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

He first resided in the city, where he painted portraits at five guineas a head, and acquired considerable practice through the friendly assistance of that worthy and benevolent man, Daniel Brathwaite, esq. then comptroller of the foreign post-office. In 1764- he visited France, and surveyed the various repositories of art at Paris, and on his return resided in Gray’s-inn, where his practice encreased, especially among the gentlemen of the long robe. In 1765, he obtained a prize from the Society for the Encouragement of Arts and Sciences, for an historical picture, the “Death of king Edmund.” In 1768 he removed to Great Newport-street, still increasing in practice and fame; but, conscious of the necessity of cultivating his taste by an inspection of the great works of art in Italy, he set out thither in March 1773, with Mr. Ozias Humphrey, a miniature painter of celebrity, and remained two years, leading a studious and recluse life, and making some few copies.

On his return in July 1775, he took a house in Cavendish-square, where he resided, until he retired in 1798, from public practice, to Hampstead, for the sake of purer air. During the preceding twenty years, he enjoyed uninterrupted success in his profession, to which he was so ardently attached, that his whole delight was in it. His talents, in return, were highly esteemed, and encouraged by an immense influx of employment. In one year only (1785), he painted portraits to the value of 3635l. His prices now were, for a whole-length, eighty guineas half whole-length, sixty; half-length, forty a kit-cat, thirty; and for a head, twenty guineas. It is very remarkable, however, that he never became a member of the Royal Academy, nor ever exhibited in its rooms. When the Boydeli Shakspeare was projected, Romney contributed his aid. He had a quick and keen relish for the beauties of that poet, although his own fancy was so volatile, and his mode of reading so desultory, that it may be questioned if he ever read, without interruption, two acts of the dramas that he most cordially admired. After he had finished his fine picture for “The Tempest,” he was induced in. 1790 to visit Paris again, with his biographer Mr. Hayley and another friend; but on his return in 1791 resumed his labours for the Shakspeare gallery, and painted some pictures for the prince of Wales. In 179? he felt a slight paralytic stroke, which affected his eye and his hand, and prevented him from continuing his professional labours. It was then he retired to Hampstead, but, finding his health still decline, he, in 1799, revisited his native country, where he died Nov. 15, 1802.

Of Romney, as an artist, it is by no means easy to appreciate the just character. That he possessed genius and talents in an eminent degree, no one can deny. Fuseli, in his edition of Pilkington’s Dictionary, has said, “that he was made for the times, and the times for him.” It had perhaps, says the critic in the Cyclopædia, been more just to have observed that Homney was made for better times than those in which he lived. His perception of art was far purer than most of his contemporaries, at least in this country, were capable of enjoying; and it must be remembered, that no one ever set forth in the career of an artist under greater disadvantages than he did. The taste he imbibed for simplicity and grandeur, on seeing, at an advanced period of his life, the works of the ancient artists, prove what might have been fairly expected of him, had he been sooner initiated in the mysteries of his art. Without this aid, Romney had to separate for himself the partial, from the general effects of nature; and the inequality with which he, in this point, met the rivalry of more fortunate artists, is too evident in most of his productions. Frequently, his chiaroscuro is ill conducted, and his harmony of forms and colours imperfect, even in pictures produced when enjoying the height of his intellectual power, and at the happiest period of his executive skill: at the same time they exhibit great fertility of invention, with sweetness and delicacy of sentiment.

He was happily endowed with an inquisitive mind, that delighted in science, and pursued it warmly, with the best means he had; and he possessed a versatility of genius, which is exemplified by the variety of subjects he chose for representation. Both the comic and serious impressions of the mind had charms for him. Early in life he painted two pictures from Tristram Shandy; one, of the arrival of Dr. Slop at Shandy-hall, after the unlucky catastrophe he met with on the road; which afforded scope fur sentimental comic humour; the other from the affecting story of the death of Le Fevre; both of them were highly approved for truth and propriety of feeling and expression, though differing so widely in their effects upon the mind. His journey to Italy expanded his view of art; new scenes, and new sources of information, were presented to him, of which he did not neglect to avail himself. The works of fancy he produced after his return home exemplify the use he made of the two years he spent among the unrivalled productions of art he there met with. The purity and perfection of ancient sculpture appear to have made the deepest impression upon his mind; and he afterwards assiduously cherished the taste he then imbibed, by procuring a collection of cast; from the best models of ancient stathes, groups, basso-relievos, &c. which he would sit by the hour to contemplate; examining their appearances under all changes of sun-shine, and common day-light; and with lamps, prepared on purpose, he would try their effects in various modes of illumination, with rapturous delight. Hence, grandeur and simplicity became the principal objects of his ambition; he perceived these qualities distinctly, and employed them judiciously; even whilst imitating nature in his most usual occupation, portrait painting. To present his figure, or tell his story, with simple undisturbed effect, rejecting all unnecessary minutiae, wa the point he aimed at and obtained.

On his return from the continent his zeal for historical painting revived, or rather became strengthened. In several epistles to Mr. Hayley, he laments his confinement to portraits: in one he says, “this cursed portrait painting, how I am shackled with it! I am determined to live frugally, and cut it short as soon as I can.” In another, he^ mentions his “wish to be retired, in order to compose with: more effect and propriety.” And whenever he returned ttf London from Eastham, the hospitable retreat of his admiring correspondent and friend, whose play fulness of fancy was’ a constant and useful stimulus to Romney’s dejected and desponding mind, he felt it a weight of drudgery again to fall into the trammels of portraiture; yet from the enjoyment he by nature found in the practice of his profession^ a short time inured him afresh to it, and still he felt pleasure in tracing the features of each new face that presented itself; till again his exhausted frame required the exhilaration of retirement, and the refreshment afforded by pure uncontaminated air, free from the gross vapours of a great and populous city. It is not a little surprising that amidst his continual labours in that branch of the art he more immediately professed, he should have found time to produce so great a number of fancy pictures as he left behind him. He also frequently spent his evenings in making large cartoons in charcoal, of subjects which suited his fancy; ge^ nerally of a sublime cast. Amongst these was one of the dream of Attossa, from the Persian of TEschylus, which was conducted with the taste and feeling of the ancient Greek artists.

He was in general fortunate in the choice of his historical subjects; and certainly, in this respect, had far the advantage of his great rival, sir Joshua Reynolds; and no less so in the power of expression, which he scarcely ever failed to obtain; whilst the latter, in his historical pictures, has rarely been so happy. Reynolds gave beauty and grace to his figures: Romney imparted soul. The former delights the eye with the harmony and richness of colour, and beauty of effect; the latter thrills and gratifies the heart with truth and force of expression, in action and countenance; wrought with more simplicity, but with less art. His picture of Ophelia seated upon a branch of a tree, the breaking of which threatens her destruction in the stream below, whilst the melancholy distraction visible in her lovely face accounts for her apparent insensibility to danger, is a sufficient proof of this assertion. His composition also of “Titania and her Indian Votaress,” in the possession of Mr. Beckford; “Titania, Puck, and the Changeling,” at sir John Leicester’s, and others of his works of the like playful and interesting kind, might be brought forward to support it. In portraiture, however, the justly exalted president of the royal academy stood alone, and Romney was not able to cope with him. In the composition of his figures, our artist exhibited the taste he had acquired by the study of the antique; and he admirably varied the characters of his heads. The arrangement of drapery which he adopted, partook largely of the same style; and being well understood, was painted with great dexterity; though it must be confessed, that in form, it was not unfrequently better adapted to sculpture than to painting. His style of colouring was simple and broad. In that of his flesh he was very successful; exhibiting a great variety of complexion, with much warmth and richness. It was not always, however, that his pictures were complete in the general tone; but crude discordant colours were sometimes introduced in the back-grounds, which not being blended or broken into unison with the hue of the principal figures, interrupted the harmony of the whole. The executive part of his works was free, learned, and precise, without being trifling or minute, possessing great simplicity, and exhibiting a purity of feeling consonant with the style of his compositions. He aimed at the best of all principles in the imitation of nature, viz. to generalize its effects; he even carried it so far as to subject himself to the charge of negligence in the completion of his forms: but the truth of his imitation is sufficiently perfect to satisfy the minds of those who regard nature systematically, and hot individually, or too minutely. In a word, adds the critic whom we have principally followed in this character, every lover of art who knows how to appreciate truly what is most valuable in painting, will hold the name of llomney in increasing estimation, the more frequently and impartially he examines his productions.

, a celebrated professor of physic at Montpellier, was born in that city, September 27, 1507. After having practised in various places of inferior note, he went to Paris, learned Greek there, and returning to his native city, practised physic with great credit. So ardent was M. de Uondelet’s application to anatomy, that he dissected one of his own children, which gained him the character of an unnatural father. He died at Realmont, in Albigeois, July 18, 1566. He is principally celebrated for his treatise on fishes, in Latin, 1554, 2 torn. fol. and 1558, fol. in French. Of his medical works there is a collection printed at Geneva, 1628, 8vo, but they are not equal to the high reputation their author had acquired. It is this physician whom Rabelais ridicules under the name of Rondibilis. His life may be found in Joubert’s works.

, a French poet, of a noble family, was born in Vendomois, the same year that Francis I. was taken prisoner before Pavia that is, in 1524. This circumstance is what he himself affixes to the time of his birth; though from other passages in his works it might be concluded that he was not born till 1526. He was brought up at Paris, in the college of Navarre; but, taking some disgust to his studies, became a page of the duke of Orleans. This duke resigned him to the king of Scotland, James V. whom he attended from Paris into Scotland in 1537, and continued there two years, after which he resided about half a year in England. But the duke of Orleans took him again, and employed him in several negotiations. Ronsard accompanied Lazarus de Baif to the diet of Spire; and, in his conversations with that learned man, conceived a passion for letters. He learned Greek under Dorat with Antony de Baif, the son of Lazarus; and afterwards devoted himself entirely to poetry, in which he acquired great reputation. The kings Henry II. Francis

II. Charles IX. and Henry III. had a particular esteem for him, and became his liberal patrons. In 1562 he put himself at the head of some soldiers in Vendomois, and fought against the protestants, which occasioned the publication of some very satirical pieces against him at Orleans, in which he was represented as a priest: but he defended himself in verse, and denied his being an ecclesiastic. He had, however, some benefices in commendam; and, among others, the priory of St. Cosmas near Tours, where he died in 1585. Du Perron, afterwards cardinal, made his funeral oration; and a noble monument was erected there to his memory some years after. He was much afflicted with the gout, which, it is said, was owing to his debauched way of life. His poems consist of odes, hymns, elegies, sonnets, epigrams, and pieces of amatory poetry, not of the most chaste description. He was considered in his day as possessing great talents for poetry; but these are not so visible to the eye of modern criticism. His style is extremely harsh and obscure, which, it is said^ would have been more excusable, had he not been preceded by Marot. What learning he had appears in a pedantic affectation of allusions, examples, and words, drawn from Greek and Latin, which increase the obscurity of his style. Boileau justly says “It is the approbation of posterity alone which must establish the true merit of works. Whatever eclat a writer may make during his life, whatever eloges he may receive, we cannot conclude infallibly from this, that his works are excellent. False beauties, novelty of style, and a particular taste or manner of judging, which happens to prevail at that time, may raise a writer into high credit and esteem; and, in the next age, when the eyes of men are opened, that which was the object of admiration, shall be the object of contempt. We have a fine example of this in Ronsard, and his imitators, Du Bellay, Du Bartas, Desportes, who in the last age were admired by all the world, in this are read by nobody.” The best editions of Ronsard’s works are those by Binet, Paris, 1587, or 1604, 5 vols. 12mo, and by Richelet, 1623, 2 vols. fol.

, a brave naval officer, was born in Kent, 1650, of an ancient and honourable family. His father, sir William Rooke, knight, qualified him by a proper education for a liberal profession but was at last obliged to give way to his inclination to the navy. His first station was that of a volunteer, from which his merit raised him by regular steps to be vice-admiral, and one of the council to prince George of Denmark, lord high admiral. He had the command of several expeditions in the reigns of William and Anne, in which his conduct and courage were eminently displayed. The former appeared in his behaviour on the Irish station, when he was sent as commodore with a squadron to assist in the reduction of that kingdom; in his wise and prudent management when he preserved so great a part of the Smyrna fleet, which fortune had put into the hands of the French, who suffered themselves to be deprived of an immense booty by the superior skill of this admiral; but more particularly in the taking of Gibraltar, which was a project conceived and executed in less than a week, though it has since endured sieges of not only months but years, and more than once baffled the united forces of France and Spain. Of his courage he gave abundant testimonies, but especially in burning the French ships at La Hogue, and in the battle of Malaga, where he behaved with all the resolution of a British admiral; and, as he was first in command, was first also in danger; and all times must preserve the memory of his glorious action at Vigo.

He was chosen in several parliaments the representative for Portsmouth; but, in that house, his free independent spirit did not recommend him much to ministerial favour. An attempt was made to ruin him in king William’s esteem, and to get him removed from the admiralty-board; but that prince answered plainly, “I will not; sir George Rooke served me faithfully at sea, and I will never displace him for acting as he thinks most for the service of his country in the House of Commons:” an answer worthy of a British king, as it tends to preserve the freedom of our constitution, and the liberty of parliament. In 1701 he voted for Mr. Harley to be speaker of the House of Commons, in opposition to the court; which brought on him many severe reflections from the whig party, and attempts were made to obscure all the great actions that he did. From this period, Burnet never mentions him without the utmost prejudice and partiality. In his relation of the Vigo enterprize, he says he very unwillingly steered his cc-urse that way; and, without allowing the admiral any share of the honour of the action, only says, “the ships broke the boom, and forced the port,” as if they had done it without command, and Rooke had no concern in the matter. The taking of Gibraltar, an action in which the greatest bravery and military skill was shewn, he will have to be the effect of pure chance. Such was the prevalence of party spirit, that it obliged this brave commander to quit the service of his country, and to spend the latter part of his life in retirement. Perhaps, indeed, he was himself, in party matters, too warm and eager. His good conduct and courage, however, are unimpeachable. He was thrice married; and, by his second lady (Mrs. Luttrel) left one son.

He died Jan. 24, 1708-9, in his fifty-eighth year, and was buried in Canterbury cathedral, where a monument is erected to his memory. In his private life he was a good husband, and a kind master, lived hospitably towards his neighbours, and left behind him a moderate fortune; so moderate, that when he came to make his will it surprized those who were present; but sir George assigned the reason in a few words, “I do not leave much,” said he, i( but what I leave was honestly gotten it never cost a sailor a tear, or the nation a farthing." 1 Rooke (Lawrence), an English astronomer and geometrician, was born at Deptford, in Kent, 1623, and educated at Eton school, whence he removed to King’s college, Cambridge, in 1639. After taking the degree of M. A. in 1647, he retired for some time into the country, but in 1650 went to Oxford, and settled in Wadham college, that he might associate with Dr. Wilkins, and Mr. Seth Ward the astronomy professor; and also accompany Mr. Boyle in his chemical operations. After the death of Mr. Foster he was chosen astronomy professor in Gresham college, London, in 1652. He made some observations upon the comet at Oxford, which appeared in the month of December that year; which were printed by Mr. Seth Ward the year following. And, in 1655, Dr. Wallis publishing his treatise on conic sections, he dedicated that work to those two gentlemen. In 1657 Mr. Rooke was permitted to exchange the astronomy professorship for that of geometry. This step might seem strange, as astronomy still continued to be his favourite study; but it was thought to have been from the convenience of the lodgings, which opened behind the reading hall, and therefore were proper for the reception of those gentlemen after the lectures, who, in 1660, laid the foundation of the royal society. Most of those learned men who had been accustomed to assemble with him at Oxford, coining to London, joined with other philosophical gentlemen, and usually met at Gresham college to hear Mr. Rooke’s iectwes, and afterwards withdrew into his apartment; till their meetings were interrupted by the quartering of soldiers in the college in 1658. And after the royal society came to be formed into a regular body, Mr. Rooke was very zealous and serviceable in promoting that great and useful institution; though he did not live till it received its establishment by the royal charter.

The marquis of Dorchester, a patron of learning, and learned himself, used to entertain Mr. Rooke at his seat at Ilighgate after the restoration, and bring him every Wednesday in his coach to the Royal Society, which then met on that day of the week at Gresham college. But the last time Mr. Rooke was at Highgate, he walked from thence; and it being in the summer, he overheated himself, and taking cold after it, he was thrown into a fever, which cost him his life. He died at his apartments at Gresham college, June 27, 1662, in the fortieth year of his age. It was reckoned very unfortunate that his death happened the very night that he had for some years expected to finish his accurate observations on the satellites of Jupiter. When, he found his illness prevented him from making that observation, Dr. Pope says, he sent to the Society his request, that some other person, properly qualified, might be appointed for that purpose; so intent was he to the last onmaking those curious and useful discoveries, in which he had been so long engaged. He made a nuncupatory will, leaving what he had to Dr. Ward, the,n lately made bishop of Exeter: whom he permitted to receive what was due upon bond, if the debtors offered payment willingly, otherwise he would not have the bonds put in suit: “for,” said he, “as I never was in law, nor had any contention with, any man, in my life-time, neither would I be so after my death.”

Few persons have left behind them a more agreeable character than Mr. Rooke, from every person that was acquainted with him, or with his qualifications; and in nothing more than for his veracity: for what he asserted positively, might be fully relied on: but if his opinion was asked concerning any thing that was dubious, his usual answer was, “I have no opinion.” Mr. Hook has given this copious, though concise character of him: “I never was acquainted with any person who knew more, and spoke less, being indeed eminent for the knowledge and improvement of astronomy.” Dr. Wren and Dr. Seth Ward describe him as a man of profound judgment, a vast comprehension, prodigious memory, and solid experience. His skill in the mathematics was reverenced by all the lovers of those studies, and his perfection in many other sorts of learning deserves no less admiration; but above all, as another writer characterizes him, his extensive knowledge had a right influence on the temper of his mind, which had all the humility, calmness, strength, and sincerity of a sound philosopher. For more particulars of his character we may refer to Dr. Isaac Barrow’s oration at Gresham college. The only pieces which were published from his papers consist of “Observationes in Cometam, qui mense Decembri anno 1652 apparuit” printed by Dr. Seth Ward in his “Lectures on Comets,” 1653, 4to. “Directions for Seamen going to the East and West Indies,” which were drawn up at the appointment of the Royal Society, and inserted in their Transactions for 1665; “A Method for observing the Eclipses of the Moon,” in the Philos. Trans, for Feb. 1666. “A Discourse concerning the Observations of the Eclipses of the Satellites of Jupiter,” in the History of the Royal Society, p. 183; and “An Account of an Experiment made with Oil in a long Tube,” read to the Royal Society, April 23, 1662. By this experiment it was found, that the oil sunk when the sun shone out, and rose when he was clouded; the proportions of which are set down in the account.

, or Michael Angelo, an honorary name given him by Paul Sandby, was the son of Edward Rooker, an engraver, who died in 1774, and whose excellence lay in engraving architecture, particularly the section of St. Paul’s cathedral, from a drawing by Wale, which is his finest, and a very wonderful performance. Michael, who was born in 1743, after being taught the use of the graver by his father, was placed under the care of his father’s friend, Paul Sandby, to be instructed in drawing and painting landscape. He appeared first as an engraver, in which capacity he gave early proofs of ability, which were confirmed by his mature productions, excellent specimens of which may be seen in a view of Wolterton hall, Nottinghamshire, and in many other prints which he engraved. But his talents were not confined to the graver, for he also employed the pencil, and in 1772 exhibited a view of Temple Bar, as it then stood, which had considerable merit. He was for many years employed as principal scenerpainter for the little theatre in the Hay-market; and in the summer season generally visited some part of the country, where he selected views, of which he afterwards made finished drawings; so that at his death he possessed a very numerous collection of topographical drawings of great merit. It is, however, on his powers as an engraver that his fame principally depends. He was for many years engaged to engrave the head-pieces to the Oxford almanacks, for which he received 50l. each, a large sum in those days,, although not unsuitable to his merit, or the liberality of his employers. But this engagement he relinquished a fevr years before his death, because he took a dislike to the practice of engraving. The Oxford views were executed from his own drawings, and exhibit some of the best and most accurate that ever were taken of that beautiful city.

He died suddenly, after a lingering illness, at his lodgings in Dean-street, Soho, March 3, 1801, about fiftyeight years of age, and was buried at St. Giles’s-in-theFields. His drawings, of which he left a large collection, produced, at a sale of four days, the sum of 1240l. He was chosen among those who were elected the first associates of the Royal Academy. There was something rough in his manners, but he was a man of integrity.

, a French poet, was born in 1672, at Marseilles, and employed twenty years as editor of the Mercure de France, in which he acquired considerable reputation. He died October 3, 1744, at Paris. He wrote the words of the operas, viz. “Medée et Jason,” and “Theonoe,” though they pass for the abbe Pellegrin’s, and made a very valuable collection of prints, &c. a curious catalogue of which was given by the late M. Gersaint. M. de la Roque was created knight of the military order of St. Louis after the battle of Malplaquet, where he was wounded, having taken the post, which one of the king’s guards had just quitted, from a presentiment that he should be killed in it. His brother John de la Roque assisted him in the “Mercury,” from 1722, wheM he first undertook it, and died at Paris, December 28, 1745, aged eighty-four. He had travelled into the East, and left the following works “Vo'iage de la Palestine,” 12mo; “Voyage de Syrie, et du Mont Liban, avec un Abrege de la Vie de M. du Chasteuil,” 2 vols. 12mo. He had aiso promised to publish his “Voyage Litteraire de Normandie,” but it has not appeared.

, a pious and learned Protestant clergyman, was born in 1685, at Canne, a small town in Upper Languedoc. He was appointed minister of the French church at Basil, in 1710, in which city he acquired the highest reputation by his integrity and his writings, and died there, 1748. Those of his communion greaily value his very numerous works, the principal of which are, “Le Pasteur Evangelique,” 4to. This his admirers praise in the highest terms, and continually recommend the study of it to their young divines. He also wrote “Sermons sur divers sujets de morale;” a theological and critical dissertation, in which the author endeavours to prove that the soul of Jesus Christ was a pure and glorious intelligence in heaven before its union with a human body. This opinion, which is far from new, being attacked by M. de la Chapelle, in torn. 24 of “La Defense du Christianism,” M. lloques answered them in the journal printed 1640, at Geneva. He also was editor of an enlarged edition of Moreri’s Dictionary, Basil, 1731, 6 vols. fol.; the new edition of “Martin’s Bible,” 2 vols. 4to; an edition of M. Basnage’s “Dissertations on Duels, and the Orders of Knighthood,” 1740, augmented several pieces in the “Helvetic Journal,” and in the “Bibliotheque Gerrmmique,”

, an eminent painter, was the son of a land surveyor, and born at Naples in 1615. He was brought up under Francisco Francanzano, a painter of that city, and his relation, but was forced to get his bread by exposing his pictures to sale in stalls in the streets. Lanfranco, the painter, happening to pass by, bought one, and to encourage Salvator bespoke more. Salvator placing himself afterwards under Ribera, with whom he lived till he was twenty, and his father then dying, Ribera took him with him to Rome. After four years’ stay in that city, dur^ ing which Salvator made considerable progress in his art, cardinal Brancacci carried him to his bishopric of Viterbo, where he painted several pieces. He staid some time at Naples, but gave the preference to Rome, and wherever he went he made himself' friends by his picturesque and poetic talents. As he notv began to have a name, prince John Charles of Medici, being at Rome, carried him to Florence, where he staid nine years, dividing his time between painting and poetry: he had a particular turn for satiric poetry; and understood music. The literati at Florence were highly delighted with his conversation; and his house was a kind of academy, where plays written by himself were often represented, and he constantly played some part in them.

He painted many pieces for the grand duke and the prince his son, who rewarded him generously. The MafTei carried him to their seat at Volterra, where he painted several pictures, residing there upwards of a year: but literature took up the greatest part of his time, and it was here that he composed his satires, of which there have been several editions.

After his return from Florence he fixed at Rome, where for a long time he would sell none of his paintings but at an extravagant price. He did not, however, like to be called a landscape painter, his ambition being for the character of an able history painter. He paiuted several pieces for the churches, which are indisputable proofs of his capacity for history: but his business was frequently interrupted by his turn for poetic satire, which he often interspersed with songs, and took a pleasure in reciting them. The philosopher appeared in his manner of living; and he endeavoured to shew it also in his paintings, always conveying in them some moral. Such was his iove of liberty, that he declined entering into the service of any prince, though often invited. He was much of an humourist, and loved a practical joke. When the painters of Rome had refused to receive him into the academy of St. Luke, on a holiday, when he knew they were to meet, and several paintings were exposed in the diurch of that saint, he caused one of his own to be carried thither, in which he had concealed his manner; and shewing it, told them that it was done by a surgeon to whom hey had judged very ill in refusing a place in their academy, having the greatest need of one to set the limbs which they daily dislocated or distorted. Another time, finding a harpsichord on which he had sat down to play, good for nothing, “I'll make,” says he, “this harpsichord worth at least 100 crowns.” He painted on the lid a piece which immediately fetched that money. A gentleman desirous of having the pictures of his friends in his gallery, desired Salvator to draw them. He did it, but made all the portraits caricatures, in which he excelled: but as he drew himself, among the rest, in the same manner, none could be offended.

He was a man of a very generous spirit, and worked for reputation, rather than gain. A man of great wealth had been long treating with him for a large landscape, and every time he came Salvator raised his price 100 crowns. The gentleman expressing his surprise, Salvator told him, that with all his riches he could not purchase it; and to put an end to the other’s importunities, destroyed it before his face. The constable Colonna bespoke a large painting, on which Salvator bestowed great pains, and delivered it, with out asking any price. The constable generously sent him a purse of gold. Salvator, seeing his work rewarded so liberally, sent the constable a second piece, which was no less generously paid for than the first: a third, and a fourth followed; and at each time the constable augmented the sum. On receiving a fifth painting, he sent Salvator two purses equal to the first, and thanked him; but told him the match was not equal; for he could not so easily fill purses with gold, as Salvator could cover canvas with fine paintings.

After a long stay at Rome, Salvator was seized with a dropsy; and during his illness he married his mistress, a Florentine, by whom he had had several children. It was with the utmost reluctance he consented to this marriage. He had long known her to be a bad woman of low birth, and she had always behaved rather like a mistress over him, than a servant. He knew that he had shared her favours with several others: and the thoughts of her character made her, at this time, the object of his aversion; because he foresaw the loss of his honour (if he took her for a wife) of which he was extremely tender. He was persuaded, however, by the importunities of his confessor. A tedious illness made no alteration in his characteristic humour. He ended his daysatRome, in 1673, aged fifty-eight.

In both the sister arts of poesy and painting, he was esteemed one of the most excellent masters that Italy produced in the seventeenth century. In the first, his province was satire; in the latter, landscapes, battles, havens, c. with little figures, which are still admired, and are purchased at high prices. Mr. Fuseli says that, without choice of form in design, or much propriety of conception, by picturesque combination, concordant tones, facility and dash of pencil, he obtained a conspicuous place among historic painters. Though his talent was better adapted to smaller dimensions, he knew how to fill an altar-piece or a large canvas with striking and terrific effects, of which the conspiracy of Catiline, in the house of Martelli at Florence, is a powerful instance. In landscape he was a genius. His choice is the original scenery of Abruzzo, which he made often, though not always, a vehicle of terror: he delights in ideas of desolation, solitude, and danger, impenetrable forests, rocky or storm-lashed shores; in lonely dells leading to dens and caverns of banditti, alpine ridges, trees blasted by lightning or sapped by time, or stretching their extravagant arms athwart a murky sky, louring or thundering clouds, and suns shorn of their beams. His figures are wandering shepherds, forlorn travellers, wrecked mariners, banditti lurking for their prey, or dividing their spoils. But this genuine vein of sublimity or terror forsook him in the pursuit of witcheries, apparitions, and spectres; here he is only grotesque or capricious. His celebrated witch of Endor is a hag; and cauldrons, skeletons, bats, toads, and herbs, are vainly accumulated to palliate the want of dignity and pathos in Saul, and of sublimity in the apparition.

