical fault was not known, or at least scarcely considered such till lately. The fault we mean, is the compiling descriptions from foreign authors, without mentioning whence they are taken; so that a student can never be certain of their just application, but on the contrary, often finds them erroneous or unsuitable, without knowing why. Even in the last class, on which Mr. Lightfoot bestowed so much pains, the synonyms of Linnæus and Dillenius often disagree, though in many cases such contrarieties are properly indicated, so as to throw original light on the subject.

, a celebrated dramatic writer, was by profession a jeweller, and was born in the neighbourhood of Moorgate in London, Feb. 4, 1693, where he pursued his occupation for many years with the fairest and most unblemished character. He was strongly attached to the Muses, and seems to have laid it down as a maxim, that the devotion paid to them ought always to tend to the promotion of virtue and mortality. In pursuance of this aim, Lillo was happy in the choice of his subjects, and showed great power of affecting the heart, and of rendering the distresses of common and domestic life equally interesting to the audiences as those of kings and heroes. His “George Barnwell,” “Fatal Curiosity,” and “Arden of Feversham,” are all planned on common and well-known stories; yet they have perhaps more frequently drawn tears from an audience than more pompous tragedies, particularly the first of them. Nor was his management of his subjects less happy than his choice of them. If there is any fault to be objected to his style, it is that sometimes he affects an elevation rather above the simplicity of his subject, and the supposed rank of his characters; but tragedy seldom admits an adherence to the language of common life, and sometimes it is found that even the most humble characters in real life, when under peculiar circumstances of distress, or the influence of any violent passion, will employ an aptness of expression and power of language, not only greatly superior to themselves, but even to the general language and conversation of persons of much higher rank in life, and of minds more cultivated.

According to Mr. Blount, Lilly was deserving of the highest encomiums. He styles him, in his title-page, “the only rare poet of that time, the witty, comical, facetiously quick and unparalleled John Lilly” and in his epistle dedicatory, says, “that hep sate at Apollo’s table that Apollo gave him a wreath of his own bayes without snatching, and the lyre he played on had no borrowed strings.” If, indeed, what has been said with regard to his reformation of the English language had been true, he certainly would have had a claim to the highest hor ours from his countrymen; but those eulogiums are far from well founded, since his injudicious attempts at improvement produced only the most ridiculous affectation. The style of his Euphues exhibits the absurdest excess of pedantry, to which nothing but the most deplorable bad taste could have given even a temporary approbation. Lilly was the author of a famous pamphlet against Martin Mar-prelate and his party, well known to collectors, entitled “Pap with a Hatchet, alias a fig for my godson, &c.” published about 1589, and attributed to Nashe, but was certainly Lilly’s. His prose work, or rather his two prose works intended to reform the English language, were entitled “Euphues and his England,” Lond. 1580, and “Euphues, the Anatomy of Wit,” 1581. Some differences of opinion as to the times of publishing these, may be found in our authorities.

In 1634, having procured a manuscript, with some alterations, of the “Ars Notoria” of Cornelius Agrippa, he became so infatuated by the doctrine of the magical circle, and the invocation of spirits, as not only to make use of a form of prayer prescribed there to the angel Salmonaeus, and to fancy himself a favourite of great power and interest with that uncreated phantom, but even to claim a knowledge of, and a familiar acquaintance with, the partieular guardian angels of England, by name Salmael and Malchidael. After this he treated the more common mystery of recovering stolen goods, &c. with great contempt, claiming a supernatural sight, and the gift of prophetical predictions, and seems to have known well how to profit by the credulity of the times. Such indeed was his fame, as to produce the following notable story. When one Ramsay, the king’s clock maker, being informed that there was a great treasure buried in the cloister of Westminster-abbey, obtained the dean’s (Dr. Williams, bishop of Lincoln), leave to search for it with the divining or Mosaical* rods, he applied to Lilly for his assistance. Lilly, with one Scot, who pretended to the use of the said rods, attended by Ramsay and above thirty persons more, went into the cloister by night, and, observing the rods to tumble over one another on the West side of the cloister, concluded the treasure lay hid under that spot; but, the ground being' dug to the depth of six feet, and nothing found but a coffin, which was not heavy enough for their purpose, they proceeded, without opening it, into the abbey. Here they were alarmed by a storm, which suddenly rose, and increased to such a height, that they were afraid the West end of the church would have been blown down upon them; the rods moved not at all; the candles and torches, all but one, were extinguished, or burned very dimly. Scot was amazed, looked pale, and knew not what to think or do; until Lilly gave directions to dismiss the chcinons, which when done, all was quiet again, and each man returned home. Lilly, however, took care not to expose his skill again in this manner, though he was cunning enough to ascribe the miscarriage, not to any defect in the art itself, but to the number of people who were present at the operation and derided it; shrewdly laying it down for a rule, that secrecy and intelligent operators, with a strong confidence and knowledge of what they are doing, are necessary requisites to succeed in this work.

In 1548 he was sent, as lion herald, to Christian, king of Denmark, to solicit ships, for protecting the Scottish coasts against the English, and to negociate a free trade, particularly in grain: the latter purpose only was accomplished, but at Copenhagen, Lindsay had an opportunity of becoming acquainted with the literati of Denmark. He at length returned to his usual occupations, and was probably no more employed in such distant embassies. About this time he published the most pleasing of all his poems, “The Historic and Testament of Squire Meldrum.” In 1553 he finished his last and greatest work, “The Monarchic.” When he died, seems a matter of great uncertainty. His latest and best-informed biographer is inclined to place his death in or about 1557; but others say that he lived till 1567. It is rather singular that a man of so much celebrity, a great public officer, one of the reformers, or who at least contributed to the reformation, and the most popular poet of his time, should have died in such obscurity, without even a tradition as to when or where he was buried. Little of his personal character can now be known, but what is to be gleaned from his writings. Hfc entered with great zeal into the religious disputes of his time, but is supposed to lean rather to the Lutheran than Calvinistic principles of reformation; his satires, however, were powerfully assisting in exposing the vices of the clergy, and produced a lasting etiect on the minds of the people. We shall not enter very minutely into his character as a poet. In his works, says Mr. Ellis, we do not often find either the splendid diction of Dunbar, or the prolific imagination of Gawin Douglas. Perhaps, indeed, the “Dream” is his only composition which can be cited as uniformly poetical; but his various learning, his good sense, his perfect knowledge of courts, and of the world, the facility of his versification, and above all, his peculiar talent of adapting himself to readers of all denominations, will continue to secure to him a considerable share of that popularity, for which he was originally indebted to the opinions he professed, no less than to his poetical merit. The most ample information respecting Lindsay, his personal history, and works, may be found in the very accurate edition of the latter published in 1806, by George Chalmers, esq. in 3 vols. 8vo. It has been justly remarked that if the learned editor had executed no more than the glossary prefixed to this edition, he would have been amply entitled to the gratitude both of English and Scotch scholars. A more elaborate, learned, and satisfactory production of the kind has certainly not appeared since that of Ruddiman.

, afterwards Von Linne', the most eminent of modern naturalists, was born at Rashult, in the province of Smaland, in Sweden, May 13th, 1707. His father, Nicholas Linnæus, was assistant minister of the parish of Stenbrohult, to which the hamlet of Rashult belongs, and became in process of time its pastor or rector; having married Christina Broderson, the daughter of his predecessor. The subject of our memoir was their first-born child. The family of Linnæus had been peasants, but some of them, early in the seventeenth century, had followed literary pursuits. In the beginning of that century regular and hereditary surnames were first adopted in Sweden, on which occasion literary men often chose one of Latin or Greek derivation and structure, retaining the termination proper to the learned languages. A remarkable Lindentree, Tilia Europæa, growing near the place of their residence, is reported to have given origin to the names of Lindelius and Tiliander, in some branches of this family but the above-mentioned Nicholas, is said to have first taken that of Linnæus, by which his son became so exlen--“sively known. Of the taste which laid the foundation of his happiness, as well as his celebrity, this worthy father was the primary cause. Residing in a delightful spot, on the banks of a fine lake, surrounded by hills and valleys, woods and cultivated ground, his garden and his fields yielded him both amusement and profit, and his infant son imbibed, under his auspices, that pure and ardent love of nature for its own sake, with that habitual exercise of the mind in observation and activity, which ever after marked his character, and which were enhanced by a rectitude of principle, an elevation of devotional taste, a warmth of feeling, and an amiableness of manners, rarely united in those who so transcendantly excel in any branch of philosophy or science, because the cultivation of the heart does by no means so constantly as it ought keep pace with that of the understanding. The maternal uncle of Nicholas Linnæus, Sueno Tiliander, who had educated him with his own children, was also fond of plants and of gardening, so that these tastes were in some measure hereditary. From his tutor he learned to avoid the error of the desultory speculators of nature; and his memory, like his powers of perception, was naturally good, and his sight was always remarkably acute. He does not appear, however, to have been very happy under this tutor, and at seven years of age grammar had but an unequal contest with botany, in the mind of the young student. Nor was he much more fortunate when removed, in 1717, to the grammar-school of Wexio, the master of which, as his disgusted pupil relates,” preferred stripes and punishments to admonitions and encouragements.“In 1722 he was admitted to a higher form in the school, and his drier studies were now allowed to be intermixed and sweetened with the recreations of botany. In 1724, being seventeen years of age, he was removed to the superior seminary or Gymnasium, and his destination was fixed for the church; but, having no taste for Greek or Hebrew, ethics, metaphysics, or theology, he devoted himself with success to mathematics, natural philosophy,and a scientific pursuit of his darling botany. The” Chloris Gothica“of Bromelius, and” Hortus Upsaliensis" of Rudbeck, which made a part of his little library, were calculated rather to fire than to satisfy his curiosity; while his Palmberg and Tillands might make him sensible how much still remained to be done. His own copies of these books, used with the utmost care and neatness, are now in sir James Smith’s library. Linnæus’ s literary reputation, therefore, made so little progress, that his tutors havino pronounced him a dunce, he would probably have been put to some handicraft trade, had not Dr. Hothmann, the lecturer on natural philosophy, taken him into his own house, with a view to the studv of physic, and given him a private course of instruction in physiology. He first suggested to Linnæus the true principles upon which botany ought to be studied, founded on the parts of fructification, and put the system of Tournefort into his hands, in the knowledge of which he made a rapid progress.

On his return to Holland, he continued the impression of his “Genera Plantarum,” which appeared in 1737. In Oct. 1736, he was made a member of the imperial academy Nature Curiosorum, by the title, according to the cdslom of that body, of “Dioscorides Secundus.” He printed also in 1737, the “Viridarium Cliffortianum,” an 8 vd catalogue of his friend’s garden, disposed according to his own sexual system, of which he published, later in the same year, at Leyden, an exemplitication under the title of “JYkthodus SexuaUs,” in which all' the known genera of plants are so arranged by name only. This year also he produced his magnificent “Hortus Cliffortianus,” folio. This splendid volume, which was printed by Mr. Clifford only for private distribution, was begun and finished in nine months. In the same year Linnæus wrote and published his “Critica Botanica,” a sequel to part of the “Fundamenta” but these labours, and perhaps the air of Holland not agreeing with his health, he left the hospitable roof of Mr. Clifford, and for a while assisted professor Adrian Van Royen at Ley den in the garden there, and about the same time printed the “Classes Plantarum,” a view of all the botanical systems ever known. Here also be published his friend Artedi’s “Ichthyologia.” (See Artedi).

About this period the queen of Sweden, Louisa Ulrica, having a taste for natural history, which her- royal consort, king Adolphus Frederick, also patronized, shewed much favour to Linnæus. He was employed in arranging her collection of insects and shells, in the country palace of Drotningholm, or Ulricksdahl, and was frequently honoured with the company and conversation of their majesties, during his attendance there. The queen interested herself in the education of his son, and promised to send him to travel through Europe at her own expence. She also listened very graciously to any recommendation or petition, of Linnæus, in the service of science. Linnæus devoted some of his leisure time in winter, to the arragement of his friend count Tessin’s collection of fossils, at Stockholm, of which an account in Latin and Swedish, making a small folio, with plates, came out in 1753. The result of his labours at Drotningholm was not given to the public [until] 1764, when his “Museum Reginse” appeared, in 8Vo, be-, ing a sort of Prodromus of an intended more splendid work, that was never executed. His most magnificent publication appeared in 1754, being a large folio, entitled “Museum Regis Adolphi Frederici,” comprehending descripr: tions of the rarer quadrupeds, birds, serpents, fishes, &c. of the king’s museum, in Latin and Swedish, with plates, and an excellent preface, which was translated by Dr. (now; sir James) Smith, and first printed in 1786; appearing, again, in a volume of “Tracts relating to Natural History,” in 1798. In the mean time, Linnæus was preparing a lasting monument of his own talents and application, the “Species Plantarum,” of which the first editiqn was primed in 1753, the second in 1762, each in two volumes S.vo. The work is too well known to need any description, and must ever be memorable for the adaptation of specific,­<5>ras they were at first called, trivial, names. This coa-, trivance, which Linnæus first used in his “Pan Sueciciw,” a dissertation printed in 1749, extended to minerals in his “Museum Tessinianum,” and subsequently to all the departments of zoology, has perhaps rendered his works more popular than any one of their merits besides. His specific differences were intended to be used as names; but their unavoidable length rendering this impracticable, and the application of numeral figures to each species, in Haller’s manner, being still more burthensome to the memory, all natural science would have been ruined for want of a common language, were it not for this simple and happy invention. By this means we speak of every natural production in two words, its generic and its specific name. No ambiguous comparisons or references are wanted, no presupposition of any thing already known. The philosophical tribe of naturalists, for so they are called by themselves and their admirers, do not therefore depreciate Linnæus, when they call him a nomenclator. Whatever may have been thought of the Linnæun trivial names at their first appearance, they are now in universal use, and their principle has been, with the greatest advantage, extended to chemistry, of which the celebrated Bergman, the friend of Linnæus, originally set the example.

, a painter, called from his dress “the Turk,” was born at Geneva, in 1702. He went to Paris to study in 1725, and thence accompanied the marquis de Puisieux to Rome, where the earls of Sandwich and Besborough engaged him to accompany them to Constantinople. There he became acquainted with sir Everard Fawkener, our ambassador, who persuaded him to come to England, where he remained two years. He painted admirably in miniature, and in enamel, though he seldom practised the last, but he is best known by his crayons. The earls of Harrington and Besborough have some of his most capital works. His portraits, however, were so exact as to displease those who sat to him, for he never could conceive the absence of any imperfection or mark in the face that presented itself. Such a man could not be long a favourite, and therefore, according to lord Orford, although he had great business the first year, he had very little the second, and went abroad. It is said that he owed much of his encouragement to his making himself conspicuous by adopting the manners and habits of the Levant He came to England again in 1772, and brought a collection of pictures of different masters, which he sold by auction; and some pieces of glass painted by himself with surprizing effect of light and shade, but more curious than useful, as it was necessary to darken the room before they could be seen to advantage. He staid two years likewise on this visit. He went to the continent afterwards, but we find no account of his death. He carried his love of truth with him on all occasions; and we are told that at Venice and Milan, and probably elsewhere, all but firstrate beauties were afraid to sit to him, and he would have starved if he had not so often found customers who were of opinion that they belonged to that class.

, a learned German divine, was born Nov. 11, 1630, at Goritz in Brandenburgh, and studied at the schools of Brandenburgh and Ruppin, whence he went to Stetin, and made great progress in his studies under Micrelius and other eminent professors of that college. In 1651 he studied philosophy and divinity at Wittemberg, and after two years residence was admitted to the degree of master of arts. He had now some advantageous offers of settlement in other places, but he could not bring himself to quit an university where he was so likely to add to his stores of knowledge. At length, however, in 1659, he accepted the office of corrector at Halle, which he retained until 1672, when he was appointed rector and professor in the Caroline college at Stetin. This he quitted in 1676, and accepted the office of corrector at Lubeck, where he died, Nov. 6, 1692, worn out, as Niceron informs us, by labour, chagrin, and disease. His works are very numerous, consisting of disputations, 'eloges, and other academical productions; but he is now principally known by his “Bibliotheca realis Theologica,” Francfort, 1685, 2 vols. “Biblioth. Juridica,” ib. 1679; “BibK Philosophica,” ibid. 1682; and “Biblioth. Medica,” ibid. 1679, making in all six folio volumes, containing an account of works published in each of these departments. The “Bibl. Juridica” was reprinted at Leipsic in 1757, 2 vols. and corrections and a supplement were published by Aug. Fr. Scott, in 1775; another supplement was published by Senkenberg in 1789, making in all four volumes folio. Morhoff speaks favourably of the original work, and the “Bibl. Juridica” is doubtless greatly improved.

In 1685 he published his “Historia sive Synopsis Conchyliorum,” 2 vols. fol. containing very accurate figures of all the shells known in his time, amounting to upwards of a thousand; and what renders the book a singular curiosity is, that they were all drawn by his two daughters, Susanna and Anne. The copper-plates of this work becoming the property of the university of Oxford, a new edition was published there in 1770, under the care of Huddesford, keeper of the Ashmolean museum. This edition wants two or three of the plates belonging to the original; but to make up for this deficiency, two or three new plates have been added, and notwithstanding the progress which the study has since made, the work still retains its value, and is indispensable to the student of^conchology.

, a Scotchman, born the latter end of the fifteenth century, whose sufferings by imprisonment and torture at Malaga, and whose travels on foot over Europe, Asia, and Africa, seem to raise him almost to the rank of a martyr and a hero, published a well-known account of his peregrinations and adventures. The first edition of this was printed in 1614, 4to, and reprinted in the next reign, with additions, and a dedication to Charles J. Though the author deals much in the marvellous, the accounts of the strange cruelties, of whioh he tells us he was the subject, have, however, an air of truth. Soon after his arrival in England from Malaga, he was carried to Theobalds on a feather-bed, that king James might be an eye-witness of his martyred anatomy, by which he means his wretched body, mangled and reduced to a skeleton. The whole court crowded to see him; and his majesty ordered him to be taken care of; and he was twice sent to Bath at his expence. By the king’s command, he applied to Gondamor, the Spanish ambassador, for the recovery of money and other things of value which the governor of Malaga had taken from him, and for a thousand pounds for his support; but, although promised a full reparation for the damages he had sustained, that minister never performed his promise. When he was upon the point of leaving England, Lithgow upbraided him with the breach of his word, in the presence-chamber, before several gentlemen of the court. This occasioned their fighting upon the spot; and the ambassador, as the traveller oddly expressed it, “had his fistula contrabanded with his fist;” but the unfortunate Lithgow, although generally commended for his spirited behaviour, was sent to the Marshalsea, where he continued a prisoner nine months. At the conclusion of the 8vo edition of his travels, he informs us, that “in his three voyages his painful feet have traced over, besides passages of seas and rivers, thirty-six thousand and odd miles, which draweth near to twice the circumference of the whole earth.” Here the marvellous seems to rise to the incredible; and to set him in point of veracity below Coryat, whom it is nevertheless certain that he far outwalked. His description of Ireland is whimsical and curious. This, together with the narrative of his sufferings, is reprinted in Morgan’s “Phcenix Britannicus.” He published also an account of the siege of Breda, 1637, of which the reader will find a notice in the “Restituta.”

, the most celebrated of the Roman historians, was born at Patavium, or Padua, and descended from an illustrious family, which had given several consuls to Rome. Few circumstances of his life are known, as none of the ancients have left any thing about it; and so reserved has he been with regard to himself, that we should be at a loss to determine the time when his history was written, if it were not for one passage which seems to prove that he was employed on it about the year of Rome 730. He was then at Rome, where he long resided; and some have supposed that he was known to Augustus before, by certain dialogues, which he had dedicated to him. Seneca, without noticing the dedication, mentions these dialogues, whjch he calls historical and philosophical; and also some books, written purposely on the subject of philosophy. All this appears doubtful, but there is reason to think that he began his history as soon as he was settled at Rome; and he seems to have devoted himself entirely to it. The tumults and distractions of that city frequently obliged him to retire to Naples, not only that he might be less interrupted in his historical labours, but enjoy that tranquillity which he could not have at Rome. He appears to have been much dissatisfied with the manners of his age, and tells us, that “he should reap this reward of his labour, in composing the Roman history, that it would take his attention from the present numerous evils, at least while he was employed upon the first and earliest ages.”

The encomiums bestowed upon Livy, by both ancients and moderns, are great and numerous. Quinctiliau speaks of him in the highest terms, and thinks that Herodotus need not take it ill to have Livy equalled with him. In general, probity, candour, and impartiality, are what have distinguished Livy above all historians. Neither complaisance to the times, nor his particular connexions with the emperor, could restrain him from speaking so well of Pompey, as to make Augustus call him a Pompeian. This we learn from Cremutius Cortlus, in Tacitus, who relates also, much to the emperor’s honour, that this gave no interruption to their friendship. Livy, however, has not escaped censure as a writer. In the age in which he lived, Asinius Pollio charged him with Patavinity, a word variously explained by writers, but generally supposed to relate to his style. The most common opinion is, that Pollio, accustomed to the delicacy of the language spoken in the court of Augustus, could not bear with certain provincial idioms, which Livy, as a Paduan, used in various places of his history. Pignorius is of a different opinion, and considers Patavinity as relating to the orthography of certain words, in which Livy used one letter for another, according to the custom of his country, writing “sibe” and “quase” for “sibi” and “quasi;” which he attempts to prove by several ancient inscriptions. Chevreau maintains, that it does not concern the style, but the principles of the historian: the Paduans, he says, preserved a long and constant inclination for a republic, and were therefore attached to Pompey; while Pollio, being of Caesar’s party, was naturally led to attribute to Livy the sentiments of his countrymen, on account of his speaking well of Pompey. It seems remarkable that there should exist such difference of opinion, when Quinctilian, who must be supposed to know the true import of this Patavinity, has referred it entirely to the language of our author. MorhofPs elaborate treatise, however, is highly creditable to his critical skill. The merit of Livy’s history is so well known, as to render it unnecessary to accumulate the encomiums which modern scholars have bestowed on him. With these the school -boy is soon made acquainted, and they meet the advanced scholar in all his researches. His history was first printed at Rome, about 1469, by Sweynheym and Pannartz, in folio. Of this rare edition, lord Spencer is in possession of a fine copy; but the exquisite copy on vellum, formerly in the imperial library at Vienna, now belongs to James Edwards, esq. of Harrow; and is perhaps the most magnificent volume of an ancient classic in the world. Of modern printing the best editions are, that of Gronovius, “cum Notis variorum & suis, Lugd. Bat. 1679,” 3 vols. 8vo; that of Le Clerc, at “Amsterdam, 1709,” 10 vols. 12mo that of Crevier, at “Paris, 1735,” 6 vols. <Ko of Prakenborch, Auist. 1738, 7 vols. 4to of Ruddiman, Edinburgh, 1751, 4 vols. 12mo; of Homer, Lond. 1794, 8 vols. 8vo and that of Oxford, 1800, 6 vols. 8vo. Livy has been translated into every language. The last English translation was that of George Baker, A. M. 6 vols. 8vo, published in 1797, which was preceded by that of Philemon Holland, in 1600; that of Bohun, in 1686; and a third, usually called Hay’s translation, though, no such name appears, printed in 1744, 6 vols. 8vo.