Among some musical Mss. purchased at Rome in 1770, was the music-book of Salvator Rosa, in which are contained, not only airs and cantatas set by Carissimi, Cesti, Luigi, Cavalli, Legrenzi, Capellini, Pasqualini, and Bandini, of which the words of several are by Salvator Rosa; but eight entire cantatas written, set, and transcribed by this celebrated painter himself. The book was purchased of his great grand-daughter, who inhabited the house in which her ancestor lived and died. The hand-writing was ascertained by collation with his letters and satires, of which the originals are still preserved by his descendants. The historians of Italian poetry, though they often mention Salvator as a satirist, seem never to have heard of his lyrical productions. This book is fully described by Dr. Burney.

, Ruzelin, or Rucelin, a canon of Compeigne, who flourished about the end of the eleventh century, was born in Bretagne. He was a man well versed in the learning of the times, a profound dialectician, and the most eminent doctor of the sect called Nominalists, and by applying some of their tenets to the subject of the Trinity excited a warm controversy in France about 1089. He held it inconceivable and impossible that the son of God should assume the human nature alone, i. e. without the Father and the Holy Ghost becoming incarnate also, unless by the three persons in the Godhead were meant three distinct objects, or natures existing separately (such as three angels or three distinct spirits), though endued with one will and acting by one power. When it was insinuated to Roscellinus, that this manner of reasoning led directly to Tritheism, or the doctrine of three Gods, he answered boldly, that the existence of three Gods might be asserted with truth, were not the expression harsh, and contrary to the phraseology generally received. He was, however, obliged to retract this error in a council held at Soissons, in 1092; but he resumed it when the council was dismissed and the danger apparently over. He was, however, assaulted on account of his doctrine, and therefore took refuge in England, where he excited a controversy of another kind, by maintaining, among other things, that persons born out of lawful wedlock ought to be deemed incapable of admission to holy orders. Some even of the prelates being in this condition, Roscellinus made very powerful enemies, and among others Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, and was finally obliged to quit England. He then returned to France, and by propagating his doctrine concerning the Trinity, occasioned such contests as made him glad to retire to Aquitaine, where he passed the rest of his days unmolested. He is supposed to have died about 1106, Such is the account given of his doctrines by John, his accuser, in a letter to Anselm, published by Baluzius in his “Miscellanea,” and by others who, however, as the annotator on Mosheim remarks, were the inveterate enemies of Roscellinus, and perhaps comprehended his meaning imperfectly, or perverted it wilfully. But as none of the writings of this metaphysical ecclesiastic are extant, we cannot form any other notion of the controversy than appears from the testimony of his enemies.

, Quintius, a Roman actor, was born at Lanuvium, and became so celebrated on the stage that every actor of superior eminence to his contemporaries has been since called a Roscius. It is said that he was not without some personal defects; particularly his eyes were so distorted that he always appeared on the stage with a mask; but the Romans frequently obliged him to take it off, and overlooked the deformities of his face, that they might the better hear his elegant pronunciation. In private life he was so much esteemed as to be raised to the rank of senator. When falsely accused, Cicero, who had been one of his pupils, undertook his defence, and cleared him of the malevolent aspersions of his enemies, in an elegant oration extant in his works. Roscius wrote a treatise, which, however, has not descended to our times, comparing with great success and learning, the profession of the orator with that of the comedian. He died about 61 before Christ. His daily pay for acting is said to have been 1000 denarii, or 32l. 6s. of our money, though Cicero makes his yearly income amount to the enormous sum of 48,434l. 10s.

Dr. Burney observes, that there are several passages in Cicero concerning Roscius, which, if the ancient actors, Romans as well as Greeks, did not declaim in musical notes, would be wholly unintelligible. He tells us (de Orat), that Roscius had always said, when age should diminish his force, he would not abandon the stage, but would proportion his performance to his powers, and make music conform to the weakness of his voice; which really happened: for the same author informs us (de Leg.), that in his old age he sung in a lower pitch of voice, and made the tibicines play slower. As there were combats, or contests, established by the ancients for the voice, as well as for other parts of the Gymnastice those who taught the management of the voice were called φονασχοι, phonasci; and under their instructions were put all those who were destined to be orators, singers, and comedians. Roscius had an academy for declamation, at which he taught several persons, preparatory to their speaking in public, or going on the stage. These are proofs sufficient of the dramatic declamation of the ancients being uttered in mumusical tones, agreeing with those of the musical instruments by which they were accompanied.

, a worthy French priest, a doctor in divinity and member of the academy of Besançon, was born at Quingey, Feb. 7, 1716. Of his early history we find no account, previous to his appearing as an author in 1767, when he published, 1. “Traité elementaire de Morale,” 2 vols. 12mo, which had the year before gained the prize offered by the academy of Dijon, and was thought a performance of very superior merit. 2. “La Morale evangelique, comparée à celle des differentes sectes de religion et de philosophie,” 1772, 2 vols. 12mo. 3. “Traité sur le Providence,” which was read in ms. and approved by cardinal de Choiseul, previous to its being published. 4. “L'Esprit des Peres, comparé aux plus celebres ecrivains, sur les matieres interessantes de la philosophie et de la religion,” 1791, 3 vols. 12mo. In this work he attempts to prove that the fathers are unanimous in all the essential doctrines of religion. M. Rose was also a good mathematician, and in 1778 sent to the academy of sciences at Paris, a “Memoire sur une courbe à double courbure,” of which it is sufficient to say that it was approved by La Place, and, printed in 1779 at Besançon. In the same year he sent to the same academy, a memoir, which had been read in that of Besançon, relative to “the passage of Venus over the Sun.” In 1791 he published a small work on “the organization of the Clergy,” and left some valuable papers in manuscript. He appears to have escaped the dangers of the revolution, although an orthodox and pious priest. He died August 12, 1805, and the tears of the poor spoke his eulogium.

, a learned barrister, and a very amiable man, was born June 20, 1767, at Chiswick in Middlesex, where his father Dr. William Rose, a native of Scotland, conducted an academy during many years, with considerable emolument and unblemished reputation. Dr. Rose was known in the literary world as one of the earliest writers in the Monthly Review, and as the author of a very elegant translation of Sallust. He had originally been an assistant to Dr. Doddridge at Northampton, and married a daughter of Dr. Samuel Clark, of St. Alban’s, a divine of talents and eminence among the dissenters. She bore him many children; but Samuel was his only surviving son, and after a successful education under his father, was sent in 1784 to the university of Glasgow. There he resided in the house of the late professor Richardson, a philosopher and poet, between whom and his pupil, a friendship and correspondence commenced which terminated only with the life of the latter. Mr. Rose also gained the esteem of several other learned men in Scotland, with whom he afterwards maintained a correspondence. Nor was this wonderful, for his manners were uncommonly amiable and attractive, and his studies amply justified the respect paid to him. He gained every prize, except one, for which he. contended as a student of the university.

After passing three winters at Glasgow, he attended thecourts of law in Edinburgh, and here obtained an introduction to the celebrated Dr. Adam Smith, who was so highly pleased with him, that as long as he resided in Edinburgh,, Mr. Rose was constantly invited to the literary circle of that eminent philosopher. His subsequent intimacy with Cowper appears in Mr. Hayley’s interesting volumes, and perhaps Cowper’s visit to Mr. Rose in Chancery-lane is one of the most affecting incidents in the eventful history of that poet. Mr. Rose had the misfortune to lose his ex* cellent father, while he was pursuing his studies in the North; but a loss so unseasonable did not induce him to shrink from the first irksome labours of an arduous profes^ sion. Having entered his name at LincolnVInn, Nov. 6, 3786, he devoted himself to the law, for which he seemed equally prepared by nature and education. With a mind acute and powerful, with a fund of classical learning, and of general knowledge, with an early command of language, and with manners, as we have already noticed, peculiarly conciliating, he had every thing to hope. Though his spirit was naturally ardent, he submitted to the most tire-r some process of early discipline in his profession, placing himself under a special pleader in 1787, and attending him three years. Being called to the bar in 1796, he attached himself to the home circuit, and to the sessions of Sussex. His first opportunity of displaying professional ability occurred in Chichester, where, having a clergyman for his client, he conciliated the esteem of his audience byexpatiating with propriety, eloquence, and success, on the character of a divine. He was still more admired for the rare talent of examining a witness with a becoming ture of acuteness and humanity; and upon the whole his friends were persuaded, from this first display of his talents^ that he was destined to rise l>y sure, though slow degrees, to the highest honours of his profession.

In this they were unfortunately disappointed. Though like most men of middling stature, he possessed a considerable portion of bodily strength and agility, his constitution was naturally delicate, and symptoms of decline appeared very visibly in the end of 1803. His complaint was severely aggravated by attending the Sussex sessions in 1804, where he caught a cold so severe that it produced a rheumatic fever in the head, and within a few months his frame and countenance discovered the most alarming appearances of a rapid and incurable decay. In the course of the autumn, he tried the air of the Kentish coast; but returned to London in a state so far from recovery, that his physicians considered his disorder as a confirmed hectic, which after much lingering pain, borne by him with uncommon patience, proved fatal, at his house in Chancery-lane, Dec. 20, 1804, in his thirty-eighth year.

Mr. Rose married in 1791, a. daughter of Dr. Farr, physician to the Royal-hospital, near Plymouth, a lady, who with a moderate portion, brought him the more valuable dower of an elevated understanding. By this lady he had four sons. An ardent love of literature had ever been a characteristic of Mr. Rose, and he gave a signal proof of it in the closing scene of his life. He had been requested to revise the collected works and life of Goldsmith, published in 1801. In the course of his three weeks confinement to the bed of death, he corrected some inaccuracies in that interesting publication, and sent his corrections with the expressive farewell of a dying man to the publishers. In 1792 he produced an improved edition of lord chief baron Corny n’s “Reports,” and in 1800, in a quarto edition, "The Digest of the Laws of England/' by the same eminent lawyer, corrected and continued inscribing the first to lord Thurlow, and the second to lord Lpughborough.

, a painter and entomologist, the descendant of a decayed noble family, was born in 1705 near Arnstadt, and settled at Nuremberg as a miniature-painter, but particularly distinguished himself as one of the greatest insect-painters. The works which he published from his coloured designs will not only, whilst they last, interest the classic entomologist, but every one whose taste for form and colour in animal nature is not confined to men, quadrupeds, or birds. He treated objects which required the minuteness of Denner, with equal truth and better judgment, in a style of energy and animated grandeur which approaches to history. As a writer he is as authentic and faithful as tiresome and prolix; but though he lived in the infancy of the science, the simple and constant characteristics by which he distinguished the classes of the genera he represented and described, have not yet been superseded by the complex and involved systems Of his successors. He died in 1759.

, an eminent physician, whose treatment df Linna3Us we have already noticed (see Linnaeus, p; 297), was born Feb. 1, 1706, at a village near Gottenburgh, and was sent to the college of that place in 1718. His father was a divine, and he was intended for the same profession, biit gave a decided preference to medicine, whidh he studied at Lund tinder Kilian Stobseus. After residing four years at this university he went to Stockholm, and became tutor in a nobleman’s family. la 1728, when the assessor Martin died at Upsal, Rosen became substitute professor of physic; but before he took tipon him this office^ he made a tour through Germany, Switzerland, France, and Holland, and took his doctor’s degree at Harderwyk in 1730. In the spring of the following year he entered on his professorship at Upsal, became member of the academy of sciences there, and was received a member of the royal academy of Stockholm in 1739. In 1740 he became ordinary professor in room of Rudbeck; in 1757, he was created a knight of the order of the polar star, and was ennobled in 1762, when queen Louisa Ulrica gave him the name of Rosenstein. He gairied great celebrity as physician to the royal family of Sweden, and received in 1769^ for his inoculation of some of them for the small pox, a reward of 100,000 rix dollars from the states of the kingdom. In his last illness, his animosity to Linnreus was so subdued, that he requested the medical assistance of that celebrated man. He died July 16, 1773. The academy of Stockholm struck a medal to his memory, with the inscription, “Sscculi decus incferlibile nostri.” He had a brother, who was also eminent as a physician and botanist; and in honour of both, Thunberg named a plant Rosenia. Dr. Nicholas Rosen’s principal works, which were all published in the Swedish language, are, “A medical repository of Domestic Medicine,” published by order of the queen dowager, &c. “A Treatise on the Diseases of Children,” which has been translated into German, English, Dutch, French, and Italian. He contributed likewise several papers to the memoirs of the academy of Stockholm.

, in German Roszfelit, an able antiquary, was born at Eisenac in Thuringia about 1550. He was educated in the university of Jena; in 1579, became sub-rector of a school at Ratisbon; and, afterwards was chosen minister of a Lutheran church at Wickerstadt, in the duchy of Weimar. In 1592, he was invited to Naumburg in Saxony, to be preacher at the catli-edral church; and there continued till 1626, when he died of the plague. He was a very learned man, and the first who composed a body of Roman antiquities, entitled “Antiquitatum Romanarum libri decem,” printed at Basil in 1585, foho. It was at first censured by some critics, but is ably defended by Fabricius in his “Bibliographia Antiqnaria.” It went through several editions; the latter of which have large additions by Dempster. That of Amsterdam, 1635, in 4to, is printed with an Elzevir letter, upon a good paper, and has the following title: ' Joannis Rosini Antiquitatum Romanarum corpus absolutissimum. Cum notis doctissimis ac locupletissimis Thomae Dempsteri J. C. Huic postremae editioni accuratissimae accesserunt Pauli Manutii libri If. de Legibus & de Senatu, cum Andreoe Schotti Klectis. I. De Priscis Romanis Gentibus ac Familiis. 2. De Tribubus Rom. xxxv. Rusticis atque Urbanis. 3. De ludis festisque Romanis ex Kalendario Vetere. Cum Indrce locupletissimo, & anneis figuris accuratissimis.“His other works are,” Exempla pietatis illustris, seu vitae trium Saxonirc Ducum electorum, Frederici II. Sapient 'is Joannis Constantly et Joannis Frederici Magnanimi“Jena, 1602, 4to a continuation of” Drechsleri Chronicon,“Leipsic, 1594, 8vo;” Anti-Turcica Lutberi," in German, a collection of some writings of Luther of the prophetic kind, against the TurksLeipsic, 1596, 8vo.

, a voluminous author of the seventeenth century, was born in 1590 in Scotland, and became a divine, but left that country in Charles I.'s reign, and was appointed one of his majesty’s chaplainsj and master of the free-school at Southampton. He died in 1654, leaving a handsome bequest to the above school, from which it is said he had retired for some time before his death, and passed the remainder of his days in the family of the Henleys of Hampshire, to whom he left a large library and a considerable sum of money, part of which was concealed among his books. Echard says “he was a busy, various, and voluminous writer, who by his pen and ether ways made a considerable noise and figure in these* times, and who so managed his affairs, that in the midst of these storms, he died very rich, as appears from the several benefactions he made.” We have a list before us of thirty pieces by this author, but whether published separately, each forming a volume, we know not. Most of them occur very seldom. Among them are some whose dates we have recovered, but cannot vouch for the accuracy of the list. 1. “Comment, de Terrae motu refutatum/' Lond. 1634, 4to. 2.” The new Planet no Planet^ or, the earth no wandering star,“ibid. 1640, 4to, reprinted in 1646. 3.” Virgilius Evangelizans;“ibid. 1634, 8vo. This is a cento on the life of Christ, collected entirely from Virgil. Granger says it is ingenious, and was deservedly admired. 4.” Medicus medicatus, or, the physician’s religion cured,“ibid. 1645, 8vo. Th;s was one of the pieces in which he attacked the reputation of sir Thomas Browne in his” ReJigio Medici.“We find him returning to the charge afterwards in a work entitled, 5.” Refutation of Dr. Browne’s Vulgar Errors,“ibid. 1652, 8vo. 6.” Observations upon sir Kenelm Digby’s Discourse on the nature of Bodies,“ibid. 1645, 4to. 7.” The picture of the Conscience,“ibid. 1646, 12mo. 8.” The Muses’ Interpreter,“ibid. 1646, 8vo. 9.” Arcana Microcosmi,“ibid. 1651 and 1652, 12mo and 8vo. 10.” Observations upon Hobbes’s Leviathan,“ibid. 1653, 12mo. 11.” Observations upon sir Walter Raleigh’s History of the World,“ibid. 12mo. After this he published” A Continuation“of that history, which Granger calls his” great work;“but adds, that it is like a piece of bad Gothic tacked to a magnificent pile of Roman architecture, which serves to heighten the effect of it, while it exposes its own deficiency in strength and beauty. 12.” An Epitome“of the same history. 13.” A View of all Religions,“the work for which he is best known, and which has passed through variotfs editions, the sixth in 1683. It had the merit of being the first compilation of the kind in our language, and attained a great degree of popularity. 14.” Abridgment and translation of John Wollebius’s Christian divinity,“ibid. 1657, 8vo. 15*” Three Decades of Divine Meditations,“no date. This is one of his poetical works, and valued in the” Bibliotheca Anglo-Poetica“at Si. tis. 16.” Mel Helreonium, or, Poetical Honey gathered out of the weeds of Parnassus, &c.“ibid. 1642, 8vo. This, of which an account is given by Mr. Park in the” Censura Literaria,“is an attempt to spiritualize the Greek and Roman mythology. In moral and metre it resembles Quarles. Of the following works we have no dates:” De rebus Judaicis, libri quatuor,“in hexameter verse;” Rasura tonsoris,“prose;” Chymera Pythagoria;“”Meditations upon Predestination;“” Questions upon Genesis;“” Melissomachia;“”Four books of Epigrams,“in Latin elegiacs” Mystagogus poeticus“”ColloquiaPlantina;“” Chronology,“in English” Christiados poematis libri tredecim," with others, which seem of doubtful authority.

, a learned Italian, who assumed and is generally known by the name of Janus Njcius Erythræus, was born at Rome, of a noble, but not opulent family, about 1577. He studied in the college of the Jesuits, and before he was nineteen years of age had made such progress in the law, that he was permitted to give lessons on the subject. These were so much admired by a magistrate of eminence, that he appointed Rossi his auditor; but as this gentleman died the same year, all his hopes from his patronage were disappointed. The law, however, still holding out the prospect of those honours to which he aspired, he omitted no opportunity of increasing his knowledge under the direction of Lepidus Piccolomini, one of the most famous lawyers of his time, and who advised him to turn pleader; but Piccolomini dying soon after, Rossi was so discouraged by this second disappointment that, as he had devoted himself to the study of the law rather from ambition than liking, he now determined to employ his time in the study of the belles lettres. With this view he became a member of the academy of the Umoristi, where he read several of his compositions, the style of which was so much admired by Marcel Vestri, secretary of the briefs to pope Paul V., that he invited Rossi to his house, to assist in drawing up the briefs, and with a view that he should be his successor in case of himself rising to higher preferment. Rossi soon made himself useful in this office, but unfortunately Vestri died in about eight months, and Rossi was again left unemployed, Many expedients he tried, and made many applications, but without success, and his only consolation, we are told, he derived from his vanity, which suggested to him that persons in office would not employ him, from a consciousness of their inferiority to him, and a jealousy of his supplanting them. It appears, however, that a certain satirical and arrogant temper was more to blame; for this was what he could not easily repress.

At length, in 1608, when he was in his thirty-first year, the cardinal Andrew Peretti took him into his service, as secretary, and with him he lived near twenty years, that is, until the cardinal’s death, in 1628. Rossi tells us in one of his letters that he accepted this situation much against his will, and remained in it only because he could obtain no other; and complain* of the little care the cardinal took to promote his dependents, and his general want of liberality towards them. His residence here, however, appears to have cured him of all his ambition, and he resolved for the future to devote himself to study only. From this time accordingly, he was employed in perusing the scriptures and the fathers, and in the composition of his various works; and that he might be enabled to enjoy all this in quiet, he went to a retired part of Rome, where he afterwards built a small church dedicated to St. Mary. In some of his works he styles himself a Roman citizen, and a commissary of the water of Marana; but, according to one of his letters to Fabio Chjgi, afterwards pope Alexander VIL, he neither knew what the duty of that office was, what this water of Marana was, where it came from, whither it flowed, or what benefit the people of Rome derived from it, except that he had been told it turned some mills. There was, however, an annual salary annexed, which he found not inconvenient. He died Nov. 15, 1647, and was interred in the church which he built for the use of the hermits of the congregation of Peter of Pisa, whom also he made his heirs. His first publication is entitled< Eudemiae libri Decem/* Cologne (Leyden), 1645. To this, which is a bitter satire on the corrupt manners of the Romans, he prefixed his assumed name of Janus Nicius Erythraeus. His other works consist of “Dialogues,” religious tracts, orations, and letters; but that for which he is most known is his “Pinacotheca imaginum illustrjum doctrinse vcl ingenii laude virorum, qui uuctore superstite diem suum ohierunt,” in three parts, Cologn, 1643—1648, reprinted at Leipsic in 1692, and in 1729. As containing many particulars of contemporary history, this is a work necessary to be consulted, but it contains more opinions than facts, and his criticisms are often injudicious.

, a learned Dane, was born Aug. 30, 1671, at Kraagerop, a country seat belonging to his lather, whose heir he became in 1684. Great care was taken of his education by his guardians, and after studying, some time at the university of Copenhagen, it was recommended to him to visit other universities, where eminent professors were to be found. He accordingly set out in 1690, and spt-nt ten years in extending hi* knowledge of the belles lettres, civil law, &c. and had for his masters Morliof, Gr&vius, Gronovius, &c. While at Leyden in 169.'5, he published “Delicise quorundam poetarnm Danorum,” 2 vols. 12mo. He passed a considerable time in England, particularly at Oxford, for the s;>ke of the ms treasures in the Bodleian library, and employed himself much in reading and copying Greek Mss. He afterwards continued the same researches among the libraries of Paris, where he resided for four years, and applied with ardour to the study of the oriental languages. Among the Mss. which he copied in Paris, were the letters of the celebrated sophist Libanius, a good number of which he had also found in England, and communicated these for Wolf’s edition of that author, published at Amsterdam in 1739. Both in France and Italy, which he next visited, he made Jprge purchases of valuable Mss. On his return home in 1700, the king made him counsellor of justice, and keeper of the private archives. In 1710 he was made counsellor of state, and, some years after, justiciary of the supreme tribunal. In 1721 he was appointed first secretary of the Danish chancery, but lost this office in 1725 by the machinations of some enemies who were jealous of his high favour at court. Being now obliged to leave Copenhagen, he sold his fine library, reserving only a few useful books which might divert his time during his retirement. This library contained about 5000 printed books, and 1068 manuscripts, as appears by the sale catalogue published at Copenhagen in 1726. His disgrace, however, did not last long. Having effectually cleared up his character, the king, Frederick IV. made him, in 1727, baillie of Anderskow, which post he retained until 1730, He then retired to his estate at Kraagerop, and employed his time in study. He was about to put the finishing hand to his “Lexicon Jinguae Danicae,” when he died suddenly April 26, 1745. He was editor of the works of Andrew Bordingius, a much esteemed Danish poet, which were published in 1735, 4to, and had the principal hand in the “Enchiridion studiosi, Arabice conscriptum a Borhaneddino Alzernouchi, &c.” published by Adrian Reland at Utrecht in 1710. He assisted in other learned works, particularly Duker’s Thucydides.

, a learned ecclesiastical antiquary, was born at Utrecht in 1569, and entered the society of the Jesuits at Doway in Flanders, when he was twenty years of age. His taste led him to examine the libraries of the monasteries in that city, until he was called to be professor of philosophy and divinity, first at Doway, and afterwards at Antwerp, where he attained very considerable reputation. He died in 1629, at the age of sixty. He published, in 1607, “Fasti Sanctorum quorum Vitae in Belgicis Bibliothecis Man use rip tee asservantur,” which he intended as a specimen of a larger work, and which was the prelude of the immense collection by Bollandus and others, under the title of “Acjta Sanctorum.” He was author of many other works, among which is “An Account of the Hermits of Egypt and Palestine,” “An Ecclesiastical History from the time of Christ to pope Urban VIII.” 2 vols. folio; and “The History of the Belgic Church.” In none of these did he ever rise above the prejudices of his order, but shewed himself the zealous advocate of superstition and credulity, while he treated those who differed from him with very little respect.

, a very celebrated Dutch poet, was born Oct. 1645, of a distinguished family at Amsterdam. He went into the army during the Dutch war in 1673; but having served two years, retired to a beautiful country house he had on the Vecht, and devoted himself wholly tq study and poetry. He afterwards took a journey to Paris, and on his return home married Ann Adrianna de Salingre, who left him a widower with two daughters in 1689. He died of the small-pox Nov. 3, 17 10, aged sixty-six. His works are, “The Life of William III.” king of England; an epic poem in eight books, much admired by his countrymen; and several other poems in Dutch, Lewarden, 1715, 4to. Rotgans, Vondel, and Antonides, are the three most celebrated Dutch poets.

, a celebrated French poet, was born August 21, 1609, at Dreux. The merit of his come-; dies and tragedies gained the favour of cardinal de Richelieu, who gave him a pension and what was a higher ho-? nour, the famous Peter Corneille called him his father in tragedy, and highly valued his works. It is said that Rotrou lived at a great expence, and when he was distressed for money, could compose a piece in two months. He purchased a civil office, in the bailiwic of Dreux, and held it till his death, which happened at Drenx? June 28, 1650. This author left thirty-seven dramatic pieces, among which “Antigone,” and “Venceslas,” are the most esteemed. The best of them may be found in the “Theatre Francois,” Paris, 1737, 12 vols. 12mo; but it is very difficult to procure a complete set of his works. -When all the poets combined against the “Cid,” Rotrou alone refused to humour cardinal Richelieu’s jealousy, though he received a pension of 600 livres from him, and continued always the admirer and zealous partizan of Corneille. When settled at Dreux, he gained the esteem of the whole province by his integrity, prudent conduct, and piety. That city being visited by an epidemical disorder, his friends at Paris pressed him in the most earnest maruier to quit so dangerous a situation, and save his life; but he replied, that be could not answer it to his conscience to follow their advice, because he was the only person who could keep things in. any order at that time, ending his letter with the following words: “Not but that the hazard I run is very great, for while I write the bells are tolling for the twenty-second person who has died this day. They will toll for me when It pleases God.” 'He was attacked himself some days after, and died, as the French biographers express themselves, witht&e most fervent sentiments of religion and piety.

, a very eminent sculptor, was a native of Lyons in France; but of his early history no memoirs have been discovered. He appears to have come to England, about the time that Rysbrach’s fame was at its height, and became a very formidable rival to that excellent artist, who had at the same time to contend with the growing merit of Scheemaker. Roubiliac is said, however, to have had little business until sir HJdward Walpole recommended him to execute half the busts at Trinity-college, Dublin; and, by the same patron’s interest, he was employed on the fine monument of the general John duke of Argyle, in Westminster-abbey, on which the statue of eloquence is particularly graceful and masterly; but it has been thought that his fame was most completely fixed by his statue of Handel in Vauxhallgardens. Two of his principal works are the monuments of the duke and duchess of Montague in Northamptonshire, well performed and magnificent, although perhapg wanting in simplicity. His statue of George J. in the Senate-bouse at Cambridge, is well executed; as is that of their chancellor, Charles duke of Somerset, except that it is in a Vandyke-dress, which might not be the fault of the sculptor. His statue of sir Isaac Newton, in the chapei of Trinity-college, has always been greatly admired; but lord Orford objects, that the air is a little too pert for so grave a man. This able artist died Jan. 11, 1762, and was buried in the parish of St. Martin’s in the Fields, where he had lived.

Mr. Scott of Crown-street, Westminster, had a sketch of Roubiliac’s head, in oil, by himself, which he painted ft little before his death. The late Edward Bridgen, esq. had an excellent model of a monument for general Wolfe, by Roubiliac, which was his last work, and was intended to have been executed in marble for Westminster-abbey. The design is said to have been far preferable to that now in the abbey. Lord Chesterfield used to assert, that Roubiliac only was a statuary, and all the rest were stone-cutters. Roubiliac had a turn for poetry, and wrote some satires in French verse.

, a very conspicuous racter during the republican state of England, descended from an ancient family in Devonshire, was the younger son of sir Anthony Rons, knight, by Elizabeth, his first wife, daughter of Thomas Southcote, gent. He was born at Halton, in Cornwall, in 1570, and entered a commoner of Broadgate-hall, now Pembroke-college, Oxford, where he took a bachelor’s degree in arts. He afterwards studied the law, and there is a report that he took orders, and preached at Saltash; but for this there was probably no other foundation than what his works afforded, which would not have disgraced many of the divines of that period. It is evident that he had studied religious controversy with, more attention than laymen usually bestow on such subjects. His destination, however, was to make a figure in political history. In the first parliament called by Charles I, he was returned for Truro in Cornwall, for Tregony in the third, and for Truro again in the 15th and 16th of that reign; in all which he proved one of the most zealous enemies to the established church, and a vehement declaimer. against what he termed innovations and abuses both in church and state, and particularly against Arminianism, which was also the subject of some of his works. He was one of the few laymen appointed by the Commons to sit in the Assembly of Divines at Westminster. In the parliament called in 1653, he was one of the representatives for Devonshire, and at that time was first chosen chairman, and then speaker for a month; but continued, during the whole sitting, to forward Cromwell’s plans. He procured a vote, that Cromwell, Lambert, Harrison, Disbrowe, and Tomlinson, should sit in that house as members; and afterr wards proposed, that the parliament should resign the govertment into Cromwell’s hands, with the title of Protector. His original intention was to form the English commonwealth after the model of the Jewish; but as a theocracy was rejected, he made the above proposal in favour of Cromwell, whom he affected to look upon as a compound of the characters of Moses and Joshua. In gratitude for this, he was declared one of Jus highness’ s privy-council. In 1656, he was returned one of the members for Cornwall; and in the year following was seated in the House of Lords. He had been made provost of Eton in 1643, and had a college- lease, which together were worth 1200l. per annum. He died at Acton, near London, Jan, 7, 1659, and was buried with great pomp at Eton, and a standard-­pennon, with other things relating to a baron, were erected over his grave, but these were taken away at the Restoration. We have omitted to notice, that he was principal trier and approver of public preachers, and a commissioner for the ejectment of “scandalous and ignorant ministers.” He founded three fellowships in Pembroke college, and bequeathed other property to pious uses. Lord Clarendon and other contemporaries undervalue his abilities, which certainly did not appear to much advantage in parliament, where his speeches were rude, vulgar, and enthusiastic, both in style and sentiment, yet perhaps not the worse adapted to the understandings of his hearers. Wood has given a long catalogue of his writings, the principal of which relating to subjects of religions controversy, or general piety, were collected in a folio printed at London in 1657, under the title of “The Works of Francis Rous, esq. or treatises and meditations dedicated to the saints, and to the excellent throughout the three nations.” This has Faithorne’s fine print from the picture in Pembroke college. He published also, a tract, “The Lawfulness of obeying the present Government,” 1649, 4to, and “Mel la Patrum,” a thick octavo, 1650, containing what may he termed the beauties of the fathers of the first three centuries; “Jnteriora regni Dei,” 1665, 12mo, and a translation of the Psalms into English metre, printed in 1645, by order of the House of Commons. His son Francis was a young physician of great talents, but died early in life in 1643. When at Merton college, he was distinguished for classical attainments, and published a work on Greek antiquities, “Archaeologiae Atticae libri tres,” Oxon. 1637, which Wood says went through several impressions.

, usually called the antiquary of Warwick, was born in that town, and educated there until fit for the university. He then went to Oxford, and studied at Baliol college, where he took his master’s degree in arts, and became soon afterwards a canon of Osney. English antiquities became early his favourite pursuit, and he had all the zeal, if not all the judgment of a true antiquary. Besides examining closely into the written records in both universities, he travelled over the greater part of the kingdom to acquire information on the spot where memorable events occurred, or any memorials were preserved. He then took np his residence at Guy-ClifTe in Warwickshire, when* he had a possession granted him either by the earls of Warwick or by Edward IV, and died Jan. 14, 1491. He wrote much on the civil and ecclesiastical antiquities of Warwick, and a history of our kings, which is extant in the Cotton library, and that of Bene't college, Cambridge, and was published by Hearne in 1716. In this are many collections relative to the antiquities of our universities. There is a noble ms. of his history of the earls of Warwick in the Bodleian library, with drawings of the several earls, their coats of arms, &c.

, a distinguished French painter, was born at Paris in 1630. His first studies were under the direction of Swanefelt, but he afterwards visited Italy, and accomplished himself in architecture, perspective, and landscape. On his return to Paris he immediately obtained eminence, and was employed at IVLrly. He was truly accomplished in painting edifices from his minute attention to the principles of architecture. After being patronized by Louis XIV. he was compelled to leave his native country on account of his religion, being a strict protestant. Housseau afterwards visited Holland, whence he was invited to England by the duke of Montague, to exert his talents on the magnificent palace at Bloomsbury, now the British museum. Here he painted a great deal; and many of his works are also to be seen at Hampton Court. He died in England in 1694, and was buried in St. Anne’s, Soho.

In the choice of his scenes he shews remarkable elegance of taste; his grounds are well broken, his distances wellconducted, his skies finely imagined, as well as judiciously adapted, and there appears great harmony in most of his compositions. He ornamented his landscapes with edifices and ruins, in the Roman taste of architecture, after the manner of Poussin; his figures were placed in such perspective proportions as deluded the eye agreeably to the proper point of sight; and in his architecture we see elegance of fancy united with nature and truth.

The pictures of this master are not frequently to be purchased; and when they are, their estimation is high. He was a man of probity, piety, and benevolence; and at his death he bequeathed the greatest part of his substance to relieve those in England who, like himself, were refugees on account of the French persecution.

, a celebrated French poet, was born at Paris in 1669: he was the son of a shoe-maker, who, however, being a man of substance, gave him a good education; and Rousseau soon shewed himself worthy of it. He discovered early a turn for poetry; and, at twenty, was distinguished for some little productions, full of elegance, taste, and spirit. In 1688 he attended M. de Bonrepos as page in his embassy to the court of Denmark; and passed thence to England with marshal Tallard in quality of secretary. Yet, he had so little of avarice and ambition in his nature, that he never conceived the notion of n^aking a fortune; and actually refused some places which his friends had procured for him. In 1701 he was admitted into the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres. He had now obtained the reputation of a poet of the first rank, expected a place in the French academy, and was in hopes of obtaining Boileau’s pension, which was about to ba vacant, when an affair broke out which obliged him to quit his country, and embittered his whole life afterwards. Some verses full of reflections, and of a very exceptionable nature, were produced as Rousseau’s. Rousseau denied that they were his, and maintained them to be forgeries, contrived for his ruin by those who envied and hated him. He was tried in form; and, by an arrest of parliament in 1712, banished the kingdom for ever. Voltaire, who certainly has not shewn himself well affected to this poet, yet expresses himself thus upon the affair of his banishment “Those couplets, which were the cause of his banishment, and are like several which he owned, must either be imputed to him, or the two tribunals, which pronounced sentence upon him, must be dishonoured. Not that two tribunals, and even more numerous bodies, may not unanimously commit very great acts of injustice when a spirit of party prevails. There was a violent party against Rousseau.” The truth, however, is, that Rousseau was the author, although he denied it, and the probability is, that the tribunal before which he was tried had proof of this; such at least seems to be the opinion of most French writers. He now withdrew to Switzerland, where he found a lector in the count de Luc, the French ambassador to the* Helvetic body; who carried him to Baden, and introduced him to prince Eugene, who was there. He continued with the prince till the conclusion of the peace at Baden; and then accompanying him to Vienna, was introduced by hiril to the emperor’s court. He continued here three years, at the end of which he might have returned to his own country, some powerful friends offering to procure letters of grace for recalling him; but he answered, “that it did not become a man, unjustly oppressed, to seal an ignominious sentence by accepting such terms; and that letters of gracd might do well enough for those that wanted them, but certainly not for him who only desired justice.” He was afterwards at Brussels, and in 1721 went over to London, where he printed, in a very elegant manner, a collection of his poems, in 2 vols. 4to. The profits hence arising put his finances into good condition; but, placing his money with the emperor’s company at Ostend, which failed soon after, he was reduced to the necessity of relying upon private benefactions. The duke of Aremberg gave him the privilege of his table at Brussels; and, when this nobleman was obliged to go to the army in Germany in 1733, he settled on him a handsome pension, and assigned him an. apartment in his castle of Euguien near Brussels. Rousseau, losing afterwards the good graces of the duke of Aremberg, as he had before lost those of prince Eugene, for he does not seem to have been happily formed for dependence, listened at length to proposals of returning to France, and for that purpose went incognito to Paris in 1739. He stayed there some little time; but, finding his affairs in no promising train, set out for Brussels. He continued some time at the Hague, where he was seized with an apoplexy; but recovered so far as to be removed to Brussels, where he finished his unfortunate life, March 17, 1741. He now declared upon his death-bed, as he had declared to Rollin at Paris a little before, that he was not the author of the verses which occasioned his banishment.

His executor, conformably to his intentions, gave a complete and beautiful edition of his works at Paris, 1743, in 3 vols. 4to, and also in 4 vols. 12mo, They contain odes, epistles, epigrams, and comedies, in verse; and a collection of letters, in prose; and have procured him the Character of the best lyric poet of France. Voltaire, who is not supposed to have done justice to Rousseau, owns, however, that “his odes are beautiful, diversified, and abound with images; that, in his hymns, he equals the harmony and devotion observable in the spiritual songs of Racine; and that his epigrams are finished with greater care than those of Marot. He was not,” continues the critic, “so successful in operas, which require sensibility; nor in comedies, which cannot succeed without gaiety. la both these qualities he was deficient; and therefore failed in operas and comedies, as being foreign to his genius.”

, an eccentric genius of our own times, has enabled us to give an account of him by a publication which himself left behind him, under the title of “Les Confessions de J. J. Rousseau, suivies des Reveries du Promeneur Solitaire,” Geneve, 1783, 2 volumes, 8vo. He was born at Geneva in 1711; his parents were, Isaac Rousseau, an ingenious watch-maker, and Susannah Bernard, the daughter of a clergyman, who was more rich than her husband (he having fifteen brothers and sisters). She had also wisdom and beauty, so that she was no easy prize; but a love, which commenced in their childhood, at length, after many difficulties, produced a happy marriage. And at the same time his mother’s brother, Gabriel, an engineer, married one of his father’s sisters. After the birth of one son, his father went to Constantinople, and was watch-maker to the seraglio; and ten months after his return our author was born, infirm and sickly, and cost his mother her life. The sensibility which was all that his parents left him, constituted (he says) their happiness, but occasioned all his misfortunes. He was “born almost dying,” but was preserved and reared by the tenderness of an aunt (his father’s sister). He remembers not how he learned to read, but only recollects that his first studies were some romances left by his mother, which engaged his father, as well as himself, whole nights, and gave him a very early knowledge of the passions, and also wild and romantic notions of human life. The romances ended with the summer of 1719. Better books succeeded, furnished by the library of his mother’s father, viz. “Le Sueur’s History of the Church and the Empire;” “Bossuet’s Discourses on Universal History;” “Plutarch’s Lives;” ' Nani’s History of Venice;“”Ovid’s Metamorphoses;“”La Bruyere;“ ”Fontenelle’s Worlds, and Dialogues of the Dead“and some volumes of” Moliere.“Of these” Plutarch“were his favourite; and he soon preferred Agesilaus, Brutus, and Aristides, to Oroondates, Artamenes, aud Juba; and to these lives, and the conversations that they occasioned with his father, he imputes that free and republican spirit, that fierce and intractable character, which ever after was his torment. His brother, who was seven years older, and followed his father’s business, being neglected in his education, behaved so ill, and was so incorrigible, that he fled into Germany, and was never heard of afterwards. On the contrary, the utmost attention was bestowed on John James, and he was almost idolized by all. Yet he had (he owns) all the faults of his age he was a prater, a glutton, and sometimes a liar; he stole fruit, sweetmeats, and victuals but he never delighted in being mischievous or wasteful, hi accusing others, or in tormenting poor animals. He re^ Jates, however, an indelicate trick he played one Madame Clot while she was at prayers, which still, he says, diverts him, because” she was the most fretful old woman he ever knew.“His” taste, or rather passion, for music“he owed to his aunt Susan, who sang most sweetly; and he paints her in most pleasing colours. A dispute, which his father had with a French captain obliging him to quit Geneva, our author was left under the care of his uncle Bernard, then employed on the fortifications, who having a son of the same age, these cousins were boarded together at Bossey, at M. Lambercier’s, a clergyman, to learn Latin, and other branches of education. In this village he passed two happy years, and formed an affectionate friendship with his cousin Bernard. A slight offence, the breaking the teeth of a comb, with which he was charged, but denied it, and of which now, fifty years after, he avows his innocence, bub for which he was severely punished, and a like chastisement, which, for a like offence, was also unjustly inflicted on his cousin, gave both at last a distaste for this paradise, and great pleasure in being removed from it. This incident made a deep and lasting impression upon him, as did another about planting a willow and a walnut tree, for which we must refer to his own account. At his return to Geneva he continued two or three years wiih his uncle, losing his time, it not being determined whether he should be a watch-maker, an attorney, or a minister. To the last he was most inclined, but that the small remains of his mother’s fortune would not admit. In the mean time he learned to draw, for which he had a taste, and read” Euclid’s Elements“withes Cousin. Thus they led an idle, but not a vicious life, making cages, flutes, shuttle-cocks, drums, houses, cross-bows, and puppets, imitating Punch, acting plays, and at last makiog sermons. He often visited his father, wlxo was then settled at Nion, a small town in the country of Vaud, and there he recounts two amours (as he calls them) that he had, at the age of eleven, with two grown misses, whom he archly describes. At last he was placed with M. Massiron, register of the city, to learn his business; but, being by him soon dismissed for his stupidity, he was bound apprentice, not, however, to a watch-maker, but to an engraver, a brutal wretch, who not only treated him most inhumanly, but taught him to lie, to be idle, and to steal. Of the latter he gives some instances. In his sixteenth year, having twice on a Sunday been locked out of the city-gates, and being severely threatened by his master if he stayed out a third time, by an unlucky circumstance this event happening, he swore never to return again, sending word privately to his cousin Bernard of what he proposed, and where he might once more see him; which he did, not to dissuade him, but to make him some presents. They then parted with tears, but never met or corresponded more,” which was a pity, as they were made to love each other.“After making some reflections on what would have been his fate if he had fallen into the hands of a better master, he informs us that at Consignon, in Savoy, two leagues from Geneva, he had the curiosity to see the rector, M. de Pontverre, a name famous in their history, and accordingly went to visit him, and was well received, and regaled with such a good dinner as prevented hisreplyingto his host’s arguments in favour of holy mother Church, and against the heresy of Geneva. Instead of sending him back to his family, this devout priest endeavoured to convert him, and recommended him to mad. de Warens, a good charitable lady, lately converted, at Annecy, who had quitted her husband, her family, her country, and her religion, for a pension of 1500 Piedmontese livres, allowed her by the King of Sardinia. He arrived at Annecy on Palm- Sunday, 1728 and saw madam de Warens. This epoch of his life determined his character. He was then in the middle of his 16th year; though not handsome, he was well made, had black hair, and small sparkling eyes, &c. charms, of which, unluckily, he was not unconscious. The lady too, who was then 28, he describes as being highly agreeable and engaging, and having many personal charms, although her size was small, and her stature short. Being told she was just gone to the Cordeliers church, he overtook her at the door, was struck with her appearance, so different from that of the old crabbed devotee which he had imagined, and was instantly proselyted to her religion. He gave her a letter from M. de Pontverre, to which he added one of his own. She glanced at the former, but read the latter, and would have read it again, if her servant had not reminded her of its being church-time. She then bade John James go to her house, ask for some breakfast, and wait her return from mass. Her accomplishments he paints in brilliant colours; considers her as a good Catholic; and, in short, at first sight, was inspired by her with the strongest attachment, and the utmost confidence. She kept him to dinner, and then inquiring his circumstances, urged him to go to Turin, where, in a seminary for the instruction of catechumens, he might be maintained till his conversion was accomplished; and engaged also to prevail on M. de Bernet, the titular bishop of Geneva, to contribute largely to the expence of his journey. This promise she performed. He gave his consent, being desirous of seeing the capital, and of climbing the Alps. She also reinforced his purse, gave him privately ample instructions; and, entrusting him to the care of a countryman and his wife, they parted on AshWednesday. The day after, his father” came in quest of him, accompanied by his friend M. Rixal, a watch-maker, like himself, and a good poet. They visited madam de Warens, but only lamented with her, instead of pursuing and overtaking him, which they might, they being on horseback, and he on foot. His brother had been lost by a like negligence. Having some independent fortune from their mother, it seemed as if their father connived at their flight in order to secure it to himself, an idea which gave our author great uneasiness. After a pleasantjourney with his two companions, he arrived at Turin, but without money, cloaths, or linen. His letters of recommendation admitted him into the seminary; a course of life, and a mode of instruction, with which he was soon disgusted. In two months, however, he made his abjuration, was baptized Ht the cathedral, absolved of h f eresy by the inquisitor^ and then dismissed, with about 20 livres in his pocket; thus, at once, made an apostate and a dupe, with all his hopes in an instant annulled. After traversing the streets, and viewing the buildings, he took at night a mean lodging, where he continued some days. To the king’s chapel, in particular, he was frequently allured by his taste for music, which then began to discover itself. His purse, at last, being almost exhausted, he looked out for employment, and at last found it, as an engraver of plate, by means of a young woman, madame Basile, whose husband, a goldsmith, was abroad, and had left her under the care of a clerk, or an jEgisthus, as Rousseau styles him. Nothing, he declares, but what was innocent, passed betwixt him and this lady, though her charms made great impression on him; and soon after, her husband returning, and finding him at dinner with her confessor, the clerk, &c. immediately dismissed him the house. His landlady, a soldier’s wife, after this procured him the place of footman to the countess dowager of Vercullis, whose livery he wore; but his business was to write the letters which she dictated, a cancer in her breast preventing her writing them herself; letters, he says, equal to those of madam de Sevigne. This service terminated, in three months, with his lady’s death, who left him nothing, though she had great curiosity to know his history, and to read his letters to madam de Warens. He saw her expire with many tears her life having been that of a woman of wit and sense, her death being that of a sage. Her heir and nephew, the count de la Roque, gave him 30 livres and his new cloaths; but, on leaving this service, he committed, he owns, a diabolical action, by falsely accusing Marion, the cook, of giving him a rosecoloured silver ribbon belonging to one of the chambermaids, which was found upon him, and which he himself had stolen. This crime, which was an insupportable load on his conscience, he says, all his life after, and which he never avowed before, not even to Madam de Warens, was one principal inducement to his writing his “Confessions,” and he hopes, “has been expiated by his subsequent misfortunes, and by forty years of rectitude and honour in the most difficult situations.” On leaving this service, he returned to his lodgings, and, among other acquaintances that he had made, often visited M. Gaime, a Savoyard abbé, the original of the “Savoyard Vicar,” to whose virtuous and religious instructions, he professes the highest obligations. The count de la Roque, though he neglected to call upon him, procured him, however, a place with the count de Gouvon, an equerry to the queen, where he lived much at his ease, and out of livery. Though happy in this family, being favoured by all, frequently waiting on the count’s beautiful grand -daughter, honoured with lessons by the abbe“, his younger son, and having reason to expect an establishment in the train of his eldest son, ambassador to Venice, he absurdly relinquished all this by obliging the count to dismiss him for his attachment to one of his countrymen, named Bacle, who inveigled him to accompany him in his way back to Geneva; and an artificial fountain, which the abbe* de Gouvon had given him, helped, as their purse was light, to maintain them till it broke. At Annecy he parted with his companion, and hastened to madam de Warens, who, instead of reproaching, lodged him in her best chamber, and” Little One“(Petit) was his name, and” Mama“hers. There he lived most happily and innocently, he declares, till a relation of” Mama,“a M. d'Aubonne, suggested that John-James was fit for nothing but the priesthood, but first advised his completing his education by learning Latin. To this the bishop not only consented, but gave him a pension. Reluctantly he obeyed, carrying to the seminary of St. Lazarus no book but Clerambault’s cantatas, learning nothing there but one of his airs, and therefore being soon dismissed for his insufficiency. Yet madam de Warens did not abandon him. His taste for music then made them think of his being a musician, and boarding for that purpose with M. le Maitre, the organist of the cathedral, who lived near” Mama,“and presided at her weekly concerts. There he continued for a year, but his passion for her prevented his learning even music. Le Maitre, disgusted with the Chapter, and determined to leave them, was accompanied in his flight, as far as Lyons, by John-James; but, being subject to fits, and attacked by one of them in the streets, he was deserted in distress by his faithless friend, who turned the corner, and left him. This is his third painful” Confession.“He instantly returned to Annecy and” Mama; but she, alas! was gone to Paris. After this, he informs us of the many girls that were enamoured of him: of his journey with one of them, on foot, to Fribourg; of his visiting his father, in his way, at Nion; and of his great distress at Lausanne, which reduced him to the expedient of teaching music, which he knew not, saying he was of Paris, where he had never been, and changing his name to Voussore, the anagram of Rousseau. But here his ignorance and his imprudence exposed him to public shame, by his attempting what he could not execute. Being thus discomfited, and unable to subsist at Lausanne, he removed to Neufchatel, where he passed the winter. There he succeeded better, and, at length, by teaching music, insensibly learned it.

At Boudry, accidentally meeting a Greek bishop, Archimandrite of Jerusalem, who was making a collection in Europe to repair the holy sepulchre, our adventurer was prevailed upon to accompany him as his secretary and interpreter and, in consequence, travelled, alms’-gathering, through Switzerland; harangued the senate of Berne, &c. but at Soleure, the French ambassador, the marquis de Bonac, having made him discover who he was, detained him in his service, without allowing him even to take leave of his “poor Archimandrite,” and sent him (as he desired) to Paris, to travel with the nephew of M. Goddard, a Swiss colonel in the French service. This fortnight’s journey was the happiest time of his life. In his ideas of the magnificence of Paris, Versailles, &c. he greatly mistook. He was also much flattered, and little served. Colonel Goddard’s proposals being very inadequate to his expectations, he was advised to decline accepting them. Hearing that his dear “Mama” had been gone two months to Savoy, Turin, or Switzerland, he determined to follow her; and, on the road, sent by the post a paper of satirical verses, to the old avaricious colonel, the only satire that he ever wrote. At Lyons he visited mademoiselle du Chatelet, a friend of madam de Warens; but whether that lady was gone to Savoy or Piedmont, she could not inform him. She urged him, however, to stay at Lyons, till she wrote and had an answer, an offer which he accepted, although his purse was almost exhausted, and he was often reduced to lie in the streets, yet without concern or apprehension, choosing rather to pay for bread than a lodging. At length, M. Rolichon, an Antonian, accidentally hearing him sing in the street a cantata of Batistin, employed him some days in copying music, fed him well, and gave him a crown, which, he owns, he little deserved, his transcripts were so incorrect and faulty. And, soon after, he heard news of “Mama,” who was at Chambery, and received money to enable him to join her. He found her constant and affectionate, ana 1 she immediately introduced him to the intendant, who had provided him the place of a secretary to the commissioners appointed by the king to make a general survey of the country, a place which, though not very lucrative, afforded him an honourable maintenance for the first time in his life. This happened in 1732, he being then near 21. He lodged with “Mama,” in whose affection, however, he had a formidable rival in her steward, Claude Anetj yet they all lived together on the best terms. The succeeding eight or nine years, viz. till 1741, when he set out for Paris, had few or no events. His taste for music made him resign his employment for that of teaching that science; and several of his young female scholars (all charming) he describes and introduces to his readers. To alienate him from other seducers, at length his “Mama” (he says) proposed to him being his mistress, and became so; yet sadness and sorrow embittered his delights, and, from the maternal light in which he had been accustomed to view this philosophical lady, who sinned, he adds, more through error than from passion, he deemed himself incestuous. And let it be remembered that she had a husband, and had had many other gallants. Such is his “good-hearted” heroine, the Aspasia of his Socrates, as he calls tier, and such was he. This is another of his “Confessions.” Thus madam de Warens, Rousseau, and Anet, lived together in the most perfect union, till a pleurisy deprived him of the latter. In consequence of the loss of this good manager, all her affairs were soon in the utmost disorder, though JohnJames succeeded to the stewardship, and though he pawned his own credit to support hers. Determining now to compose, and for that purpose, first to learn, music, he applied to the abbe Ulancnard, organist of the cathedral of Besanc,on. But, just as they were going to begin, he heard that his portmanteau, with all his cloaths, was seized at Rousses, a French custom-house on the borders of Switzerland, because he had accidentally, in a new waistcoat-pocket, a Jansenist parody of the first scene of Racine’s “Mithridates,” of which he had not read ten lines. This loss made him return to Chambery, totally disappointed, and resolved, in future, to attach himself solely to “Mama,” who, by degrees, reinstated his wardrobe. And still cotitin, ing to study Rameau, he succeeded, at last, in some compositions, which were much approved by good judges, and thus did not lose his scholars. From this aera he dates his connexion with his old friend Gauffeconrt, an amiable man. since dead, and M. d Conzie, a Savoyard gentleman, then living. The extra* ityatn-e of his mistr* ss, in spite of all his remonstrances, made? uim absent himself from her, which increased their ex pe ices, but at the same time procured him many respectable friends, whom he name.-. His uncle Bernard was now dead in Carolina, whither he went in oruer to build Charles-tow1, as na* his cousin, in the service of tue king of Prussia. His health at this time visibly, but unaccountably, declined. “The sword cut the scabbard.” Besides his disorderly passions, his illness was partly occasioned by the tury vv:tn union he studied chess, shutting hunself up, for that purpose, whole days and nights, till he looked like a corpse, and partly by his concern and anxiety for madam de Warens, who by her maternal care and attention saved his life. Being ordered by her to drink milk in the country, he prevailed on her to accompany him, and, aoout the end of the summer of 1736, they settled at Charmett- j s, near the gate of Chambery, but solitary and retired, in a house whose situation he describes with rapture. “Moments dear and regretted.” However, not being able to bear milk, having recourse to water, which almost killed him, and leaving off wine, he lost his appetite, and had a violent nervous affection, which, at the end of some weeks, left him with a beating of his arteries, and tingling in his ears, which have lasted from that time to the present, 30 years after; and, from being a good sleeper, he became sleepless, and constantly short-breathed. “This accident, which might have destroyed his body, only destroyed his passions, and produced a happy effect on his soul.” “Mama” too, he says, was religious; yet, though she believed in purgatory, she did not believe in hell. The summer passed amidst their garden, their pigeons, their cows, &c. theauiumn in their vintage and their fruit-gathering; and in the winter they returned, as from exile, to town. Not thinking that he should live till spring, he did not stir out, nor see any one but madam de Warens and M. Salomon, their physician, an honest man, and a great Cartesian, whose conversation was better than all his prescriptions. In short, John-James studied hard, recovered, went abroad, saw all his acquaintance again, and, to his great surprise and joy, beheld the buds of the spring, and went with his mistress again to Charmettes. There, being soon fatigued with digging in the garden, he divided his time between the pigeon-house (so taming those timid birds as to induce them to perch on his arms and head), bee-hives, and books of science, beginning with philosophy, and proceeding to elementary geometry, Latin (to him, who had no memory, the most difficult), history, geography, and astronomy. One night, as he was observing the stars in his garden, with a planisphere, a candle secured in a pai), a telescope, &c. dressed in a flapped hat, and a wadded pet-en-V air of “Mama’s,” he was taken by some peasants for a conjurer. In future, he observed without a light, and consulted his planisphere at home. The writings of Port-royal and of the Oratory had now made him half a Jansenist. But his confessor and another Jesuit set his mind at ease, and he had recourse to several ridiculous expedients to know whether he was in a state of salvation. In the mean time, their rural felicity continued, and, contrary to his advice, madam de Warens became by degrees a great farmer, of which he foresaw ruin must be the consequence.