In 1762, he attempted to establish a periodical work, “The St. James’s Magazine,” which was to be the depository of his own efVusions, aided by the contributions of his friends. The latter, however, came in tardily; Churchill, from whom he had great expectations, contributed nothing, although such of his poems as he published during the sale of the magazine, were liberally praised. Thornton gave a very few prose essays, and poetical pieces were furnished by Denis and Emily, two versifiers of forgotten reputation. Lloyd himself had none of the steady industry which a periodical work requires, and his magazine was often made up, partly from books, and partly from the St. James’s Chronicle, of which Colman and Thornton were proprietors, and regular contributors. Lloyd also translated some of Marmontel’s tales for the Magazine, and part of a French play, in order to fix upon Murphy the charge of plagiarism. This magazine, after existing about a year, was dropped for want of encouragement, as far as Lloyd was concerned; but was continued for some time longer by Dr. Kenrick. Lloyd’s imprudence and necessities were now beyond relief or forbearance, and his eretlitors confined him within the Fleet prison, where he afforded a melancholy instance of the unstable friendship of wits. Dr. Kenrick informs us that “even Thornton, though his bosom friend from their infancy, refused to be his security for the liberty of the rules; a circumstance which, giving rise to some ill-natured altercation, induced this quondam friend to become an inveterate enemy, in the quality of his most inexorable creditor.” It was probably during his imprisonment, that he published a very indifferent translation of Klopstock’s “Death of Adam.” After that, his “Capricious Lovers,” a comic opera, was acted for a few nights at Drury-lane theatre. This is an adaptation of Favart’s Ninette a la Cour to the English stage, but Lloyd had no original powers in dramatic composition. Churchill and Wilkes are said to have afforded him a weekly stipend from the commencement of his imprisonment until his final release. How this was paid we knownot. Wilkes had been long out of the kingdom, and Churchill, who left Lloyd in a jail when he went to France, bequeathed him a ring only as a remembrance*. It is more probable that his father assisted him on this occasion, although it might not be in his power to pay his debts. He had in vain tried every means to reclaim him from idleness and intemperance, and had long borne “the drain or burthen” which he was to his family. The known abilities of this unhappy son, “rendered this blow the more grievous to so good a father,” who is characterized by bishop Newton as a man that “with all his troubles and disappointments, with all the sickness and distress in his family, still preserved his calm, placid countenance, his easy cheerful temper, and was at all times an agreeable friend and companion, in all events a true Christian philosopher.”

, a native of Porto, in Portugal, who lived towards the end of the thirteenth century, is the supposed author of the celebrated romance of Amadis de Gaul. Very little is known of his life, and his romance is fallen into deserved oblivion.

The “Stirpium Historia” of this author, a volume in small folio similar to his “Adversaria,” which was published at Antwerp in 1576, is much less copious in matter, the pages being mostly occupied with wooden cuts, which are those of Clusius, borrowed for the present occasion by the printer, Plantin. An impression of these cuts, of an oblong shape, was struck off, with names’ only, in 1581, and another in 1591. Linnæus possessed both. This publication is in very general use, and well known by the title of Lobel’s “Icones.” It is, when complete, accompanied by an index in seven languages. Lobel seems to have had a very large work in contemplation, which he intended to call “Stirpium Illustratio.nes.” A fragment of it was published in quarto, without plates, by Dr. W. How, in 1655, making 170 pages, besides a caustic preface of the author, aimed chiefly at Gerarde, as the notes by Dr. How are against Parkinson; but Dr. Pulteney blames Lobel for this gross abuse of Gerarde after his death, though he had formerly on every occasion extolled him. In other respects the botanical contents of this fragment are very honourable to Lobel. He laboured to an advanced age in the pursuit of his favourite study, and procured from his correspondents abroad many new plants for the gardens of his friends. He had the superintendance of a garden at Hackney, cultivated at the expence of lord Zouch; and appears to have resided, in the decline of life, at Highgate, where he had a daughter, married to a Mr. James Coel. His wife is recorded as having assisted him in his botanical researches. He died in 1616, aged seventy-eight.

After taking his degrees in arts, he applied for some time to the study of physic, not so much, we are told, with a view to public practice, as for the benefit of his own constitution, which was but weak. But he must have made his skill more generally known than this amounts to, for we find that among the learned in his faculty who had a good opinion of his medical knowledge, the celebrated Dr. Sydenham, in his work on acute diseases, gives him the following high encomium “You know,” says he, "how much my method has been approved of by a person who has examined it to the bottom, End who is our common friend; I mean Mr. John Locke, who, if we consider

Thus far we might suppose the dean had advanced enough in behalf of the innocence of Mr. Locke. What follows, however, will be read with regret, that so good a man as bishop Fell should have given such advice. “Notwithstanding this, I have summoned him to return home, which is done with this prospect, that if he comes not back, he will be liable to expulsion for contumacy; and if he does, he will be answerable to the law for that which he shall be found to have done amiss. It being probable that, though he may have been thus cautious here, where he knew himself suspected, he has laid himself more open at London, where a general liberty of speaking was used, and where the execrable designs against his majesty and government were managed and pursued. If he don't r^­turn by the first of January, which is the time limited to him, I shall be enabled of course to proceed against him to expulsion. But if this method seems not effectual or speedy enough, and his majesty, our founder and visitor, shall please to command his immediate remove, upon the receipt thereof, directed to the dean and chapter, it shall accordingly be executed.” In consequence of this, a warrant came down to the dean and chapter, dated Nov. 12, in these words: “Whereas we have received information of the factious and disloyal behaviour of Locke, one of the students of that our college; we have thought fit hereby to signify our will and pleasure to you, that you forthwith remove him from his student’s place, and deprive him of all rights and advantages thereunto belonging, for which this shall be your warrant,” &c. And thus, on the 16th following, one of the greatest men of his time was, expelled the college at the command of Charles II. without, as far as ia known, any form of trial or inquiry. After the death of Charles II. William Penn, the celebrated quaker, who had known Mr. Locke at the university, used his interest with king James to procure a pardon for him) an J would have obtained it, if Mr. Locke had not said, that he had no occasion for a pardon, since he had not been guilty of any crime.

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

In 1695 be published his treatise of “The reasonableness of Christianity, as delivered in the Scriptures,” written, it is said, in order to promote the scheme which king William III. had much at heart, of a comprehension with the dissenters. In this his argument is to prove, “that the Christian religion, as delivered in the Scriptures, free from all corrupt mixtures, is the most reasonable institution in the world;” and we allow that it would certainly appear so if men were agreed as to what are “corrupt mixtures,” which, it is well known, some writers have extended to those articles of belief which others not only find in the Scriptures, but consider as fundamental. On the appearance of this work, Mr. Locke found an opponent in Dr. John Edwards (see John Edwards), who considered his principles as verging towards Socinianism: and a defender ifi Mr. Samuel Bold. Mr. Locke also replied to Edwards.

, a man of much literary industry, and known for half a century as a translator, was born in 1698. Of his early history we find no particulars recorded. He appears to have been acquainted with Pope, and to have been respected by that poet, doubtless, on account of his amiable and inoffensive character, which procured him, among the wits of that time, the name of the Lamb. The only time he ever deviated from the gentleness of this animal was when Cooke, the translator of Hesiod, abused his poetry to his face. On this provocation Mr. Lockman proved his relationship to the genus irritabile, by retorting, with a quickness not usual to him, “It may be so; but thank God! my name is not at full length in the Dunciad.” Mr. Lockman’s poetical talents were certainly not very extensive, as the greatest part of his effusions are only a few songs, odas, &c. written on temporary subjects, and set to music for Vauxhall and other places of public entertainment. Mr. Reed, however, found two pieces of the dramatic kind, both of them designed to be set to music; but only the second of them, he thinks, was ever performed, viz. 1. “Rosalinda, a musical drama, 1740,” 4to. 2. “David’s Lamentations, an oratorio;” which we believe were not successful.

, a dramatic poet, descended from a family which had its residence in Lincolnshire; but whether the doctor himself was born there, seems not very easy to be ascertained. Langbaine and Jacob, and, after them, Wincop and Chetwood, who, in the general, are little more than copiers, say that he was educated at Cambridge, but Wood informs us, that it was at Oxford, where he made his first appearance about 1573, and was afterwards a scholar under the learned Dr. Hobye, of Trinitycollege. Here he made very considerable advances in learning, dedicating his leisure time to the reading the poets of antiquity; and, having himself a turn to poetry, especially of the satirical kind, he became known by various compositions of that nature, which obtained him no 1 inconsiderable reputation as a wit and poet. Mr. Lodge, however, sensible how seldom the study of poetry yields a competent provision to its professors, after having taken one degree in arts, applied himself, with great assiduity, to the more profitable study of physic, and for further improvement went abroad. After staying a sufficient time at Avignon to be entitled to the degree of doctor in that university, he returned, and, in the latter end of queen Elizabeth’s reign, was incorporated in the university of Cambridge. He afterwards settled in London, where, by his skill and interest with the Roman Catholic party, in which persuasion, it is said, he was brought up, he attained great practice. In what year Dr. Lodge was born does not evidently appear; but be died in 1625, and had tributes paid to his memory by many of his contemporary poets, who have characterized him as a man of very considerable genius.

, well known by the title of Master or“the Sentences, was born at Novara, in Lombardy, whence he took his surname. He was educated at Bologna, and Rheims, under St. Bernard, and afterwards removed to Paris, where, as one of the professors in that university, he distinguished himself so much, that the canonry of Chartres was conferred upon him. He was some time tutor to Philip, son of king Lewis le Gros, and brother of Lewis the young; and was so much esteemed by him, that upon the vacancy of the bishopric of Paris, that noble personage, being intended for the see, declined it for the sake of Lombard, who was accordingly promoted to it about 1160, and died in 1164. He was interred in the church of Marcellus, in the suburb of that name, where his epitaph is still to be seen. His work of the Sentences, divided into four books, contains an illustration of the doctrines of the church, in a collection of sentences or passages taken from the fathers. This was so favourably received, that in a short time it was the only work taught in the schools, and the author was, by way of eminence, called the” Master of the Sentences,“and was accounted the chief of the scholastic divines. His work was first printed at Venice, 1477, fol. and innumerable commentaries have been written on it. In our own universities the being admitted” to read the Sentences“was, as may be frequently seen in Wood’s Athenae, a mark of great progress in study, for a greater veneration was paid to Lombard’s work than to the Scriptures. Bacon, in a letter to Clement IV. mentions this preference as an absurdity.” The bachelor,“says he,” who reads the Scriptures, gives place to the reader of the * Sentences,' who everywhere is honoured and preferred. The reader of the Sentences has his choice of the most eligible time, and holds a call and society with the religious; but the biblical reader has neither; and must beg for such an hour as the reader of the Sentences is pleased to assign him. He who reads the Lombardine thesis, may anywhere dispute and be esteemed a master; but he who reads the text of Scripture is admitted to no such honour: the absurdity of this conduct is evident," &C.

, an English divine and astronomer, was born about 1680, and was educated at Pembroke hall, Cambridge, of which he was A. B. in 1700, A.M. 1704, and S. T. P. in 1728. In 1733 he was elected master of Pembroke hall, and in 1749 Lowndes’s professor of astronomy. He is chiefly known as an author by a “Treatise on Astronomy,” in two volumes 4to; the first of which was published in 1742, and the second in 1764. He was the inventor of a curious astronomical machine, erected in a room at Pembroke hail, of which he has himself given the following description: “I have, in a room lately built in Pembroke hall, erected a sphere of 18 feet diameter, wherein above thirty persons may sit conveniently; the entrance into it is over the south pole by six steps; the frame of the sphere consists of a number of iron meridians, not complete semi-circles, the northern ends of which are screwed to a large plate of brass, with a hole in the centre of it; through this hole, from a beam in the cieling, comes the north pole, a round iron rod, about three inches long, and supports the upper parts of the sphere to its proper elvation for the latitude of Cambridge; the lower part of the sphere, so much of it as is invisible in England, is cut off; and the lower or southern ends of the meridians, or truncated semi-circles, terminate on, and are screwed down to, a strong circle of oak, of about thirteen feet diameter, which, when the sphere is put into motion, runs upon large rollers of lignum vitae, in the manner that the tops of some wind-mills are made to turn round. Upon the iron meridians is fixed a zodiac of tin painted blue, whereon the ecliptic and heliocentric orbits of the planets are drawn, and the constellations and stars traced; the great and little Bear and Draco are already painted in their places round the north pole; the rest of the constellations are proposed to follow; the whole is turned with a small winch, with as little labour as it takes to wind up a jack, though the weight of the iron, tin^ and wooden circle, is about a thousand pounds. When it is made use of, a planetarium will be placed in the middle thereof. The whole, with the floor, is well-supported by a frame of large timber.” Thus far Dr. Long, before this curious piece of mechanism was perfected. Since the above was written, the sphere has been completely finished; all the constellations and stars of the northern hemisphere, visible at Cambridge, are painted in their proper places upon plates of iron joined together, which form one concave surface.

In the mean time, it is certain that his attachment to other studies soon diverted him from his law practice. He appears in particular to have considered Pliny as an author meriting his most assiduous application, and whose works would furnish him with employment for many years. With this view he not only studied Pliny’s “Natural History,” with the greatest care, as well as every author who had treated on the same subject, but determined also to travel in pursuit of farther information, as well as to inspect the productions of nature, wherever found. But before this it became necessary for him to learn Greek, with which he had hitherto been unacquainted, and he is said to have made such progress, as to be able, within a year, to read the best Greek authors, on whom he found employment for about five years. Besides selecting from these works whatever might serve to illustrate his favourite Pliny, he now determined to commence his travels, and accordingly went to England, Germany, and Italy, and would have travelled to the East had not the war with the Turks prevented him. In England, in which he appears to have been in 1518, he became very intimate with Pace and Linacre. He encountered many dangers, however, in his continental tour. As he was travelling, with two friends, through Switzerland, the natives of that country, who, after the battle of Marignan, regarded the French with horror, conceived that Longueil and his party were spies, and pursued them as far as the banks of the Rhone. One was killed, the other made his escape by swimming; but Longueil, being wounded in the arm, was taken prisoner, and treated with great severity for about a month, at the end of which he was released by the interposition of the bishop of Sion, who furnished him with money and a horse, to convey him to France. At Rome he was afterwards honoured with the rank of citizen, and received with kindness by Leo X. who had a great opinion of his talents and eloquence, made him his secretary, and employed him to write against Luther. He visited France once more after this, but the rec<*ption he met with in Italy determined him to settle there, at Padua, where he resided, first with Stephen Sauli, a noble Genoese, and on his departure, with Reginald Pole, afterwards the celebrated cardinal, to whom we are indebted for a life of Longueil. Here he died Sept. 11, 1522, in the thirty-third year of his age, and was interred in the church of the Franciscans, in the habit of that order, as he had desired. He was honoured with a Latin epitaph by Bembo, who was one of his principal friends, and recommended to him the writings of Cicero, as a model of style. Longueil became so captivated with Cicero, as to be justly censured by Erasmus on this account. Longueil, however, was not to be diverted by this, but declared himself so dissatisfied with what he ha4 written before he knew the beauties of Cicero’s style, *s to order all his Mss. written previous to that period, to be destroyed. We have, therefore, but little of Longueil left. Among the Mss. destroyed was probably his commentary on Pliny, which some think was published, but this is very doubtful. We can with more certainty attribute to him, 1. “Oratio de laudibus D. Ludovici Francorum regis, &c.” Paris, 1510, 4to. Some remarks on the court of Rome in this harangue occasioned its being omitted in the collection of his works, but Du Chesne printed it in the fifth volume of his collection of French historians. 2. “Christ. Longolii, civis Roman ae perduellionis rei defensiones duae,” Venice, 8vo. This is a vindication of himself against a charge preferred against him, when at Rome, that he had advanced sentiments dishonourable to the character of the Romans in the preceding oration. 3. “Ad Lutheranos jam damnatos Oratio,” Cologn, 1529, 8vo. It appears from his letters that he had been, requested both to write for and against Luther, that he was long in great perplexity on the subject, but that at length Leo X. prevailed with him to write the above. These last two pieces with his letters, &c. have been often reprinted, under the title of “Christ. Longolii Orationes, Epistolcc, et Vita, necnon Bembi et Sadoleti epistolse,” the first edition, at Paris, 1533, 8vo. There are many curious particulars of literary history and character scattered through this correspondence. The life prefixed is now known to have been written by Pole, who was his most intimate friend and admirer, and to whom he bequeathed his library.

, a French poet, who flourished about the middle of the thirteenth century, was the author of the “Roman de la Rose,” a poem much in request in the middle ages, and known in this country by Chaucer’s translation. It was left unfinished by Lorris, and was completed in the next century by John de Meuu. The part by Lorris, though the shortest, is by much the most poetical, abounding in rich and elegant description, and in lively portraiture of allegorical personages. The early French editions of this poem are of great rarity and value, and are enumerated by Brunei, and other bibliographers. Of the author nothing is known.

Dr. Lort was well known to the learned of this and other countries, as a man of extensive literary information, and a collector of curious and valuable books, at a time when such articles were less known and in less request than at present. He was very generally and deservedly esteemed by his numerous acquaintance. An artless simplicity formed the basis of his character, united to much kindness and liberality. With talents and learning that might have appeared to great advantage from the press, Dr. Lort was rather anxious to assist the labours of others than ambitious of appearing as the author of separate publications. Except a few occasional sermons, a poem on the peace of Aix-laChapelle among the Cambridge congratulations, and some anonymous contributions to the Gentleman’s Magazine, and other literary journals and newspapers, we can only mention, as an original work, “A Short Commentary on the Lord’s Prayer; in which an allusion to the principal circumstances of our Lord’s temptation is attempted to be shewn;” printed in 8vo, 1790. In this ingenious tract, he adopts the translation taken by Dr. Doddridge from the fathers, and given in his “Family Expositor.” Mr. Nichols has printed, from the pen of Dr. Lort, a curious “Inquiry into the author, or rather who was not the author, of The Whole Duty of Man.” The same gentleman acknowledges his obligations to Dr. Lort for assistance in some of his valuable labours. To Grander also Dr. Lort communicated much information. Biography had been always his study, and most of his books were filled with notes, corrections, and references of the biographical kind. He had likewise compiled many ms lives, which were dispersed at his death. Of some of these the editor of this Dictionary has been enabled to avail himself. His library was not remarkable for external splendour, but it contained a great number of rare and valuable articles, and formed a sale of twenty-five days, at Messrs. Leigh and Sotheby’s, in 1791. The produce was 1269/1; and his prints sold for 40 1l.

He was next appointed one of the Assembly of Divines, and minister of St. Lawrence Jury, and is said also to have been chosen minister of St. Anne’s, Aldersgate-street. He was one of the London ministers who signed a declaration against the king’s death. He was afterwards engaged in a plot, which cost him his life, and was known at the time by the name of Love’s plot, either because he was a principal agent, or a principal sufferer. Mr. Love, we have already noticed, was a presbyterian, and when he found that the independents were gaining the ascendancy, he united with various gentlemen and ministers of his own way of thinking to assist the Scotch (before whom Charles II. had taken the covenant, and by whom he had been crowned,) in their endeavours to advance that sovereign to the crown of England. Cromwell, howev&r, was too watchful for the success of such a design in London; and the chief conspirators being apprehended, Mr. Love and a Mr. Gibbons were tried and executed, the rest escaping by interest, or servile submission. Mr. Love appears on his trial to have used every means to defeat its purpose, and was certainly more tenacious of life, than might have been expected from the boldness of his former professions. Great intercessions were made to the parliament for a pardon: his wife presented one petition, and himself four; several parishes also, and a great number of his brethren interceded with great fervour; but all that could be obtained was the respite of a month. It is said that the affairs of the commonwealth being now at a crisis, and Charles II. having entered England with 16,000 Scots, it was thought necessary to strike terror in the presbyterian party, by making an example of one of their favourite ministers. Some historians say that Cromwell, then in the north, sent a letter of reprieve and pardon for Mr. Love, but that the post-boy was stopped on the road by some persons belonging to the late king’s army, who opened the mail, and finding this letter, tore it in pieces, exclaiming that “he who had been so great a firebrand at Uxbridge, was not fit to live.” Whatever truth may be in this, he was executed, by beheading, on Tower-hill, Aug. 22, 1651. He was accompanied at his death by the three eminent nonconformists, Simeon Ashe, Edmund Calamy, and Dr. Manton. The latter preached a funeral sermon for him, in which, while he avoids any particular notice of the cause of his death, he considers him, as the whole of his party did, in the light of a saint and martyr. The piety of his life, indeed, ereated a sympathy in his favour which did no little harm to the power of Cromwell. Thousands began to see that the tyranny of the republic would equal all they had been taught to hate in the mo larchv. The government, we are told, expressed some displeasure at Dr. Manton’s intention of preaching a funeral sermon, and their creatures among the soldiers threatened violence, but he persisted in his resolution, and not only preached, but printed the sermon. The loyalists, on the other hand, considered Love’s death as an instance of retributive justice. Clarendon says that he “was guilty of as much treason as the pulpit could contain;” and his biographers have so weakly defended the violence of his conduct during the early period of the rebellion, as to leave this fact almost indisputable. His works consist of sermons and pious tracts, on various subjects, mostly printed after his death, and included in three volumes, 8vo. They were all accompanied by prefaces from his brethren, of high commendation.

This was followed by “Remarks on Dr. Lowth’s Letter to the bishop of Gloucester,” anonymous, but now known to have been written by Mr. Towne, archdeacon of Stow in Lincolnshire; to which is annexed “The second epistolary Correspondence” between Warburton and Lowth, in which Warburton accuses Lowth of a breach of confidence in publishing the former correspondence. A more petty controversy arose from Dr. Lowth’s letter, between him and Dr. Brown, author of “Essays on the Characteristics,” who fancied that Lowth had glanced at him as one of the servile admirers of Warburton. He therefore addressed “A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Lowth,” which was answered in “A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Brown,” written in a polite and dispassionate manner. It was followed by two anonymous addresses to Dr. Brown, censuring him for having introduced himself and his writings into a dispute which had nothing to do with either f.

But that which attracted most attention, though not very deservedly, was his, 11. “Phosphorus, de prima causa et natura mali, tractatus hypermetaphysicus,” &c. printed at Rostock in 1596, and reprinted there in 8vo and 12mo, in 1600. “Phosphorus; or an hypermetaphysical treatise concerning the origin and nature of Sin.” In this piece he established two co-eternal principles (not matter and a vacuum, or void, as Epicurus did, but) God and the nihilum, or nothing. God, he supposed, is the good principle, and nothing the evil principle. He added, that sin was nothing else but a tendency towards nothing; and that sin had been necessary in order to make known the nature of good; and he applied to this nothing all that Aristotle says of the first matter. This being answered by Grawer in his “AntiLubinus,” in 1608, 4to, the author published a reply, entitled, 12. “Apologeticus quo Alb. Graw. calumniis respondetur, &c.” printed at Rostock, and reprinted there in 1605. To this also Grawer published an answer, in an appendix to his “Anti-Lubinus.” Lubin likewise published the next year, 13. “Tractatus de causa peccati, ad theologos Augustinae confessionis in Germania.” But, notwithstanding all these works, posterity has justly considered him as better acquainted with polite literature than with divinity.

, bishop of Cagliari, the metropolis of Sardinia, is known in ecclesiastical history as the author of a schism, the occasion of which was, that Lucifer would not allow the decree made in the council of Alexandria, A. D. 362, for receiving the apostate Arian bishops. This he opposed so resolutely, that, rather than yield, he chose to separate himself from the communion of the rest, and to form a new schism, which bore his name, and -soon gained a considerable footing, especially in the West; several persons no less distinguished for piety than learning, and among the rest Gregory, the famous bishop of Elvira, having adopted his rigid sentiments. As Lucifer is honoured by the church of Rome as a saint, where his festival is kept on the 20th of May, Baronius pretends that he abandoned his schism, and returned to the communion of the church, before his death. But his contemporary, Ruffinus, who probably knew him, assures us, that he died in the schism which he had formed, A D. 370. His works are written in a harsh and barbarous style. According to Lardner, they consist very much of passages of the Old and New Testament, cited one after another, which he quotes with marks of the greatest respect. He farther adds, that the works of this prelate have not yet been published with all the advantage that might be wished. The titles of these works are, “Ad Constantinum Imperatorem, lib. ii.” “De Regibus Apostaticis” “De non conveniendo cum Hereticis” “De non parcendo Delinquentibus in Deum” “Quod moriendurn sit pro Filio Dei” and “Epistola brevis ad Florentium.” They were collected together, and published at Paris by John Till, bishop of Meaux, in 1568, and at Venice about 1780, in fol. with additions.

, also a native of Erfurt, and born in 1655, was son to George Henry Ludolpb, a counsellor of that city, and nephew to the preceding Job Ludolpb, who had some share in the care of his education, and* the regulation of his studies. He thus became qualified for the post he afterwards enjoyed, of secretary to Mr. Lenthe, envoy from Christian V. king of Denmark, to the court of Great Britain. This gentleman, for his faithfulness and ability, recommended him afterwards to prince George of Denmark, and in 1680 he became his secretary, which office he enjoyed for some years, until, being incapacitated by illness, he was discharged, with a handsome pension. After his recovery, he took a resolution to visit some foreign countries, particularly Russia, which then was hardly known to travellers; and, as he had some knowledge of the Russian language before be left England, he easily became acquainted with the principal men of that country. He also met with some Jews there, with whom he frequently conversed, and became so great a master of the Hebrew tongue, that he could talk with them in that language; and he gave such uncommon proofs of his knowledge, that the Russian priests took him for a conjuror. He also understood music, and had the honour to play before the czar at Moscow, who expressed the utmost surprise and delight at his performance. Ludolph returned to London in 1694, when he was cut for the stone. As soon as his health would permit, in gratitude for the civilities he had received in Russia, he undertook to write a grammar of their language; by which the natives might be taught their own tongue in a regular form. This book was printed by the university press at Oxford, and published in 1696. This essay, as he says in his preface, he hoped might be of use to traders and travellers; as it was an introduction to the knowledge of a language, which was spoken through a vast tract of country, from Archangel as far as Astracan, and from Ingermania as far as the confines of China.

, a celebrated Lombard historian of the tenth century, was born at Pavia. He was bred in the court of Hugo king of Italy, and was afterwards secretary to Berengarius II. by whom, in the year 948, he was sent ambassador to Cpnstantine Porphyrogenitus. After having long served Berengarius, he was disgraced, merely, as it is said, because he censured some of the proceedings with which the latter years of that prince were dishonoured. His goods were confiscated, and he fled for refuge to Otho emperor of Germany. Otho amply avenged his cause by driving Berengarius from the throne; and in the year 963, advanced Luitprandus to the bishopric of Cremona. In the year 968 he sent him ambassador to the emperor Nicephorus Phocas. That emperor had taken great offence that Otho had assumed the style of Roman emperor, and Luitprandus, who undertook boldly to justify his master, irritated him so much, that he received very harsh treatment, and was even thrown for a time into prison, nor was he suffered to return into Italy till the expiration of the year. The precise time of his death is not known. He wrote the history of his own times in six books; the best edition of which is that of Antwerp, in folio, published in 1640. His style is harsh, but he throws great light on the history of the lower empire. He is among the “Scriptores return Italicarum,” published by Muratori. Luitprandus was one of the bishops who subscribed the condemnation of pope John XII.; and in the last six chapters of his book, he gives a distinct account of all ilie transactions of that synod, which was held at Rome by the bishops of Italy. The lives of the popes, and the chronicle of the Goths, have been falsely ascribed to him.

, a female writer, very much admired in France for the romances which she produced, was the daughter of a coachman belonging to cardinal Fleury, and was born about 1682. Some have said that she was the daughter of prince Thomas of Savoy, the prince de Carignano’s elder brother, because prince Eugene shewed her much kindness. She had, however, an education much above her birth, which enabled her to compose the various works which she has left us. M. Huet, to whom she accidentally became known, advised her to write romances, in which she succeeded tolerably well with the help of M. Ignatius Lewis de la Serre, sieur de Langlade (author of nine or ten operas,) who was her intimate friend, after having been her lover. This gentleman inherited an income of 25,000 livres, which he consumed by gaming, and died in 1756. Mademoiselle de Lussan was more admired for her mental than for her personal qualities, for she squinted, and bad a very brown skin, with a masculine voice and gait; but she was gay, lively, extremely humane, constant in her friendships, liable to anger, but never to hatred. She died in 1758, aged seventy-five, in consequence of bathing during an indigestion. Her works are, “La Comtesse de Gondez,” 2 vols. 12mo; “Anecdotes de Philippe Auguste,” 6 vols. 12m<>, attributed to the abb de Boismorand. “Memoires de Charles VII.” 12mo; “Anecdotes” of Francis I. 3 vols. 12mo; of Henry II. 2 vols. 12mo; of Mary of England, 12mo; “La Vie de Crillon,” 2 vols. 12mo. She published also under her name a “History of Charles VI.” 9 vols. 12mo; of Louis XI. 6 vols. and “L'Hist. de la derniere Revolution de Naples,” 4 vols. but these three were written by M. Baudot de Juilly, as we have mentioned in his life. Mademoiselle de Lussan gave this gentleman half of what she gained from these works, and half of her pension of 2000 livres.

In the mean time, the zeal of his adversaries grew every day more active against him; and he was at length accused to Leo X. as an heretic. As soon as he returned therefore from Heidelberg, he wrote a letter to that pope, in the most submissive terms; and sent him at the same time an explication of his propositions about indulgences. He tells his holiness in this letter, that “he was greatly troubled at being represented to him as a person who opposed the authority and power of the keys and pope; that this accusation amazed him, but that he trusted to his own innocency.” Then he sets forth the matter of fact, and says, that the “preachers of the jubilee thought all things lawful for them under the pope’s name, and taught heretical and impious propositions, to the scandal and contempt of the ecclesiastical power, and as if the decretals against the abuses of collectors did not concern them; that they had published books, in which they taught the same impieties and heresies, not to mention their avarice and exactions; that they had found out no other way to quiet the offence their il! conduct had given, than by terrifying men with the name of pope, and by threatening with fire, as heretics, all those who did not approve and submit to their exorbitances; that being animated with a zeal for Jesus Christ, and pushed on by the heat of youth, he had given notice of these abuses to the superior powers; whose not regarding it had induced him to oppose them with lenity, by publishing a position which he invited the most learned to dispute with him. This,” says he, “is the flame which they say has set the whole world on fire. Is it that I have not a right, as a doctor of divinity, to dispute in the public schools upon these matters? These theses were made only for my own country; and I am surprised to see them spread into all parts of the world. They were rather disputable points than decisions; some of them obscure, and in need of being cleared. What shall I do? I cannot, draw them back, and yet I see I am made odious. It is a trouble to me to appear in public, yet I am constrained to do it. It is to appease my adversaries, and give satisfaction to several persons, that I have published explications of the disputes I have engaged in; which I now do under your holiness’s protection, that it may be known how sincerely I honour the power of the keys, and with what injustice my adversaries have represented me. If I were such a one as they give out, the elector of Saxony woirld not have tolerated me in his university thus long.” He concludes in the following words: “I cast myself, holy father, at your feet, with all I am and have. Give me life, or put me to death; confirm or revoke, approve or disapprove, as you please. I own your voice as that of Jesus Christ, who rules and speaks by you; and if I have deserved death I refuse not to die.” This letter is dated on Trinity Sunday, 1518, and was accompanied with a, protestation, in which he declared, that “he did not pretend to advance or defend any thing contrary to the Holy Scripture, or to the doctrine of the fathers, received and observed by the church of Rome, or to the canons and decretals of the popes; nevertheless, he thought he had the liberty, either to approve or disapprove the opinions of St. Thomas, Bonaventure, and other schoolmen and canonists, which are not grounded upon any text.”

Before the diet of Worms was dissolved, Charles V. caused an edict to be drawn up, which was dated the 8th of May, and solemnly published on the 2oth in the assembly of the electors and princes held in his palace. In this edict, after declaring it to be the duty of an emperor, not only to defend the limits of the empire, but to maintain religion and the true faith, and to extinguish heresies in their original, he commands, That Martin Luther be, agreeably to the sentence of the pope, henceforward looked upon as a member separated from the church, a schismatic, and an obstinate and notorious heretic. He forbids all persons, under the penalty of high treason, loss of goods, and being put under the ban of the empire, to receive or defend, maintain or protect him, either in conversation or in writing; and he orders, that, after the twenty-one days allowed in his safe-conduct, he should be proceeded against according to the form of the ban of the empire, in what place soever he should be: or, at least, that he should be seized and imprisoned, till his imperial majesty’s pleasure should be further known. The same punishments are denounced against all the accomplices, adherents, followers, or favourers of Luther; and also all persons are forbidden to print, sell, buy, or read any of his books: and, because there had been published several books concerning the same doctrines, without his name, and several pictures dispersed that were injurious to the pope, cardinal, and bishops, he commands the magistrates to seize and burn them, uod to punish the authors and printers of those pictures and libels. Lastly, it forbids in general the printing of any book concerning matters of faith, which hath not the approbation of the ordinary, and some neighbouring university.

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

, an eminent English scholar, was born at Alkrington or Okerton, near Banbury in Oxfordshire, in 1572. His father, observing his natural talents, sent him to Winchester school, where he was admitted a scholar on the foundation, at thirteen; and, being elected thence to New-college in Oxford, was put under the tuition of Dr. (afterwards sir) Henry Martin, who became so well known during the rebellion. Mr. Lydiat was made probationer fellow in 1591, and two years after, actual fellow. Then taking his degree in arts, he applied himself to astronomy, mathematics, and divinity, in the last of which studies he was very desirous of continuing; but, finding a great defect in his memory and utterance, he chose rather to resign his fellowship, which he could not hold without entering the church, and live upon his small patrimony. This was in 1603; and he spent seven years after in finishing and printing such books as he had begun when in college. He first appeared as an author in 1605, by publishing his “Tractatus de variis annorum formis.” Of this he published a defence in 1607, against the censures of Joseph Scaliger, whom he more directly attacked in his “Emendatio Temporum ab initio mundi hue usque compendio facta, contra Scaligerum et alios,” 1609. This he dedicated to prince Henry, eldest son of James I. He was chronographer and cosmographer to that prince, who had a great respect for him, and, had he lived, would certainly have made a provision for him. In 1609, he became acquainted with Dr. Usher, afterwards archbishop of Armagh, who took him into Ireland, and placed him in the college at Dublin, where he continued two years; and then purposing to return to England, the lord-deputy and chancellor of Ireland made him, at his request, a joint promise of a competent support, upon his coming back thither. This appears to have been the mastership of the school at Armagh, endowed with 50l. per annum in laud.

A few years afterwards, in 1751, by the death of his father, he inherited the title of baronet, with a large estate, which, though perhaps he did not augment, he was careful to adorn, by a house of great elegance and expence, and by much attention to the decoration of his park at Hagley. As he continued his exertions in parliament, he was gradually advancing his claim to profit and preferment; and accordingly was made in 1754 cofferer and privy-counsellor. This place he exchanged next year for that of chancellor of the exchequer, an office, however, that required some qualifications which he soon perceived himself to want. It is an anecdote no less remarkable than true, that he never could comprehend the commonest rules of arithmetic. The year after, his curiosity led him into Wales; of which he has given an account, perhaps rather with too much affectation of delight, to Archibald Bower, a man of whom he had conceived an opinion more favourable than he seems to have deserved, and whom, having once espoused his interest and fame, he never was persuaded to disown. It must indeed have proceeded from a strong conviction of Bower’s innocence, however acquired, that such a man as Lyttelton adhered to him to the very last. About 1758, he prevented Garrick from bringing Bower on the stage in the character of a mock convert, to be shewn in various attitudes, in which the profligacy of his conduct was to be exposed: and a very few years before his own death, he declared to the celebrated Dr. Lardner his opinion of Bower in these words, “I have no more doubt of his having continued a firm protestant to the last hour of his life, than I have of my not being a papist myself.” About this time he published his “Dialogues of the Dead,” which were very eagerly read, though the production rather, as it seems, of leisure than of study, rather effusions than compositions. When, in the latter part of the last reign, the inauspicious commencement of the war made the dissolution of the ministry unavoidable, sir George Lyttelton, losing his employment with the rest, was raised to the peerage, Nov. 19, 1157, by the title of lord Lyttelton, baron of Frankley, in the county of Worcester. His last literary production was, “The History of Henry the Second,” 1764, elaborated by the researches and deliberations of twenty years, and published with the greatest anxiety, which Dr. Johnson, surely very improperly, ascribes to vanity. The story of the publication, however, we allow to be remarkable. The whole work was printed twice over, greatest part of it three times, and many sheets four or five times . The booksellers paid for the first impression ; but the charges and repeated alterations of the press were at the expence of the author, whose ambitious accuracy is known to have cost him at least a thousand pounds. He began to print in 1755. Three volumes appeared in 1764; a second edition of them in 1767; a third edition in 1768 and the conclusion in 1771. Andrew Reid, a man not without considerable abilities, and not unacquainted with letters or with life, undertook to persuade the noble author, as he had persuaded himself, that he was master of the secret of punctuation; and, as fear begets credulity, he was employed, we know not at what price, to point the pages of “Henry the Second,” as if, said Johnson once in conversation, “another man could point his sense better than himself.” The book, however, was at last pointed and printed, and sent into the world. His lordship took money for his copy, of which, when he had paid the pointer, he probably gave the rest away; for he was very liberal to the indigent. When time brought the history to a third edition, Reid was either dead or discarded; and the superintendence of typography and punctuation was committed to a man originally a comb -maker, but then known by the style of Dr. Saunders. Something uncommon was probably expected, and something uncommon was at last done; for to the edition of Dr. Saunders is appended, what the world had hardly seen before, a list of errors of nineteen pages.

He was succeeded by his son Thomas, second lord Lyttelton, of whom the following too just character is on record: “With great abilities generally very ill applied; with a strong sense of religion, which he never suffered to influence his conduct, his days were mostly passed in splendid misery; and in the painful change of the most extravagant gaiety, and the deepest despair. The delight, when he pleased, of the first and most select societies, he chose to pass his time, for the nio,st part, with the most profligate and abandoned of both iexes. Solitude was to fiim the most insupportable torment; and to banish refleo tion, he flew to Company whom he despised and ridiculed. His conduct was a subject of bitter regret both to his father and all his friends.” He closed this unhappy life, Nov. 27, 1779. Two volumes of “Letters” published in 1780 and 1782, though attributed to him, are known to have been the production of an ingenious writer yet living; and a quarto volume of “Poems,” published in 1780, was, as well as the “Letters,” publicly disowned by his executors, but as to the “Poems,” they added, “great part whereof are undoubtedly spurious.”

We have more pleasure, however, in returning to the character of George lord Lyttelton, which has been uniformly delineated by those who knew him best, in favourable colours. Of the various sketches which we have seen, we are inclined to give a place to the following, which, although somewhat long, is less known than those to be found in the accounts of his biographers, and appears to have been written by a near observer “Few chapters,” says the writer, “recorded in the annals of this country, ever united so many rare, valuable, and amiable qualities, as that of the late lord Lyttelton. Whether we consider this great man in public or private life, we are justified in affirming, that he abounded in virtues not barely sufficient to create reverence and esteem, but to insure him the love and admiration of all who knew him. Look upon him as a statesman, and a public man; where shall we find another, who always thought right and meant well, and who so seldom acted wrong, or was misled or mistaken in his ministerial, or senatorial conduct? Look upon his lordship in the humbler scene of private and domestic life; and if thou hadst the pleasure of knowing him, gentle reader, point out the breast warm or cold, that so copiously abounded with every gift and acquirement which indulgent nature could bestow, or the tutored mind improve and refine, to win and captivate mankind.

This eminent man died of a suppression of urine, at the abbey of St. Germain-des-Pres, in Dec. 1707. His great merit had procured him, in 1701, the place of honorary member of the academy of inscriptions. Du Pin tells us thac “it would be difficult to give Mabillon the praises he deserves: the voice of the public, and the general esteem of all the learned, are a much better commendation of him than any thing we can say. His profound learning appears from his works: his modesty, humility, meekness, and piety, are no less known to those who have had the least conversation with him. His style is masculine, pure, clear, and methodical, without affectation or superfluous ornaments, and suitable to the subjects of which he has treated.” Few men were more honoured by the notice of the great than Mabillon, and to this he was entitled both by his virtues and his extensive learning. Pope Clement XI. paid him the compliment to write to father Iluinart, expressing his hopes that the remains of such a man had been interred with the honours due to him. “Every man of learning who goes to Paris,” said cardinal Colloredo, “will ask where you have placed him”.

, a celebrated French political and miscellaneous writer, and brother to the abbé Condillac, was born at Grenoble in March 1709, and was educated in the Jesuits’ college at Lyons. In his youth he attached himself to his relation the cardinal de Tencin, but never took any higher order in the church than that of sub-deacon. On his coming into life, as it is called, he had the honour to be admitted, both as a relation and a man of letters, into the parties of madame de Tencin, so well known for her intrigues and her sprightly talents, who at that time gave dinners not only to wits, but to politicians. Here madame de Tencin was so much pleased with the figure Mably made in conversation with Montesquieu and other philosophical politicians at hertable, that she thought he might prove useful to her brother, then entering on his ministerial career. The first service he rendered to the cardinal was to draw out an abridgment of all the treaties from the peace of Westphalia to that time (about 1740): the second service he rendered his patron, was of a more singular kind. The cardinal soon becoming sensible that he had not the talent xof conveying his ideas in council, Mably suggested to him the lucky expedient of an application to the king, that he might be permitted to express his thoughts in writing, and there can be little doubt that m this also he profited by the assistance of his relative, who soon began himself to meddle in matters of state. In 1743 he was entrusted to negoeiate privately at Paris with the Prussian ambassador, and drew up a treaty, which Voltaire was appointed to carry to Berlin. Frederick, to whom* this was no secret, conceived from this time a very high opinion of the abbe, and, as Mably’s biographer remarks, it was somewhat singular that tvro men of letters, who had no political character, should be employed on a negociation which made such an important change in the state of affairs in Europe. The abbe" also drew up the papers which were to serve as the basis of the negociation carried on in the congress at Breda in the month of April 1746.

His works are, 1. “Parallele des Romains et des Franc.ais,” Paris, 1740, 2 vols. 12mo. 2. “Le Droit public de l'Enrope,” 1747, 3 vols. 12mo. 3. “Observations sur les Romains,” 2 vols. 12mo. 4. “Observations sur les Grecs,” 1751, 12mo, reprinted in 1766, with the title of “Observations sur Thistoire cle la Grece.” 5. “Des principes des negotiations,” 1757, 12mo. 6. ft Entretiens de Phocion sur le rapport de la morale avec la politiqoe,“Amst. (Piins), 1763, 12mo, reprinted in 1783, 3 vols. 12mo, and by Didot in 1795, 4to. Of this an English translation was published by Mr. Macbeau in 1770. It was once a very popular work in America, where his name was held in the highest honour, until he published his work on the constitution of the United States after the peace of 1783, when the Americans hung him in effigy as an enemy to toleration and liberty. 7.” Observations sur l'histoire de France,“1765, 2 vols. 12mo. 8.” Entretiens sur i'Histoire,“12 mo. This is the work by which he has been most known in England, but in it, as well as his other works, he gives too great preference to the ancients over the moderns. 9.” De la inaniere d'ecrire Phistoire,“Kehl, 1784, 2 vols. 12mo. The whole of his works were collected, with an eloge by the abbe Bnzard, in 15 vols. 8vo, 17i'4. In this are many pieces not enumerated above, particularly his work on” Morals,“and his” Observations on the Government and Laws of America," which last,as we have noticed, destroyed his popularity in America. In both are symptoms of decayed intellect, and that confusion of thought which is peculiar to men who have been theorizing all their lives.