In the ensuing winter he received some music from Italy, and, being now of age, it was agreed that he should go in the spring to Geneva, to demand the remains of his mother’s fortune. He went accordingly, and his father came also to Geneva, undisturbed, his affair being now buried in oblivion. No difficulty was occasioned by our author’s change of religion; his brother’s death not being legally proved, he could not claim his share, and therefore readily left it to contribute towards the maintenance of his father, who enjoyed it as long as be lived. At length he received his money, turned part of it into livres, and flew with the rest to “Mama,*' who received it without affectation, and employed most of it for his use. His health, however, decayed visibly, and he was again horribly oppressed with the vapours. At length his researches into anatomy made him suspect that his disorder was a polypus in the heart. Salomon seemed struck with the same idea. And having heard that M Fizes, of Montpellier, had cured such a polypus, he went immediately to consult him, assisted by the supply from Geneva. But two ladies, whom he met at Moirans, especially the elder, Mad. N. at once banished his fever, his vapours, his polypus, and all his palpitations, except those which she herself had excited, and would not cure. Without knowing a word of English, he here thought proper to pass for an Englishman and a Jacobite, and called himself Mr Budding. Leaving the other lady at Romans, with madam N. and an old sick marquis, he travelled slowly and agreeably to Saint Marcellin, Valence, Montelimar (before which the marquis left them), and at length, after having agreed to pass the winter together, these lovers (for such they became) parted with mutual regret. Filled with the ideas of madam N. and her daughter, whom she idolised, he mused from Pont St. Esprit to Remoulin. He visited Pont-du Card, the first work of the Romans that he had seen, and the Arena of Nimes, a work still more magnificent; in all these journeys forgetting that he was ill till he arrived at Montpellier. From abundant precaution he boarded with an Irish physician, named Fitz- Moris, and consulted M. Fizes, as madam N, had advised him. Finding that the doctors Jcnew nothing of his disorder, and only endeavoured to amuse him and make him” swallow his own money,“he left Montpellier at the end of November, after six weeks or two months stay, leaving twelve louis there for no purpose, save for a course of anatomy, just begun under M. Fitz-Moris, but which the horrible stench of dissected bodies rendered insupportable. Whether he should return to” Mama,“or go (as he had promised) to madam N. was now the question. Reason, however, here turned the scale. At Pont St. Esprit he burnt his direction, and took the road to Chambery,” for the first time in his life indebted to his studies, preferring his duty to pleasure, and deserving his own esteem.“At his return to madam de Warens, he found his place supplied by a young man of the Pays de Vaud, named Vintzenried, a journeyman barber, whom he paints in the most disgusting colours. This name not being noble enough, he changed it for that of M. de Courtilles, by which he was afterwards known at Chambery, and in Maurienne, where he married. He being every thing in the house, and Rousseau nothing, all his pleasures vanished like a dream, and at length he determined to quit this abode, once so dear, to which his” Mama" readily consented. And being invited to educate the children of M. de Maiby, grand provost of Lyons, he set out for that city, without regretting a separation of which the sole idea would formerly have been painful as death to them both. Unqualified for a preceptor, both by temper and manners, and much disgusted with his treatment by the provost, he quitted his family in about a year; and sighing for madam de Warens, flew once more to throw himself at her feet. She received him with good nature, but he could not recover the past. His former happiness, he found, was dead for ever. He continued there, however, still foreseeing her approaching ruin, and the seizure of her person; and to retrieve her affairs, forming castles in the air, and having made an improvement (as he thought) in musical notes, from which he had great expectations, he sold nis books, and set out for Paris, to communicate his scheme to tht academy.

“Such (he concludes) have been the errors and the faults of my youth. I have given a history of them with a fidelity with which my heart is satisfied. If, in the sequel, I have honoured my mature age with some virtues, I should have told them as frankly, and such was my design—But I must stop here. Time may undraw the curtain. If my memoir reaches posterity, one day or other it will perhaps learn what I had to say. Then it will know why I am silent.”

An account of the last moments of this celebrated man may be an acceptable addition to his life. He rose in perfect health, to all appearance, on Thursday morning at five o'clock (his usual hour in summer), and walked with a young pupil, son to the marquis de Girardin, lord of Ermenonville in Fiance. About seven he returned to his house alone, and asked his wife if breakfast was ready. Finding it was not, he told her he would go for some moments into the wood, and desired her to call him when breakfast was on the table. He was accordingly called, returned home, drank a dish of coffee, went out again, and came back a few minutes after. About eight, his wife went down stairs to pay the account of a smith; but scarcely had she been a moment below, when she heard him complain. She returned immediately, and found him sitting on a chair, with a ghastly countenance, his head reclining on his hand, and his elbow sustained by a desk. “What is the matter, my dear friend,” said she, “are you indisposed” “I feel,” answered he, “a painful anxiety, and the keen pains of a cholic.” Upon this Mrs. Rousseau left the room, as if she intended to look for something, and sent to the castle an account of her husband’s illness. The marchioness, on this alarming news, ran with the utmost expedition to the cottage of the philosopher; and, that she might not alarm him, she said she came to inquire whether the music that had been performed during the night in the open air before the castle, had not disturbed him and Mrs. Rousseau. The philosopher replied, with the utmost tranquillity of tone and aspect, “Madam, I know very well that it is not any thing relative to music that brings you here: I am very sensible of your goodness: but I am much out of order, and I beg it as a favour that you will leave me alone with my wife, to whom I haw a great many things to say at this instant.” Madam de Girardin immediately withdrew. Upon this, Rousseau desired his wife to shut the door, to lock it on the inside, and to come and sit by him. “I shall do so, my dear friend,” said she; “I am now sitting beside you—how do you find yourself?”

Rousseau. “I grow worse—I feel a chilly cold—a shivering over my whole body—give me your hands, and see if you can warm me—Ah! that gentle warmth is pleasing—but the pains of the colic return—they are very keen”

Rousseau. “My dear be so good as to open the windows, that I may have the pleasure of seeing once more the verdure of that field—how beautiful it is! how pure the air! how serene the sky!—What grandeur and magnificence in the aspect of nature!”

Rousseau. “My dear—It was always my earnest desire that it would please God to take me out of the world before you—my prayer has been heard—and my wish will soon have its accomplishment. Look at that sun, whose smiling aspect seems to call me hence! There is my God—God himself—who opens to me the bosom of his paternal goodness, and invites me to taste and enjoy, at last, that eternal and unalterable tranquillity, which I have so long and so ardently panted after. My dear spouse —do not weep—you have always desired to see me happy. I am now going to be truly so! Do not leave me: I will have none but you to remain with me—you, alone, shall close my eyes.” Mrs. Rousseau. “My dear—my good friend—banish those apprehensions and let me give you something—I hope that this indisposition will not be of a long continuance!”

Rousseau. “I feel in my breast something like sharp pins, which occasions violent pains—My dear—if I have ever given you any uneasiness and trouble, or exposed you, by our conjugal union, to misfortunes, which you would otherwise have avoided, I hope you will forgive me.”

Rousseau. “Ah! my dear, how happy a thing is it to die, when one has no reason for remorse or self-reproach! —Eternal Being! the soul that I am now going to give thee back, is as pure, at this moment, as it was when it proceeded from thee: render it partaker of thy felicity! My dear—I have found in the marquis of Girardin and his lady the marks of even parental tenderness and affection: tell them that I revere their virtues, and that I thank them, with my dying breath, for all the proofs I have received of their goodness and friendship: I desire that you may have my body opened immediately after my death, and that you will order an exact account to be drawn up of the state of its various parts: tell monsieur and madame de Girardin, that I hope they will allow me to be buried in their gardens, in any part of them that they may think proper.”

Here his extreme weakness prevented his walking without help; and Mrs. Rousseau being unable to support him, he fell gently on the floor, where, after having remained for some time motionless, he sent forth a deep sigh, and expired, July 1778. Next day his body was opened in presence of a competent number of witnesses; and an inquest being held by the proper officers, the surgeons declared upon oath, that all the parts of the body were sound, and that a serous apoplexy, of which palpable marks appeared in the brain, was the cause of his death . The marquis de Girardin ordered the body to be embalmed; after which it was laid in a coffin of oak, lined with lead, and was buried.

Such is the private life of Rousseau, as given by himself in his “Confessions.” These Confessions, M. Sennebier, author of the literary history of Geneva, very justly says, “appear a very dangerous book, and paint Rousseau in such colours as we should never have ventured to use in his portrait. The excellent analyses which we meet with of some sentiments, and the excellent anatomy which he gives of some actions, are not sufficient to counterbalance the detestable matter which is found in them, and the unceasing obliquities every where to be met with.” What renders this book the more pernicious is, not only the baseness of the vices which he has disclosed, but the manner in which he endeavoured to unite them with the virtues.

It becomes necessary now to recur to some particulars of Rousseau’s more public and literary life, which was in many respects as censurable as his private. The commencement of his literary career was in 1750. The academy of Dijon had proposed the question, “Whether the revival of the arts and sciences has contributed to the refinement of manners.” Rousseau, it is said, at first inclined to the affirmative side of the question; but Diderot told him it was a kind of pons asinorum, and advised him to support the negative, and he would answer for his success. Nor was he disappointed, for this paradoxical discourse was allowed to be admirably written, and replete with the deepest reasoning, and was publicly crowned with the approbation of the academicians. Several answers appeared Against it, one of which was written by Stanislaus, king of Poland, who was, however, so much an admirer of Rousseau, that when the latter was ridiculed on the stage of Nancy, by Palissot, in his “Comedie des Philosophes,” the king, then duke of Lorraine, deprived Palissot of his place at the academy of Nancy. On this occasion Rousseau, with far more sense, interceded for him, and obtained his restoration. In 1752 Rousseau wrote a comedy entitled “Narcisse, ou PAmant de lui-meme.” He also composed a musical entertainment of “Le Devin du Village,” which was represented with the greatest success at Paris. His next piece was “Lettre sur la Musique Franchise,” which was to prove that the French had no such thing as vocal music, and that, from the defects in their language, they could not have it. This able work so excited the resentment of the French, that he is said to have been burnt in effigy. In 1754- he returned to Geneva, where he abjured the catholic faith, and was restored to the rights of citizenship. He now wrote his e< Discours sur les Causes de l'inegalite parmi les Hommes, et sur TOrigine des Societes.“This endeavour to prove that all mankind are equal has (in the opinion of a modern critic, by no means partial to Rousseau’s character) been much misunderstood by critics, and misrepresented by wits. Even by the author’s confession, it is rather ajeu d'esprit than a philosophical inquiry; for he owns that the natural state, such as he represents it, did probably never take place, and probably never will; and if it had taken place, he seems to think it impossible that mankind should ever have emerged from it without some very extraordinary alteration in the course of nature. He also says that this natural state is not the most advantageous for man; for that the most delightful sentiments of the human mind could not exert themselves till man had relinquished his brutal and solitary nature, and become a domestic animal. At this period, and previous to the establishment of property, he places the age most favourable to human happiness; which is precisely what the poets have done before him, in their descriptions of the golden age. After publishing this rhapsody, Rousseau did not remain long at Geneva, but returned to France, and lived some time at Paris, after which he retired to Montuiorency, and published, in 1758, his” Lettre“to M. D‘Alembert on the design of establishing a theatre at Geneva, which he proved could not be necessary in a place circumstanced as Geneva was. D’Alembert and Marmontel, however, replied, and Voltaire appears from this time to have begun his hatred for Rousseau, with whom he and the rest of the philosophers had hitherto cordially co-operated against the Christian religion. Rousseau wanted that uniform hatred to revealed religion which the others called consistency, and his fancy was apt to ramble bevond the limits they had set. In 1760 he published his 'celebrated novel entitled” Lettres de clt ux A mans,“c. bui generally known by the title of” Julie, ou la Nnuvelie Heloise.“This epistolary romance, of which the plofc is ill-managed, and the arrangement bad, like all other works of genius, has its beauties as well as its defects. Some of the letters are, indeed, admirable, both for style and sentiment, but none of the personages are reaily interesting. The character of St. Preux is weak, and often forced. Julia is an assemblage of tenderness and pity, of elevation af soul, and of coquetry, of natural parts and pedancry. Wolmar is a violent man, and almost beyond the limits of nature. In fine, when he wishes to change his style, and adopt that of the speaker, he does not long support it, and every attempt embarrasses the author and cools the reader. In this novel, however, Rousseau’s talent of rendering every thing problematical, appears very conspicuous, as, in his arguments in favour of, and against, duelling, which afford an apology for suicide, and a just condemnation of it; of his facility in palliating the crime of adultery, aud his strong reasons to make it abhorred; on the one hand, in declamations against social happiness, on the other in transports in favour of humanity; here in violent rhapsodies against philosophers; there by a rage for adopting their opinions; the existence of God is attacked by sophistry, and atheists confuted by the most irrefragable arguments; the Christian religion combated by the most specious objections, and celebrated by the most sublime eulogies. Yet in the preface to this work the author attempts to justify his consistency; he says public spectacles are necessary for great cities, and romances for a corrupted people.” I have,“he adds,” viewed the manners of my age, and have published these letters. Why did I not live at a time when I ought to have thrown them into the fire?“He affects also to say that they were not intended for an extensive circulation, and that they will suit but few readers. With regard to their effects on the female sex, he pretends to satisfy his conscience with saying” No chaste young woman ever reads romance^; and I have given this book a decisive title, that on opening it a reader may know what to expect. She who, notwithstanding, shall dare to read a single page, is undone; but let her not impute her ruin to me the mischief was done before.“Such is the impudence of this man, who had made his work as seductive as possible, and would have been greatly mortified if it had not produced its effect. Whoever, indeed, reads his” Confessions“will see that sensuality was, first and last, his predominant vice, and that moral corruption became early familiar to him. The only wonder is, that he should ever have been considered as a moral teacher, because, in order to introduce his depraved sophistry with more effect, he mixed with it some moral lessons. Yet there was a time when this was a favourite work even in our country, and it is to be feared, has been the pattern of many others, which, although written with less ability, have been encouraged in the same circles which once gave a fashion to Rousseau. His next attempt was to recommend republicanism in a work entitled” Du Contrat Social, ou Principes du Droit Politiqtie,“in which he bore his part, along with the Encyclopaedists, in exciting those awful delusions which produced the French revolution and all its disastrous consequences. It was, however, less cautious than some of his former productions, and was immediately prohibited in France and Switzerland; and hence his lasting enmity to all existing establishments, civil and religious, which brought on what he and his friends were pleased to consider as persecution. This appeared particularly in his” Emilie, ou de l'Education,“which was published in 1762. In this work, with many remarks that may be useful, there are others so mischievous and impious, that whenever it produces an effect, it must be of the worst kind. It was not, however, his dogmas on education only, which excited the public hostility to this work, so much as his insolent declamation against all which the world had agreed to hold sacred, mixed, as in his former novel, with an affected admiration of the morals of the gospel, and the character of its founder; and it is remarkable that, in this last condescension, he so much displeased his former colleagues, Voltaire, D'Alembert, &c. that they joined the public voice, although from different and concealed motives. In truth, they thought, like others, that there was too much of an insane inconsistency about Rousseau, and that no party could rank him among its supporters. In the mean time, as soon as published, the French parliament condemned this book, and entered into a criminal prosecution against the author, which forced him to a precipitate retreat. He directed his steps to his native country, but Geneva shut her gates against him, and both at Paris and Geneva, the” Emile“was burnt by the common hangman. At length he was for a time allowed to take shelter in Switzerland, where he published a letter to the archbishop of Paris, in answer to his tnandement for the burning of the” Emile;“and also his” JLettres de la Montagne,“in which occurs the following almost blasphemous paragraph:” How,“says he,” can I enter into a justification of this work? I, who think that I have effaced by it the faults of my whole life; I, who place the evils it has drawn upon me as a balance to those which I have committed; I who, filled with confidence, hope one day to say to the supreme Arbiter, ‘ Deign in thy clemency to judge a weak mortal:’ I have, it is true, done much ill upon earth, but I have published this writing.“In these letters too, he continued his hostility to revealed religion, in a manner that excited against him great indignation among the clergy of Neufchatel; and in September 1765, the populace attacked his house and his person, and with much difficulty he reached Strasburg in a very destitute condition, where he waited till the weather permitted, and then set out for Paris, and appeared in the habit of an Armenian. The celebrated Hume at this time resided in Paris, and being applied to in favour of Rousseau, undertook to find him an asylum in England, to which he accordingly conducted him in the beginning of the year 1766, and provided him with an agreeable situation. But Rousseau, whose vanity and perverse temper were ungovernable, and who thought he was not received in this country with the respect due to the first personage in Europe, which he conceived himself to be, took it in his head that Hume was in league with the French philosophers to injure his lame, and after abusing his benefactor in a letter, in the most gross manner, and even refusing a pension from the crown, left England in 1767, and went to France. At this period he published his” Dictionnaire de Musique.“Of this work Dr. Burney, after pointing out some defects, says, that” more good taste, intelligence, and extensive views are to be found in his original articles, not only than in any former musical dictionary, but in all the books on the subject of music which the literature of France can boast. And his ` Lettre sur la Musique Frangois,' may be safely pronounced the best piece of musical criticism that has ever been produced in any modern language. It must, however, be confessed, that his treatment of French music is very sarcastic, not to say contemptuous; but the music, the national character avantageux, and exclusive admiration of their own music, required strong Ian* guage. It had been proved long since, that they were not to be laughed out of their bad taste in any one of the fine arts: the national architecture, painting, and sculpture, were, in general, bad, and not what a traveller returning from Italy could bear to look at: though there have been now and then individual French artists of every kind, who have travelled and studied antiquity as well as the great masters of the Italian school; and it is now said, that at the Institute they are trying seriously to correct their errors, and to establish a classical taste throughout the empire."

In 1768, he resumed his botanical pursuits, which he conducted with equal taste and judgment, by collecting and studying the plants on the mountains of Dauphine. During the year 1770, he appeared at a coffee-house in Paris in his ordinary dress, and took much pleasure in the admiration of the surrounding crowd. This seems always to be his ambition, and he was never content unless when occupying the public attention, even while he seemed conscious he could not draw the public respect. The conclusion of his life we have given before. The influence of his opinions was once most extensive in France, and reached even this country in a greater degree than could have been wished. One reason might be, that in England, for many years we were accustomed to contemplate Rousseau only as a man persecuted for freedom of opinion, and this excited a sympathy which tolerated more than mature reflection could justify. Rousseau was naturally a man of great talents, and might have been one of the first of philosophers, if his genius had not been perverted in early life. He does not appear to have been a man of learning: his education, we have seen, was neglected, and irregular: but imagination was his forte; and this, under the guidance of a sensual appetite, which never forsook him, led him to be the great master of seduction in morals, while his early association with Voltaire, D'Alembert, and Diderot, tempted him to rival them in impiety; and even when he quarrelled with them, as he did with all his contemj-or ies, he still pursued the object by himself; and his s -phistries, perhaps more than the wit and argument of his former colleagues, powerfully contributed to that delusion which afflicted the continent with so much misery.—Although Kousseau’s works are less read now, he must ever be considered by the French as one of their first writers: and they continue to print very splendid editions of his works, the last and finest of which is that printed by Dulot, 1796—1801, 25 vols. royal eighteens, of which only 100 copies were struck off.

, a learned Benedictine of the congregation de St. Maur, was born at Conches in Normandy in 16 58. He made profession, September 23, 1680, and distinguished himself in his order, by his genius and talents for the pulpit; but preferring the tranquillity of a private life, retired to Rheims, where he made a good French translation of St. Jerome’s “Letters,” which was reprinted, 1713, 3 vols. 8vo; and an elegant “Eulogy on Pere Mabillon.” He undertook also the Literary History of France, but had scarcely traced out his plan, and collected some materials on that subject, when he died at Argenteuil, October 5, 1717, aged fifty-nine. The plan was completed by father Rivet.

, a French physician, was born at Ax, in the diocese of Painier, and after a course of medical studies, took his degree at Montpellier, and afterwards practised for some time at Paris. But he became at length averse to practice, and employed his time chiefly in study, which produced a work very highly praised by La Harpe, entitled, “System physique et moral de la Fernm?,” 1777, 12mo. This, however, may not be thought very complimentary to the ladies, as his principal object is to prove that they are to be considered as children, and consequently as having the same vivacity and the same inconstancy, the same fickleness of temper, the same caprices of liking and disliking, &c. La Harpe praises the style and philosophy of this work, which the author intended to have followed up by a “Systeme physique et moral de I'Homme,” but did not live to complete it. He was a man of singular diffidence and mildness of manner, and so much courted obscurity and retirement, that he used to say, that two ages of fame were not worth two days of quiet. He wrote the eloge on Bordeu, which was published in 1772, and afterwards prefixed to the works of that physician, and he contributed some memoirs to the literary journals. He died Sept. 18, 1802, at Chateaudun, on the Loire, to which he had retired a few months before, on account of bad health.

, a voluminous French writer, was born at Laon, in Picardy, Aug. 26, 1686. His father and mother were of good families, both protestants, and sutrerers for their religion. His mother’s body was ordered to be drawn upon a hurdle, because she died in the protestant faith, and his father was condemned to be hanged for endeavouring to escape into Holland, but was saved at the intercession of the chancellor Voisin, who prevailed on the Jesuit La Chaise to obtain his pardon. His son was educated first at the college of Laon, and afterwards in that of Du Plessis at Paris, Having finished his philosophical studies, some family discontents, owing to the introduction of a step- mother, determined him to go to Holland, where he entered into the company of the French cadets attached to the regiment of guards belonging to the States-general. He served with reputation until after the battle of Malplaquet, when he returned to his studies, and married. In order to maintain himself and family, he commenced the business of teaching for fourteen or fifteen years at the Hague, and educated in that time above fifty young men of family, who afterwards rose to offices of distinction in the republic. This employment, however, he relinquished in 1723, in order to devote his time to the study of politics and history, and became editor or contributor to various literary and political journals, in which he was assisted by some Frenchmen of talents, who, like himself, had taken refuge in Holland. Political writers are not always safe, even in republics; and Rousset, in 1747, having written some pamphlets against the magistrates, and in favour of the prince of Orange, was arrested at Amsterdam, and confined for some weeks there or at the Hague; but when the prince was made Stadtholder, by the name of William IV. he not only released Rousset, but soon after conferred on him the title of counsellor extraordinary, and appointed him his historiographer. Returning now to Amsterdam, he plunged farther into politics by becoming one of the chiefs of the party known in that country by the name of Doelisten, from Doele, the name of a hotel where they assembled. This party obtained what they demanded, but the stadtholder wishing to unite all parties in the common cause, and the Doelisten having become obnoxious to the public, he dismissed Rousset, in 1749, from the places he had conferred on him, and forbid the publication of a work he had written against the French court. Rousset being at the same time informed that he was in danger of being taken up, went to Brussels, where his pen was his chief resource, and there he died in 1762.

The principal works of this laborious writer were, 1. “Description geographique, historique, et politique, du royaume de Sardaigne, 9 ' Cologn, 1718, 12mo. 2.” Histoire de cardinal Alberoni,“translated from the Spanish, Hague, 1719, 12mo, and in 1720 enlarged to 2 vols. 3.” Mercure historique et politique,“15 vols. from August 1724 to July 1749. 4.” Histoire du prince Eugene, du due de Marl borough, du prince d'Orange,“Hague, 1729 1747, 3 vols.; fol. the first volume was by Dumont. The whole is valued chiefly for its fine plates and plans. 5.” Supplement au Corps Diplomatique de J. Dumont,“new arranged with large additions by Rousset, Amst. and Hague, 1739, 5 vois. fol. 6.” Interets des Puissances de TEurope,“founded on the treaties concluded at the peace of Utrecht, Hague, 1733, 2 vols. 4to, reprinted with additions, &c. four times; but the last edition of Trevoux, 1736, 14 vols. 12mo, is said to have been mutilated. 7.” Recueil Historique d'Actes et de Negociations,“from the peace of Utrecht, Hague, 1728, Amst. 1755, 21 vols. 12mo, but with the addition of some other political tracts and collections by our author, is generally to be found in 25 vols. 8.” Relation historique de la grande Revolution arrives dans la republique des Provinces-Unies en 1747,“Amst. 4to, without date. Rousset was also edicor of Mably’s” Droit Public“the abbe Raynal’s history of the Stadholderate, in which he attacks the abbe and his country; St. Manr’s French translation of Milton; Mrs. Manley’s” Atalantis," &c. In all his works, his ambition was to pass for a man of such impartiality that the reader could discover neither his country nor his religion. In this, however, he has not always succeeded, although it is apparent that his attachment to both had been considerably weakened.

, an English lady, celebrated for personal accomplishments, and her elegant writings both inverse and prose, was the daughter of Mr. Waiter Singer, a dissenting minister, and born at Ilchester in Somersetshire, Sept. 11, 1674. Her father was possessed of a competent estate near Frome in that county, whhere he lived; but, being imprisoned at Ilchester for nonconformity, married and settled in that town. The daughter, whose talents in other respects appeared very early, began to write verses at twelve years of age. She was also fond of the sister-arts, music and painting; and her father was at the expence of a master, to instruct her in the latter. She was also early accustomed to devout exercises, in which her mind was sincere, ardent, and unconstrained: and this habit, which grew naturally from constitution, was also powerfully confirmed by education and example. She was early acquainted with the pious bishop Ken, who had a very high opinion of her: and, at his request, wrote her paraphrase on the 38th chapter of Job. In 1696, the 22d of her age, a collection of her poems was published: they were entitled “Poems on several occasions, by Philomela,” her name being concealed, but they contributed to introduce her to the public with great advantage.