, a Hungarian artist, was born at Maubeuge, a village in Hainault, in 1499, though in the Chronological Tables his birth is supposed to have been in 1492. It is not known from whom he derived his knowledge of the art of painting but, in his youth, he was laborious in his practice, and his principal studies were after nature, by which he acquired a great deal of truth in his compositions. To improve himself in his profession, he travelled to Italy, and became an artist of great repute. He had a good pencil, and finished his pictures highly, with great care; yet, notwithstanding his studies in Italy, and the correctness of his design, he never could arrive at the elegance of the Roman school. His manner was dry, stiff, and laboured; but he was exceedingly industrious to give a polished smoothness to his colouring. By king Henry VIII. of England he was employed to paint the portraits of some of his children, which gained him great reputation, as he finished them delicately, and gave them spirit and liveliness and he painted several others for the nobility who attended the court at London. His paintings are consequently not unfrequent in this country.

The talents of Dr. Macbride were now universally known, his character was duly appreciated, and his professional emoluments increased rapidly; for the public, as if to make amends for former neglect, threw more occupation into his hands than he couid accomplish either with ease or safety. Although much harassed both in body and mind, so as to have suffered for some time an almost total incapacity for sleep, he continued in activity and good spirits until the end of December, 1778, when an accidental cold brought on a fever and delirium, which terminated his life on the 13th of that month, in the fifty-third year of his age; his death was sincerely lamented by persons of all ranks.

, a learned French priest, was born at Paris about 1640, and pursued his divinity studies at the university of his native city, where he took his degrees. About this time he was appointed secretary to the council for managing the domains and finances of the queen, consort to Lewis XIV.; and when he took holy orders, in 1685, he was immediately appointed canon and rector of the church of St. Opportune, at Paris. He was a very diligent student as well in profane as in sacred literature, and was celebrated for his popular talents as a preacher. He died in 1721, leaving behind him a great number of works that do honour to his memory, of which we shall mention “A chronological, historical, and moral abridgment of the Old and New Testament,” in 2 vols. 4to “Scriptural Knowledge, reduced into four tables;” a French version of the apocryphal “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs;” of which Grosseteste, bishop of Lincoln, gave the first Latin translation, Grabe the first Greek edition, from Mss. in the English universities, and Whiston an English version (S The History of the Four Ciceros,“in which he attempts to prove, that the sons of Cicero were as illustrious as their father. Mace (Thomas), a practitioner on the lute, but more distinguished among lovers of music by a work entitled” Music’s Monument, or a Remembrancer of the best practical Music, both divine and civil, that has ever been known to have been in the world," 1676, folio, was born in 1613, and became one of the clerks of Trinity-college, Cambridge. He does not appear to have held any considerable rank among musicians, nor is he celebrated either as a composer or practitioner on the lute: yet his book is a proof that he was an excellent judge of the instrument; and contains such variety of directions for the ordering and management of it, and for performing on it, as renders it a work of great utility. It contains also many particulars respecting himself, many traits of an original and singular character; and a vein of humour which, far from being disgusting, exhibits a lively portraiture of a good-natured gossiping old man. Dr. Burney recommends its perusal to all who have taste for excessive simplicity and quaintness, and can extract pleasure from the sincere and undissembled happiness of an author, who, with exalted notions of his subject and abilities, discloses to his reader every inward working of self-approbation in as undisguised a manner, as if he were communing with himself in all the plenitude of mental comfort and privacy. There is a print of him prefixed to his book, from an engraving of Faithorne, the inscription under which shews him to have been sixty-three in 1676: how long he lived afterwards, is not known. He had a wife and children.

, a Portuguese Jesuit, and most indefatigable writer, born at Coimbra, in 1596, quitted that order after a time to take the habit of a cordelier. He was strongly in the interest of the duke of Braganza when he seized the crown of Portugal. Being sent to Rome, he acquired for a time the favour of pope Alexander the Vllth, and was preferred by him to several important offices. The violence of his temper however soon embroiled him with this patron, and he went to Venice, where he disputed de omni scibili; and gaining great reputation, obtained the professorship of moral philosophy at Padua. Afterwards, having ventured to interfere in some state matter at Venice, where he had been held very high, he was imprisoned, and died in confinement, in 1681, at the age of 85. He is said, in the “Bibliotheque Portugaise,” to have published 109 different works: and in one of his own books he boasts that he had pronounced 53 public panegyrics, 60 Latin discourses, and 32 funeral orations; that he had written 48 epic poems, 123 elegies, 115 epitaphs, 212 dedications, 700 familiar letters, 2600 poems in heroic verse, 3000 epigrams, 4 Latin comedies, and had written or pronounced 150,000 verses extemporaucously. Yet the man who could declare all this, is hardly known by name in the greater part of Europe; and of the enormous list of his printed works, not more than five are thought worthy of mention by the writers of his life- To write much, is far easier than to write well. The works specified by his biographers are, 1. “Clavis Augustiniana liberi arbitrii,” a book written against father, afterwards cardinal Noris. The disputants were both silenced by authority; but Macedo, not to seem vanquished, sent his antagonist a regular challenge to a verbal controversy, which by some biographers has been mistaken for a challenge to fight. The challenge may be found in the “Journal Etranger” for June 1757. 2. “Schema Sanctae Congregationis,” 1676, 4to a dissertation on the inquisition, full of learning and absurdity. 3. “Encyclopaedia in agonem literatorum,” 1677, folio. 4. “Praise of the French,” in Latin, 1641, 4to; a book on the Jansenian controversy. 5. “Myrothecium Morale,” 4to. This is the book in which he gives the preceding account of what he had written and spoken, &c. He possessed a prodigious memory, and a ready command of language; but his judgment and taste were by no means equal to his learning and fecundity.

, an ancient Latin poet, was born at Verona, and flourished about the year 24 B. C. Eusebius relates, that he died a few years after Virgil. Ovid speaks of a poem by him, on the nature and quality of birds, serpents, and herbs; which, he says, Macer, being then very old, had often read to him, and he is said also to have written a supplement to Homer; but the work by which his name is chiefly known, first printed at Naples in 1477, 4to, and often since under the title “De virtutibus Herbarum,” is unquestionably spurious, and the production of a much later writer. By some it is ascribed to Odo or Odobonus, a French physician of the ninth century. This barbarous poem is in Leonine verse, and various manuscripts of it are in our public libraries of Oxford, Cambridge, the British Museum, &c. It was, according to Dr. Pulteney, in common use in Enprland before the sera of printing, and was translated into English by John Lelamar, master of Hereford-school, who lived about 1473. Even Linacre did not disdain to employ himself on this work, as in “Macer’s Herbal practysed by Dr. Lin aero, translated out of Latin into English.” Lond. 1542, 12mo. This jejune performance, adds Dr. Pulteney, which is writ-r ten wholly on Galenical principles, treats on the virtues of not more than eighty eight simples.

Besides the moral pieces mentioned above, he wrote several works to illustrate the laws and customs of his country, to vindicate the monarchy from the restless contrivances and attacks of those whom he esteemed its enemies, and to maintain the honour and glory of Scotland. To illustrate the laws and customs of his country, he published “A Discourse upon the laws and customs of Scotland in matters criminal,” 1674, 4to. “Idea eloquentiae tbrensis hodiernae, una cum actione forensi ex unaquaque juris parte,” 1681, 8vo. “Institutions of the laws of Scotland,” 1684, 8vo. “Observations upon the acts of parliament,” 1686, folio. Besides these, several other treatises of law are inserted in his works, printed at Edinburgh, 1716, in 2 vols. folio. In vindication of monarchy, he wrote his “Jus regium; or the just and solid foundations of monarchy in general, and more especially of the monarchy of Scotland; maintained against Buchanan, Naphthali, Doleman, Milton, &c.” Lond. 16S4, 8vo. This book being dedicated and presented by the author to the university of Oxford, he received a letter of thanks from the convocation. With the same view he published his * Discovery of the fanatic plot,“printed at Edinburgh, in 1684, folio; and his” Vindication of the government of Scotland during the reign of Charles II.“Also the” Method of Proceeding against Criminals and Fanatical Covenanters,“1691, 4to. The pieces which he published in honour of his nation, were as follow:” Observations on the Laws and Customs of Nations as to Precedency, with the science of heraldry, treated as a part of the civil law of nations; wherein reasons are given for its principles, and etymologies for its harder terms,“1680, folio.” A Defence of the Antiquity of the Royal Line of Scotland; with a true account when the Scots were governed by the kings in the Isle of Britain,“1685, 8vo. This was written in answer to” An historical Account of Church-Government as it was in Great Britain and Ireland, when they first received the Christian religion,“by Lloyd, bishop of St. Asaph. Sir George’s defence was published in June 1685; but before it came out it was animadverted upon by Dr. Stillingfleet, who had seen it in manuscript in the preface to his” Origines Britannicae.“Sir George replied the year following, in a piece entitled” The Antiquity of the Royal Line of Scotland farther cleared and defended against the exceptions lately offered by Dr. Stillingfleet, in his Vindication of the Bishop of St. Asaph;" and here the controversy appears to have ended. It is remarkable, however, that sir George’s books were translated into Latin, printed at Utrecht in 1689, and then presented to William-Henry prince of Orange, who wrote two very polite letters of thanks to him for his performance. Among the instances of this author’s zeal for his country, it is necessary to mention his founding of the lawyer’s library at Edinburgh, in 1689. This, which is now known by the name of the advocate’s library, was afterwards stored with variety of manuscripts, relating particularly to the antiquities of Scotland, and with a fine collection of books, in all sciences, classed in that excellent order, which he prescribed in an elegant Latin oration, pronounced upon the opening of it, and printed among his works.

, a pious and learned clergyman, and for fifty years minister of the English church at the Hague, was born at Monachan in Ireland, in 1722, and educated at Glasgow under the celebrated Mr. Hutcheson, for the presbyterian ministry. His youth was spent in Belfast, where he was long remembered with delight by a numerous circle of friends, now nearly extinct. About the time of the rebellion in 1745, when in his twentysecond year, he was invited to Holland, and succeeded his venerable uncle Dr. Milling, as pastor of the English church at the Hague, and remained in that situation until the invasion of the country by the French, in 1794, compelled him to take refuge in England. He had not been here long when an only sister, whom he had not seen for fifty years, joined him in consequence of the rebellion in Ireland. During his residence at the Hague he was known and highly respected by all English travellers, and not unfrequently consulted, on account of his extensive erudition and knowledge of political history, by official men of the highest rank. On his arrival in England he fixed his residence at Bath, as affording the best opportunities of union with many of those numerous friends he had known on the continent, and here he died, Nov. 25, 1804, aged eighty-two.

Among his works, we have mentioned his “Geometria Organica,” in which he treats of the description of curve lines by continued motion: and that which gained the prize of the royal academy of sciences in 1724. In 1740, he likewise shared the prize of the same academy, with the celebrated Bernouilli and Euler, for resolving the motion of the tides from the theory of gravity; a question which had been given out the former year, without receiving any solution. He had only ten days for composing this paper, and could not find leisure to transcribe a fair copy; so that the Paris edition of it is incorrect. He afterwards revised the whole, and inserted it in his “Treatise of Fluxions,” as he did also the substance of the former piece. These, with the “Treatise of Fluxions,” and the pieces printed in the “Philosophical Transactions,” of which we have given a list, are all the writings which he lived to publish. Since his death, two volumes more have appeared his “Algebra,” and his “Account of sir Isaac Newton’s Philosophical discoveries.” His “Algebra,” though not finished by himself, is yet allowed to be excellent in its kind; containing, in no large volume, a complete elementary treatise of that science, as far as it has hitherto been carried; besides some neat analytical papers on curve lines. His “Account of sir Isaac Newton’s Philosophy” was occasioned by the following circumstances: sir Isaac dying in the beginning of 1728, his nephew, Mr, Conduitt, proposed to publish an account of his life, and desired Mr. Maclaurin’s assistance. The latter, out of gratitude to his great benefactor, chearfully undertook, and soon finished, the history of the progress which philosophy had made before sir Isaac’s time: and this was the first draught of the work in hand, which not going forward, on account of Mr. Conduitt’s death, was returned to Mr. Maclaurin. To this he afterwards made great additions, and left it in the state in which it now appears. His main design seems to have been, to explain only those parts of sir Isaac’s philosophy which have been, and still are, controverted: and this is supposed to be the reason, why his grand discoveries concerning light and colours are but transiently and generally touched. For it is known, that ever since the experiments on which his doctrine of light and colours is founded, have been repeated with due care, this doctrine had not been contested; whereas his theory of celestial phaenomena, founded on gravitation, had been misunderstood, and even ridiculed. The weak charge of introducing occult qualities has been frequently repeated; foreign professors still amuse themselves with imaginary triumphs; and even the polite and ingenious cardinal de Polignac has been seduced to lend them the harmony of his numbers.

, the learned exchequer antiquary, and historiographer royal, of whose personal history we have no information, is well known among antiquaries and lawyers for his valuable collection of records relating to the ancient laws and constitution of this country; the knowledge of which tends greatly to the illustration of English history. In 1702, under the patronage of the learned lord Somers, he published the first fruits of his researches, under the title of “A Collection of antique Charters and Instruments of divers kinds taken from the originals, placed under several heads, and deduced (in a series according to the order of time) from the Norman conquest, to the end of the reign of king Henry VIII.” This is known by the name of the “Formulare AngJicanum.” To it is prefixed a dissertation concerning “Ancient Charters and Instruments,” replete with useful learning upon that subject. He was prompted to this work, by considering that there was no methodical history or system of ancient charters and instruments of this nation then extant; and that it would be acceptable to curious persons, and useful to the public, if something were done for supplying that defect. Having entertained such a design, and being furnished with proper materials from the archives of the late court of augmentations, he was encouraged to proceed in it, especially by lord Somers and prosecuted it with so much application, that out of an immense heap of original charters and writings, remaining in that repository, he selected and digested the chief substance of this volume. In 1711, he proceeded to a work of still greater importance than the foregoing, “The History and Antiquities of the Exchequer of the Kings of England, in two periods, viz. from the Norman conquest, to the end of the reign of king John; and from the end of the reign of king John, to the end of the reign of king Edward II. Taken from records. Together with a correct copy of the ancient dialogue concerning the Exchequer, generally ascribed to Gervasius Tilburiensis and a Dissertation concernlag the most ancient great roll of the exchequer, commonly styled the roll of Quinto Regis Stephani,” folio; reprinted in 1769, in 4to. This was dedicated to queen Anne; but there is likewise prefixed to it a long prefatory epistle to the lord Somers, in which he gives that illustrious patron some account of this unprecedented undertaking. He observes, that though some treatises had been written concerning the exchequer, yet no history [of it had been yet attempted by any man; that he had pursued his subject to those ancient times, to which, he thinks, the original of the exchequer in England may properly be assigned; and thence had drawn down an orderly account of it through a long course of years; and, having consulted, as well the books necessary to be perused upon this occasion, as a very great number of records and manuscripts, he had endeavoured all along x to confirm what he offered by proper vouchers, which are subjoined column-wise in each page, except where their extraordinary length made it impracticable. The records. which he here attests were, as he adds, taken by his own pen from the authentic parchments, unless where it appears by his references to be otherwise. He has contrived throughout the whole (as far as the subject-matter would permit) to make use of such memorials as serve either to make known or to explain the ancient laws and usages of this kingdom. For which reason, as he notes“, this work may be deemed, not merely a history of the exchequer, but likewise a promptuary towards a history of the ancient law of England. He afterwards acquaints” his lordship in what method he began and proceeded in compiling this work. First, he made as full a collection from records as he could, of materials relating to the subject. Those materials being regularly arranged in several books of collectanea, he reviewed them, and, weighing what they imported, and how they might be applied, he drew from thence a general scheme of his design. When he had pitched upon the heads of his discourse, he took materials for them out of the aforesaid fund, and digested them into their proper rank and order. In do ng this, it was his practice for the most part to write down, in the draught of his book, the respective records or testimonies first of all; i. e. before he wrote his own text or composition; and from them formed his history or accouit of things; connecting and applying them afterwards, as the case would admit. At the end of this history (as we have expressed it in the title) Mr. Maddox has publisteti a copy of the treatise concerning the exchequer, written in the way of dialogue, and generally ascribed to Gervasius Tilburiensis. This treatise is certainly very ancient, and intrinsically valuable. Our author introduces it by an epistolary dissertation, in Latin, to the then lord Halifax. The dialogue is followed by another epistolary dissertation, in the same language, addressed to the lord Somers, relating to the great roll of the exchequer, commonly styled the “Roll of Quinto Regis Stephani.” No historical account has been given, in this volume, of the records reposited in the exchequer. Mr. Madox thought that it might be more properly done if there was occasion for it, hereafter, in a continuation of this work; which he seems to have had some intention of performing himself when he published this part; or hoped some other hand would supply, if he did not. The concluding chapter of the history is a list of the barons of this court from the first year of William the Conqueror to the 20th of Edward II. The last work this laborious historiographer published himself, was the “Firma Burgi, or historical essay concerning the cities, towns, and boroughs of England. Taken from records.” This treatise was inscribed to king George I. The author warns his readers against expecting to find any curious or refined learning in it; in regard the matter of it is low. It is only one part of a subject, which, however, is extensive and difficult, concerning which, be tells us, much has been said by English writers to very little purpose, serving rather to entangle than to clear it. When he first entered upon the discussion of it, he found himself encompassed with doubts, which it hath been his endeavour, as he says, to remove or lessen as he went along. He has throughout mixed history and dissertation together, making these two strengthen and diversify each other. However modestly Mr. Madox might express himself concerning the learning of this work, it is in reality both curious and profound, and his inquiries very useful. The civil antiquities of this country would, in all probability, have been further obliged than they are to this industrious person, if his life had been of a somewhat longer continuance; for it may be presumed, from two or three passages in the prefaces of those books he published himself, that he meditated and intended some others to follow them, different from this posthumous History of Baronies, which his advertisement of it apparently suggests to be the only manuscript left finished by the author. This is compiled much in the manner of his other writings. In the first book he discourses largely of land baronies; in the second book he treats briefly of titular baronies and in the third of feudal tenure in capite.

, the great friend and counsellor of Augustus Caesar, was himself a polite scholar, but is chiefly memorable for having been the patron and protector of men of letters. He was descended from a most ancient and illustrious origin, even from the kings of Hetruria, as Horace often tells us; but his immediate forefathers were only of the equestrian order. He is supposed to have been born at Rome, because his family lived there; but in what year antiquity does not tell us. His education is supposed to have been of the most liberal kind, and agreeable to the dignity and splendour of his birth, as he excelled in every thing that related to arms, politics, and letters. How he spent his younger years is also unknown, there being no mention made of him, by any writer, before the death of Julius Caesar, which happened in the year of Rome 709. Then Octavius Caesar, who was afterwards called Augustus, went to Rome to take possession of his uncle’s inheritance; and, at the same time, Mæcenas became first publicly known; though he appears to have been Augustus’s friend, and, as it should seem, guardian, from his childhood. From that time he accompanied him through all his fortunes, and was his counsellor and adviser upon all occasions; so that Pedo Albinovanus, or rather the unknown author whose elegy has been ascribed to him, justly calls him “Caesaris dextram,” Caesar’s right hand.

, a learned Jesuit, was born at Bergamo in 1536, and was instructed by his uncles Basil and Chrysostom Zanchi, canons regular of that city, in Greek, Latin, philosophy and theology. His studies being finished he went to Rome, where his talents became so well known that several princes invited him to settle in their dominions, but he gave the preference to Genoa, where in 1563 he was appointed professor of eloquence, with an ample salary. He continued in that office two years, and was chosen to the office of secretary of state; but in 1565, he returned to Rome, where he entered into the society of Jesuits. He spent six years as professor of eloquence in the Roman college, during which he translated, into the Latin language, the history of the Indies by Acosta, which was published in 1570. He then went to Lisbon at the request of cardinal Henry, and compiled from papers and other documents with which he was to be furnished, a complete history of the Portuguese conquests in the Indies, and of the progress of the Christian religion in that quarter. He returned to Italy in 1581, and some years after was placed, by Clement VIII. in the Vatican, for the purpose of continuing, in the Latin language, the annals of Gregory XIII. begun by him in the Italian of this he had finished three books at the time of his death, which happened at Tivoli Oct. 20, 1603. Soon after he entered among the Jesuits he wrote the life of Ignatius Loyola; but his principal work is entitled “Historiarum Indicarum,” lib. XVI. written in a very pure style, which has been frequently reprinted. The best edition is in two volumes 4to, printed at Bergamo in 1747. The purity of his style was the effect of great labour. Few men ever wrote so slowly; nothing seemed to please him, and he used to pass whole hours in polishing his periods; but we cannot readily credit all that has been reported on this subject, as that he never could finish above twelve or fifteen lines in a clay; that he was twelve years in writing his history of the Indies, and that, to prevent his mind being tainted with bad Latin, he read his breviary in Greek. There are, however, some other particulars of his personal history which correspond a little with all this. He disliked the ordinary commons of the Jesuits’ college, aftid had always something very nice and delicate provided for him, considering more substantial and gross food as incompatible with elegant writing; yet with all this care, he was of such an irascible temper as to be perpetually giving offence, and perpetually asking pardon.

, better known by the name of Magellan, an eminent navigator, was by birth a Portuguese. He served with much reputation during five years under Albuquerque, in the East Indies, particularly at the conquest of Malacca in 1510, but as his services were not well repaid, he accepted from Charles V. king of Spain, the command of a fleet, with which, in 1519, he discovered the straits called after himself at the extremity of South America. Soon after this he took possession of the Ladrone and Philippine islands in the name of Charles V.; and had he acted with prudence, might have had the honour of being accounted the first circumnavigator of the globe. His severities, however, towards the natives of Matan, compelled them to resist; and in the contest Magalhaens received a wound from an arrow in the leg, and being ill supported by his men, he was killed by a lance, in 1521.

His principal works are, 1. “Saggi di natural! esperienze fatte nel academia de Cimento,” &c. 1666, fol. reprinted in 1691. 2. “Lettera proemiale per la traduzione della concordia dei quattro Evangeliste di Giansenio,” &c. 1680, with various other translations, the titles of which may be seen in Fabroni. 3. “Lettere familiare,” Venice, 1761, 4to, written against the Atheists. A second volume appeared in 1768. 4. “Lettere scientifiche,” Florence, 1721, 4to. 5. “Canzonette Anacreontiche di Lindoro Eleato” (his academical name), Florence, 1723, &c. A long list is given by Fabroni of his unpublished works; but neither these nor his printed works are much known in England or France.

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

, brother of the former, and his successor in the archbishopric of Upsal, distinguished himself at the council of Trent, and suffered in Sweden, as his brother also had done, many vexations from his attachment to the Roman catholic persuasion. His work, by which he is very generally known, is “A History of the manners, customs, and wars of the People bf the North.” This contains many curious particulars, but many also that are minute, and several that are doubtful; nor does the author ever fail to display his animosity against the protestants. He died at Home in 1555.

Mahomet pretended to receive all his revelations from the angel Gabriel, who, he said, was sent from God, on purpose to deliver them unto him. He was subject, it is said, to the falling-sickness, and whenever the fit was upon him, he pretended it to be a trance, and that then the angel Gabriel was come from God with some new revelations. These revelations he arranged in several chapters; which make up the Koran, the Bib!e of the Mahometans. The original of this book was laid up, as he taught his followers, in the archives of heaven; and the angel Gabriel brought him the copy of it, chapter by chapter, as occasion required that they should be published to the people; that is, as often as any new measure was to be pursued, any objection against him or his religion to be answered, any difficulty to be solved, any discontent among his people to be quieted, any offence to be removed, or any thing else done for the furtherance of his grand scheme, his constant recourse was to the angel Gabriel for a new revelation; and then appeared some addition to the Koran, to serve his purpose. But what perplexed him most was, that his opposers demanded to see a miracle from him; “for,” said they, “Moses, and Jesus, and the rest of the prophets, according to thy own doctrine, worked miracles to prove their mission from God; and therefore, if thou be a prophet, and greater than any that were sent before thee, as thou boastest thyself to be, do thou work the like miracles to manifest it unto us.” This objection he endeavoured to evade by several answers; all oi which amount omy to this, “that God had sent Moses and Jesus with miracles, and yet men would not be obedient to their word; and therefore he had now sent him in the last place without miracles, to force them by the power of the sword to do his will.” Hence it has become the universal doctrine of the Mahometans, that their religion is to be propagated by the sword, and that all true mussulmen are bound to fight for it. It has even been said to be a custom among them for their preachers, while they deliver their sermons, to have a drawn sword placed by them, to denote, that the doctrines they teach are to be defended and propagated by the sword Some miracles, at the same time, Mahomet is said to have wrought; as, “That he clave the moon in two; that trees went forth to meet him, &c. &c.” but those who relate them are only such as are ranked among their fabulous and legendary writers: their learned doctors renounce them all; and when they are questioned, how without miracles they can prove his mission, their common answer is, that the Koran itself is the greatest of all miracles; for that Mahomet, who was an illiterate person, who could neither write nor read, or that any man else, by human wisdom alone, should be able to compose such a book, is, they think, impossible. On this Mahomet himself also frequently insists, challenging in several places of the Koran, both men and devils, by their united skill, to compose any thing equal to it, or to any part of it. From all which they conclude, and as they think, infallibly, that this book could come from none other but God himself; and that Mahomet, from whom they received it, was his messenger to bring it unto them. That the Koran, as to style and language, is the standard of elegance in the Arabian tongue, and Uiat Mahomet was in truth what they aifirm him to have been, a rude and illiterate man, ate points agreed on all sides. A question therefore will arise among those who are not so sure that this book was brought by the angel Gabriel from heaven, by whose help it was compiled, and the imposture framed? There is the more reason to ask this, because this book itself contains so many particulars of the Jewish and Christian religions, as necessarily suppose the authors of it to have been well skilled in both; which Mahomet, who was bred an idolater, and lived so for the first forty years of his life, among a people totally illiterate, for such his tribe was by principle and profession, cannot be supposed to have been: but this is a question not so easily to be answered, because the nature of the thing required it to have been transacted very secretly. Besides this, the scene of this imposture being at least six hundred miles within the country of Arabia, amidst those barbarous nations, who all immediately embraced it, and would not permit any of another religion to live among them, it could not at that distance be so well investigated by those who were most concerned to discover the fraud. That Mahomet composed the Koran by the help of others, was a thing well known at Metca, when he first published his imposture there; and he was often reproached on that account by his opposers, as he himself more than once complains. In the twenty-fifth chapter of the Koran, has words are “They say, that the Koran is nothing but a lie of thy own invention, and others have been assisting to thee herein.” A passage in the sixteenth chapter also, particularly points at one of those who was then looked upon to have had a principal hand in this matter: “I know they will say, that a man hath taught him the Koran; but he whom they presume to have taught him is a Persian by nation, and speaketh the Persian language. But the Koran is in the Arabic tongue, full of instruction and eloquence.” The person here pointed at, was one Abdia Ben Salon, a Persian Jew, whose name he afterwards changed into Abdollah Ebn Salem, to make it correspond with the Arabic dialect; and almost all who have written of this imposture have mentioned him as the chief architect used by Mahomet in the framing of it: for he was an artful man, thoroughly skilled in all the learning of the Jews; and therefore Mahomet seems to have received from him whatsoever of the rites and customs of the Jews he has ingrafted into his religion. Besides this Jew, the impostor derived some aid from a Christian monk: and the many particulars in the Koran, relating to the Christian religion, plainly prove him to have had such an helper. He was a monk of Syria, of the sect of the Nestorians. The name which he had in his monastery, and which he has since retained among the western writers, is Sergius, though Bahira was that which he afterwards assumed in Arabia, and by which he has ever since been mentioned in the East, by all that write or speak of him. Mahomet, as it is related, became acquainted with this Bahira, in one of his journeys into Syria, either at Bostra or at Jerusalem: and receiving great satisfaction from him in many of those points in which he had desired to be informed, contracted a particular friendship with him; so that Bahira being not long after excommunicated for some great crime, and expelled his monastery, fled to Mecca to him, was entertained in his house, and became his assistant in the framing of his imposture, and continued with him ever after; till Mahomet having, as it is reported, no farther occasion for him, to secure the secret, put him to death.

He appears to be the first sultan who was a lover of arts and sciences; and even cultivated polite letters. He often read the History of Augustus, and the other Caesars; and he perused those of Alexander, Constantine, and Theodosius, with more than ordinary pleasure, because these bad reigned in the same country with himself. He was fond of painting, music, and sculpture; and he applied himself to the study of agriculture. He was much addicted to astrology, and used to encourage his troops by giving out that the motion and influence of the heavenly bodies promised him the empire of the world. Contrary to the genius of his country, he delighted so much in the knowledge of foreign languages, that he not only spoke the Arabian, to which the Turkish laws, and the religion of their legislator Mahomet are appropriated, but also the Persian, the Greek, and the French, that is, the corrupted Italian. Landin, a knight of Rhodes, collected several letters which this sultan wrote in the Syriac, Greek, and Turkish languages, and translated them into Latin. Where the originals are is not known; but the translation has been published several times; as at Lyons, 1520, in 4to; at Basil, 1554, 12mo, in a collection published by Oporinus; at Marpurgh, 1604, in 8vo, and at Leipsic, 1690, in 12mo. Melchior Junius, professor of eloquence at Strasburg, published at Montbeliard, 1595, a collection of letters, in which there are three written by Mahomet II. to Scanderbeg. One cannot discover the least air of Turkish ferocity in these letters: they are written in as civil terms as the most polite prince in Christendom could have used.

However freely he examined the opinions of philosophy, instead of shewing himself incredulous in matters of divinity, he implicitly submitted to all the tenets of his church. But, as the arguments of the Peripatetics were commonly applied to illustrate and confirm those tenets, where he did not upon examination find them wellgrounded, he made no scruple to prefer the assistance of Plato to that of Aristotle. His reputation was so great, that it spread beyond the Alps and Pyrenees; and the general of the minims ordered him to Rome, in 1636, to fill a professor’s chair. His capacity in mathematical discoveries and physical experiments soon became known; especially from a dispute which arose between him and father Kircher, about the invention of a catoptrical work. In 1648 his book “De perspectiva horaria” was printed at Rome, at the expence of cardinal Spada, to whom it was dedicated, and greatly esteemed by all the curious. From Rome he returned to Toulouse, in 1650, and was so well received by his countrymen, that they created him provincial the same year; though he was greatly averse to having his studies interrupted by the cares of any office, and he even refused an invitation from the king in 1660, to settle in Paris, as it was his only wish to pass the remainder of his days in the obscurity of the cloister, where he had put on the habit of the order. Before this, in 1652, he published his “Course of Philosophy,” at Toulouse, in 4 vols. 8vo, in which work, if he did not invent the explanation of physics by the four elements, which some have given to Empedocles, yet he restored it, as Gassendus did the doctrine of the atomists. He published a second edition of it in folio, 1673, and added two treatises to it the one against the vortices of Des Cartes, the other upon the speaking-trumpet invented by our countryman sir Samuel Morland. He also formed a machine, which shewed by its movements that Des Cartes’s supposition, concerning the manner in which the universe was formed, or might have been formed, and concerning the centrifugal force, was entirely without foundation.

Maimbourg had a great reputation as a preacher, and published two volumes of sermons. But what have made him most known were the several histories he published. He wrote the History of Arianism, of the Iconoclasts, of the Croisades, of the Schism of the West, of the f-chism of the Greeks, of the Decay of the Empire, of the League, of Lutheranism, of Calvinism, the Pontificate of St. Leo; and he was composing the “History of the Schism of England” when he died. These histories form 14 vols. 4to, or 26 in 12mo. Protestant authors have charged him with insincerity, have convicted him of great errors and misrepresentations, in their refutations of his “History of Lutheranism and Calvinism.” The Jansenists criticued his “History of Arianism,” and that of the “Iconoclasts,” leaving all the rest untouched. The “History of Calvinism,” which he published in 1681, stirred up a violent war against him; the operations whereof he left entirely to his enemies, without ever troubling himself in the least about it, or acting either offensively or defensively. The abbé L'Avocat says that his historical works were admired at first, on account of a kind pf romantic style which prevails in them; but this false taste did not continue long, and the greatest part of them were exploded while their author was yet living. It is asserted that P. Maimbourg never took up his pen till he had heated his imagination by wine, nor ever attempted to describe a battle till he had drank two bottles; making use of this precaution, as he said jestingly, lest the horrors of the combat should enfeeble his style. The same biographer adds, that Theodore Maimbourg, his cousin, turned Calvinist, then went back to the catholic church, then changed afresh to “what is called the reformed religion,” and died a Socinian at London, about 1693. This last left an answer to “M. Bossuet’s Exposition of the Catholic Faith” and other works.

In 1651, she was married to the abb Scarron. Madam de Neuillant, being obliged to go to Paris, took her along with her; and there becoming known to this old famous buffoon, who admired her for her wit, she preferred marrying him to the dependent state she was in. Scarron was of an ancient and distinguished family, but deformed, infirm, and in no very advantageous circumstances; as he subsisted only on a pension, which was allowed him by the court, in consideration of his wit and parts. She lived with him, however, many years; and Voltaire says that this part of her life was undoubtedly the happiest. Her beauty, but still more her wit, for she was never reckoned a complete beauty, distinguished her greatly; and her conversation was eagerly sought by all the best company in Paris. Upon the death of her husband, which happened in 1660, she was reduced to the same indigent condition she was in before her marriage; but her friends did all they timid to prevail upon the court to continue to her the pension which Scarron had enjoyed: in order to which, petitions were frequently given in, beginning always with, “The widow Scarron most humbly prays your majesty,” &c. For a time all these petitions signified nothing; and the king was so weary of them, that he has been heard to say, “Must I always be pestered with the widow Scarron?” At length, madam de Montespan, his mistress, undertook to present one to him “How” cried the king, “the widow Scarron again Shall I never hear of any thing else” “Indeed, Sire,” replied madam de Montespan, “you ought to have ceased hearing of it long ago.” The pension was granted, and madam Scarron went to thank madam de Montespan, who was so struck with the charms of her conversation, that she presented her to the king, who is reported to have said: “Madam, I have made you wait a long time; but your friends are so numerous, that I was desirous of your owing this to me alone.” Voltaire tells us, he had this fact from cardinal Fleury, who took a pleasure in often repeating it, because he said Louis XIV. had made him the same compliment when he gave him the bishopric of Frejus.

, more known under the name of Sacy (Isaac inverted), was brother of the former, and was born at Paris, in 1613, where he was also educated. After pursuing his studies with the greatest success under Du Verger, the abbé of St. Cyran, and other eminent teachers, he was admitted to the priesthood in 1648. His reputation gained him the office of confessor to the society of Port Royal; but that house being accused of Jansenism, he was involved in the persecution; was obliged to conceal himself in 1661; and in 1666 was confined in the Bastille. In that prison he composed some important works, particularly a translation of the whole Bible, which was finished on the eve of All-saints, 1668; and on the same day he obtained his liberty, after being confined two years and a half. When this work was presented to the king and his minister, le Maistre desired no other reward than that of being allowed frequently to visit the Bastille, to inspect the state of the prisoners. Some writers assert that during his confinement, he composed a history of the Old and New Testament, in one volume, under the name of Royaumont, a work known in this, country by a translation in 4to, published about the beginning of the last century, with nearly 300 plates but others ascribe it to Nicholas Fontaine. Le Maistre remained at Paris till 1675, when he retired to Port-Royal but was obliged in 1679 to quit it, and retired to Pompona, where he died, at the age of seventy-one, in 1684. His works are, 1. His translation of the Bible, with explanations of the literal and spiritual sense taken from the fathers; in which part he was assisted by du Fosse, Hure“, and le Tourneaux. This work was published at Paris, in 1682, and several subsequent years, in 32 vols. 8vo. Several other editions have been printed, but this is on the whole esteemed the best. 2. A translation of the Psalms, from the Hebrew and the Vulgate together. 3. A translation of the Homilies of St. Chrysostom on St. Matthew, in 3 vols. 8vo. 4. A translation of Kempis on the Imitation of Christ, under the name of de Beuil, prior of S. Val, Paris, 1663, 8vo. 5. A translation of Phaedrus, under the name of St. Aubin, 12mo. 6. Three comedies of Terence, 12mo. 7. The Letters of Bongars, published under the rj^me of Brianville. 8. The poem of St. Prosper, on ingratitude, rendered in verse and prose. 9.” Les enluminures de l'Almanach des Jesuites,“1654, 12mo; an attack upon the Jesuits, which was so far relished as to be reprinted in 1733. 10.” Heures de Port-Royal,“called by the Jesuits Hours of Jansenism, 12mo. 11.” Letters of Piety," in 2 vols. 8vo, published at Paris in 1690. The merits of this author are fully displayed in the memoirs of PortRoyal, written by Nicholas Fontaine, and published at Cologne, in 1738, in 2 vols. 12mo.

From 1728 to 1732 he was employed in publishing, “Marmorum Arundellianorum, Seldenianorum, aliorumque Academies Oxoniensi donatorum, una cum Commentariis & Indice, editio secunda,” folio to which an “Appendix” was printed in 1733. “Epistola D. Mich. Maittaire ad D. P. Des Maizeaux, in qua Indicis in Annales Typographicos methodus explicatur,” &c. is printed in “The Present State of the Republic of Letters,” in August 1733, p. 142. The life of Robert Stephens, in Latin, revised and corrected by the author, with a new and complete list of his works, is prefixed to the improved edition of R. Stephens’s Thesaurus, 4 vols. in folio, in 1734. In 1736 appeared, “Antiques Inscriptiones cluae,” folio; being a commentary on two large copper tables discovered near Heraclea, in the bay of Tarentum. In 1738 were printed at the Hague, “Graecse Linguae Dialecti in Scholse Regias Westmonasterrensis usum recogniti opera Mich. Maittaire. Prosfationem & Appendicem ex Apollonii Discoli fragmento inedito addidit J. F. Reitzius.” Maittaire prefixed a dedication of this volume to the marquis of Granby, and the lords Robert and George Manners, his brothers; and a new preface, dated 3 Cal. Octob. 1737. This was again printed at London in 1742. In 1739, he addressed to the empress of Russia a small Latin poem, under the title of “Carmen Epinicium Augustissimae Russorum Imperatrici sacrum.” His name not having been printed in the titlepage, it is not so generally known that he was editor of Plutarch’s “Apophthegmata,” 1741, 4to. The last publication of Mr. Maittaire was a volume of poems in 4to, 1742, under the title of “Senilia, sive Poetica aliquot in argumentis varii generis tentamina.” It may be worth mentioning, that Baxter’s dedication to his “Glossarium Antiquitatum Britannicarum,” was much altered by Maittaire; who died August 7, 1747, aged seventy-nine. There is a good mezzotinto print of him by Faber, from a painting by B. Dandridge, inscribed, “Michael Maittaire, A. M. Amicorum jussu.” His valuable library, which he had been collecting fifty years, was sold by auction, by Messrs. Cock and Langford, at the close of the same year, and the beginning of the following, taking up in all forty-four nights. Mr. Cock, in his prefatory advertisement, tells us, “In exhibiting thus to the public the entire library of Mr. Maittaire, I comply with the will of my deceased friend; and in printing the catalogue from his own copy just as he left it (though, by so doing, it is the more voluminous), I had an opportunity not only of doing the justice I owe to his memory, but also of gratifying the curious.” Maittaire, it may be added, was patronized by the first earl of Oxford, both before and after that gentleman’s elevation to the peerage, and continued a favourite with his son the second earl. He was also Latin tutor to Mr. Stanhope, the earl of Chesterfield’s favourite son, and was esteemed by so many persons of eminence that we cannot wonder at his portrait being engraven jussu amicorum. He possessed many amiable qualities; in religion was orthodox and zealous ; in temper modest and unassuming despising the pride of learning, yet fond of friendly intercourse.

, a Lutheran divine, was born Feb. 5, 1653, at Pfortzheim, in the marquisate of Baden-Dourlach. He was profoundly skilled in Hebrew literature, and taught the oriental languages in several universities, with great reputation. His last employments of this kind were at Giessen, where he was pastor, and where he died Sept. 3, 1719. He was well acquainted with antiquities, sacred and profane, but his works are less known in other parts of Europe than in Germany. The following are some of them: 1. “Historiaanimaliuin Scripturae sacrse,” 8vo. 2. “Vita Johannis Reuchlini,” 1687, 8vo. 3. “Examen historiae criticse Ricardi Simonis,” 4to. 4. “Synopsis Theologiae symbolical,” 4to. 5. “Synopsis Moralis,” 4to. 6. “Synopsis Judaica,” 4to. 7. “Introductio ad studium Philologicum, criticum, et exegeticum,” 4to. 8. “Paraphrasis Epistolae ad Hebraeos,” 4to. 9. “Theologia Evangelica,” 1701, and 1719, 4 parts 4to. 10. “Animadversiones et Supplementa ad Coccei Lexicon Hebraeum,” 1703, fol. 11. “CEconomia temporum veteris et Novi Test. 4to. 12.” Synopsis Theologian Christiana?,“4to. 13.” Theologia Lutheri,“4to. 14.” Theologia Prophetica,“4to. 15.” Harmonia Evangelica,“4to. 16.” Historia Reformationis Lutheri,*' 4to. 17. “Dissertationes philologies et exegetica;,” Francfort, 1711, 2 vols. 4to, &c. He also published a very good edition of the Hebrew Bible, 4to. His son, of the same name, was eminent for his knowledge of Greek and the oriental languages.

, a poet and mathematician, but less known in the latter character, was born at Mons in Kainault, in 1581, and entered into the order of the Jesuits. He taught philosophy at Pont-a-Mousson, whence he went to Poland, where he was appointed professor of mathematics, and afterwards filled the same office at Doway. His reputation induced Philip IV. to give him an invitation to Madrid, as professor of mathematics in his newly-founded college, which he accepted, but died on his way to Vittoria, Nov. 5, 1630. His Latin poems were printed at Antwerp in 1634, and have been praised for purity of style, and imagery. Of his mathematical works one is entitled “Oratio de Laudibus Mathematicis,” in which he treats of the phenomena of the newly-discovered Dutch telescope. The others are, “Institutions of Practical Arithmetic;” the “Elements of Geometry” “A Paraphrase on the Dialectics of Aristotle” and “Commentaries on the first six Books of Euclid.”

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

, Sieur of St. Lazare, a French historian, more known for the number, than esteemed for the value of his books, was a native of Sens. In spite of every artifice to sell his histories, publishing the same under different titles, filling them with flatteries to the reigning princes, and other arts, it was with great difficulty that he could force any of them into circulation. It was not only that his style was low and flat, but that his representation of facts was equally incorrect. Latterly his name was sufficient to condemn a book, and he only put his initials, and those transposed. He died in 1655. His best work is said to be, “Histoire des dignités honoraires de France,” 8vo, on which some dependence is placed, because there he cites his authorities. He wrote also, 2. “L'histoire generate des derniers troubles” comprising the times of Henry III. and Louis XIII. in 4to. 3. “Histoire de Louis XIII.” 4to, a miserable collection of facts disguised by flattery, and extending only from 1610 to 1614. 4. “Histoire de la naissance et des progres de l'Heresie de ce siecle,” 3 vols. 4to, the first of which is by father Richeome. 5. “A Continuation of the Roman History from Constantino to Ferdinand the Third,” 2 vols. folio; a compilation which ought to contain the substance of Gibbon’s History, but offers little that is worthy of attention. 6. “The Annals and Antiquities of Paris,” 2 vols. folio. There is another work of this kind by a P. du Breul, which is much more esteemed; this, however, is consulted sometimes as a testimony of the state of Paris in the time of the author.