She understood the French and Italian tongues well; for which, however, she had no other tutor than the hon. Mr. Thynne, son to lord Weymouth, who kindly took upon him the task of teaching her. Her uncommon merit, and the charms of her person and conversation, procured her many admirers; and, among others, it is said that Prior the poet made his addresses to her. There was certainly much of friendship, if not of love, between them; and Prior’s answer to Mrs, Roue’s, then Mrs. Singer’s, pastoral on those subjects, gives room to suspect that there was something more than friendship on his side. In the mean time, Mr. Thomas Rowe, the son of a dissenting clergyman, a gentleman of uncommon parts and learning, and also of some talents for poetry, was the successful suitor. She was advanced to the age of thirty-six, before their interview at Bath in 1709, and he was ten or twelve years younger. It appears, however, to have been a match of affection on both sides. Some considerable time after his marriage, he wrote to her under the name of Delia a very tender ode, full of the warmest sentiments of connubial friendship and affection: five years constituted the short period of their happiness. Mr. Rowe died of a consumption in May 1715, aged twenty-eight years, and was unfeignedly lamented by his amiable partner. The elegy she composed upon his death is one of her best poems. It was only out of a regard to Mr. Rowe, that she had hitherto endured London in the winter-season, and therefore, on his decease, she retired to Frome, where her property chiefly lay, and where she wrote the greatest part of her works, Her “Friendship in Death, in twenty letters from the dead to the living,” was published in 1728; and her “Letters Moral and Entertaining” were printed, the first part in 1729, the second in 1731, and the third in 1733, 8vo, both written with the pious intention of exciting the careless and dissipated part of the world to an attention to their best interests, and written in a style considerably elegant, and perhaps at that time new, striking, copious, and luxuriant. In 1736, she published “The History of Joseph,” a poem, which she had written in her younger years. She did not long survive this publication; for she died of an apoplexy, as was supposed, Feb. 20, 1736-7, in the sixty-third year of her age. In her cabinet were found letters to several of her friends, which she had ordered to be delivered immediately after her decease, that the advice they contained might be the more impressive. The rev. Dr. Isaac Watts, agreeably to her request, revised and published her devotions in 1737, under the title of “Devout Exercises of the heart in Meditation and Soliloquy, Praise, and Prayer;” and, in 1739, her “Miscellaneous Works in prose and verse” were published in 2 vols. 8vo, with an account of her life and writings prefixed. These have often been reprinted, and still retain a considerable share of popularity. Her person is thus described: Although she was not a regular beauty, she possessed a large share of the charms of her sex. She was of a moderate stature, her hair of a fine colour, her eyes of a darkish grey inclining to blue, and full of fire. Her complexion was very fair, and a natural blush glowed in her cheeks. She spoke gracefully, her voice was exceedingly sweet and harmonious; and she had a softness in her aspect, which inspired love, yet not without some mixture of that awe and veneration which distinguished sense and virtue, apparent in the countenance, are wont to create.

, an eminent dramatic poet, was the son of John Rowe, esq. serjeant at law, and born at Little Berkford in Bedfordshire in 1673. His family had long possessed a considerable estate, with a good house, at Lambertoun in Devonshire. His ancestor from whom he descended in a direct line, received the arms borne by his descendants for his bravery in the holy war. His father, John Rowe, who was the first that quitted his paternal acres to practise any part of profit, professed the law, and published Benlow’s and Dallison’s Reports in the reign of James the Second, when, in opposition to the notions then diligently propagated, of dispensing power, he ventured to remark how low his authors rated the prerogative. He was made a serjeant, and died April 30, 1692. He was buried in the Temple church.

Nicholas was sent for education to a grammar-school in Highgate; whence he was removed to Westminster in 1688, where he acquired great perfection in classical literature, under Dr. Busby. To his skill in Greek and Latin he is said to have added some knowledge of the Hebrew; but poetry was his early bent and darling study. His father, designing him for his own profession, took him from that school, when he was about sixteen, and entered him a student in the Middle Temple. Being capable of attaining any branch of knowledge, he made a great progress in the law; and would doubtless have arrived at eminence in that profession, if the love of the belles lettres, and of poetry in particular, had not predominated. At the age of nineteen, he was, by the death of his father, left more to his own direction, and probably from that time gave up all thoughts of the law. When he was five and twenty, he wrote his first tragedy, called “The Ambitious Step-Mother;” and this meeting with universal applause, induced him to devote himself wholly to elegant literature. Afterwards he wrote these following tragedies “Tamerlane,” “The Fair Penitent,” Ulysses,“The Royal Convert,” “Jane Shore,” “Lady Jane Grey” and a comedy called “The Biter.” He wrote also several poems upon different subjects, but mostly of a temporary kind, which have been published under the title of “Miscellaneous Works,” in one volume: as his dramatic works have been in two.

Rowe is chiefly to be considered (Dr. Johnson observes) in the light of a tragic writer and a translator. In his attempt at comedy he failed so much, that he wisely gave up the pursuit of the comic muse, and his “Biter” is not inserted in his works; and his occasional poems and short compositions are rarely worthy of either praise or censure; for they seem the casual sports of a mind seeking rather to amuse its leisure than to exercise its powers. In the construction of his dramas there is not much art; he is not a nice observer of the unities. He extends time, and varies place, as his convenience requires. To vary the place is not (in the opinion of the learned critic from whom these observations are borrowed) any violation of nature, if the change be made between the acts for it is no less easy for the spectator to suppose himself at Athens in the second act, than at Thebes in the first but to change the scene as is done by Rowe in the middle of an act, is to add more acts to the play, since an act is so much of the business as is transacted without interruption. Rowe, by this licence, easily extricates himself from difficulties; as in “Lady Jane Gray,” when we have been terrified with all the dreadful pomp of public execution, and are wondering how the heroine or poet will proceed, no sooner has Jane pronounced some prophetic rhimes, than pass and be gone the scene closes, and Pembroke and Gardiner are turned out upon the stage. “I know not,” says Dr. Johnson, “that there can be found in his plays any deep search into nature, any accurate discriminations of kindred qualities, or nice display of passion in its progress all is general and undefined. Nor does he much interest or affect the auditor, except in” Jane Shore,“who is always seen and heard with pity. Alicia is a character of empty noise, with no resemblance to real sorrow or to natural madness.” It is concluded, therefore, that Rowe’s reputation arises principally from the reasonableness and propriety of some of his scenes, from the elegance of his diction, and the suavity of his verse. He seldom moves either pity or terror, but he often elevates the sentiments; he seldom pierces the breast, but he always delights the ear, and often improves the understanding. Being a great admirer of Shakspeare, he gave the public an edition of his plays; to which he prefixed an account of that great man’s life. But the most considerable of Mr. Rowe’s performances was a translation of “Lucan’s Pharsalia,” which he just lived to finish, but not to publish; for it did not appear in print till 1728, ten years after his death. It is said he had another talent, not usual with dramatic authors. Mrs. Oldfield affirmed, that the best school she had ever known was, hearing Rowe read her part in his tragedies.

In the mean time, the love of poetry and books did not make him unfit for business; for nobody applied closer to it when occasion required. The duke of Queensbernf, when secretary of state, made him secretary of public affairs. After the duke’s death, all avenues were stopped to his preferment; and, during the rest of queen Anne’s reign, he passed his time in study. A story, indeed, is told, rather an improbable one, which shews that he had some acquaintance with ministers. It is suid, that he went one day to pay his court to the lord treasurer Oxford, who asked him, “if he understood Spanish well?” He answered, “No:” but, thinking that his lordship might intend to send him into Spain on some honourable commission, he presently added, “that he did not doubt but he could shortly be able both to understand and to speak it.” The earl approving what he said, Rowe took his leave; and, retiring a few weeks to learn the language, waited again on the earl to acquaint him with it. His lordship asking him, “if he was sure he understood it thoroughly,” and Rowe affirming that he did, “How happy are you, Mr. Rowe,” said the earl, “that you can have the pleasure of reading and understanding the history of Don Quixote in the original!” On the accession of George I. he was made poet laureat, and one of the land-surveyors of the customs in the port of London. The prince of Wales conferred on him the clerkship of his council; and the lord chancellor Parker made him his secretary for the presentations. He did not enjoy these promotions long, for he died Dec. 6, 1718, in his 45th year.

Mr. Rowe was twice married, had a son by his first wife, and a daughter by his second. He was a handsome, genteel man; and his mind was as amiable as his person. He lived beloved, and at his death had the honour to be lamented by Mr. Pope, in an epitaph which is printed in Pope’s works, although it was not affixed on Mr. Rowe’s monument, in Westminster-abbey, where he was interred in the Poet’s corner.

, a physician of some note in his day, was of a family of Irish extraction, but born in London, Nov. 18, 1743. After a liberal education, he determined to the profession of surgery, and became a pupil at St. Thomas’s Hospital, under Mr. Thomas Baker. Being duly qualified, he went into the king’s service, in which he continued from 1760 to 1763, and was present at the siege of Belleisle, and the taking of the Havannah. By the patronage of admiral Keppel he obtained a confidential situation under the administration, and in obedience to their instructions made a voyage, in the course of which he visited Jamaica, Hispaniola, Cuba, and all the Leewardislands. On his return to England he was liberally rewarded for this service, which he had performed to the entire satisfaction of his employers. In the course of those voyages, as well as during his visits to the continent, he became an excellent French and Italian scholar, and collected many valuable specimens of the fine arts. Having now encouragement to settle in London, he first commenced practice as a surgeon and accoucheur, during which he resided in Holborn, Harley-street, Castle-street, Leicester-fields, and lastly in Savile~row. At what time he digressed so far from practice as to go to Oxford, we know not, but he was entered of St. Alban hall, where he took his degree of M. A. in May 1787, and that of bachelor of medicine in June 1788. He was desirous also of obtaining his doctor’s degree in that faculty, but this was refused, owing probably to his not keeping his regular terms. He obtained, however, a doctor’s diploma from the university of St. Andrew, in Scotland, and was admitted a licentiate of the college of physicians, and from this time his practice as a physician was considerably extensive and lucrative. He was chosen physician to the St. Mary-le-bone infirmary, and consulting physician to the queen’s Lying-in hospital, in both which stations he was distinguished for his humane attention to the poor patients, and his judicious treatment. He died of a cold, caught at a funeral, March 17, 1806.

Dr. Rowley wrote a great many medical pamphlets on various subjects, arising from the practice or peculiar diseases of his day, the titles of which it is unnecessary to specify, as in 1794, he re-published the whole, with corrections and additions, in 4 vols. 8vo. under the title of “The rational practice of Physick of William Rowley.” He appears to have been a man of extensive reading; and his practice, if not his theory, was in general conformable to that of his brethren, who did not, however, hold him in the highest regard, as in most of his works he seemed less ambitious of professional fame, than of popularity. When the Cow-pock was introduced, Dr. Rowley joined his learned friend Dr. Moseley, in direct hostility to the plan, and thus added a few more enemies to those he had created by his former attacks on some of the most eminent physicians of his time, Fothergill, Huxham, Pringle, Fordyce, Wall, Gregory, Cullen, &c. In 1793 he published a work under the title of “Schola medicinse universalis nova,” 2 vols. 4to, and afterwards a sort of translation of it in one volume 4to. This appears to have excited very little attention, although he was at great expence in engraving anatomical, &c. plates, and referred to it in many of his’ subsequent pamphlets on “Injections,” “The Hydrocephalus,” “The Plague,” &c. Dr. Rowley had much caste for music, and some for poetry. We are told he wrote light verses, and songs of a humorous cast, with great facility.

, an ingenious English mathematician and philosopher, was fellow of Magdalen college, Cambridge, and afterwards rector of Anderby in Lincolnshire, in the gift of that society. He was a constant attendant at the meetings of the Spalding Society, and was a man of a philosophical turn of mind, though of a cheerful and companionable disposition. He had a good genius for mechanical contrivances in particular. In 1738 he printed at Cambridge, in 8vo, “A Compendious System of Natural Philosophy,” in 2 vols. 8vo; a very ingenious work, which has gone through several editions. He had also two pieces inserted in the Philosophical Transactions, viz. I. “A Description of a Barometer wherein the Scale of Variation may be increased at pleasure;” vol. 38, p. 39. And 2. “Directions for making a Machine for finding the Roots of Kquations universally, with the manner of using it;” vol. 60, p. 240. Mr. Rowning died at his lodgings in Carey -street, near Lincoln’s-Inn Fields, the latter end of November 1771, at the age of seventy-two. Though a very ingenious and pleasant man, he had but an unpromising and forbidding appearance: he was tall, stooping in the shoulders, and of a sallow down-looking countenance*.

, in Latin Regius, a learned professor, was born at Constance, in Normandy, about the beginning of the 16th century. In the course of his studies he not only became a good Greek and Latin scholar, but particularly cultivated his native language, the French, which he endeavoured to polish and refine. After passing several years in Italy and at court, he settled at Paris, where, in 1570, he was appointed to the professorship of Greek. After this he studied the law four years at Toulouse; and frequented the bar at the parliament of Paris, in which he exercised some kind of magistracy; but his inattention to domestic affairs reduced him at last to depend upon the liberality of others for his daily subsistence, a misery almost insupportable in him who was naturally of a haughty temper, would never admit of a superior, and treated many of his learned contemporaries with great disdain. He died July 2, 1577. One of his best performances was an elegantly written life of the learned Budieus. His others were good translations into French of part of the works of Plato, Aristotle, and Demosthenes, which he enriched with learned commentaries, and proved his intimate acquaintance with the original language.

, an architect and antiquary, was born at Paris in 1728, and was son of Julian le Roy, a celebrated mechanist, who so excelled in the art of watchmaking, that his time-pieces acquired the same celebrity in France as those of Graham in England. He died at Paris in 1759, at the age of 74, leaving four sons; of whom Julian became an eminent architect, and greatly improved the French style of architecture. He wrote, 1. “Ruines des plus beaux Monumens de la Grece,” which obtained for the author admission into the Academy of Inscriptions. This first appeared in 1758, but many errors having been pointed out by our Athenian Stuart, he published a more correct edition in 1770. 2. “Histoire de la disposition et tiesformes differentes des Temples des Chretiens;” 3. “Observations sur les Edifices des anciens Peuples. 4.” De la Marine des anciens Peuples.“5.” Les Navires des Anciens,“1783, 8vo, and in 1785, another on the same subject; which was followed, in 1796, by a memoir on cutting masts in the Pyrenees. This ingenious man died at Paris in the year 1803, at the age of seventy-five. His brother Peter was watch-maker to the king, and published memoirs for the clock-makers of Paris,” Etrennes Chronometriques,“” Treatise on the Labours of Harrison and le Roy for the Discovery of Longitude at Sea." He died in 1785. The English, on account of their numerous discoveries in this art, had enjoyed such a reputation for the excellence of their clocks and watches, that they found every where a market, in preference to any others, and tbr French themselves were obliged to come to England for their time-pieces, until Julian le Roy, the father, had the honour of removing, in part, this pre-eminence, and of transferring it to the French. He made many discoveries in the construction of repeating-clocks and watchc- in second and horizontal watches he invented an universal compass with a sight an extremely useful ar.d simple contrivance for drawing a meridional line, and finding the declination of the needle; and a new universal horizontal dial. It is to him we are indebted for the method of compensating for the effects of heat and cold in the balances of chronometers, by the unequal expansion of different metals, a discovery which has been brought by our English artists to a state of great perfection, although it had been thrown aside by the inventor’s son, Peter.

, archbishop of Rheims in the fourteenth century, was the son of Matthew le Roye, the fourth of that name, grand master of the French archery, descended from an ancient and illustrious family, originally of Picardy. He was first canon of Noyon, then dean of St. Quintin, and lived at the papal court while the popes resided at Avignon; but followed Gregory XI. to Rome, and afterwards attached himself to the party of Clement VII. and of Peter de Luna, afterwards Benedict XIII. Guy le Roye was successively bishop of Verdun, Castres, and Dol, archbishop of Tours, then of Sens, and lastly, archbishop of Rheims in 1391. He held a provincial council in 1407, and set out to attend the council of Pisa two years after; but on his arrival at Voutre, a town situated five leagues from Genoa, one of his suite happened to quarrel with one of the inhabitants, and killed him. This naturally excited a violent tumult among the populace, who in their fury surrounded the prelate’s hous*e and whiie he was endeavouring to appease them, one of the mob wounded him from a cross-bow, of which he died June 8, 1409. He founded the college of Rheims at Paris, in 1399. He left a book, entitled “Doctrinale Sapientiae,” written in 1388, and translated into French the year following, by a monk of Chigni, under the title of “Doctrinal de Sapience,” printed in 4to, black letter, with the addition of examples and short stories, some of which have a species of simple and rather coarse humour; but not ill adapted to the taste of the times. The good archbishop is said to have written it “for the health of his soul, and of the souls of all his people,” and had such an opinion of its efficacy, that he gave it the authority of homilies, commanding that every parish in his diocese should be provided with a copy, and that the curates and chaplains of the said parishes, should read to the people two or three chapters, with promises of pardon for certain readings. Caxton, who seems to have entertained almost as high an opinion of this work, translated and printed it in 1489, in a folio size. According to Mr. Dibdin, who has given a minute description, with specimens, of this “Doctrinal of Sapyence,” there are not more than four perfect copies extant.

, an eminent agricultural writer, was born at Lyons, Jan. 24, 1734. His father, who was engaged in commerce, dying while he was young, and without property, he entered into the ecclesiastical order; but he had scarce ended his studies, when the soil, cultivation, &c. of the beautiful country near Lyons, began to occupy his attention, and Columella, Varro, and Olivier de Serres, became his favourite authors. In the study of botany he took La Tourette for his guide, who was his countryman and friend. With him, after being appointed director of the school at Lyons, which he soon left, he published, in 1766, “Elementary Demonstrations of Botany,” a work that passed through many editions. In 1771 he went to Paris, where he began to publish the “Journal de Physique et d'Histoire Naturelle,” which was conducted with greater reputation than in the hands of his predecessor Gauthier d‘Agoty. In this work he gave clear and interesting accounts of all new discoveries in physics, chemistry, and natural history. ’ Having been, by the recommendation of the king of Poland, presented to a valuable priory, he had leisure to turn his attention to his favourite project of a complete body, or “Cours d' Agriculture.” As Paris was not the place for an object of this kind, he purchased an estate at Beziers, where his studies and observations enabled him to complete his “Cours,” in 10 vols. 4to, except the last, which did not appear till after the author’s death. In 1788 he went to Lyons, and was admitted a member of the academy, and the government gave him the direction of the public nursery ground. On the revolution Rozier was one of its earliest partizaris, and one of its victims; for in September 1793, during the siege of Lyons, a bomb falling upon his bed, buried his body in the ruins of his house. He was author of several treatises on the method of making wines, and distilling brandy, on the culture of turnip and cole-seed, on oil-mills, and other machinery.

, an illustrious artist, was of a distinguished family at Antwerp, where some say he was born in 1577; but according to others he was barn at Cologne, to which place his father had retired for security, to avoid the calamities of civil war. On his return to Antwerp, our artist was educated with the greatest care, and as he had shown some turn for design, was placed for instruction under Tobias Verhaecht, a landscape painter of some note, but soon exchanged this master in order to study historical painting under Adam Van Oort. But as the surly temper of this artist was incompatible with the more amiable disposition of Rubens, he soon left him also, and attached himself to Otho Venius, whom he found a man of learning, candour, and congeniality of taste; and although he rose infinitely above this preceptor, he ever preserved the highest esteem for him. From Venius, Rubens probably acquired his taste for allegory, one of his least merits, it is true, but one to which he was indebted for a considerable share of popularity, in an age when allegory was in fashion.

After continuing about four years with Venius, the latter, who admired his progress, candidly told him that he could no farther advance it, and that he must visit Italy. This was Rubens’s secret wish, but the means by which he accomplished it have been variously represented. Sandrart, who was intimately acquainted with him, and accompanied him when he travelled through Holland, tells us that the archduke Albert, governor of the Netherlands, conceived so high an opinion of Rubens, from the accounts he had received of his superior talents, that he engaged him in his service, employed him to paint several fine designs for his own palace, and recommended him in the most honourable manner to the duke of Mantua, in whose court he might have access constantly to an admirable collection of paintings and antique statues, and have an opportunity of improving himself by studying as well as copying the former, and designing after the latter. On his arrival at Mantua he was received with a degree of distinction worthy of his merit; and while he continued there, he added considerably to his knowledge, though he attached himself in a more particular manner to the style of colouring peculiar to the Venetian school. From Mantua he visited Rome, Venice, and other cities of Italy, and studied the works of the greatest painters, from the time of Raphael to his own, and accomplished himself in colouring, by the accurate observations he made on the style of Titian and Paolo Veronese. It has been objected, however, that he neglected to refine his taste as much as he ought by the antique, though most of the memorable artists in painting had sublimed their own ideas of grace, expression, elegant simplicity, beautiful proportion, and nature, principally by their making those antiques their perpetual studies and models.

On his return to Mantua, he painted three magnificent pictures for the church of the Jesuits, which, in point of execution and freedom of force in effect, rank nearly among his best productions. His patron, wishing to have copies of some of the most celebrated pictures at Rome, sent Rubens thither for that purpose, which while he performed with great skill, he employed no less diligence in studying the originals. In 1605, he was honoured with one of those mixed commissions, of statesman and artist, with which he was frequently entrusted, and which place the various powers of Rubens in a very singular light. This was no less than an embassy from Mantua to the court of Spain. Carrying with him some magnificent presents for the duke of Lerma, the favourite minister of Philip III. he painted at the same time the picture of this monarch, and received from him such flattering marks of distinction, as probably facilitated the political purpose of his errand. Soon after his return to Mantua, he again visited Rome, and there and at Genoa painted some pictures for the churches, which greatly advanced his reputation. On the death of his mother, whom he appears to have deeply regretted, he formed the design of settling in Italy, bnt by the persuasion of the archduke Albert and the Infanta Isabella, was induced to take up his residence at Antwerp. Here he married his first wife, Elizabeth Brants, and built a magnificent house, which he enriched with the choicest specimens of the antique, and with valuable pictures.

His amazing success very naturally created enemies, and among others Abraham Janssens defied him to a trial of strength. Rubens answered, that he would contend with him when he had shewn himself to be a competitor worthy of him. Others more secretly endeavoured to injure him by attributing the best parts of his pictures to his pupils, and Schut and Rombouts abused him for lack of invention; this he answered by relieving their necessities and procuring them employment, while by engaging in those varieties of art, landscapes, lion and crocodile-hunting, and other miscellaneous subjects, he decidedly established his claim to the title of an universal painter, and covered his calumniators with shame and confusion. Amidst so much hostility, from the envy of contemporaries, one friendly offer must not be forgot. A visionary chemist, who had been labouring to produce the philosopher’s stone, offered our artist a share of the laboratory and its advantages. Rubens took him to his painting-room, and told him that twenty years before he had discovered the art of making gold by his palette and pencils.

In 1620 he received a commission from Mary de Medici, to adorn the gallery of the palace of the Luxembourg, for which he executed a vvellfknown series of paintings, exhibiting the principal events of the life of that princess. The whole were completed in three years, an astonishing instance both of art and labour. It was at this period he became known to the duke of Buckingham, who was then on a tour with prince Charles. He afterwards became the purchaser of Rubens’s rich museum of works of art, for which he is said to have given 10,000l. sterling.

On the return of Rubens to Antwerp, he was honoured with several conferences with the Infanta Isabella, and was by her dispatched on a political mission to the court of Madrid, where he arrived in 1628, and was most graciously received by Philip IV. He acquitted himself in his novel cap K-ity to the satisfaction of that monarch, and his minister, the duke de Olivares, by both of whom he was highly esteemed; and while his talents as a diplomatist met with the success they merited, those of the painter were not neglected.

The duke de Olivares had just completed the foundation t?f a convent of Carmelites, at the small town of Loeches, near Madrid, and the king, as a mark of his favour to the minister, commissioned liubens to paint four pictures for their church, which he executed in his grandest style, and the richest glow of his colouring. He also painted eight grand pictures for the great saloon of the palace at Madrid, which are regarded among the most brilliant of his productions. Their subjects were, the Rape of the Sabines the battle between the Romans and Sabines the Bath of Diana; Perseus and Andromeda; the Rape of Helen the Judgment of Paris; Juno, Minerva, and Venus; and the Triumph of Bacchus. He also painted a large portrait of the king on horseback, with other figures; and a picture of the martyrdom of the apostle St. Andrew, which was in the church dedicated to that saint. For these extraordinary productions he was richly rewarded* received the honour of knighthood, and was presented with the golden, key as gentleman of the chamber to the king. In 1629 he returned to Flanders, and thus, in the short space of little more than nine months, he designed and executed so extensive a series of pictures; a labour which, to any other artist not possessed of his extraordinary powers, must have required the exertion of many years. When he had rendered the account of his mission to the Infanta, she dispatched him to England, to sound the disposition of the government on the subject of a peace. There for a time he concealed the powers granted to him to negociate upon the subject, which he afterwards produced with success. In the mean time, as Lord Orford observes, neither Charles I. nor Rubens overlooked in the ambassador the talents of the painter. The king engaged him to paint the ceiling of the Banquetting-house, the design the apotheosis of king James I. The original sketch for the middle compartment was long preserved at Houghton. Rubens received 3000l. for this work. During his residence here he painted for the king the St. George, four feet high and seven feet wide. His majesty was represented in the Saint, the queen in Cleodelinde: each figure one foot and a half high: at a distance a view of Richmond and the Thames. In England are still several capital works of Rubens, at Blenheim, Wilton, Easton, &c. He was knighted during his residence here, which Lord Orford supposes did not exceed a year. The French, in their late barbarous irruptions into the Netherlands, robbed Flanders of fifty -two of Rubens’s best pictures, which however have probably since found their way to their former destination.

Rubens continued to enjoy his well-earned fame and honours, with uninterrupted success, till he arrived at his fifty-eighth year, when he was attacked with strong fits of gout, which debilitated his frame, and unfitted him for great exertions: he abandoned, therefore, all larger works, and confined himself to easel painting. Yet he continued to exercise his art until 1640, when he died at the age of sixty-three. He was buried, with extraordinary pomp, in the church of St. James at Antwerp, under the altar of his private chapel, which he had previously decorated with a very fine picture. A monument was erected to him by his wife and children, with an epitaph in Latin, eulogizing his talents and virtues, and displaying their success.

He left a son Albert Rubens, who was born at Antwerp in 1614, and succeeded his father in his post as secretary to the council, devoting his leisure to literary pursuits. He died in 1657, leaving behind him many works, as monuments of his great learning and sound judgment, of which the following may be mentioned. “Regum et Imperatorum Romanorum Numismata,” which is a commentary on the medals of the duke of Arscbot: “De Re Vestiaria Veterum:” “Dissertatio de Gemma Tiberiana et Augustea de Urbibus Neocoris de natali Die Caesaris Augusti,” which were published by Graevius in the “Thesaurus Antiq. Roman.”