Not long after this, Mallet was employed by lord Bolingbroke in an office which he executed with all the malignity that his employer could wish. This was no other than to defame the character of Pope Pope, who by leaving the whole of his Mss to lord Bolingbroke, had made him in some respect the guardian of his character Pope, onwhose death-bed lord Bolingbroke looking earnestly down, repeated several times, interrupted with sobs, “O great God, what is man? I never knew a person that had so tender a heart for his particular friends, or a warmer benevolence for all mankind!” who certainly had idolized this nobleman throughout his whole life, and who adhered to his lordship’s cause through all the vicissitudes of popular odium and exile. What could have induced Bolingbroke to the malice of degrading Pope’s character, and the cowardice of employing a hireling to do it? The simple fact is, that after Pope’s death it was thought to be discovered that he had privately printed 1500 copies of one of lord Bolingbroke’s works, “The Patriot King,” the perusal of which his lordship wished to be confined to a select few. This offence, which Mallet only could have traced to a bad motive, if fairly examined, will probably seem disproportioned to the rage and resentment of Bolingbroke. A very acute examiner of evidence (Mr. D'Israeli) has therefor imputed that to the preference with which Pope had distinguished Warburton, and is of opinion that Warburton, much more than Pope, was the real object. Between Bolingbroke and Warburton there was, it is well known, a secret jealousy, which at length appeared in mutual and undisguised contempt. But much of this narrative belongs rather to them than to Mallet, who could feel no resentment, could plead no provocation. On the contrary, he had every inducement to reflect with tenderness on the memory and friendship of Pope, who speaks of him, in a letter we have already alluded to, in the following terms “To prove to you how little essential to friendship I hold letter-writing I have not yet written to Mr. Mallet, whom I love and esteem greatly, nay whom I know to have as tender a, heart, and that feels a friendly remembrance as long as any man.” Such was the man who gladly undertook what Bolingbroke was ashamed to perform, and in a preface to the “Patriot King” misrepresented the conduct of Pope in language the most malignant and contemptuous. That he had an eye to his own interest in all this, it would be a miserable affectation of liberality to doubt. No other motive can account for his conduct, and this conduct will be found to correspond with his general character. Bolingbroke accordingly rewarded him by bequeathing to him all his writings published and unpublished, and Mallet immediately began to prepare them for the press. His conduct at the very outset of this business affords another illustration of his character. Francklin, the printer, to whom many of the political pieces written during the opposition to Walpole, had been given, as he supposed, in perpetuity, laid claim to some compensation for those. Mallet allowed his claim, and the question was referred to arbitrators, who were empowered to decide upon it, by an instrument signed by the parties; but when they decided unfavourably to Mr. Mallet, he refused to yield to the decision, and the printer was thus deprived of the benefit of the award, by not having insisted upon bonds of arbitration, to which Mallet had objected as degrading to a man of honour! He then proceeded, with the help of Millar, the bookseller, to publish all he could find; and so sanguine was he in his expectations, that he rejected the offer of 3000l. which Millar offered him for the copy-, right, although he was at this time so distressed for money that he was forced to borrow some of Millar to pay the stationer and printer. The work at last appeared, in 5 vols. 4to, and Mallet had soon reason to repent his refusal of the bookseller’s offer, as this edition was not sold off in twenty years. As these volumes contained many bold attacks on revealed religion, they brought much obloquy on the editor, and even a presentment was made of them by the grand-jury of Westminster. His memory, however, will be thought to suffer yet more by his next appearance in print When the nation was exasperated by the ill success of the war, and the ministry wished to divert public indignation from themselves, Mallet was employed to turn it upon admiral Byng. In this he entered as heartily as into the defamation of Pope, and wrote a letter of accusation under the character of a “Plain Man,” a large sheet, which was circulated with great industry, and probably was found to answer its purpose. The price of blood, on this occasion, was a pension which he retained till his death.

, was one of the writers in the French Encyclopedic, and one of those whose articles are the most valuable in that work. They are chiefly on the subjects of divinity and belles lettres, and if only men as sound and judicious as the abbe Mallet had been employed, that publication would have proved as useful as it has been, found pernicious. He was born at Melun in 1713, and educated at the college of the Barnabites at Montargis. He was afterwards engaged as tutor in the family of a farmer general. In 1742 he was admitted into the faculty of theology at Paris, and was employed on a cure near his native town till 1751, when he was invited to be professor of divinity in the college of Navarre. The more he was known, the more his merits were perceived; and the charge of Jansenism, which had been circulated against him, was gradually cleared away. Boyer, then bishop of Mirepoix, as a testimony of his regard, presented him to a canonry of Verdun. He died at Paris in 1755. Besides his shara in the Encyclopedie, he wrote several works on the principles of poetry and eloquence. His style is neat, easy, and unaffected; and he has great skill in developing the merits of good writers, and illustrating his precepts by the most apposite examples from their works. He published also a history of the civil wars of France, under the reigns of Francois II. Charles IX. &c. translated from the Italian of D'Avila, and published at Amsterdam in 3 vols. 4to.

In 1795 he was again called forth to display his zeal in defence of Shakspeare, against the contemptible fabrications with which the Irelands endeavoured to delude the public. Although this imposture, unlike the Rowleian poems, which were performances of extraordinary genius, exhibited about the same proportion of talent as it did of honesty, yet some persons of no small name were hastily led into a belief of its authenticity. Mr. Malone save through the falsehood of the whole from its commencement; and laid bare the fraud, in a pamphlet, which was written in the form of a letter to his friend lord Charlemont, a nobleman with whom he lived on the most intimate footing, and maintained a constant correspondence. It has been thought by some that the labour which he bestowed upon this performance was more than commensurate with the importance of the subject; and it is true that a slighter effort would have been sufficient to have overthrown this wretched fabrication; but we have reason to rejoice that Mr. Malone was led into a fuller discussion than was his intention at the outset; we owe to it a work which, for acuteness of reasoning, and the curious and interesting view which it presents of English literature, will retain its value long after the trash which it was designed to expose shall have been consigned to oblivion. Mr. Malone, in 1792, had the misfortune to lose his admirable friend sir Joshua Reynolds, and his executors, of whom Mr. Malone had the honour to be one, having determined in 1797 to give the world a complete collection of his works, he superintended the publication, and prefixed to it a very pleasing biographical sketch of their author. Although his attention was still principally directed to Shakspeare, and he was gradually accumulating a most valuable mass of materials for a new edition of that poet, he found time to do justice to another. He drew together, from various sources, the prose works of Dryden, which, as they had lain scattered about, and some of them appended to works which were little known, had never impressed the general reader with that opinion of their excellence which they deserved; and published them in 1800. The narrative which he prefixed is a most important accession to biography. By active inquiry, and industrious and acute research, he ascertained many particulars of his life and character that had been supposed to be irrecoverably lost, and detected the falsehood of many a traditionary tale that had been carelessly repeated by former writers. In 1808 he prepared for the press a few productions of his friend, the celebrated William Gerard Hamilton, with which he had been entrusted by his executors; and prefixed to this also a brief but elegant sketch of his life. In 1811 his country was deprived of Mr. Windham: Mr. Malone, who equally admired and loved him, drew up a short memorial of his amiable and illustrious friend, which originally appeared in the Gentleman’s Magazine; and was afterwards, in an enlarged and corrected state, printed in a small pamphlet, and privately distributed. But the kind biographer was too soon to want “the generous tear he paid.” A gradual decay appears to have undermined his constitution; and when he was just on the point of going to the press with his new edition of Shakspeare, he was interrupted by an illness, which proved fatal; and, to the irreparable loss of all who knew him, he died on the 25th of May, 1812, in the 70th year of his age. In hid last illness he was soothed by the tender and unremitting attentions of his brother, lord Sunderlin, and his youngest sister; the eldest, from her own weak state of health, was debarred from this melancholy consolation. He left no directions about his funeral; but his brother, who was anxious, with affectionate solicitude, to execute every wish he had formed, having inferred from something that dropt from him, that it was his desire to be buried among his ancestors in Ireland, his remains were conveyed to that country, and interred at the family seat of Baronston, in the county of Westmeath.

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

, a schoolmaster of considerable learning, but chiefly known as the antagonist of the celebrated Ruddiman, was born about the beginning of the last century, at Whitewreatb, in the parish of Elgin, and county of Murray, and was educated, first at the parish school of Longbride, and afterwards at King’s college, Aberdeen, where he took his degree of master of arts in 1721. He was afterwards appointed schoolmaster of the parish school of Touch, in the county of Aberdeen; and at length, in 1742, master of the poor’s hospital, in the city of Aberdeen. While in this station, his zeal for the character of the very celebrated Scotch historian and poet, Buchanan, led him to join the party of Scotch scholars, politicians, and writers, who were dissatisfied with Ruddiman’s edition of Buchanan’s worfcs, published in 1715, 2 vols. folio, and Jie determined himself to give a new edition more agreeable to the views he entertained of Buchanan as a historian, which, he being a staunch presbyterian, were of course adverse to Ruddiman’s well known sentiments. In the mean time he thought it necessary to show the errors and defects of Ruddiman’s edition, and accordingly published a work, the title of which will give the reader some idea of its contents: “A censure and examination of Mr. Thomas Ruddiman’s philological notes on the works of the great Buchanan, more particularly on the history of Scotland; in which also, most of the chronological and geographical, and many of the historical and political notes, are taken into consideration. In a letter to a friend. Necessary for restoring the true readings, the graces and beauties, and for understanding the true meaning of a vast number of passages of Buchanan’s writings, which have been so foully corrupted, so miserably defaced, so grossly perverted and misunderstood: Containing many curious particulars of his life, and a vindication of his character from many gross calumnies,” Aberdeen, 1751. This work, which extends to 574 pages small octavo, forms a very elaborate examination of Ruddiman’s edition, not only as referring to classical points, but matters of history, and is distinguished throughout by an unjustifiable contempt for Ruddiman’s knowledge and talents. Blameable as this was, and as his style generally is, he evidently proves that he was no mean verbal critic, and that his researches into the history of Buchanan and his works had been very extensive. With a better temper he might have proved an antagonist more worthy of Rnddiman’s serious attention. The latter, however, replied in 1754, in a pamphlet entitled “Anticrisis, or a Discussion of the scurrilous and malicious libel published by one James Man of Aberdeen,” 8vo, which was followed by “Audi alteram partem; or a further vindication of Mr. Thomas Ruddiman’s edition of the great Buchanan’s works,” 1756, 8vo. Both these contain an able vindication of the author; but the latter is particularly valuable, on account of the critical remarks Ruddiman offers on Burman’s philological notes on Buchanan.

Sir John Mandevile visited Tartary about half a century after Marco Polo, who was there in 1272. In this interval a true or fabulous account of that country, collected by a cordelier, one Oderic D'Udin, who set out in 1318, and returned in 1330, was published in Italian, by Guillaume de Salanga, in the second volume of Ramusio, and in Latin and English by Hakluyt. It is suspected that sir John made too much use of this traveller’s papers; and it is certain that the compilers of. the “Histoire Generale des Voyages” did not think our English knight’s book so original, or so worthy of credit, as to give any account of it in their excellent collection. Sir John indeed honestly acknowledges that his book was made partly of hearsay, and -'partly of his own knowledge; and he prefaces his most improbable relations with some such words as these, thei seyne, or men seyn^ but I have not sene it. His book, however, was submitted to the examination of the pope’s council, and it was published after that examination, with the approbation of the pope, as Leland thinks, of Urban V. Leland also affirms that sir John Mandevile had the reputation of being a conscientious man, and that he had religiously declined an honourable alliance to the Soldan-of Egypt, whose daughter he might have espoused, if he would have abjured Christianity. It is likewise very certain that many things in his book, which were looked upptv as fabulous for a long time, have been since verified beyond all doubt. We give up his men of fifty feet high r but his hens that bore wool are at this day very well known, under the name of Japan and silky fowls, &c. Upon the whole, there does not appear to be any very g.ood reason why sir John Mandevile should not be believed in any thing that he relates on his own observation. He was, as may be easily credited, an extraordinary linguist, and wrote his book in Latin, from which he translated it into French, and from French into English, and into Italian; and Vossius says that he knows it to be in Belgic and German. The English edition has the title of “The Voiyage and Travaile of Sir John Maundevile, knight, which treateth of the way to Hierusalem, and marvayles of lude,” &c. Lond. 1568, 4to, reprinted in 1684, same form, and again in 1727, 8vo. All these are in the British Museum, together with copies of the French, Spanish, Latin, and Italian. Of the last there are two editions, printed at Venice in 1537 and 1567, both in 8vo. The original English ms, is in the Cotton library. The English editions are the most valuable to us, as written in the very language used by our countrymen three hundred years ago^ at a time when the orthography of the English language was so little fixed, that it seems to have been the fashionable affectation of writers, to shew their wit and scholarship by spelling the same words in the greatest variety of ways imaginable. The reader will be amused by Addison’s pretended discovery of sir John Mandevile’s Mss. and the pleasant fiction of “the freezing and thawing of several short speeches which sir John made in the territories of Nova Zembla.” This occurs in the Tatler, No. 254, the note upon which has principally furnished us with the above account.

, a very learned scholar, was born at Florence, June 5, 1396, of an illustrious family that had fallen into decay. After a course of philosophical, theological and mathematical studies, he became, in the Greek language, the pupil of Camaldoli, who then taught that language at Florence, and not of Chrysoloras, as Vossius, and Hody, if we mis-take not, have reported. Manetti then lectured on philosophy in that city to a numerous auditory. He was afterwards employed by the state in various negociatious; and became successively governor of Pescia, Pistoria, and Scarperia, and commissary of the army along with Bernardetto de Medicis. He filled also several offices in the government of Florence, and rendered his own country many important services. When at Rome in 1452, at the coronation of the emperor Frederick, pope Nicholas V. bestowed on him the honour of knighthood. His talents and services, however, excited the envy of some of the families of Florence, and even the favour he acquired with the princes at whose courts he had been employed as ambassador, was considered as a crime; and a heavy fine being imposed on him, he found it necessary to leave his country, and take refuge in Rome, where pope Nicholas V. made him one of his secretaries, with a handsome salary, besides the perquisites of his place. He remained in the same office under the succeeding popes Calixtus III. and Pius II. which last made him librarian of the Vatican. Manetti at length left Rome to reside with Alphonsus, king of Naples, who had a great esteem for him, and gave him an annuity of 900 golden crowns. He did not, however, enjoy this situation long, dying Oct. 26, 1459, in his sixty-third year. He was an excellent scholar in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, which at that time was little known in Italy, and employed twenty-two years on those languages. He kept three domestics, two of whom were Greeks, and the third a Syrian, who knew Hebrew, and whom he ordered always to speak to him in their respective languages. He was the author of a great many works, most of which remain in manuscript in the Laurentian Library. Those published were, 1. “De dignitate et excellentia hominis,” Basle, 1532, 8vo. 2. “Vita Petrarchae.” This life of Petrarch is inserted in Tommasini’s “Petrarcha redivivus.” 3. “Oratio ad regem Alphonsum in nuptiis filii sui.” This, which was spoken in 1445, was printed by Marquard Freher, in 1611, 4to, along with three other orations, addressed to Alphonsus on the peace, to the emperor Frederic on his coronation, and to pope Nicholas V. Other works have been attributed to him, as a “History of Pistoria,” and the lives of Dante, Boccacio, and Nicholas V,; but we find no particular account of them.

, a very learned Italian prelate, and voluminous editor, was born at Lucca, Feb. 16, 1692. At school and college he made rapid progress in every branch of study, but became particularly attached to ecclesiastical history and biography. He was for some years professor of theology at Naples; but the greater part of his life was spent in reading, and carefully exploring the contents of the Italian libraries, particularly the manuscripts, from all which he amassed a fund of information on subjects connected with ecclesiastical history, of vast extent and importance. His first station in the church was that of a clerk-regular in the congregation of the Mother of God; and from this, in 1765, at the age of seventy-two, he was promoted to the archbishopric of Lucca, by pope Clement XIII. who had a high esteem for him. He died Sept. 27, 1769. His life, in our authority, is little more than an account of his works, which indeed must have occupied the whole of his time. His first publication was entitled “Tractatus de casibus, et excommunicationibus episcopis reservatis, confectusad normam label lae Lucanse,” Lucca, 1724. He then published a translation into Latin of Calmet’s “Dictionary of the Bible,*' with additions; an, edition of Thomasini” De veteri et nova ecclesise disciplina,“3 vols. folio; a Latin translation of Calmet’s” Commentaries on the Bible,“1731, &c. 7 vols. an edition of Baronius’s annals, with great additions, in 30 vols. folio a new edition of the Councils, including Labbe, Cossart, &c. 1759, &c. 30 vols. folio; anew edition of yneas Sylvius (pope Pius II.) orations, with many hitherto unpublished, 1755, 2 vols. 4to. He was the editor of some other ecclesiastical collections and theological pieces of inferior note; but we must not omit the work by which he is perhaps best known in this country, his excellent edition of Fabricius’s” Bibliotheca Latina mediae et infimae aetatis," 6 vols. 4to, generally bound in three, printed at Padua, in 1754. This alone is sufficient to place him in the first rank of literary antiquaries.

The chief abode and the school of Mantegna were at Mantua, where under the auspices of Marchese Lodovico Gonzaga, he established himself with his family, but he continued to work in other places, and particularly at Rome, where the chapel which he had painted for Innocenzio VIII. in the Vatican existed, though injured by age, at the accession of Pius VI. The style of those frescoes proved that he continued steady in his attachment to the antique, but that from a copyist he was become an imitator. Of his works in oil Mantua possesses several; but the principal one, the master-piece of the artist, and the assemblage of his powers, the picture della Vittoria, afterwards in the Oratorio de Padri di S. Filippo, is now at Paris. It is a votive picture dedicated, for a victory obtained, to the Madonna seated on her throne with the infant standing on her lap, and giving benediction to the kneeling marquis in arms before her. At one side of the throne stands the archangel Michael, holding the mantle of the Madonna; at the other are S. George, S. Maurice, John the Baptist, and S. Elizabeth on her knees. The socle of the throne is ornamented with figures relative to the fall of Adam: the scene is a leafy bower peopled by birds, and here and there open to a lucid sky. No known work of Mantegna equals in design the style of this picture: they generally shew him dry and emaciated, here he appears in all the beauty of select forms: the two infants and St. Elizabeth are figures of dignity, so the archangel who seems to have been, by the conceit of his attitude and the care bestowed on him, the painter’s favourite object. The head has the beauty and the bloom of youth, the round fleshy neck and the breast, to where it confines with the armour, are treated with great art, the expression is to a high degree spirited, and as characteristic. The countenance of the Madonna is mild and benign, that of Christ humane. The future prophet is announced in the uplifted arm of St. John. The guardian angel kindly contemplates the suppliant, who prays with devout simplicity. The whole has an air of life, All the draperies, especially that of St. Elizabeth, are elegant, and correctly folded; with more mass and less intersection of surfaces, they would be perfect. The extreme finish of execution, as it has not here that dryness which disfigures most other works of this master, does not impair the brilliancy of colour. The head of the Madonna, of the infant, of St. Michael, have a genial bloom of tints. The lights are everywhere true, the shades alone are sometimes too grey or too impure. The general scale of light has more serenity than splendour, more the air of nature than of art, but the reflexes are often cut off too glaringly from the opaque parts. The whole of the picture has preserved its tone to this day, is little damaged, and in no place retouched.

Of the remainder of Mantegna' s works, besides some frescoes of considerable merit, but much injured, in a saloon of the castle of Mantua, and the well known triumph of Caesar in various compartments at Hampton court, little now remains. His name is more frequent in galleries and collections than his hand; lankness of form, rectilinear folds, yellow landscape, and minute polished pebbles, are less genuine signs of originals than correctness of design and delicacy of pencil. It is not probable that a man so occupied by large works, and so much engraving, should have had time to finish many cabinet-pictures: the series of his plates consist of upwards of fifty pieces, executed by his own hand; and though he was not the inventor of the art, he was certainly the first engraver of his time.

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

In imitation, it is said, of the hand-writing of the celebrated Petrarch, Aldus procured the first examples of that which is called, in printing, the Italic character, to be cut and cast for him by Francesco of Bologna, about 1500. An edition of the works of Virgil, in octavo, was the first book he printed in this type, which was long known among printers by the name of Aldine. The inventor obtained a patent from the Senate of Venice, for its exclusive use for ten years, from the 13th of November, 1502; and another similar patent from pope Alexander the Sixth, from the 17th of November, 1502. The last of these was renewed for fifteen years more, by Julius the Second, on the 27th of January, 1513; and again by Leo the Tenth, on the 28th of the following November.

The character of Aldus as a printer is so well known to every scholar, and to such only it can be interesting, that it is unnecessary to enlarge upon it here. But he may be considered also as an original benefactor to the literature of the age. He published a Latin grammar of his own composition; and in 1515, after his death, was published by his friend Marcus Musurus, a Greek grammar, which Aldus had compiled with great research and industry. He wrote likewise a treatise “de metris Horatianis,” which is reprinted in Dr. Combe’s edition of that poet. He produced a Greek dictionary, printed by himself, in folio, 1497, and reprinted by Francis D' Asola in 1524. He was likewise the author of many of the Latin translations of the classics, wrote many letters, some of which have been published, and for some years after he settled at Venice, gave a course of lectures on the best Greek and Roman authors, which was attended by a great number of students. Aldus, however, has not escaped the censures of criticism. Urceus Codrus, the learned professor of Bologna, complained, that he suffered many errors to escape uncorrected, in his editions of the Greek authors; that he sold his copies too dear; and printed them with an useless and unsuitable width of margin. Later critics have not been sparing of remarks somewhat similar. Krnesti, in his notes on the Letters of Pliny, blames Aldus for excessive boldness of conjectural criticism. In the preface to his Tacitus, the same critic remarks, that Aldus rarely made on the second and subsequent editions of the works he printed, any alterations but such as consisted in neglected errors of the press. It is indeed true, that the editions of Greek works printed by Aldus, are not always so correct as his Latin and Italian editions. But their defects are owing to the disadvantages of Aldus’s situation, much rather than to negligence, or inability in himself, as a printer and a man of letters. He had not always a sufficient number of manuscripts to collate: and sometimes he could not have the benefit of the judgment of a sufficient number of the learned upon the difficulties which occurred to him. After beginning to print any particular work, he often had not leisure to pause for a sufficient length of time, over the difficulties occurring in the progress of the edition. He might, in some instances, also, print a manuscript which he did not approve, lest it should otherwise have been lost to posterity.