Lord Orford has observed that “one cannot write the life of Rubens, without transcribing twenty authors;” and certainly twice twenty critics may be quoted who have dilated on his merits as an artist, with more or less discrimination. In concluding his article, however, we shall confine ourselves to the opinion of sir Joshua Reynolds, from its acknowledged superiority.

“The elevated situation,” says our great artist, " or> which Rubens stands in the esteem of the world, is alone a sufficient reason for some examination of his pretensions. His tame is extended over a great part of the Continent, without a rival; and it may be justly said, that he has enriched his country, not in a figurative sense only, by the great examples of art which he left, but by what some would think a more solid advantage, the wealth arising from the concourse of strangers whom his works continually invite to Antwerp, which would otherwise have little to reward the visit of a connoisseur. To the city of Dueseldorp he has been an equal benefactor. The gallery of that city is considered as containing one of the greatest collections of pictures in the world; but if the works of Rubens were taken from it, I will venture to assert, that this great repository would be reduced to at least half its value. To extend his glory still farther, he gives to Paris one of its most striking features, the Luxembourg gallery; and if to these we add the many towns, churches, and private cabinets, where a single picture of Rubens confers eminence, we cannot hesitate to place him in the first rank of illustrious painters.

"Though I still entertain the same general opinion both in regard to his excellencies and his defects, yet having now seen his greatest compositions, where he has more means of displaying those parts of his art in which he particularly excelled, my estimation of his genius is of course raised. It is only in large compositions that his powers seem to have room to expand themselves. They really increase in proportion to the size of the canvas on which they are to be displayed. His superiority is not seen in easel pictures, nor even in detached parts of his greater works; which are seldom eminently beautiful. It does not lie in an attitude, or in any peculiar expression, but in the general effect, in the genius which pervades and illuminates the whole.

"I remember to have observed in a picture of Diatreci, which I saw in a private cabinet at Brussels, the contrary effect. In that performance there appeared to be a total absence of this pervading genius; though every individual figure was correctly drawn, and to the action of each as careful an attention was paid, as if it were a set academy figure. Here seemed to be nothing left to chance; all the nymphs (the subject was the Bath of Diana) were what the ladies call in attitudes; yet, without being able to censure it for incorrectness, or any other defect, I thought it one of the coldest and most insipid pictures I ever beheld.

"The works of Rubens have that peculiar property always attendant on genius, to attract attention, and enforce admiration, in spite of all their faults. It is owing to this fascinating power that the performances of those painters with which he is surrounded, though they have, perhaps, fewer defects, yet appear spiritless, tame, and insipid; such as the altar-pieces of Crayer, Schutz, Segers, Heysens, Tysens, Van Bulen, and the rest. They are done by men whose hands, and indeed all their faculties, appear to have been cramped and confined; and it is evident that every thing they did was the effect of great labour and pains. The productions of Rubens, on the contrary, seem to flow with a freedom and prodigality, as if they cost him nothing; and to the general animation of the composition, there is always a correspondent spirit in the execution of the work. The striking brilliancy of his colours, and their lively opposition to each other, the flowing liberty and freedom of his outline, the animated pencil with which every object is touched, all contribute to awaken and keep alive the attention of the spectator; awaken in him, in some measure, correspondent sensations, and make him feel a degree of that enthusiasm with which the painter was carried away. To this we add the complete uniformity in all the parts of the work, so that the whole seems to be conducted, and grow out of one mind; every thing is of a piece, and fits its place. Even his taste of drawing and of form appears to correspond better with his colouring and composition, than if he had adopted any other manner, though that manner, simply considered, might be better; it is here as in personal attractions: there is frequently found a certain agreement and correspondence in the whole together, which is often more captivating than mere regular beauty.

*' Rubens appears to have had that confidence in himself, which it is necessary for every artist to assume, when he has finished his studies, and may venture, in some measure, to throw aside the fetters of authority; to consider the rules as subject to his controul, and not himself subject to the rules; to risk and to dare extraordinary attempts without a guide, abandoning himself to his own sensations, and depending upon them. To this confidence must be imputed that originality of manner by which he may be truly said to have extended the limits of the art. After Rubens had made up his manner, he never looked out of himself for assistance: there is consequently very little in his works, that appears to be taken from other masters. If he has borrowed any thing, he has had the address to change and adapt it so well to the rest of his work, that the theft is not discoverable.

"Besides the excellency of Rubens in these general powers, he possessed the true art of imitating. He saw the objects of nature with a painter’s eye; he saw at once the predominant feature by which every object is known and Distinguished; and as soon as seen, it was executed with a facility that is astonishing: and let me add, this facility is to a painter, when he closely examines a picture, a source of great pleasure. How far this excellence may be perceived or felt by those who are not painters, I know not to themcertainly it is not enough that objects be truly representedtliey must likewise be represented with grace which means here, that the work is done with facility, and without effort. Rubens was, perhaps, the greatest master in the mechanical part of the art, the best workman with his tools that ever exercised a pencil. This part of the art, though it does not hold a rank with the powers of invention, of giving character and expression, has yet in it what may be called genius. It is certainly something that cannot be taught by words, though it may be learned by a frequent examination of those pictures which possess this excellence. It is felt by very few painters; and it is as rare at this time among the living painters, as any of the higher excellencies of the art.

"This power, which Rubens possessed in the highest degree, enabled him to represent whatever he undertook better than any other painter. His animals, particularly lions and horses, are so admirable, that it may be said they were never properly represented but by him. His portraits rank with the best works of the painters who have made that branch of the art the sole business of their lives; and of those he has left a great variety of specimens. The same may be said of his landscapes; and though Claude Lorrain finished more minutely, as becomes a professor in any particular branch, yet there is such an airiness and facility in the landscapes of Rubens, that a painter would as soon wish to be the author of them, as those of Claude, or any other artist whatever.

"The pictures of Rubens have this effect upon the spectator, that he feels himself in no wise disposed to pick out and dwell on his defects. The criticisms which are made on bint are indeed often unreasonable. His style ought no more to be blamed for not having the sublimity of Michael Angelo, than Ovid should be censured because he is not like Virgil.

"However, it must be acknowledged, that he wanted many excellencies, which would have perfectly united with his style. Among those we may reckon beauty in his fe-? male characters: sometimes, indeed, they make approaches to it; they are healthy and comely women, but seldom, if ever, possess any degree of elegance: the same may be said of his young men and children: his old men have that sort of dignity which a bushy beard will confer; but he never possessed a poetical conception of character. In his representations of the highest characters in the Christian or the fabulous world, instead of something above humanity, which might fill the idea which is conceived of such beings, the spectator finds little more than mere mortals, such as he meets with every day.

"The incorrectness of Rubens, in regard to his outline, oftener proceeds from haste and carelessness, than from inability: there are in his great works, to which he seems to have paid more particular attention, naked figures as eminent for their drawing as for their colouring. He appears to have entertained a great abhorrence of the meagre dry manner of his predecessors, the old German and Flemish painters; to avoid which, he kept his outline large and flowing: this, carried to an extreme, produced that heaviness which is so frequently found in his figures. Another defect of this great painter is, his inattention to the foldings of his drapery, especially that of his women: it is scarcely ever cast with any choice or skill.

Carlo Maratti and Rubens are, in this respect, in opposite extremes; one discovers too much art in the dispositions of drapery, and the other too little. Rubens’s drapery, besides, is not properly historical; the quality of the stuff of which it is composed, is too accurately distinguished resembling the manner of Paul Veronese. This drapery is less offensive in Rubens than it would be in many other painters, as it partly contributes to that richness which is the peculiar character of his style, which we do not pretend to set forth as of the most simple and sublime kind.

"The difference of the manner of Rubens from that of any other painter before him, is in nothing more distinguishable than in his colouring, which is totally different from that of Titian, Corregio, or any of the great colourists. The effect of his pictures may be not improperly compared to clusters of flowers; all his colours appear as clear and as beautiful: at the same time he has avoided that tawdry effect which one would expect such gay colours to produce; in this respect resembling Barocci more than any other painter. What was said of an ancient painter may be applied to those two artists that their figures look as if they fed upon roses.

"It would be a curious and a profitable study for a painter, to examine the difference, and the cause of that difference of effect in the works of Corregio and Rubens, both excellent in different ways. The preference probably would be given according to the different habits of the connoisseur: those who had received their first impressions from the works of Rubens, would censure Corregio as heavy; and the admirers of Corregio would say Rubens wanted solidity of effect. There is lightness, airiness, and facility in Rubens, his advocates will urge, and comparatively a laborious heaviness in Corregio; whose admirers will complain of Rubens’s manner being careless and unfinished, whilst the works of Corregio are wrought to the highest degree of delicacy; and what may be advanced in favour of Corregio' s breadth of light, will, by his censurers, be called affected and pedantic. It must be observed, that we are speaking solely of the manner, the effect of the picture; and we may conclude, according to the custom in pastoral poetry, by bestowing on each of these illustrious painters a garland, without attributing superiority to either.

, in Latin Oricellarius, a learned writer of the fifteenth century, was born in 1449. His mother was daughter of the celebrated Pallas Strozzi, one of the most powerful and opulent citizens of Florence, a great patron of literature, and who in his collections of books and antiquities, was the rival of Niccoli, and even of the Medicis themselves. To this last mentioned illustrious family Bernard became allied, in his seventeenth year, by his marriage with the sister of Lorenzo, which joyful occasion his father John Ruccellai is said to have celebrated with princely magnificence, at the expence of 37,000 florins. Bernard after his marriage pursued his studies with the same avidity as before; and after Lorenzo de Medici’s death, the Platonic academy found in him a very generous protector. He built a magnificent palace, with gardens and groves convenient for the philosophic conferences held by the academicians, and ornamented it with the most valuable specimens of the antique, collected at an immense expence.

Like many other scholars of that day, he added political skill to his literary accomplishments, and held some offices of trust and importance. In 1480 he was chosen gonfalonier of justice and four years after, the republic appointed him ambassador to the state of Genoa, which was folloxved by three other embassies, one to Ferdinand king of Naples, and two to Charles VIII. king of France. During the revolutions which took place at Naples about the end of the fifteenth century, Ruccellai took a part, for which some Florentine historians censure him but whether his Conduct was patriotic or factious, is not very clear, although the former is most probable. He died in 1514, and was interred in the church of St. Maria Novella, the fagade of which, begun by his father, he finished with great magnificence.

Ruccellai’s principal work “De Urbe Roma,” contains an accurate account of what the ancient writers have handed down respecting the magnificent edifices of that city, and Was in all respects the best work of the kind that had then appeared. It was first published in the collection entitled “Rerum Ital. Scriptores Florentini.” He left also a history of the war of Pisa, and another of the descent of Charles VIII. into Italy, “De Bello Pisano,” and “De Jtello Jtajico;” the latter of which is said to have been first printed at London by Brindley in 1724, and both by Bowyer in 1733; but this last edition we do not find mention.ed in Mr. Nichols’s very accurate and elaborate list of the productions of Bowyer’s press. In 1752 was published at JLeipsic a treatise on the Roman magistracy, “De magistratibus Romanis,” written by Ruccellai, and sent to the editor by the learned antiquary Gori, who discovered it at Florence. Ruccellai was also a poet, and appears in the “Canti Carnascialeschi” as the author of the “Trionfo della calunnia.” In poetry, however, he was eclipsed by his son, the subject of our next article.

, fourth son to the preceding, was born at Florence, Oct. 20, 1475, at a time when his family was in the plenitude of its power. By what masters he was educated we have not been told, but it maybe presumed, from his father’s character, that he procured him the best which Florence could afford; and it is said that he became very accomplished in the Greek and Latin languages, as well as in his own. In 1505 he was sent as ambassador from Florence to Venice. In the tumult raised by the younger citizens of Florence on the return of the Medici in 1512, and which contributed so greatly to facilitate that event, he and his brother Pallas took a principal part, apparently in opposition to the wishes of their father, who was on the popular side. On the elevation of Leo X. and the appointment of his nephew Lorenzo to the government of Naples, Ruccellai is supposed to have accompanied the latter to Rome, when he went to assume the insignia of captain-general of the church. In 1515 he attended Leo on his visit to Florence, on which occasion the pontiff was entertained in the gardens of the Ruccellai with the representation of the tragedy of “Rosmunda,” written by our author in Italian blank verse. As Ruccellai entered into the ecclesiastical order, it has appeared surprising that Leo did not raise him to the purple; but political reasons, and not any want of esteem, seem to have prevented this, fop he sent him, at a very important crisis, as his legate to Francis I. in which station he continued until Leo’s death. After this event he returned to Florence, and was deputed, lyith five other principal citizens, to congratulate the net* pope Adrian VI. which he performed in an oration yet extant. The succeeding pope Clement VII. appointed Ruccellai keeper of the castle of St. Angelo, whence he obtained the name of IL Gastellano. He died in 1526. His fame rests chiefly on his poem of the “Api,” or Bees, which was published in 1539, and will secure to its author a high rank among the writers of didactic poetry. “His diction,” says Mr. Roscoe, “is pure without being insipid, and simple without becoming vulgar; and in the course of his work he has given decisive proofs of his scientific acquirements, particularly on subjects of natural history.” Besides the tragedy of “Rosmunda,” already noticed, he wrote another, V Oreste,“which remained in manuscript until published by Scipio Maffei in his” Teatro Italiano,“who consider it as superior to his” Rosmunda.“They are both imitations of Euripides. An edition of all his works was printed at Padua in 1772, 8vo, and his poem of the” Bees" was translated into French by Pingeron, in 1770.

, one of the earliest cultivators of natural science in Sweden, was the son of John Rudbeck, bishop of Vesteras, a considerable patron of letters, and by whose exertions the Swedish Bible was published in 1618. He was born in 1630, and educated at Upsal. Anatomy was his early study, and he prosecuted it with such success, that at the age of nineteen or twenty he made the important discovery of the lymphatic vessels in the liver, and soon afterwards, of those of other parts of the body. In Bartholine he had a rival in this discovery, which indeed both appear to have made independent of each other; but Haller gives the priority, in point of time, to Rudbeck. Rudbeck, having also made botany a part of his pursuits, contributed, out of his own means, to the advancement of that science, by founding a garden, which he afterwards gave to the university of Upsal. After a visit to Holland in 1653, he devoted himself to medicine, and to the instruction of his pupils in anatomy. In 1658 he was appointed professor of medicine, and was fixed at Upsal for the remainder of his life. Besides the attention which he gave to the above-mentioned pursuits, he very early addicted himself to the study of languages, history, antiquities, architecture, and music, as well as the practical art of drawing, and was so much regarded as a man of taste, that the public festivals and decorations, at the coronation of the young king Charles XL in 1660, were put entirely under his direction.

The first botanical publication of Rudbeck seems to have been his “Catalogus plantarum horti Upsaliensis,” printed at Upsal in 1658, the year after the establishment of that collection. To this little volume a preface in Latin and Swedish is prefixed, treating of practical horticulture, and recommending botany for its agreeableness and utility. The list is of course not very ample, but contains several exotic species and varieties. An appendix to this catalogue was printed in 1666, the garden having been, by that time, considerably enriched. The same year, 1666, another similar work appeared, “Deliciae Vallis Jacobaeae;” a catalogue, alphabetical like the former, of a garden at Jacob’s Dahl, near Stockholm. This, which was anonymous, is a little book of extreme rarity, insomuch that Haller speaks of it by report only. A Latin poem is prefixed to the work, describing the beauty of this villa, its orangery, aviary, plantations, and fountains.

It is uncertain at what period of his life Rudbeck first conceived the vast project of his “Campi Elysii,” in which all the plants in the world, as far as they had been discovered, were to be represented by wooden cuts, in twelve folio volumes, disposed according to Bauhin’s “Pinax.” For this stupendous work he is said to have prepared ten or eleven thousand figures, and the first and second volumes were already printed, when a dreadful fire reduced almost the whole town of Upsal to ashes, in 1702. Three copies only of the first volume escaped the fire, two of which remain in Sweden, and the third is preserved in the Sherardian library at Oxford. A few leaves, wanting in this last copy, are supplied in manuscript. A number of the blocks of this very volume, which consists of grasses and their allies, came into England with the Linncean collection; and having been compared with the Oxford copy, an impression of them was given to the public in 1789, by sir James Edward Smith, president of the Linntean society, under the title of “Reliquiae Rudbeckiancc,” the appropriate letterpress of each figure, and the Linnaean names, being subjoined. An historical preface is prefixed to this edition, as well as a dedication to Dr. John Gustavus Acrel, professor of medicine at Upsal, who was entrusted with the sale of the l.innaean museum and library.

The second volume of the “Campi Elysii” came from the press a little before the former; so that several copies having got abroad, escaped the destruction of the rest. Even this, however, is a very rare book, the price of which can hardly be estimated. A copy was bought by professor Jacquin in Germany, many years ago, for about 30 guineas. This volume is in the Linnrcan, Banksian, and Sherardian libraries. Containing liliaceous plants, and the Orchis tribe, it is much more splendid than the first. The figures are copied from all quarters, though several are original, and amount to about 600 in all, many of them executed with great correctness and elegance. The preface attributes the anticipated publication of this volume to the greater popularity and attraction of its contents; and speaks of many of the intended figures of the whole work, as to be executed from drawings made by the author liinn* self, after original specimens, either preserved in Burser’s fine Swiss herbarium, or obtained from other quarters. The author speaks of his son and nephew, each of the same name with himself, as his coadjutors, and the destined continuators of this laborious undertaking. The destruction of his materials is extremely to be regretted; for such a repository of the botanical knowledge of the time would have been highly valuable to succeeding writers; particularly as illustrating the plants of Bauhin, so many of which are to be determined from Burser’s herbarium only.

The author’s other work, as scarce as the preceding, having shared the same fate, is entitled “Atlantica, sive Manheim vera Japheti posterorum sedes ac patria, &c.” l6L>8-^1702j 4 vols. folio. This work was written in the Swedish language, but is accompanied by a Latin translation. The fourth volume was put to press in 1702, and the printer was in the second alphabet, when the fire above mentioned took place, and consumed this volume as well as the others, with all the author’s copy, except two or three sets of the printed sheets, which have, if we mistake not, been supplied by manuscript in the few copies extant The president of the Linnaean society has one of the preceding volumes, composed of wooden cuts; but the whole work, which Brunet has accurately described, has copperplate frontispieces and other finished engravings, maps, &c. The aim of this singular performance was to prove that Sweden had been the terrestrial paradise of our first parents, the Atlantis of Plato, the place whence the Germans, French, English, Danes, Greeks, and Romans, and a,li nations came, and the source of all learning, ancient mythology, arts and sciences; but all that the author has realty proved is, how much profound learning may be brought to bear upon a wild and untenable hypothesis.

Rudbeck died a few months after the destruction of his works) Sept. 2, 1702, in the seventy-second year of his age-, 1 having nine years before resigned the professorships of botany and anatomy to his son. He is said to have beena man of a mild and amiable character, and as much esteemed for his personal qualities as for his learning.

, son of the preceding, was born at Upsal in 1660, and under his father’s direction studied medicine, botany, and antiquities. He took his doctor’s degree at Utrecht, in 1690, publishing on that occasion an able dissertation, “De fundamental! Plantarum Notiti-3. rite acquirenda.” In this he asserts the necessity of arranging and distinguishing the genera of plants by their fructification alone, and prefers such leading principles as are derived from the fruit, rather than from the corolla. He rejects habit, colour, sensible qualities, time of flowering, &c. on which so much stress has been laid by superficial observers; while, on the other hand, he declines being implicitly led by the more abstruse principles of certain more philosophical botanists. He had previously, at Upsal, in 1686, defended a thesis “De Propagatione Plantarum, 1 * which is less original, though highly creditable as a school exercise. In 1695, he set out from Upsal on a tour to Lapland, accompanied by two sons of count Gyllenborg, After his return he prepared a very ample account of his journey, having made a number of drawings for the pur* pose. The first part, published in 1701, in Latin and Swedish, is dedicated to king Charles XII. in a Latin, as well as Swedish, poem, and ornamented with a magnificent wood-cut of the Pedicularis Sceptrum-Carolinum. But this volume, a thin 4to, goes no further than the province of Upland. The rest of the materials, except a collection of drawings of plants, which still exist, and perhaps rather belong to the” Campi Elysii,“seem to have perished in the fire of Upsal. Such indeed was the fate of most of the copies of the work just mentioned, entitled” Laponia illusr trata," which is therefore an extremely scarce book.

In 1720 Rudbeck, in conjunction with Benzelius, after* wards archbishop of Upsal, founded the Swedish academy of sciences, as it was then called, though subsequently, when other similar establishments arose at Stockholm, Lund, &c. the original one was entitled the Royal Academy of Upsal. This institution still flourishes, and ha* produced several volumes of Transactions in Latin. In the first, printed in 1720, is a catalogue of plants, observed by lludbeck in Lapland. He published several curious dissertations from time to time, which evince his deep erudition, though he betrays, like his father, somewhat of a paradoxical turn. He was particularly skilled in oriental literature, and was hence led to undertake the explanation of some of the most obscure subjects of natural history hi the sacred scriptures. He contends that Borith, mentioned by some of the prophets, is neither an herb, nor any kind of soap, but a purple dye. He also undertook to demonstrate that the Dudaim were raspberries. The two dissertations which contain these opinions appeared in 1733, in 4to, but the author had previously given to the world three others, the inaugural essays of some of his pupils, on Hedera, in 1707, 4to on Mandragora, in 1702; and on the Rubus arcticus of Linnæus, in 1716, both in 8vo, with good cuts. His most elaborate and eccentric performance of all, perhaps, is a dissertation on the bird Sclav, which our translation of the Bible renders a quail. Some have thought it a locust, but Rudbeck will have it a flying-fish. He intended to publish a great philological work entitled “Lexicon Harmonicum,” when death arrested his career, March 23, 1740. In his latter days, finding himself unable to leave home and lecture as usual, he fixed his choice, as an assistant, on Linnæus, then in his twenty-third year, who first supplied Rudbeck' s place in 1730, with much approbation.

, bishop of St. David’s in the fifteenth century, was, according to Fuller, a native of Hertfordshire, and took his name from Rudborne, a village near St. Alban’s; but Wood says he was born at Rodburne in Wiltshire. He studied at Merton college, Oxford, and became one of the greatest mathematicians of his day, and an able architect. He built the gateway and fine tower of Merton college, and probably the chapel, for that seems improperly given to bishop Rede. He was so much esteemed, that Henry V. who became acquainted with him when a student at Queen’s college, afterwards appointed him his chaplain, on his going to Franc previous to the battle of Agincourt. He received some ecclesiastical preferments, as the prebend of Horton in the church of Salisbury, the living of East Deping in Lincolnshire, and the archdeaconry of Sudbury. He served the office of proctor in the university, and was elected chancellor, but Wood thinks that if he accepted this office, he did not retain it long. In 1426 he was admitted warden of Merton college, which he appears to have resigned the following year. In 1433 he was promoted to the see of St. David’s, from which the king, Henry VI. would have translated him to Ely; but Wood says, “could not effect it.” He died about 1442. The tower and chapel of Merton will long remain monuments of his skill and taste. He was also a benefactor to the first public library in Oxford. Like the majority in his day, he was an opponent of the first attempts at reformation in religion, and in 1411 was one of the commissioners for suppressing Wickliff’s doctrines and writings. He wrote, according to Bale, a “Chronicle,” and some epistles “ad Thomam Waldenem et alios.” He must be distinguished from the Thomas Rudborne, whose “Historia Major Wintoniensis” is printed by Wharton in vol. I. of his “Anglia Sacra,” who was, however, a monk of Winchester about the middle of the same century, but survived bishop Rudborne.

, a very eminent grammarian and critic, was born in October 1674, at Raggel, in the parish of Boyndie and county of Banff, Scotland. His father, James Ruddiman, was a farmer, and so strongly attached to the house of Stuart, as to shed tears on the death of Charles If. His son was educated in Latin grammar at the parish-school of Boyndie, and quickly surpassed his class-fellows in vigour of application. At the age of sixteen he was desirous of going to the university, and when his father opposed this inclination, because he thought him too young, he set out, without his knowledge, to King’s college, Aberdeen, and obtained by his skill in Latin, the first exhibition, or bursary, as it is there called, of that year. After studying at this college for four years, he obtained the degree of master of arts. Though he was only twenty years of age when he left Aberdeen, it appears from a book entitled, “Rhetoricorum Libri tres,” composed before this period, but never published, that he had then read the Roman classics with uncommon attention and advantage.

He was soon after engaged as a tutor in a gentleman’s family, which situation he quitted in about a year for that of schoolmaster in the parish of Lawrence-Kirk. After passing three years and a half in this employment, he had a favourable opportunity of removing to advantage, owing to an accidental introduction to the celebrated Dr. Pitcairne. This gentleman happening to pass through Lawrence-Kirk, was detained by a vidlent storm, and wanting amusement, inquired of his hostess whether she could procure him any agreeable companion at dinner. She replied, that the parish schoolmaster, though young, was said to be learned, and, though modest, she was sure could talk. Pitcairne was delighted with the conversation and learning of his new companion, and invited him to Edinburgh, with a promise of his patronage. Ruddiman accordingly quitted Lawrence-Kirk, and soon after his arrival at Edinburgh was appointed assistant- keeper of the advocates’ library. The emoluments of this place were trifling, but it made him known and made him learned; and after the regular hours of attendance at the library (from 10 to 3) he occupied his leisure hours as a private tutor in the Latin language to various young gentlemen. As his merits became better known, his assistance was anxiously solicited by those who were engaged in literary publications. His first employment of this kind was as editor to sir Robert Sibbald’s “Introductio ad historiam rerum a Romanis gestarum in ea Borealis Britannise parte quse ultra murum Picticum est,” and he likewise contributed his aid to Sir Robert Spottiswood’s “Practiques of the Laws of Scotland.” So little was literary labour rewarded at that time, that for the former of these works he received only 3l. and for the latter 5l. Such poor encouragement obliged him, in 1707, to commence auctioneer. The same year he published an edition of “Voluseni de Animi Tranquillitate Dialogus,” to which he prefixed a life of Volusenus, or Wilson, a learned countryman, who had been patronized by cardinal Wolsey. In 1709, h published “Johnstoni Cantici Solomonis Paraphrasis Poetica,” and “Johnstoni Cantica,” with notes, which he dedicated to his i'riend and patron Dr. Pitcairne. The edition consisted of two hundred copies, which he sold at one shilling each. The expence of printing amounted to 51. 10s. He was next employed by Freebairne, the bookseller, on a new edition of Gawin Douglas’s “Virgil’s yneid,” which he corrected throughout, added the glossary, and probably the forty-two general rules for understanding the language, for all which he received the sum of Sl 6s. Sd.

His reputation having now reached distant parts, he was invited by the magistrates of Dundee to be rector of the grammar-school there, but his salary as librarian having been increased to 30l. 6s. ScL he was induced to decline the offer. In 1711 he assisted bishop Sage in publishing the folio edition of “Drummond of Hawthornden’s Works:” and Dr. Abercrombie, in preparing for the press his “Martial Atchievements.” In 1713 he lost his friend Dr. Pitcairne, for whom he composed an epitaph, and conducted the sale of his library, which was disposed of to the Czar Peter the Great. In 1714, he published his “Rudiments of the Latin tongue,” which soon superseded all other books of the kind, and is still taught in all the grammarschools in Scotland. He lived to see fifteen editions of it sold.

His next publication was the Works of Buchanan, in two volumes 1715, fol. His account of his life, and opinion of that history, so different from that (till then) entertained by his countrymen, drew on him many enemies. A counter edition of Buchanan’s works was set about by a society who formed themselves for that purpose, and, after promising their aid to Burman as their editor, disappointed him, and left him to publish it in 1725, with Ruddiman’s preface and notes, and a few of his own. Ruddiman’s edition opens with a preface pretendedly of Freebairn, which had plainly been written by Ruddiman. He gave also an elaborate statement of the various editions of Buchanan’s separate works, exposed the chronological errors and spirit of the History, and laid open the sources whence he drew the documents which enabled him to rectify both. He acknowledged, with the warmest thankfulness, the obligations he owed to several men of learning for their able assistance in this difficult task. Sir David Dalrymple, the lord- advocate of Scotland, contributed his intelligent help with the kindness of a friend. Fletcher of Saltoun, the “Cato of the age,” promoted the design with the usual ardour of his spirit and Pitcairne gave his continual aid while he lived. He mentions also John Drummond, M. D. Laurence Dundas, professor of languages in the college at Edinburgh, John Macdonald, James Anderson, a whig, and John Gillan, a Jacobite, as two antiquaries who were forward to assist his labours. This preface naturally led on to the life of Buchanan, said to have been written by himself two years before his death; of which assertion Ruddiman expressed his doubts in a note, without perceiving, what appears to have been the fact, that sir Peter Young was the real author of it.

After having been so long accustomed to superintend the press, Ruddiman was led to form the plan of erecting a printing-office himself. Accordingly, in 1715, be commenced printer, in partnership with his brother Walter, who had been regularly bred to the business; and some years after he was appointed printer to the university along with James Davidson, a bookseller. In 1718, he became one of the founders of the first literary society in Scotland. In 1725, he published the first part of his “Grammatical Latinae Institutiones,” which treats of etymology; and the second part, which explains the nature and principles of syntax, appeared in 1732. He also wrote a third part on prosody, which is said to be more copious and correct than any other publication on the subject, but, for want of encouragement, he published only an abridgment of it. He next engaged in the management of a newspaper, “The Caledonian Mercury,” from which he derived more profit than fame, it being a mere dry record of occurrences. This paper continued in his family until 1772, when it was sold to Mr. Robertson, and still exists.

After the death of the principal keeper of the advocates’ library, Mr. Ruddiman was appointed his successor, but without any increase of salary. He was, however, now acquiring by his other employments a competence according to his moderate desires, and independent spirit. In 173^, he published what is known by the name of Anderson’s “Diplomata Scotiae,” from having been begun by Anderson, but was finished by Ruddiman, who wrote the admirable preface, which displays a greater extent of knowledge than any of his other productions. During the rebellion in 1745, although Ruddiman was firmly attached to the house of Stuart, he took no active part, but employed himself in writing critical observations on Burman’s commentary on Lucan.

During the last fourteen years of his life, he was almost incessantly engaged in controversy, first, with auditor Benson, on the comparative merit of Buchanan and Johnston as poets. His next antagonist was Logan, one of the ministers of Edinburgh. Of Benson we have already taken some notice. The subject of Ruddiman‘ s controversy with Logan was, whether the crown of Scotland was strictly hereditary, and whether the birth of Robert III. was legitim.iiL’? Ruddiman maintained the affirmative in both points. He was soon after called upon to repel the attacks of Mr. Love, a schoolmaster at Dalkeith, who wrote in defence of Buchanan’s character.

About this time he gave his assistance to Mr. Ames, in his typographical researches. In October 1751, at the age of 77, he was obliged to ask the aid of physicians for preserving his eye-sight, which, however, they did not effect. Yet this misfortune, that to a scholar cannot easily be supplied, did not prevent him from doing kind acts to his relations, and continuing his correspondence with his friends, nor from pursuing his studies, and producing his edition of Livy, in four volumes 12mo, which Harwood declares to be one of the most accurate that ever was published. Glasgow had to boast of the spotless perfection of her Horace, in 1744; Edinburgh had reason, said that critic, to triumph in the immaculate purity of Ruddiman’s Livy, in 1751. Ruddiman resigned his place of keeper to the advocates’ library in a very handsome English letter; and the celebrated David Hume was appointed to succeed him. Mr. Ruddiman soon gave a fine specimen of his knowledge of the Latin language, in a letter on the subject to Mr. John Garden, of Brechin, 1712, still in ms.; but, with his usual judgment, he concluded his elaborate dissertation by remarking, that, if the Latin tongue be written with Roman accuracy, Roman pronunciation may be left, without much inconvenience, to find its own fashion in the learned world. He had scarcely closed this friendly correspondence when he was called from his favourite studies into an acrimonious contest, by James Man, master of the poor-hospital in Aberdeen, concerning his edition of Buchanan’s Works, which had been published 38 years before. Of this we have already taken notice in our account of Mr. Man. Mr. Ruddiman died at Edinburgh, Jan. 19, 1757, when he had advanced into the eighty-third year of his age, and was buried in the cemetery of the Grey Friers. His brother and partner, Walter, died in 1770, aged 83.

Of Ruddiman’s talents and learning his works afr'ird the most satisfactory proofs. His memory was tenacious and exact, and he was so great a master of the Latin language, that perhaps he has not been equalled since the days of Buchanan. His personal character was recommended by many virtues, and upon the whole he may justly be considered as an honour to his native country, and a benefactor to classical literature. Many very interesting memorials of him, and of the state of learning and opinions in his time, may be found in the work to which we are chiefly indebted for the materials of this account.

, a French orator and poet, was born at Paris in 1643, and educated in the Jesuits’ college, where he afterwards became professor of humanity and rhetoric. In 1667, when only twenty-four, he wrote a Latin poem, upon the conquests of Lewis XIV. which was thought so excellent, that Peter Corneille translated it into French, and presented it to the king; apologizing, at the same time, for not being able to convey to his majesty the beauties of the original. No introduction could be more favourable, and the king shewed him singular respect ever after. He was one of those who had the care of the Delphine editions of the classics; and Virgil was allotted to him, which he published with good notes, and a,correct life of the author, in 1675, 4to. He published also panegyrics, funeral orations, and sermons, which shew him to have been a very great orator: but his master-piece is a funeral oration for the prince of Luxembourg. There are also tragedies of his writing in Latin and French, which had the approbation of Corneille, and therefore cannot be without merit; but he would not suffer them to be performed. A collection of his Latin poems was published at Paris, in 1680, in 12mo, and at Antwerp in 1693. He died at Paris May 27, 1725, in his eighty-second year.

, was a Benedictine monk, born in 1685, who became so learned in the Greek and Hebrew languages, and in divinity, that Montfaucon too|i him into his friendship, and made him an associate with him in his studies. Montfaucon had published, in 1713, the remains of “Origen’s Hexapla;” and was very desirous, that a correct and complete edition should be given of the whole works of this illustrious father. His own engagements not permitting him, he prevailed with de la Rue, whose abilities and learning he knew to be sufficient for the work, to undertake it: and accordingly two volumes were published by him, in 1733, folio, with proper prefaces and useful notes. A third volume was ready for the press, when de la Rue died in 1739; and though it was published afterwards by his nephew, yet the edition of Origen not being quite completed, some remaining pieces, together with the “Origeniana” of Huetius, were published in 1759, as a fourth volume, and the whole reprinted in 1780 by Oberthur, at W-iselburg, in 15 vols, 8vo.

, the historian of Marseilles, was born there in 1607, and bred to the law. Being appointed counsellor to the seneschalcy of his native place, he practised in that court for some years, and with a scrupulous integrity rather uncommon; for we are told that on one occasion when, by his own neglect, a client had lost his cause, he sent him a sum of money equivalent to that loss. He was a man of learning, and a good antiquary, and employed much of his time in collecting materials for his “History of Marseilles,” which he published in 1642. In. 1654 he was made a counsellor of state, and next year published a life of Gaspard de Simiane, known by the name of the chevalier de la Coste, and about the same time a history of the counts of Provence from 934 to 1480. He died April 3, 1689, aged eighty-two. His son Louis Anthony, who followed similar pursuits, added to his father’s History of Marseilles a second volume, in an edition published in 1696, and illustrated with plates of seals, coins, &c. He was author, likewise, of “Dissertations Historiques et Critiques sur POrigine des Comtes des Provence, de Venaissin, de Forcalquier, et des Vicomtes de Marseille” and in 1716 he published “Une Dissertation. Historique, Chronologique, et Critique sur les Evéques de Marseille.” Both these were intended as preludes to more elaborate works on the subject, which he was prevented from completing by his death, March 26, 1724, in the sixty-sixth year of his age.

, orRUFINUS, a very celebrated priest of Aquileia, called by some Toranius, was born about the middle of the fourth century, at Concordia, a small city in Italy. He retired to a monastery in Aquileia, and devoted himself wholly to reading and meditating on the sacred scriptures and the writings of the holy fathers. St. Jerome passing that way became much attached to him, and vowed an indissoluble friendship. When St. Jerome retired into the east some years after, Ruffinus, inconsolable for their separation, resolved to quit Aquileia in search of his friend. He accordingly embarked for Egypt, visited the hermits who inhabited the deserts, and having been told much of the chamy of St. Melania the elder, had the satisfaction of seeing ner at Alexandria, where he went to hear the celebrated Didymus. The piety which Melania observed in Ruffinus induced her to make him her confident, which he continued to be while they remained iti the East, which was about thirty years. But the Arians, who ruled in the reign of Valens, raised a cruel persecution against Ruffinus, cast him into a dungeon, and loaded him with chains, where he suffered the torments of hunger and thirst, and they afterwards banished him to the most desolate part of Palestine. Melania ransomed him, with several other exiles, and returned to Palestine with him. It was at this period, that St. Jerome, supposing Ruffinus would go directly to Jerusalem, wrote to a friend in that city to congratulate him on the occasion, in the following terms: “You will see the marks of holiness shine in the person of Ruffinus, whereas I am but his dust. It is enough for my weak eyes to support the lustre of his virtues. He has lately been further purified in the crucible of persecution, and is now whiter than snow, while I am defiled with all manner of sins.” Ruffinus built a monastery on mount Olivet, converted numbers of sinners, re-united to the church above 400 solitaries, who had engaged in the schism of Antioch, and persuaded several Macedonians and Arians to renounce their errors. He, at the same time, translated such Greek books as appeared to him the most interesting; but his translations of Origen’s works, particularly “the Book of principles,” occasioned that rupture between him and St. Jerome, which made so much noise in the church, and so deeply afflicted St. Augustine, and all the great men of their time. Ruffinus was cited to Rome by pope Anastatius, who is said to have condemned his translation of “the Book of principles.” Being accused of heresy, he published some very orthodox apologies, which discover great ingenuity. His chief plea was, “That he meant to be merely a translator, without undertaking to support or defend any thing reprehensible in Origen’s works.” He went afterwards into 'Sicily, and died there about the year 410. He translated from Greek into Latin, “Josephus;” “The Ecclesiastical History,” by Eusebius, to which he added, two books; several of Origen’s writings, with his “Apology” by St. Pamphilius; ten of St. Gregory of Nazianzen’s Discourses, and eight of St. Basil’s, in all which he has been accused of taking great liberties, and in some of them acknowledges it. He has also left a Tract in defence of Origen; two “Apologies” against St. Jerome; “Commentaries” on Jacob’s Benedictions, on Hosea, Joel, and Amos; several “Lives of the Fathers of the desert,” and “An Exposition of the Creed,” which has always been valued. His works were printed at Paris, 1580, fol.; but the “Commentary on the Psalms,” which bears his name, was not written by him. The abbe“Gervase has published a” Life of Ruffinus," 2 vols. 12mo.

, a law and miscellaneous writer, was born about 1723 in Piccadilly, where his father was his majesty’s baker, and having bought a lottery ticket for Owen, when in his infancy, which was drawn a prize of 500l. he determined to expend it upon his education for the profession of the law. He was accordingly entered of the Middle Temple, and by studying here, as well as at school, with great diligence, became a good general scholar, and an acute barrister, although he never arrived at great eminence in his profession. He endeavoured, however, to form some political connexions; and when, in 1757, Murphy wrote a periodical paper, in favour of Mr. Henry Fox, afterwards lord Holland, called “The Test,” Ruffhead setup another, in opposition, called “The ConTest.” Dr. Johnson, who then conducted ths “Literary Magazine,” after giving a few of both these papers, adds, “Of these papers of the Test and Con-test, we have given a very copious specimen, and hope that we shall give no more. The debate seems merely personal, no one topic of general import having been yet attempted. Of the motives of the author of the Test, whoever he be, I believe, every man who speaks honestly, speaks with abhorrence. Of the Con-test, which, being defensive, is less blameable, I have yet heard no great commendation. The language is that of a man struggling after elegance, and catching finery in its stead; the author of the Con-test is more knowing of wit neither can boast in the Test it is frequently attempted, but always by mean and despicable imitations, without the least glimmer of intrinsic light, without a single effort of original thought.” Ruffhead wrote other pamphlets on temporary political subjects, the last of which was a defence of the conduct of administration in the affair of Wilkes, entitled “The case of the late Election for the county of Middlesex considered,” in answer to sir William Meredith’s pamphlet on the same subject. Of his law writings, the first was a continuation of Cay’s “Statutes” to the 13 George III. 9 vols. fol. and the second an edition of the Statutes, which goes under his own name, which he did not live to publish, as it appeared in 1771, but which has been since regularly continued, making 13 vols. 4to. For this, or his political services, he was about to have been promoted to the place of one of the secretaries of the Treasury, when he died Oct. 25, 1769, in his forty-sixth year.

Some time before his death, bishop Warburton, who probably thought the task might involve himself in inquiries not very suitable to the dignity of his order, employed Ruffhead to write the “Life of Pope,” but himself revised the sheets, and occasionally contributed a paragraph, although neither was sufficiently attentive to accuracy of dates, which, in Pope’s history, are matters of no small importance, nor was the work in general creditable to the subject, for Ruffhead had no taste for poetry or criticism. The public, however, knowing to whom he must be indebted for most of his materials, read the book with some avidity, and it was twice reprinted, but has since been superseded by more able pens. The university of Edinburgh conferred the degree of LL. D on Ruffhead, in 1766, which, we believe, he never assumed, although in Northouck’s dictionary he is called Dr. Ruffhead. Among his other literary engagements, Sir John Hawkins informs us that he was employed as reviewer of books in the Gentleman’s Magazine, until employed on Cay’s Statutes: and some time before his death the proprietors of Chambers’s Cyclopædia engaged him to superintend a new edition of that work: he was paid a considerable sum on account, but, having done nothing, the booksellers recovered the money of his heirs. He left one son, Thomas Ruffhead, who died curate of Prittlewell, in Essex, in 1798.

, the Ephesian, a physician and anatomist in the reign of the emperor Trajan, obtained great reputation by his extensive knowledge and experience. Galen esteemed him one of the most able of the physicians who had preceded bin:-. Rufus appears to have cultivated anatomy, by dissecting brutes, with great zeal and success. He traced the origin of the nerves in the brain, and considered some of them as contributing to motion, and others to sensation. He even observed the capsule of the crystalline lens in the eye. He considered the heart as the seat of life, and of the animal heat, and as the origin of the pulse, which he ascribed to the spirit of its left ventricle and of the arteries; and he remarked the difference in the capacity and thickness of the two ventricles. He deemed the spleen to be a very useless viscus, and his successors have never discovered its use. He examined very fully the organs of generation, and the kidnies and bladder; he has left, indeed, a very good treatise on the diseases of the urinary organs, and the methods of cure. He also wrote a work on purgative medicines, mentioning their different qualities, the countries from which they were obtained; and a little treatise on the names given by the Greeks to the different parts of the body. Galen affirms also that Rufus was the author of an essay on the tnateria medica, written in verse; and Suidas mentions a treatise of his on the ' atra bilis, with some other essays; but these are lost. What remains of his works are to be found in the “Artis medicse principes” of Stephens, and printed separately at London, Gr. and Lat. 4to, by W. Clinch, 172G.

, the author of a celebrated dramatic satire, was born at Lavenham in Suffolk, where his father was a clothier, probably in November 1575. He was educated at the free grammar school of Lavenham, and made such progress, that great hopes were entertained of the advantages he might derive from an university education, which his father was encouraged to give him. He was accordingly admitted of St. John’s college, Cambridge, June 26, J 589, but foreseeing no chance of a maintenance there, removed to Trinity college, and obtained a scholarship in 1593, about which time he probably took the degree of B. A. as he did that of M. A. in 1597, and entered into holy orders. From Trinity he removed to Clare-hall, and was elected a fellow of that society, to which afterwards he was a benefactor.

Having a taste for polite literature, he studied to acquire a familiar knowledge of the French and Italian languages; but particularly of the Greek and Latin poets, historians, and orators. Among the Italian writers, the productions of John Baptist Porta, were his favourites. This author’s comedies, in our account of him, are erroneously said not to be extant, instead of esteemed. An edition of them was published in 1726, 4to, but there were old editions of them all in Ruggle’s time, and he evidently caught their spirit. Hjy “Ignoramus?' owes much to Porta’s” Trappolana.“In the mean time, Ruggle’s reputation for learning became an inducement with many parents and guardians to place their sons at Clare-hall, uiider his tuition. In 1604, he was appointed one of the two taxers in the university. This seems the only distinction he obtained, except that in the following year, when king James visited Oxford, he was admitted M. A. It is said to have been in consequence of a litigious dispute carried on, in 1611, between the university, and the mayor and corporation of Cambridge, that he conceived an unfavourable opinion of the gentlemen of the law, and thought some of their practices a fair subject for ridicule. With this view he completed his comedy called” Ignoramus,“which was acted at the university before James I. both in March and May 1614, and is said to have highly delighted his majesty; the pleasure, indeed, which it gave him is rather oddly expressed.” Spectando et ridendo rex tantum non cacatus!“The lawyers are said to have felt the force of the ridicule, and to have expressed the warmest resentment against the poet and his performance. A very correct edition of this comedy, with a life of the author, was published in 1787, by Mr. John Sidney Hawkins, 8vo. Two other plays are ascribed to Ruggle,” Club Law,“and” Revera, or Verity,“but neither have been printed. Mr. lluggle resigned his fellowship in 1620, probably on succeeding to an estate, and died between Sept. 6, 1621, and Nov. 3, 1622, the former being the date of his will, the latter the day when it was proved. Mr. Hawkins’s opinion of the famed” Ignoramus" is, we are afraid higher than modern taste and humour can allow.

, a French theologian, was born at Rheims, June 10, 1657, and became a Benedictine monk in 1674. He studied the scriptures, the fathers, and ecclesiastical writers, in so masterly a way, that Mabillon chose him for a companion in his literary labours. He shewed himself not unworthy of the good opinion Mabillon had conceived of him, when he published, in 1689, “Acta Primorurn Martyrum,” &c. 4to, meaning the martyrs of the first four centuries. In a preface to this work, he endeavours to refute a notion, which our Dodwell had advanced in a piece “De paucitate Martyrum,” inserted among his “Dissertationes Cyprianicae.” A new edition of this work, with alterations and additions, was printed ie 1713, folio. Ruinart publisnec other learned works, as *' Hist, persecutionis Vandalicae,“”Jtor Literariinn in Alsatiam et Lotharingiain,“&c.; and assisted Mabillon, whom he survived, and whose life he wrote, in the publication of the acts of the saints, and annals of their order. He gave alsc -in excellent edition of the works of” Gregory of Tours, it Paris, 1699, in folio. When Mabillon died, in 1707, he was appointed to continue the work in which he had jointly laboured with him; upon which he travelled to Champagne, in quest of new memoirs, but on his return to Pads died Sept. 24, 1707.

, a doctor of physic in the university of Hanau, and a member of the academy of naturalists, was born at Hanau in 1637. He went to Amboyna, and became consul and senior merchant there, which did not prevent his employing his leisure moments in collecting the plants of that country; being so fond of botany as to acquire great skill in it without any instruction. Although he lost his sight at the age of forty-three, he could discover the nature and shape of a plant by his taste and feeling. He comprised all the plants which he had collected in the country where he settled, in twelve books, and dedicated them to the governor and council of the India company in 1690. They were not, however, printed then; but John Burman published them from 1740 to 1750, 7 vols. fol. which have commonly the date of 1751, under the title of “Herbarium Amboinense,” 1755. Burman has added an Auctuarium, with the table usually bound at the end of torn. VI. This work has some of the faults, or rather misfortunes, of a posthumous publication; and the reader must always keep in mind that the figures, far inferior to those of the “Hortus Malabaricus,” are generally not more than half the size of nature. The original drawings still in existence are said to be very fine. Rumph also left, “Imagines piscium testaceorum,” Leyden, 1711, foL reprinted 1739; the former is much valued for the plates. He wrote, besides, “The political History of Amboyna,” which has never been printed, but a copy is deposited in the India company’s chest at Amsterdam, and another at Amboyna.

, a Scotch painter, was born at Edinburgh in 1736, where his father, who was an architect, probably taught him some of the principles of his art. Mr. Fuseli says he served an apprenticeship to a coachpainter, and “acquired a practice of brush, a facility of penciling, and much mechanic knowledge of colour, be^ fore he had attained any correct notions of design.” The Scotch account, on the other hand, says he was placed as an apprentice to John and Robert Norries, the former of whom was a celebrated landscape painter (no-where upon record, however,) and under his instructions Runciman made rapid improvement in the art. From 1755 he painted landscapes on his own account, and in 1760 attempted historical works. About 1766 he accompanied or soon followed his younger brother John, who had excited much livelier expectations of his abilities as an artist, to Rome; where John, who was of a delicate and consumptive habit, soon fell a victim to the climate, and his obstinate exertions in art. Alexander continued his studies under the patronage and with the support of sir James Clerk, a Scottish baronet, and gave a specimen of his abilities before his departure, in a picture of considerable size, representing Ulysses surprising Nausica at play with her maids: it exhibited, with the defects and manner of Giulio Romano in style, design, and expression, a tone, a juice, and breadth of colour, resembling Tintoretto. At his return to Scotland in 1771, Runciman was employed by his patron to decorate the hall at Pennecuik, with a series of subjects from Ossian; in the course of some years he was made master of a public institution for promoting design, and died Oct. 21, 1785. Jacob More, the landscape-painter, who died at Rome, was his pupil; and John Brown, celebrated for design, his friend. One of his capital pictures is the Ascension, an altar-piece in the episcopal chapel, Edinburgh; another a Lear, which, with his Andromeda and “Agrippina landing with the ashes of Germanicus,” are highly praised by his countrymen. Edwards mentions having seen two etchings by this artist, the one “Sigismunda weeping over the heart of Tancred;” the other riew of Edinburgh, which is executed with great spirit and taste.

, LL. D. an English divine, and bishop of Derry in Ireland, was born in the parish of Milton-Abbot, near Tavistock, in Devonshire, about 1686, of what family is not known. He was educated at the freeschool of Exeter, under the care of Mr. John Reynolds, uncle to the celebrated painter sir Joshua Reynolds. In 1702 he was removed to Exeter college, Oxford, and about this time his friend and fellow collegian, Joseph Taylor, esq. (father of Thomas Taylor, of Denbury, esq.) introduced him to Mr. Edward Talbot, of Oriel college, the second son of Dr. William Talbot, at that time bishop of Oxford. This event was of great importance in his future life, as it secured him the friendship and patronage of the Talbot family, to whom he owed all his promotion. Recommenced bachelor of civil laws in July 1710, and two years afterwards became acquainted with the celebrated Whiston, and was inclined to adopt his notions as to reviving what he called primitive Christianity. Mr. Whiston, who has given us many particulars respecting bishop Rundie in his “Memoirs of his own Life,” says that Mr. Rundie, before he entered into holy orders, became so disgusted at the corrupt state of the church, and at the tyranny of the ecclesiastical laws, that he sometimes declared against obeying them, even where they were in themselves not unlawful, which, adds Whiston, “was farther than 1 could go with him.” The truth seems to have been, as stated by bishop Rundle’s late biegrapher, that the singular character of Whiston, his profound erudition, and disinterested attachment to the doctrines of Arius, supported by an ostensible love of truth, were likely to attract the notice of young men who, in the ardour of free inquiry, did not immediately perceive the pernicious tendency of their new opinions.

Soon after Mr. Rundle’s acquaintance with bishop Talbot became an intimacy, he was ordained by him in 1718, and published a discourse on Acts x. 34, 35. In 1720 he was promoted by that prelate, on his removal to Salisbury, to the archdeaconry of Wilts; and upon the demise of Mr. Edward Talbot, in the same year, was constituted treasurer of the church of Sarum. These were the first bounties of his munificent patron, who retained him from this time-as his domestic chaplain, and particularly delighted in his elegant manners and brilliant conversation. When bishop Talbot was translated to Durham, he continued Mr. Rundle of his household, and on Jan. 23, 1721, collated him to the first stall in that cathedral but on Nov. 12, in the following year, he was removed to the twelfth prebend He bad likewise the valuable mastership of Sherborne hospital, an appointment incompatible with the cure of souls, but which, it will appear from the foregoing list of preferments, he had never undertaken. If any period of his life afforded him more than ordinary satisfaction, it was this. He was esteemed, in a degree far beyond what is usually to be attained in friendships between persons of unequal rank, by the great and good family who patronised him. He had opportunities of gratifying his literary propensities, by frequent conversations with the first in almost every branch of science, and by the most select epistolary correspondences. He became particularly known at this time to the republic of letters by the liberal support he gave to Thomson, upon his publishing his “Winter,” whose acquaintance he instantly sought; and whom, having recommended to lord chancellor Talbot as a proper person to superintend his son’s education during the grand tour, Thomson found himself on his return rewarded by a lucrative appointment. On July 5, 1723, he had proceeded LL. D. as necessary to the dignities he enjoyed, and was associated with Dr. Seeker, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, as resident chaplain at the palace at Durham.

When bishop Talbot died, in 1730, his son, the lord chancellor, particularly distinguished Dr. Rundle as his friend, and entertained him on the same terms as his father had done. The first effort, however, which his lordship made for his advancement was attended with very extraordinary consequences, and formed the basis of a controversy of considerable warmth, although not of long duration. In Dec. 1733, the see of Gloucester becoming vacant by the death of Dr. Sydall, the lord chancellor solicited that preferment for his friend Dr. Rundle, but was refused. Dr. Edmund Gibson, bishop of London, had at this time the greatest weight in ecclesiastical appointments, and had lon4 entertained doubts of the soundness of Dr. Rundle’s principles. This could not have arisen from his former intimacy with Whiston, and his forbearance of Chubb, the professed foes of modern episcopacy, but is said to have proceeded from information given him by Mr. Venn, minister of St. Antholin’s, who reported an improper conversation held by Dr. Rundle in his presence, which Dr. Rundle afterwards declared he never had held, and that the obnoxious words must have been used by some other person in company. Dr. Gibson, however, peremptorily declared against the admission of a suspected deist to the sacred bench, and lord Talbot, we are told, after ably asserting the injustice of the charge, and detecting the sinister means that were made use of to support it, withdrew his petition with disdain.