After a second journey to Rome, in 1546, he married Margarita, the daughter of Jerome Odonus. His eldest son, Aldus, the subject of our next article, was the firstfruit of this marriage: he had also two other sons, who died young, and a daughter, who is often mentioned in his letters, and was married in 1573. In 1556 an academy was established at Venice, in the house of Frederick Badoarus, one of the principal senators of the republic, which was composed of about an hundred members, who endeavoured to unite every species of literary and scientific excellence. Belonging to this academy was a printing-house, in which it was proposed to print good editions of all books and manuscripts already known to exist, as well as the original writings of the academicians. Over this establishment, Paul was appointed to preside, and it was completely furnished with new founts of his own types, and he had under him several other skilful printers, particularly Dominick Bevilacqua. In 1558 and 1559, fifteen different books were printed in this house, none very large, but intended as a prelude to greater undertakings, of which a catalogue was published both in Italian and Latin, and may be seen in Renouard’s “Annales de Plmprimerie des Aides,” vol. I. The books printed in this academy were all executed with admirable correctness and beauty, and are become exceeding scarce, and valuable. Paul was farther honoured with the professorship of eloquence in this academy, which, however, did not exist long. It was probably thought to have been an engine in Badoarus’s hands, by which he might have become dangerous to the state; or perhaps its expences might exceed his resources, and drive him to pecuniary shifts of the discreditable kind. In August 1562, however, the academy was dissolved by a public decree.

, the younger, son of the preceding, was born in 1547. His father paid the utmost attention to his education; and so extraordinary was the progress of the youth in learning, that he was enabled to give the world “A collection of elegant phrases in the Tuscan and Latin languages,” when he was only eleven years of age. Other juvenile works at different periods marked his advances in classical literature, and he soon became his lather’s assistant in his labours. When very young, he conducted the printing-business at Venice while his father was engaged at Rome. In 1572 he married a lady of the Giunti family, so well known in the annals of typography; and on the death of his father in 1574, all the concerns of the Aldine press devolved upon him. He was, however, less calculated for the business of a printer than for the profession of an author. ' In 1577 he was appointed professor of the belles lettres in the school of the Venetian chancery, in which young men designed for public employments were educated. This office he held till 1585, when he was made professor of rhetoric at Bologna. In the same year he published the “Life of Cosmo de Medici,” which was so well received, that he was almost immediately invited to undertake the professorship of polite literature at Pisa, which he accepted, although he received an invitation at the same time to a professorship at Rome, which had been lately held by Muratus. During his stay at Pisa he received the degree of doctor of laws, and was admitted a member of the Florentine academy, on which occasion he delivered an eloquent oration “On the nature of Poetry.” He now paid a visit to Lucca in order to obtain materials for a “History of Castruccio Castracani,” which he afterwards published, and which is much applauded by Thuanus. The Roman professorship being reserved for him, he removed thither in 1588, and intending to spend his life there, he caused his whole library to be brought to Rome from Venice, at a very great expence. He was in high favour with Sixtus V. who gave him an apartment in the Vatican, and a table at the public expence. He was also patronized in various ways by Clement VIII. He died in the fifty-firstyear of his age, in October 1597. He left no posterity, and with him ended the glory of the Aldine press. His library, consisting of 8.0,000 volumes, collected by himself and his predecessors, was sold to pay his debts. He was author of many performances besides those already mentioned, but the most celebrated of his works were his “Commentaries on all the Works of Cicero,” in ten volumes. His “Familiar Letters,” published in 1592, were highly esteemed; but M. Renouard confesses, that were it not from his inheriting the Aldine offices, it might not have been remembered he bad ever been a printer; yet, though difference of taste gave his studies a different bent, his numerous writings, notwithstanding they were inferior to his father’s and grandfather’s, sufficiently prove his industry and learning, and justify, to a certain point, the commendations bestowed on him by many to whom his merits were known.

, a learned astronomer and mathematician, was born in 1665 at Perinaldo in the county of Nice, a place already honoured by the birth of his maternal uncle, the celebrated Cassini. Having made a considerable progress in mathematics, at the age of twentytwo his uncle, who had been a long time settled in France, invited him there, that he might himself cultivate the promising genius of his nephew. Maraldi no sooner applied himself to the contemplation of the heavens, than he conceived the design of forming a catalogue of the fixed stars, the foundation of the whole astronomical edifice. In consequence of this design, he applied himself to observe them with the most constant attention; and he became by this means so intimate with them, that on being shown any one of them, however small, he could immediately tell what constellation it belonged to, and its place in that constellation. He has been known to discover those small comets, which astronomers often take for the stars of the constellation in which they are seen, for want of knowing precisely what stars the constellation consists f, when others, on the spot, and with eyes directed equally to the same part of the heavens, could not for a long time see any thing of them.

, a prominent actor in the French revolution, was born of protestant parents, in Neufchatel, in 1744. In early life he went to Paris to study physic, and appears to have made very great proficiency in it; but probably from not having patience to pursue the profession in a regular course, he became an empyric, selling his medicines at an extravagant price. On the breaking out of the revolution, he took the lead among the most violent and savage of all the factions that disgraced the capital; and had endeavoured to preach murder and robbery long before it appeared probable that such crimes could have been practised with impunity. His first publication was a periodical paper, entitled the “Publiciste Parisien,” in which he, without scruple, and without any regard to decency and truth, attacked Neckar, and other men eminent for their integrity and public talents. His next paper was entitled “The Friend of the People,” in which he more openly excited the troops to use their arms against their generals, the poor to plunder the rich, and the people at large to rise against the king. After the deposition of Louis XVI. he was named a deputy of the department of Paris to the convention, in which assembly he appeared armed with pistols. In April 1793, he publicly denounced the leaders of the Brissotine party, accusing them oF treason against the state he was supported by Robespierre; a violent tumult ensued, but Marat and his friends were subdued, and himself impeached and prosecuted; in a few days, being brought to trial, he was acquitted. The triumph of his party was now unbounded, and they soon gained such an ascendancy over their enemies, that they murdered or banished all that attempted to obstruct the progress of their nefarious projects; till at length their leader Marat fell a victim to the enthusiastic rage of a female, Charlotte Cord6, who bad travelled from Caen, in Normandy, with a determination of rescuing, as she hoped, her country from the hands of barbarians, by the assassination of one of the chief among them. He died unpitied by every human being who was not of the atrocious faction which he led, having, for some weeks, acted the most savage parts, and been the means of involving many of the most virtuous characters in France in almost indiscriminate slaughter. Previously to joining in revolutionary politics, he was known as an author, and published a work “On Man, or Principles of the reciprocal Influence of the Soul and Body,” in two volumes, 12mo: also some tracts on Electricity and Light, in which he attacked the Newtonian System. These works had been forgot long before he began to make a figure in the political world; but it is remarkable that his death occasioned a fresh demand for them. They are now, however, again sunk into oblivion, and his name is never mentioned but with contempt and horror.

, a heretic, who lived in the second century of the church, was born at Sinope, a city of Paphlagonia, upon the Euxine sea, and had for his father the bishop of that city. Eusebius calls him 5 votumg, the mariner; and Tertullian, more than once, Ponticus Nauclerus. Whether he acquired this name from having learned the art of sailing in his youth, or from being born in a sea-port town, ecclesiastical antiquity has not told us. At first he professed continency, and betook himself to an ascetic life; but, having so far forgotten himself as to debauch a young lady, he was excommunicated by his father, who was so rigid an observer of the discipline of the church, that he could never be induced, by all his prayers and vows of repentance, to re-admithim into the communion of the faithful. This exposed him so much to the scoffs and insults of his countrymen, that he privily withdrew himself, and went to Rome, hoping to gain admittance there. But his case being known, he was again unsuccessful, which so irritated him, that he became a disciple of Cerdo, and espoused the opinions of that famous heretic. The most accurate chronologers have not agreed as to the precise time when Marcion went to Rome; but the learned Cave, after considering their reasons, determines it, and with the greatest appearance of probability, to the year 127; and supposes further, that he began to appear at the head of his sect, and to propagate his doctrines publicly, about the year 130. Indeed it could not well be later, because his opinions were dispersed far and wide in the reign of Adrian; and Clemens Alexandrinus, speaking of the heretics who lived under that emperor, mentions Basilides, Valentinus, and Marcion, who, he says, “conversed along with them, as a junior among seniors:” and Basilides died in the year 134.

, was a counsellor in the parliament of Dijon, deeply versed in literature and history, and esteemed almost as elegant a writer in Latin as the president de Thou, whom he had made his model. He died May 16, 1687, after having published several works, of which the most known is, his “Commentarius de Bello Burgundico.” This makes a part of his “Historicorum Burgundise conspectus,” published in 4to, in 1689. He wrote also “Huberti Langueti vita,” published by J. P. Ludwig, at Halle, 170O, 12D1O.

These absurdities do not appear to have lessened hi& reputation among his countrymen, as the charge of inquisitor was bestowed upon him: and he showed himself very active in bringing about the extirpation of Jansenism. He had been a member of the French academy from its first establishment, and was always esteemed one of its principal ornaments. He wrote several dramatic pieces, which were received with great applause, especially that entitled “Les Visionaires.” He attempted an epic poem, entitled “Clovis,” which cost him several years’ labour; and he was of opinion, that it would have cost him a good many more to have finished it, if Providence had not destined his pen for works of devotion, and on that account afforded him supernatural assistance. This we learn from the preface of his “Delices de l'Esprit,” in which he professes that he dare not say in how short a time he had finished the nine remaining books of that poem, and retouched the rest. He also very seriously boasts, that “God, in his infinite goodness, had sent him the key of the treasure, contained in the Apocalypse, which was known but to few before him;” and that, “by the command of God, he was to levy an army of 144,000 men, part of which he had already enlisted, to make war upon the impious and the Jansenists.” He died in 1676, aged eighty-one.

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

, an eminent French philosopher and mathematician, was born at Dijon, and admitted a member of the academy of sciences of Paris in 1666. His works, however, are better known than his life. He was a good mathematician, and the first French philosopher who applied much to experimental physics. The law of the shock or collision of bodies, the theory of the pressure and motion of fluids, the nature of vision, and of the air, particularly engaged his attention. He carried into his philosophical researches that spirit of scrutiny and investigation so necessary to those who would make any considerable progress in it. He died May 12, 16S4. He communicated a number of curious and valuable papers to the academy of sciences, which were printed in the collection of their Memoirs dated 1666, viz. from volume 1 to volume 10. And all his works were collected into 2 volumes in 4to, and printed at Leyden in 1717.

, or Marcus, the founder of the sect of the Marcosians, is said to have appeared about the year 160, or, according to some, about the year 127. Many learned moderns are of opinion that Mark belonged to the Valentinian school, but Rhenford and Beausobre say that the Marcosians were Jews, or judaizing Christians; and Grabe likewise owns that they were of Jewish extract. Irenseus leads us to imagine that Mark, who was an Asiatic, had come into Gaul and made many converts there. Nevertheless, learned moderns think that they were only disciples of Mark, who came into that country, where Irenaeus resided, of whom, in one place, he makes particular mention. Irenaeus represents him as exceedingly skilful in all magical arts, by means of which he had great success. Tertullian and Theodoret concur in calling Mark a magician. Irenseus, after giving an account of the magical arts of Mark, adds, that he had, probably, an assisting daemon, by which he himself appears to prophesy, and which enabled others, especially women, to prophesy likewise: this practice favoured his seduction of many females, both in body and mind, which gained him much wealth. He is also said to have made use of philters and love-potions, in order to gain the affections of women; and his disciples are charged with doing the same. Dr. Lardner suggests some doubts as to the justice of these accusations; and indeed there is considerable obscurity in every particular of his personal history. His followers, called Marcosians, are said to have placed a great deal of mystery in the letters of the alphabet, and thought that they were very useful in finding out the truth. They are charged unjustly with holding two principles, and as if they were Docetse, and denied the resurrection of the dead; for which there is no sufficient evidence. They persisted in the practice of baptism and the eucharist. As to their opinion concerning Jesus Christ, they seem to have had a notion of the great dignity and excellence of his person, or his ineffable generation: and, according to them, he was born of Mary, a virgin, and the word was in him, When ha came to the water, the supreme power descended upon him; and he had in him all fulness; for in him was the word, the father, truth, the church, and life. They said that the Christ, or the Spirit, came down upon the man Jesus. He made known the Father, and destroyed death, and called himself the Son of Man; for it was the good pleasure of the Father of all that he should banish ignorance and destroy death: and the acknowledgment of him is the overthrow of ignorance. From the account of Irenceus, we may infer that the Marcosians believed the facts recorded in the gospels and that they received most, or all the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. Irenaeus also says that they had an innumerable multitude of apocryphal and spurious writings, which they had forged: and that they made use of that fiction concerning the child Jesus, that when his master bade him say, alpha, the Lord did so; but when the master called him to say beta, he answered, “Do you first tell me what is alpha, and then I will tell you what beta is.” As this story concerning alpha and beta is found in the gospel of the infancy of Jesus Christ, still in being, some are of opinion that this gospel was composed by the Marcosians.

Langbaine is very lavish of his praise of Markharn; but he does not appear to have known much of his poetry, or of his real characier. In the works referred to below are some conjectures, and some information respecting Markham, which place his character rather in an equivocal light. It appears, however, that his works on husbandry, agriculture, &c. were once held in great esteem, and often reprinted. On the records of the stationers’ company is a very extraordinary agreement signed by this author, which probably arose from the booksellers’ knowledge of the value of Markham’s work, and their apprehensions that a new performance on the same subject might be hurtful to the treatises then circulating. It is as follows:

In 1748, Mr. Markland contributed some notes to Arnald’s “Commentary on the book of Wisdom,” which are noticed at the end of the author’s preface, in the second edition, 1760. In 1750, he communicated some very judicious remarks on an edition, then printing by Bowyer, of “Kuster de Verbo medio.” He was also at this time employed on his Euripides. In 1752, having completed the education of his amiable pupil Mr. Strode, he first began, to seclude himself from the world. “By this time,” he says, “being grown old, and having moreover long and painful annual fits of the gout, he was glad to find, what his inclination and infirmities, which made him unfit for the world and for company, had for a long time led him to, a very private place of retirement near Dorking in Surrey.” In this pleasant and sequestered spot, in the hamlet of Milton, he saw little company his walks were almost coufined to the narrow limits of his garden: and he described himself, in 1755, to be as much out of the way of hearing, as of getting. “Of this last,” he adds, “I have now no desire: the other I should be glad of.” What first induced him to retire from the world is not known. It has been supposed to have proceeded from disappointment: but of what nature is matter of conjecture. There is a traditionary report, that he once received a munificent proposal from Dr. Mead, to enable him to travel, on a most liberal plan, in pursuit of such literary matters as should appear eligible to himself; and that his retirement arose from a disgust his extreme delicacy occasioned him to take during the negociation. He was certainly disinterested to an extreme: and money was never considered by him as a good, any farther than it enabled him to relieve the necessitous.

It is to be regretted, however, that the splendour of his abilities was obscured by the extreme privacy of his life, and the many peculiarities of his disposition. The latter indeed seem to have been produced by the former, and that by some circumstances in his early life, which prevented him from making a choice among the learned professions. It is well known that bishop Hare would have provided for him, if he would have taken orders; but what his reasons were for dec-lining them, we are not told. It may be inferred from his correspondence that in maturer age he had some scruples of the religious kind, but these do not appear inconsistent with the liberty which many great and good men have thought consistent with subscription to the formularies of the church. By whatever means he was prevented from taking orders, it appears to have been a misfortune to him, as the patrons who were the best judges of his merit had no means of providing for him in any other direction. If he ever fancied that he could make his way through the world by the talents of a mere scholar employed in writing, we have evidence in his letters that he soon found his mistake, and that in his time classical criticism was not an article in great demand. Another reason for his frequent despondency, and love of retirement, appears to have been his interesting himself too much in the politics of the time, which he always viewed through a gloomy medium. We may, however, conclude this article with the striking and just observation made by his pupil Mr. Strode, in a letter to Mr. Nichols, that “Do friend of Mr. Maryland can reflect on his life without great satisfaction, although, for the further benefit of society, one might be led to wish some few circumstances of it had been otherwise.'”

, whom Phillips calls “a kind of second Shakspeare,” was born, as Mr. Elfis conjectures with great probability, about 1562. There is no account extant of his family, but it is well known, says Baker, that he was of Bene't college, in the university of Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. A. 1543, and M. A. 1597; he, however, quitted the academic life, and went on the stage, where he became one of the most distinguished tragic poets of the age. Thomas Heywood styles him the “best of poets;” and Draytoa also has bestowed a high panegyric on him, in the “Censure of the Poets,” in these lines

, a dramatic writer, was born of an ancient family at Aynhoe in Northamptonshire, about the beginning of January, 1602. He went to school at Thame in Oxfordshire, and was thence removed to Wadham-college, Oxford, as a gentleman-commoner, and took his master of arts’ degree in 1624. Wood says, that “he was a goodly proper gentleman, and had once in his possession seven hundred pounds per annum at least.” The whole of this he dissipated, and afterwards went to serve in the Low Countries. Not being promoted there, after three campaigns, he returned to England, and was admitted in 1639, by sir John Suckling, into a troop raised for Charles I. in his expedition against Scotland, but at York he fell sick, and was obliged to return to London, where he died the same year. Marmion, although not a voluminous writer, for he produced only four dramas, is considered by the author of the Biographia Dramatica as one of the best among the dramatic writers of his time. “His plots are ingenious,” says that author, “his characters well drawn, and his language not only easy and dramatic, but full of lively wit and solid understanding.” His plays are, 1 “Holland’s Leaguer, an excellent comedy, as it hath bin lately and often acted with great applause, by the high and mighty prince Charles his servants, at the private house in Salisbury court,” 1632, 4to. According to Oldys, in his ms notes on Langbaine, there was a tract in prose, published under the same title of “Holland’s Leaguer,” in the same year, from which this drama might possibly be taken 2. “A fine Companion, acted before the King and Queen at Whitehall, and sundrie times with great applause at the private house in Salisbury-court, by the Prince his servants,” 1633, 4to. 3. “The Antiquary, a comedy, acted by her Majesty’s servants at the Cockpit,” 1641, 4to. This is also printed in Dodsley’s Collection of Old Plays, vol. X. second edition. The Biographia Dramatica, and other books, add to these, 4. “The Crafty Merchant, or the Souldier'd Citizen;” which, as welt as the rest, was a comedy; but they all state that it was never printed, and neglect to tell where it is extant in manuscript. He also published, 5. “Cupid and Psiche; or an epic poem of Cupid and his Mistress, as it was lately presented to the Prince Elector.” Prefixed to this are complimentary verses, by Richard Brome, Francis Tuckyr, Thomas N abbes, and Thomas Hey wood. He wrote, be sides these, several poems, which are scattered in different publications; and Wood says that he left some things in ms. ready for the press, but what became of them is not known.

, a late eminent anatomist and physician, was born in Fifeshire, in 1742, at Park-hill, a large farm on the side of the Tay, near Newburgh, held by his father, Mr. John Marshal, of the earl of Rothes. His lather had received a classical education himself; and being desirous that his son should enjoy a similar advantage, sent him first to the grammar-school at Newburgh, and afterwards tothat of Abernethy, then the most celebrated place of education among the Seceders, of which religious sect he was a most zealous member. Here he was regarded as a quick and apt scholar. From his childhood he had taken great delight in rural scenery. One day, while under the influence of feelings of this kind, being then about fourteen years old, he told his father that he wished to leave school, and be a farmer, but he soon shewed that it had not arisen from any fondness for ordinary country labours. In the following harvest-time, for instance, having been appointed to follow the reapers, and bind up the cut corn into sheaves, he would frequently lay himself down in some shady part of the field, and taking a book from his pocket, begin to read, -utterly forgetful of his task. About two years after, however, he resumed his studies, with the intention of becoming a minister: and soon after, he was admitted a student of philosophy at Abernethy; and next became a student of divinity. In his nineteenth year he went to Glasgow, and divided his ­time between teaching a school, and attending lectures in the university. The branches of learning which he chiefly cultivated were Greek and morals. At the end of two years passed in this way, he became (through the interest of the celebrated Dr. Reid, to whom his talents and diligence had recommended him), tutor in a gentleman’s family, of the name of Campbell, in the Island of Islay. He remained here four years, and removed to the university of Edinburgh, with Mr. -Campbell’s son, whom the following year he carried back to his father. Having surrendered his charge, he returned to Edinburgh, where he subsisted himself by reading Greek and Latin privately with students of the university; in the mean time taking no recreation, but giving up all his leisure to the acquisition of knowledge. He still considered himself a student of divinity, in which capacity he delivered two discourses in the divinity-hall; and from motives of curiosity began in 1769 to attend lectures on medicine. While thus employed, he was chosen1 member of the Speculative society, where, in the beginning of 1772, he became acquainted with lord Balgonie, who was so much pleased with the display which he made of genius and learning in that society, that he requested they“should read together; and in the autumn of the following year made a proposal for their going to the Continent, which was readily accepted. They travelled slowly through Flanders to Paris, where they stayed a month, and then proceeded to Tours, where they resided eight months, in the house of a man of letters, under whose tuition they strove to acquire a correct knowledge of the French language and government. They became acquainted here with several persons of rank, among whom were a prince of Rohan, and the dukes of Clioiseul and Aguilon, at whose seats in the neighbourhood they were sometimes received as gnests. An acquaintance with such people would make Marshal feel pain on account of his want of external accomplishments; and this, probably, was the reason of his labouring” to learn to dance and to fence while he was at Tours, though he was then more than thirty years old. He returned to England in the summer of 1774; and proceeded soon after to Edinburgh, where he resumed the employment of reading Latin and Greek with young men. Hitherto he seems to have formed no settled plan of life, but to have bounded his views almost entirely to the acquisition of knowledge, and a present subsistence. His friends, however, had been induced to hope that he would at some time be advanced to a professor’s cl; ir and it is possible that he entertained the same hope himself. In the spring of 1775, this hope appeared to be strengthened by his being requested by Mr. Stewart, the professor of humanity at Edinburgh, to officiate for him, as he was then unwell: Marshal complied, but soon after appears to have given up all hopes of a professorship, and studied medicine with a determination to practise it. In the spring of 1777, he was enabled by the assistance of a friend, Mr. John Campbell of Edinburgh, to come to London for professional improvement; and studied anatomy under Dr. W. Hunter, and surgery under Mr. J, Hunter. After he had been here a twelvemonth, he was appointed surgeon to the S3rd, or Glasgow regiment, through the interest of the earl of Leverv, the father of his late pupil, lord Balgonie. The first year after was passed with his regiment, in Scotland. In the following he accompanied it to Jersey, where he remained with it almost constantly till the conclusion of the war in the beginning of 1783, when it was disbanded. In this situation he enjoyed, almost for the first time, the pleasures best suited to a man of independent mind. His income was more than sufficient for his support; his industry and knowledge rendered him useful; and his character for integrity and honour procured him general esteem. From Jersey he came to London, seeking for a settlement, and was advised by Dr. D. Pitcairn (with whom he had formed a friendship while a student at Glasgow) to practise surgery here, though he had taken the degree of doctor of physic the preceding year at Edinburgh; and to teach anatomy at St. Bartholomew’s hospital, it being at the same time proposed, that the physicians to that hospital (of whom Dr. Pitcairn was one) should lecture on other branches of medical learning. He took a house, in consequence, in the neighbourhood of the hospital; and proceeded to prepare for the execution of his part of the scheme. This proving abortive, he began to teach anatomy, the following year, at his own house; and at length succeeded in procuring annually a considerable number of pupils, attracted to him solely by the reputation of his being a most diligent and able teacher. In 1788 he quitted the practice of surgery, and commenced that of medicine, having previously become a member of the London college oF physicians. In the ensuing year a dispute arose between John Hunter and him, which it is proper to relate, as it had influence on his after-life. When Marshal returned to London, he renewed his acquaintance with Mr. Hunter, who thought so well of him, that he requested his attendance at a committee of his friends, to whose correction he submitted his work on the venereal disease, before it was published. He became also a member of a small society, instituted by Dr. Fordyce and Mr. Hunter, for the improvement of medical and surgical knowledge. Having mentioned at a meeting of this society, that, in the dissection of those who had died insane, he had always found marks of disease in the head, Mr. Hunter denied the truth of this in very coarse language. The other members interfering, Mr. Hunter agreed to say, that his expressions did not refer to Dr. Marshal’s veracity, but to the accuracy of his observation. Marshal, not being satisfied with this declaration, at the next meeting of the society demanded a.i ample apology; but Mr. Hunter, instead of making one, repeated the offensive expressions; on which Marshal poured some water over his head out of a bottle which had stood near them. A scuffle ensued, which was immediately stopped by the other members, and no father personal contention between them ever occurred. But Marshal, conceiving that their common friends in the society had, from the superior rank of Mr. Hunter, favoured him more in this matter than justice permitted, soon after estranged himself from them. He continued the teaching of anatomy till 1800, in which year, during a tedious illness, the favourable termination of which appeared doubtful to him, he resolved, rather suddenly, to give it up. While he taught anatomy, almost the whole of the fore-part of the day, during eight months in the year, was spent by him in his dissecting and lecture rooms. He had, therefore, but little time for seeing sick persons, except at hours frequently inconvenient to them; and was by this means prevented from enjoying much medical practice; but as soon as he had recovered his health, after ceasing to lecture, his practice began to increase. The following year it was so far increased as to render it proper that he should keep a carriage. From this time to within a few months of his death, an interval of twelve years, his life flowed on in nearly an equable stream. He had business enough in the way he conducted it to give him employment during the greater part of the day; and his professional profits were sufficient to enable him to live in the manner he chose, and provide for the wants of sickness and old age. After having appeared somewhat feeble for two or three years, he made known, for the first time, in the beginning of last November, that he laboured under a disease of his bladder, though he must then have been several years affected with it. His ailment was incurable, and scarcely admitted of palliation. For several months he was almost constantly in great pain, which he bore manfully. At length, exhausted by his sufferings, he died on the 2nd of April, 1813, at his house in Bartlett’s buildings, Holborn, being then in the seventy-first year of his age. Agreeably to his own desire, his body was interred in the church-yard of the parish of St. Pancras. His fortune, amounting to about bOOO/. was, for the most part, bequeathed to sisters and nephews.

It is not known that he ever published any literary works besides an “Essay on Composition,” when at Edinburgh; an “Essay on Ambition,” written also very early in life; a translation of the three first books of Simson’s “Conic Sections,” apparently undertaken at the suggestion of a bookseller; and a treatise on the “Preservation of the Health of Soldiers.” He had, indeed, meditated a variety of other publications, principally on physiology and pathology; but, having pursued a subject with great keenness till he had gained what he wanted, he could not bring himself to be at the trouble of preparing for the eye of the world what he had acquired, more especially as new objects of research presented themselves in quick succession. A paper upon Hernia, illustrated by drawings taken nearly 20 years ago, and another upon the appearances of the brain in mania, drawn up from dissections made more than 20 years ago, were left in a state fit for publication; and the latter has just been published under the title of “The Morbid Anatomy of the Brain, in Mania and Hydrophobia,” by Mr. Sawrey, formerly assistant-lecturer to Dr. Marshal. To this volume, in 8vo, is prefixed a life of Dr. Marshal, from which the above particulars are taken, but to which we may refer as containing many more of considerable interest.

, a very learned English writer, was the second son of Thomas Marsham, esq. alderman of London, and born in the parish of St. Bartholomew’s, Aug. 23, 1602. He was brought up at Westminster school, and sent thence, in 1619, to St. John’s college in Oxford, where betook, in due time, his degrees in arts. In 1625, he went to France, and spent the winter at Paris; in 1626 and 1627, he visited most parts of that kingdom, and of Italy, and some parts of Germany, and then returned to London. In 1629, he went through Holland and Guelderland, to the siege of Boisleduc; and thence by Flushing to Boulogne and Paris, in the retinue of sir Thomas Edmondes, ambassador extraordinary, who was sent to take the oath of Louis XIII. to the peace newly concluded between England and France. During his residence in London, he studied the law in the Middle Temple; and, in 1638, was sworn one of the six clerks in chancery. Upon the breaking out of the civil wars, he followed the king and the great seal to Oxford for which he was deprived of his place by the parliamentarians, and suffered a vast loss by the plundering of his estate. After the surrender of the garrison at Oxford, and the ruin of the king’s affairs, he returned to London; and, having compounded for his estate, he betook himself wholly to retirement and study. In the beginning of 1660, he served as a burgess for the city of Rochester, in the parliament which recalled Charles the Second; about which time, being restored to his place in chancery, he had the honour of knighthood conferred upon him, and three years after was created a baronet. He died at Bushy-hall in Hertfordshire, in May 1685; and his body was interred at Cuckstone near Rochester, where he had an estate. By Elizabeth his wife, daughter of sir William Hammond of St. Alban’s, in East Kent, he left two sons; sir John Marsham, of Cuckstone, bart. and sir Robert Marsham, of Bushy-hall, knt. both of them studious and learned men, and the ancestors of the Romney family. Sir John Marsham was a very accomplished gentleman, and had acquired a critical knowledge of history, chronology, and languages. He published in 1649, 4to, “Diatriba chronologica;” in which he examines succinctly the principal difficulties which occur in the chronology of the Old Testament.“The greatest part of this was afterwards inserted in another work, entitled” Canon chronicus, Ægyptiacus, Ebraicus, Groecus, & disquisitiones,“Lond. 1672, folio. The principal object of this is to reconcile the Egyptian dynasties. The Egyptians, as is well known, pretended to excessive antiquity, and had framed a list of thirty successive dynasties, which amounted to a number of years (36,525) greatly exceeding the age of the world. These were rejected as fabulous by some of the ablest chronologers; but sir John Marsham first conjectured that these dynasties were not successive, but collateral; and therefore without rejecting any, he endeavoured to reconcile the entire series in this manner, to the scripture chronology. The attempt, which was highly ingenious, gained him great reputation, and many contemporary as well as succeeding authors, have been liberal in their praises. Mr. Wotton represents him as the first” who has made the Egyptian antiquities intelligible: that most learned gentleman,“says he,” has reduced the wild heap of Egyptian dynasties into as narrow a compass as the history of Moses according to the Hebrew account, by the help of a table of the Theban kings, which he found under Eratosthenes’s name in the Chronography of Syncellus. For, by that table, he, 1. Distinguished the fabulous and mystical part of the Egyptian history, from that which seems to look like matter of fact. 2. He reduced the dynasties into collateral families, reigning at the same time in several parts of the country; which, as some learned men saw before, was the only way to make those antiquities consistent with themselves, which, till then, were confused and incoherent.“Dr. Shuckford, after having represented the foundation of sir John Marsham’s Canon with regard to Egypt, says that,” upon these hints and observations, he has opened to us a prospect of coming at an history of the succession of the kings of Egypt, and that in a method so natural and easy, that it must approve itself to any person who enters truly into the design and conduct of it.“Afterwards, having given a view of sir John’s scheme, from the beginning of the reigns of the Egyptian kings down to his Sesostris, or Sesac, he observes, that,” if the reader will take the pains thoroughly to examine it, if he will take it in pieces into all its parts, review the materials of which it is formed, consider how they He in the authors from whom they are taken, and what manner of collecting and disposing them is made use of, he will find that however in some lesser points a variation from our very learned author may be defensible, yet no tolerable scheme can be formed of the ancient Egyptian history, that is not in the main agreeing with him. Sir John Marsham has led us to a clear and natural place for the name of every Egyptian king, and time of his reign," &c. But although sir John Marsham’s system has been followed by some, it has been strenuously opposed by other writers, who have represented it as not only false, but even prejudicial to revelation.

, an English dramatic author, who lived in the time of James I. and wrote eight plays. Wood says, “that he was a student in Corpus-Christi college, Oxford; but where he was born, or from what family descended, is not known.” When he left Oxford, he was entered of the Middle Temple, of which society he was chosen lecturer in the 34th of Elizabeth; but much more of his personal history is not known. He lived in friendship with Ben Jonson, as appears by his addressing to him his “Malecontent,” a tragi-comedy, in 1604; yet we find him afterwards glancing with some severity at Jonson, on account of his “Catiline and Sejanus,” in his “Epistle” prefixed to “Sophonisba,” another tragedy. “Know,” says he, “that I have not laboured an this poem, to relate any thing as an historian, but to enlarge every thing as a poet. To transcribe authors, quote authorities, and to translate Latin prose orations into English blank verse, hath in this subject been the least aim of my studies.” Langbaine observes, and with good reason, “that none, who are acquainted with the works of Ben Jonson, can doubt that he is meant here, if they will compare the orations in Sallust with those in his Cataline.” Jonson appears to have quarrelled with him and Decker, and is supposed to have ridiculed both in his “Poetaster.”

Mr. Martin’s desire was not only to be esteemed, but to be known and distinguished by the name of, “Honest Tom Martin of Palgrave f,” an ambition in which his acquaintance saw no reason not to gratify him; and we have observed, with pleasure, several strokes of moral sentiment scattered about his rough church notes. These were the genuine effusions of his heart, not designed for the public eye, and therefore mark his real character in that respect. Had he desired the appellation of wise and prudent, his inattention to his business, his contempt and improper use of money, and his fondness for mixed and festive company, would have debarred him, as the father of a numerous, family, of that pretension. As an antiquary, he was most skilful and indefatigable; and when he was employed as an attorney and genealogist, he was in his element. He had the happiest use of his pen, copying, as well as tracing, with dispatch and exactness, the different writing of every aera, and tricking arms, seals, &c. with great neatness. His taste for ancient lore seems to have possessed him from his earliest to his latest days. He dated all the scraps of paper on which he made his church-notes, &c. Some of these begin as early as 1721, and end but the autumn before his death, when he still wrote an excellent hand; but he certainly began his collections even before the first mentioned period; for he appears among the contributors to Mr. Le Neve’s “Monumenta Anglicana,” printed in 1719. The latter part of his life was bestowed on the History of his native town of Thetford. His abilities, and the opportunities he derived from the collections of Peter Le Neve, esq. Norroy king at arms, render it unnecessary to enlarge on this, which Mr. Blomefield, thirty years before this publication encouraged the public to expect from his hands. The materials being left without the last finishing at Mr. Martin’s death, were purchased by Mr. John Worth, chemist, of Diss, F. S. A. who entertained thoughts of giving them to the publick, and circulated proposals, dated July 1, 1774, for printing them by subscription. Upon the encouragement he received, he had actually printed five sheets of the work, and engraved four plates. This second effort was prevented by the immature death of Mr. Worth, in 1775; who dying insolvent, his library, including what he had reserved of the immense collections of Le Neve and Martin at their dispersion on the death of the latter, being sold, with his other effects, for the benefit of his creditors, was purchased the same year by Mr. Thomas Hunt, bookseller at Harleston. Of him Mr. Gough bought the manuscript, with the undigested materials, copy-right, and plates. The first of these required a general revisal, which it received from the great diligence and abilities of Mr. Gough, who published it in 1779, 4to.

, known all over Europe by the name of Padre Martini, was born at Bologna in 1706, and entered into the order of the friars minor, as offering him the best opportunities for indulging his taste for music, which he cultivated with so much success as to be regarded, during the last fifty years of his life, as the most profound harmonist, and the best acquainted with the history and progress of the art and science of music in Italy. All the great masters of his time were ambitious of becoming his disciples, and proud of his approbation; and young professors within his reach never thought themselves, or were thought by others, sufficiently skilled in counterpoint, till they had received lessons from this deep theorist, and most intelligent and communicative instructor.

In 1729, he had a design of reading botanical lectures at Oxford, and it is not known what prevented this scheme, unless that he might, upon reflection, consider it as interfering with the recent establishment of the Sherardian professorship there, in favour of his friend Dillenius. In the following year we find him projecting, in conjunction with Dr. Russell, a new edition of Stephens’s Latin Thesaurus; but this design was dropped, and he engaged in a far more easy and pleasant work, along with the same friend, and some others, entitled the “Grub-street Journal,” a periodical publication, which had a large sale, and contains a great variety of satirical remarks on, and anecdotes of living authors, forming indeed a kind of prose and verse “Dunciad,” and, like that celebrated poem, sometimes takes liberties with characters that ought to have been noticed with more respect. The best papers were afterwards collected in 2 vols. 12mo, 1737, under the title of “Memoirs of the Society of Grub-street.” Mr. Martyn’s papers are distinguished by the signature B. and Dr. Russel’s by that of M. The poetical part was published in a separate volume, with an emblematic frontispiece, and is more scarce.

Peter Martyr is described to have been a man of an able, healthy constitution, large-boned, well limbed, and of a countenance which expressed an inwardly grave and settled turn of mind. His parts and learning were very uncommon; as was also his skill in disputation, which made him as much admired by the protestants, as hated by the papists. He was very sincere and indefatigable in promoting a reformation in the church; yet his zeal was never known to get the better of his judgment. He was always moderate and prudent in his outward behaviour; nor, even in the conflict of a dispute, did he suffer himself to be transported into intemperate warmth, or unguarded expressions ever to escape him. But his pains and industry were not confined to preaching and disputing against the papists; he wrote a great many books against them, none of which raised his reputation higher, than his “Defence of the orthodox doctrine of the Lord’s Supper,” against bishop Gardiner. He wrote also several tracts of divinity, and commentaries on many books of Scripture; for all which he was as much applauded by one party, as he was condemned by the other. Dupin, however, with his usual candour, bestows the highest praise on the learning and critical skill of Martyr as a commentator. It is easy to conceive, that Peter Martyr would be ranked at Rome amongst the heretics of the first class; yet, as bishop Jewel observes in his “Defence of the Church of England,” he “was an illustrious man, and must never be named without the highest respect and honour.”

In 1758 he was chosen a fellow of the royal society, and soon after became an important contributor to the Philosophical Transactions. Such was his reputation already, that the society appointed him to go to the island of St. Helena, to observe the transit of Venus over the sun’sdisk, which was to take place June 6, 1761. On this occasion he remained ten months on the island, making astronomical observations and philosophical experiments; and although his observation of the transit of Venus was not completely successful, owing to the cloudy state of the weather, his voyage afforded him an opportunity of taking lunar observations, which were now for the first time made with effect. This method of finding the longitude at sea was long a great desideratum, and plans had been made by many of his predecessors, but the honour was reserved for Dr. Maskelyne to reduce their theories to successful practice. This he was enabled to do by Hadley’s quadrant recently invented, and also by professor Mayer’s lunar tables, for which a parliamentary reward of 3000l. was afterwards given, on Dr. Maskelyne’s report of their correctness. The results of his other observations and experiments were inserted in the Philosophical Transactions of the above period. Soon after his return from St. Helena, he published his well-known work, entitled “The British Mariner’s Guide,” which contained, among various new and practical illustrations and articles in nautical astronomy, rules and examples for working the lunar observations; but, in order to shorten and simplify these laborious operations, other tables and calculations were still wanted, which he afterwards supplied by his *' Nautical Almanack,“and” Requisite Tables."

In 1767 he published an auxiliary work, entitled “Tables requisite to be used with the Nautical Almanac, in order to find the Latitude and Longitude at sea.” This performance, well known to seamen by the name of “The Requisite Tables,” has passed through several editions, and has been successively enlarged, particularly by different methods of working the lunar observations, by Messrs. Lyons, Dunthorne, Witchel!, Wales, and by Dr. Maskelyne himself; and it has been also improved by the latitudes and longitudes of places supplied by captain Cook, captain Huddart, Messrs. Bailey, Wales, and other scientific navigators. Some time after this he published Mayer’s Tables, with both Latin and English explanations, to which he added several tracts and tables of his own, and prefixed to the whole a Latin preface, with the title “Tabulae motuum Soils et Lunae, &c.” It was published, like the foregoing works, by order of the commissioners of longitude; and the various other publications issued by that board during his time were also printed under his inspection, and are too numerous to be here stated.

In the history of science, few persons can be mentioned who have contributed more essentially to the diffusion of astronomical knowledge than Dr. Maskelyne; and perhaps no man has been so successful in promoting practical astronomy, both by land and sea. During his time private observatories became very general, though scarcely known before; nor could such be made useful without his “Nautical Almanac,” and other tables, except by men of great science, and by very laborious calculations. Beside the assistance thus derived from his publications, he was always ready to give advice concerning any plans that were likely to promote the science. Among the observatories that were erected through his encouragement, may be mentioned that of the late Alexander Aubert, esq. whose excellent collection of instruments has been rarely equalled, even in national institutions; and several other instances might be adduced of observatories which were erected by the advice or direction of the astronomer royal. He was besides a great improver of instruments, and the inventor of some, among which may be noticed the prismatic micrometer; but though profoundly skilled in optics, and ingenious in mechanical contrivances, he always paid great deference to the opinions of opticians, and other practical mechanists. His plans were mostly directed to substantial objects, while a steady perseverance gave an efficiency to all his undertakings: and notwithstanding his profound knowledge of physical astronomy, his attention was chiefly directed to reduce the scientific theories of his predecessors to the practical purposes of life. In this he was eminently successful, particularly in his labours for the longitude, by which he essentially contributed to the advancement of navigation, the prosperity of commerce, and the wealth, honour, and power of his country.

, a non-conformist divine, chiefly known for his excellent work entitled “Self-Knowledge,” was descended from ancestors who were for several generations beneficed clergymen of the established church. His grandfather was the rev. John Mason, rector of Water-Stratford in Buckinghamshire, whose “Select Remains” were published by his grandson, the subject of this article: “a little work,” we are told by his biographer, “highly esteemed and warmly recommended by Dr. Watts.” This little work we have not seen, but from two accounts of the author’s life, one published anonymously in 1694, 4to, and the other by the rev. H. Maurice, rector of Tyringham in Bucks, in 1695, 4to, we are justified in ranking him among those enthusiasts who have done much to bring religion into disgrace; and our readers will probably be of the same opinion, when we inform them, that after having discharged his pastoral duties for several years, as a pious and useful clergyman, he propagated the notion that Christ’s second appearance was to be at Water- Stratford, where all his faithful people were to be collected, and reign with him a thousand years. This brought a great many persons to reside at that place, in hopes of meeting the Saviour, who were for some time called Mr. Mason’s followers; nor was it until his death had disappointed their hopes, that this delusion gradually abated. One of the sons of this enthusiast, John, the father of our author, became a dissenter, and, while pastor of a congregation at Dunmow in Essex, his son was born there, in 1705-6. He was educated at a dissenting academy, and in 1730 accepted an invitation to the pastoral charge of a congregation at Dorking in Surrey, where he had a numerous auditory. His earliest production was a Sermon on “Subjection to the higher powers,” preached Nov. 5, 1740, and published at the request of the congregation.

But while thus employed, he found leisure for directing his taste and acquaintance with classical criticism to all the elegancies of literature. The result of these less serious pursuits was the three following tracts, all of which passed through several editions, and one of them not less than five or six “Essay on the power and harmony of Prosaic numbers” “Essay on the power of Numbers, and the principles of Harmony in Poetical compositions and” Essay on Elocution“which last became the most popular, and was long employed as a text-book in one of the English universities. Mr. Mason died Feb. 10, 1763, and was buried in Cheshunt church-yard, leaving an excellent character for piety, learning, and a conciliating and liberal temper. After his” Self-Knowledge" had been reprinted a great number of times, often very inaccurately, and, what is more censurable, once, at least, with such alterations as tended to suppress his opinions, and make him the follower of a party which he would have despised, his relative John Mason Good, esq. a gentleman well known in the learned world, became editor of a very correct edition, and prefixed a life of the author, of which we have availed ourselves in this account.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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