All this could not be [known without exciting considerable interest in the public mind. In a few weeks a pamphlet appeared, entitled “Reasons alledged against Dr. Rundle’s promotion to the see of Gloucester,” &c. This was written by Dr. Sykes, and followed by several other pamphlets, of which Dr. Disney, in his “Life of Sykes,” has given a list of ten. Even Whiston vindicated his old friend in a very candid manner. Perhaps his best vindication is in a letter to Mr. Duncombe, originally published in “Hughes’ s Correspondence,” which Dr, Rundle wrote in the confidence of friendship, and in which he appears to use no disguise. As to Dr. Sykes’s pamphlets, they evidently are written more with a view to raise a clamour against Dr. Gibson, than to serve the interest of Dr. Run-? die. Dr. Gibson, in his causes for rejecting Dr. Rundle, might have been misinformed, and we trust he was so; but they who accuse him of excessive bigotry, would do well to recollect, that he was the promoter of Dr. Hoadly to the bishopric of Winchester.

The issue of this matter, however, was, that the bishop of London proposed Dr. Benson, the friend of Dr. Rundle, for the vacant see of Gloucester, and Dr, Rundle was soon after promoted to the. lucrative bishopric of Derry in Ireland, to which he was consecrated February 1734-5. The aspersions thrown on his character in England had by this time reached Ireland, and created great discontent at the appointment; but a residence of a few years, and repeated acts of public munificence and private generosity, gradually endeared him to the people of Ireland. He died at his palace in. Dublin April 14, 1743, scarcely sixty years of age. Having survived the nearer connections of his own family, he left his property, amounting to 20,000^, principally to the hon. John Talbot, second son to the chancellor. His person is said to have been slender, and not inelegantly formed. As to his character as a man, he appears to have been distinguished by many virtues, and by some weaknesses. His biographer says, he was precipitate in forming friendships, and as ready to relinquish them; a character by no means amiable; but for which, perhaps, some excuse might be formed, if we were made acquainted with the nature of his friendships. Unsuspicious men often contract friendships which, upon a closer inspection, they find unworthy and untenable; and this may happen before years have accumulated experience, if not without blame, at least with some excuse; and perhaps Dr. Rundle did not always suffer himself to be deceived. His character as a divine, we see, once laboured under suspicion, and if we except his own declaration, it was principally vindicated by those who were not very friendly to the church. The attestations of Pope and Swift can add little to his reputation. There was nothing, however, in his public conduct subsequent to the clamour raised against him, which could be censured; and the last letter he appears to have written, a little before his death, to archdeacon S. breathes the language of genuine piety.

Of his works, we have nothing, except four occasional sermons, one of which we have mentioned; a second was preached in England, and the other two in Ireland, in 1734, 1735, and 1736. In 1790, appeared “Letters of the late Thomas Ilundle, LL. D,” &c. to Mrs. Barbara Sandys, of Miserden, in Gloucestershire, with introductory “Memoirs, by James Dallaway, M. A. of Trinity-college, Oxford,” 2 vols. 12mo. To these memoirs we are indebted for the facts In this sketch. The letters are entertaining, and display much kindness of disposition but are not otherwise of superior merit.

, third son of the king of Bohemia, by the princess Elizabeth, eldest daughter of James I. of England, was born 1619, and educated, like most German princes, for the army and those who have been least inclined to favour him, admit that he was well adapted, both by natural abilities and acquired endowments, to form a great commander. On the commencement of the rebellion, which happened when he was scarcely of age, he offered his services to Charles I. and throughout the whole war behaved with great intrepidity. But his courage was of that kind which is better calculated for attack than defence, and is less adapted to the land service than that of the sea, where precipitate valour, Granger observes, is in its element. He seldom engaged but he gained the advantage, which he generally lost by pushing it too far. He was better qualified to storm a citadel, or even mount a breach, than patiently to sustain a siege, and would have been an excellent assistant to a general of a cooler head. In consideration of his services, for which we refer to the general histories of the times, and on account of his affinity to him, king Charles made him a knight of the garter, and a free denizen, and advanced him to the dignity of a peer of England, by the title of earl of Holdernesse and duke of Cumberland.

When the civil war was over, he went abroad with a pass from the parliament; but when the fleet revolted to the prince of Wales, he readily went on board, and distinguished himself by the vigour of his counsels. His advice, however, was not followed, but on the return of the fleet to Holland, as the command of it was left to him, he sailed to Ireland, where he endeavoured to support the declining royal cause. He was quickly pursued by the superior fleet of the parliament, under Popham and Blake, who, in the winter of 1649, blocked him up in the haven of Kinsale, whence he escaped, by making a bold effort, and pushing through their fleet.

After the Restoration, he was invited to return to England, and had several offices conferred upon him. In April 1662, he was sworn a member of the privy-council; and in December following, was admitted a fellow of the Royal Society. In 1666, the king appointed him, in conjunction with the duke of Albemarle, to command the fleet, and he now exhibited all the qualities that are necessary to constitute a great admiral. By his return to the fleet on June 3d, he wrested from the Dutch the only victory they had the appearance of gaining; and on the 24th of the same month, he beat them effectually, pursued them to their own coast, and blocked up their harbour. The great intrepidity which he displayed, in this naval war, was highly and justly celebrated; and in the last Dutch war of that reign he seemed to retain all the activity and fire of his youtb, and defeated the enemy in several engagements. From this time prince Rupert led a retired life, mostly at Windsor-castle, of which he was governor, and spent a great part of his time in the prosecution of chemical and philosophical experiments, as well as the practice of mechanic arts. He delighted in making locks for fire-arms, and was the inventor of a composition called, from him, Prince’s metal. He communicated to the Royal Society his improvements upon gunpowder, by refining the several ingredients, and making it more carefully, which augmented its force, in comparison of ordinary powder, in the proportion often to one. He also acquainted them with an engine he had contrived for raising water, and sent them an instrument for casting any platform into perspective, and for which they deputed a select committee of their members to return him their thanks. He was the inventor of a gun for discharging several bullets with the utmost speed, facility, and safety; and the Royal Society received from his highness the intimation of a certain method of blowing up rocks in mines, and other subterraneous places. Dr. Hooke has preserved another invention of his for making hail-shot of all sizes. He devised a particular kind of screw, by the means of which, observations taken by a quadrant at sea were secured from receiving any alteration by the unsteadiness of the observer’s hand, or through the motion of the ship. It was said that he had also, among other secrets, that of melting or running black lead, like a metal, into a mould, and reducing it again into its original form.

But there is one invention of which he has the credit, which requires more particular notice. Besides being mentioned by foreign authors with applause for his skill in painting, he was considered as the inventor of mezzotinto, owing, as it is said, to the following casual occurrence. Going out early one morning during his retirement at Brussels, he observed the centinel at some distance from his post, very busy doing something to his piece. The prince asked the soldier what he was about? he replied, the dew had fallen in the night, and made his fusil rusty, and that he was scraping and cleaning it. The prince looking at it, was struck with something like a figure eaten into the barrel, with innumerable little holes closed together like friezed work on gold or silver, part of which the fellow had scraped away. The prince immediately conceived that some contrivance might be found to cover a brass plate with such a grained ground of fine pressed holes, which would undoubtedly give an impression all black; and that by scraping away proper parts, the smooth superficies would leave the rest of the paper white. Communicating his idea to Wallerant Vaillant, a reputable painter then in the neighbourhood of Brussels, they made several experiments, and at last invented a steel roller with projecting points or teeth like a file, which effectually produced the black ground, and which being scraped away, or diminished at pleasure, left the gradations of light.

Such was the invention of mezzotinto, according to lord Orford, Mr. Evelyn, and Mr. Vertue; but the baron Heinnekin affirms that “it was not prince Rupert who invented the art of engraving in mezzotinto, as Vertue and several other authors pretend to say; but it was the lieutenant colonel de Siegen, an officer in the service of the landgrave of Hesse, who first engraved in this manner; and the print which he produced was a portrait of the princess Amelia Elizabeth of Hesse, engraved as early as the year 1643. Prince Rupert, he adds, learned the secret from this gentleman, and brought it into England when he came over the second time with Charles II.” Mr. Strutt, who makes this quotation, says, that he has not seen the print thus spoken of by the baron: and the precise date of prince Rupert’s discovery is no where mentioned. But if a mezzotinto engraving dated seventeen years before the restoration can be produced, and the date be genuine, it certainly goes far toward proving Heinnekin’s assertion. Vertue acknowledges to have seen an oval head of Leopold William, archduke of Austria, in mezzotinto, that was dated in 1656, which he esteems the earliest. It is inscribed “Theodorus Casparus a Furstenburgh canonicus ad vivum pinxit et fecit” but this argues little against prince Rupert’s discovery, since it is quite within probability that Casparus might have learned the art from the prince or Vaillant during their residence in the Low Countries.

The earliest of Rupert’s engravings in mezzotinto, that is now extant, is dated in 1658. It is an half length figure from Spagnoletto: the subject, an executioner holding a sword in one hand, and in the other a head, which is probably intended for that of John the Baptist, and upon the sword are the initials R. P. F. surmounted with a coronet. It is further distinguished by the following inscription on a tablet beneath, “Sp in Rvp. P. fecit. Francofurti. anno 1658 M. A. P. M.” Prince Rupert died at his house in Spring Gardens, Nov, 29, 1682, and was interred in Henry the Vllth’s chapel, regretted as one whose aim in all his actions and all his accomplishments was the public good. He was a great promoter of the trade to Africa, and a principal protector of the Royal African Company; as a proof of which, before the first Dutch war in this reign, he offered his majesty to sail with a squadron to the coast of Guinea, in order to vindicate the honour of the crown, assert the just rights of the company, and redress the injuries done to the nation; but the king, unwilling to hazard his person at such a distance, and in so sickly a climate, though he received the motion kindly, would not consent to it, but contented himself with taking an officer of his recommendation (captain Holmes), under whom the squadron was sent. He was an active member of the council of trade. It was owing to his solicitations, after being at great expence, not only in the inquiry into the value, but in sending ships thither, that the Hudson’s Bay Company was erected, of which he was the first governor appointed by the charter. In memory of him, a considerable opening on the east side of that bay, in Terra de Labrador, is called Rupert’s river. In general, his highness was a great friend to seamen, and to all learned, ingenious, and public-spirited persons, and assisted them with his purse, as well as afforded them his countenance. He was concerned in the patent for annealed cannon, in a glass-house, and other undertakings for acquiring or improving manufactures. Strict justice has been done to his highness’s many virtues, and amiable qualities, in that excellent character of him by bishop Sprat. In respect to his private life, he was so just, so beneficent, so courteous, that his memory remained dear to all who knew him. “This,” observes Campbell, “I say of my own knowledge; having often heard old people in Berkshire speak in raptures of prince Rupert.”

After his death his collection of pictures was sold by auction; but his jewels, which were appraised by three jewellers at 20,000l. were disposed of by way of lottery, as appears by the Gazette 1683, Nos. 1864, 1873, &c. The tickets were 5l. each, and the largest prize a great pearl necklace valued at 8000l. The lowest prizes were valued at IQQl. The advertisement states that this lottery was to be “drawn in his majesty’s presence, who is pleased to declare that he himself will see all the prizes put in among the blanks, and that the whole shall be managed with all equity and fairness, nothing being intended but the sale of the jewels at a moderate value.”

Prince Rupert, who never was married, left a natural son, usually called Dudley Rupert, by a daughter of Henry Bard viscount Beilemont, though styled in his father’s last will and testament Dudley Bard. He was educated at Eton school, and afterwards placed under the care of that celebrated mathematician sir Jonas Moore at the Tower. Here he continued till the demise of the prince, when he made a tour into Germany to take possession of a considerable fortune which had been bequeathed to him. He was very kindly received by the Palatine family, to whom he had the honour of being so nearly allied. In 1686 he made a campaign in Hungary, and distinguished himself at the siege of Buda, where he had the misfortune to lose his life, in the month of July or August, in a desperate attempt made by some English gentlemen upon the fortifications of that city, in the twentieth year of his age; and, though so young, he had signalized his courage in such an extraordinary manner, that his death was exceedingly regretted.

, an eminent American physician, was born near Bristol, in the state of Pennsylvania, Jan. 5, 1745. His ancestors, quakers, were of the number of those who followed the celebrated William Penn to Pennsylvania, in 1683, His father dying while Benjamin was yet young, his education devolved upon his mother, who placed him, at an early age, under the direction of the late rev. Samuel Finley, at West Nottingham, in Chester county, Pennsylvania, by whom he was taught the rudiments of classical knowledge. From this academy he was removed to the college of Princeton, where he finished his classical education, and was admitted to the degree of A. B. in 1760, when he had not yet completed his sixteenth year. He was now left to choose a profession, and having given the preference to the science and practice of medicine, he placed himself under the care of the late Dr. John Redman, of Philadelphia, a gentleman who had deservedly obtained an extensive share of professional business, and who was justly considered an excellent practitioner. With Dr. Redman young Rush continued some time, zealously engaged in the acquisition of the several branches of medicine; but as no institution for the purpose of medical instruction was then established in Philadelphia, he came over to Edinburgh, and there took his doctor’s degree in 1768, after having performed the usual collegiate duties with much honour, and published his inaugural dissertation “De Concoctione Ciborum in Ventriculo.” In this performance he candidly acknowledged himself indebted, for many of the opinions which he advanced, to his distinguished teacher Dr. Cullen.

About the period of Dr. Rush’s return to his native country, the first attempt was made in Philadelphia for the organization of a medical school. Lectures on anatomy and surgery had indeed been delivered, in that city, in 1763 and 1764-, to a small class of pupils, by the late Dr. William Shippen, who, two years previous, had returned from Europe, where he had completed his education under the direction of the celebrated Dr. William Hunter; and, in 1765, Dr. John Morgan, also, gave instruction on the institutes of medicine and the practice of physic. Three years after this, the venerable Dr. Kuhn, who had been a pupil of the illustrious Linnseus, and had preceded Dr. Rush in his medical honours only one year, was made professor of botany and the materia medica, and Dr. Rush became professor of chemistry immediately upon his arrival from England in 1769, a situation which he filled in such a manner as did great credit to his talents, and contributed much to the prosperity of the new school. When the dispute between the mother-country and the colonies took place, Dr. Rush sided with his countrymen; in 1776 was chosen a member of the congress for the state of Pennsylvania; and in 1777 was appointed surgeon-general of the military hospital in the middle department, but in the same year he exchanged this for the office of physiciangeneral, which, owing to some misunderstanding among the managers of the hospital stores, he resigned in February following. He still, however, continued to take an active part in the politics of the state to which he belonged, and contributed to the formation of a new government, that which prevailed before in Pennsylvania appearing to him and others very defective.

Soon after, he formed the resolution of retiring from, political life, and from this time may be considered as exclusively occupied in duties pertaining to his profession. As an author he first wrote, in 1770, an account of the effects of the stramonium, or thorn apple, which was published in the Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, vol. I. The same year he addressed a letter, on the usefulness of wort in ill-conditioned ulcers, to his friend Dr. Huck, of London, which was published in the Medical Observations and Inquiries of London, vol. IV. In 1774 he read, before the Philosophical Society, his interesting “Inquiry into the Natural History of Medicine among the Indians of North America,” which formed the subject of an anniversary oration. He this year again addressed another letter to Dr. Huck, containing some remarks on bilious fevers, which was printed in the London Medical Observations and Inquiries, vol. V. To this succeeded his “Account of the Influence of the Military and Political Events of the American Revolution upon the Human Body, and Observations upon the Diseases of the Military Hospitals of the United States,” which his situation in the army eminently qualified him to make. In 1785 he offered to the Philosophical Society of Philadelphia an “Inquiry into the cause of the increase of Bilious and Intermitting Fevers in Pennsylvania,” published in their Transactions, vol. II.; and soon after, in quick succession, appeared “Observations on Tetanus,” an “Inquiry into the Influence of Physical Causes upon the Moral Faculty,” “Remarks on the Effects of ardent Spirits upon the body and mind,” and his “Inquiry into the Causes and Cure of the Pulmonary Consumption.” About this time also appeared his paper entitled “Information to Europeans disposed to migrate to the United States,” in a letter to a friend in Great Britain; a subject which had already occupied the attention of Dr. Franklin, but which Dr. Rush considered still further deserving notice, on account of the important changes which the United States had lately undergone. To this paper followed his “Observations on the Population of Pennsylvania,” “Observations on Tobacco,” and his “Essay on the Study of the Latin and Greek Languages,” which was first published in the American Museum of Philadelphia. This last mentioned paper, which has been the fertile topic of much animadversion, was, with several other essays of Dr. Rush, and his eulogiums on Dr. Cullen and the illustrious Rittenhouse, the former delivered in 1790, the latter in 1796, embodied in an octavo volume, entitled “Essays, literary, moral, and philosophical,” published in 1798. In 1791, the medical colleges of Philadelphia, which, on account of certain legislative proceedings, had existed as two distinct establishments since 1788, became united under the name of the university of Pennsylvania; and Dr. Rush was appointed to the chair of the professorship of the institutes of medicine and clinical practice. He now gave to the public his “Lectures upon the cause of Animal Life.” The same year he presented to the Philosophical Society his “Account of the Sugar Maple Tree of the United States,” which was published in their Transactions, vol. III.; and in 1792, “Observations, intended to favour a supposition that the black colour of the negro is derived from leprosy,” published in their Transactions, vol. IV.

The year 1793 is memorable in the medical annals of the United States, on account of the great mortality occasioned by the yellow fever, which prevailed in the city of Philadelphia; and the history of that epidemic, which was published by Dr. Rush in 1794, cannot be too highly valued, both for his minute and accurate description of the disease, and the many important facts he has recorded in relation to it. It was comprised in one volume 8vo, and has undergone several editions, and been extensively circulated in the Spanish and in the French languages. About this period also, he offered to the medical world his observations on the “Symptoms and Cure of Dropsy” in general, and on “Hydrocephalus Internus;” an “Account of the Influenza,” as it appeared in Philadelphia in 1789, 1790, and 1791; and “Observations on the state of the Body and Mind in Old Age.” In 1797 came out his “Observations on the nature and cure of Gout, and on Hydrophobia” an “Inquiry into the cause and cure of the Cholera Infantum” “Observations on Cynanche Trachealis,” &c.

In 1788, many of his medical papers were collected together, and published under the title of “Medical Inquiries and Observations,” vol. I. These he, from time to time, continued, embracing most of the writings above enumerated, besides observations on the climate of Pennsylvania, and some others, until a fifth volume was completed in 1798. In 1801 he added to his character as a writer, by the publication of six “Introductory Lectures to a course of lectures upon the institutes and practice of Medicine,” delivered in the university of Pennsylvania. In 1804 a new and corrected edition of his “Medical Inquiries,” &c. was printed in four volumes, 8vo. In 1806 he also published a second edition of his “Essays.” In 1809, such was the demand for the “Medical Inquiries and Observations,” he again revised and enlarged the work throughout, for a third edition, in which he continued his several histories of the yellow fever, as it prevailed in Philadelphia from 1793 to 1809. It also contained a “Defence of Bloodletting, as a remedy for certain diseases;” a view of the comparative state of medicine in Philadelphia between 1760 and 1766, and 1809; an “Inquiry into the various sources of the usual forms of summer and autumnal Diseases in the United States,” and the means of preventing them; and the recantation of his opinion of the contagious nature of the yellow fever.

He now formed the idea of selecting some of the best practical works for republication in America, and in order to render them more useful, of adding to them such notes as might the better adapt them to the diseases of his own country. His editions of Sydenham and of Cleghorn were published in 1809, and in 1810 appeared those of Pringle and Hillary. In 1811 appeared a volume of “Introductory Lectures,” containing those he had formerly published, with ten others delivered at different years before his class, and also two upon the pleasures of the senses and of the mind. His work upon the “Diseases of the Mind,” which had long and ardently been looked for, was next added to his writings. It appeared towards the close of 1812, in one volume octavo. The last effort of his pen was a letter on hydrophobia, containing additional reasons in support of the theory he had formerly advanced, as to the seat of the disease being chiefly in the blood-vessels. It was addressed to Dr. Hosack, and written not many days before his fatal illness.

While thus assiduously engaged in enriching medical science with the valuable fruits of his long and extensive experience, and in the active discharge of the practical duties of his profession, he was, on the evening of the 13th of April, 1813, seized with symptoms of general febrile irritation, which were soon accompanied with considerable pain in his chest. His constitution was naturally delicate, and he had acquired from previous illness, a predisposition to an affection of his lungs. He lost a moderate quantity of blood, by which he felt himself considerably relieved. But his strength was not sufficient to overcome the severity of his complaint; the beneficial effects resulting from the most skilful treatment were but of temporary duration. His disease rapidly assumed a typhus character, attended with great stupor, and a disinclination to conversation. In other respects, however, he retained his faculties, and the perfect consciousness of his approaching dissolution. On Monday evening ensuing, after a short illness of five days, and in the sixty-ninth year of his age, he ended his truly valuable and exemplary life. His death was the subject of universal lamentation, and he was followed to the grave by thousands, who assembled to bear testimony to his excellence.

In Jan. 1776, he married miss Julia Stockton, daughter of the hon. judge Stockton, of New Jersey, a lady of an excellent understanding, and whose amiable disposition and cultivated mind eminently qualified her as the companion of Dr. Rush. Thirteen children were the fruits of their marriage, nine of whom still survive. Two of these are chosen to offices of high respectability in the general government of the United States.

It were no easy task to do adequate justice to the great talents, the useful labours, and the exemplary character of Dr. Rush. From the preceding sketch, it is presumed, some idea may be formed of his incessant devotedness to the improvement of that profession of which he was so bright an ornament- and many additional particulars may be seen in our authority, which we must necessarily omit. In private life, his disposition and deportment were in the highest degree exemplary and amiable. His writings are highly estimable, both on account of their extent and their variety. Instead of being a mere collator of the opinions of others, he was constantly making discoveries and improvements of his own; and from the results of his individual experience and observation, added more facts to the science of medicine, than all who had preceded him in his native country. His description of diseases, for minuteness and accuracy of detail cannot be exceeded, and may safely be regarded as models of their kind. In the treatment of gout, dropsy, consumption of the lungs, and the diseases of old age, he enlarged our views of the animal economy, and threw more light upon the peculiar character of these afflicting disorders than is to be derived from the investigations of any other writer. His volume on the diseases of the mind, in as far as it exhibits the infinitely varied forms which those diseases exhibit, is a storehouse of instruction. Had his labours been limited to these subjects alone, his character would deservedly have been cherished by future ages. His reputation, however, will permanently depend upon his several histories of the epidemics of the United States, which have rendered his name familiar wherever medical science is cultivated. The respect and consideration which his publications procured for him among his contemporaries was such, that the highest honours were accumulated upon him in different parts of Europe, as well as in his own country, and he was admitted a member of many of the 'most distinguished literary and philosophical associations.

, an English gentleman, author of the “Historical Collections,” was of an ancient family, and born in Northumberland about 1607. He was for a short time a student in the university of Oxford; but left it without being matriculated, and entered himself of Lincoln’s Inn, where he became a barrister. But, his inclination leading him more to state-affairs than the comfrion law, he began early to take down in short-hand, speeches and passages at conferences in parliament, and from the king’s own mouth what he spake to both houses; and contrived to be on all occasions an eye and ear witness of the most important public transactions. He also personally attended and observed all occurrences of moment, during eleven years interval of parliament from 1630 to 1640, in the star-chamber, court of honour, and exchequer-chamber, when the judges met there upon extraordinary cases; and at the council-table, when great causes were tried before the king and council. He also frequently travelled in pursuit of information to considerable distances, and was present, during the civil war, at the camp at Berwick, at the fight at Newborn, at the treaty of Rippon, and at the great council at York.

In 1640 he was chosen an assistant to Henry Elsynge, esq. clerk of the house of commons; and this furnished him with another desirable opportunity of gratifying his curiosity, by "becoming acquainted with the debates in the house, and being privy to their proceedings. The house likewise reposed such confidence in him that they entrusted him with their weightiest affairs; particularly in conveying messages and addresses to the king while at York; between which place and London he is said to have rode frequently in twenty-four hours. For these services he was rewarded with presents, and recommended to a place in the excise, which, however, it does not appear that he ever received. In 1643 he took the covenant; and when sir Thomas Fairfax, who was his near relation, was appointed general of the parliament forces, he was made his secretary, in which office he did great services to his master, and has been commended for not making a large fortune, as he safely might, in this office. During the siege of Oxford in 1646 he was very serviceable to Fairfax, and while the treaty of surrender was pending, acted as courier between the army and the government at London. In 1649, being in Fairfax’s suite at Oxford, he was created M. A. as a member of Queen’s college, and at the same time was made one of the delegates to take into consideration the affairs depending between the citizens of Oxford and the members of that university. Upon Fairfax’s laying down his commission of general, Rushworth went and resided for some time in Lincoln’s Inn, and, being in much esteem with the prevailing powers, was appointed one of the committee, in Jan. 1651-2, to consult about the reformation of the common law. In 1658 he was chosen one of the burgesses for Berwick-uponTweed, to serve in the protector Richard’s parliament; and was again chosen for the same place in what was called the healing parliament, which met April 25, 1660.

After the Restoration he presented to the king several of the privy-council’s books, which he had preserved frpm ruin during the late distractions; but does not appear to have received any other reward than thanks, which was given him by the clerk of the council in his majesty’s name. Sir Orlando Bridgman, lord-keeper of the great seal, appointed him his secretary in 1677, atid continued him in that office as long as he kept the seals. In 1678 he was a third time elected burgess for Berwick, as he was in the succeeding parliament in 1679, and afterwards for the Oxford parliament. Upon the dissolution of this, he lived in the utmost retirement and obscurity in Westminster. He had many opportunities of enriching himself, at least of obtaining a comfortable subsistence; but, either through carelessness or extravagance, he never became master of any considerable possessions. He had a small annual pension of 8l. or lOl. from the government of Massachusetts Bay, for procuring them papers from the public offices, but this was withdrawn when he became incapable of supplying them. At length, being arrested for debt, he was committed to the King’s Bench prison in Southwark, where he dragged on the last six years of his life in a miserable condition, having greatly lost the use of his understanding and memory, partly by age, and partly by drinking strong liquors to keep up his spirits. There he died May 12, 1690, about eighty-three years of age, and was buried behind the pulpit in St. George’s church, Southwark. He had several daughters, one of whom was married to sir Francis Vane.

His “Historical Collections of private passages in State, weighty matters in Law, and remarkable proceedings in Parliament/' were published at different times, in folio. The first part, from 1618 to 1629, was published in 1659. The copy had been presented to Oliver Cromwell when he was protector; but he, having no leisure to peruse it, recommended it to Whitelock, who running it over made some alterations and additions. The second part appeared in 1680; the third in 1692; and the fourth and last, which extends to 1648, in 1701. All the seven volumes were reprinted together in 1721, with the trial of the earl of Strafford, published in 1680, which makes the whole eight volumes. This work has been highly extolled by some, and as much condemned by others. Alt who have been averse to Charles I. and his measures, have highly extolled it; all who have been favourers of that king and his cause, have represented it as extremely partial, and discredited it as much as possible. But the person who professedly set himself to oppose it, and to ruin its credit, was Dr. John Nalson, of Cambridge, who published, by the special command of Charles II.” An impartial collection of the great affairs of State, from the beginning of the Scotch rebellion in 1639 to the murder of king Charles I. wherein the first occasions and whole series of the late troubles in England, Scotland, and Ireland, are faithfully represented. Taken from authentic records, and methodically digested.“The title promises to bring the history down to the murder of Charles I. but Nalson lived only to put out two vols. in folio, 1682 and 1683, which bring it no lower than Jan. 1641-2. He professes, in the introduction to this work, to make it appear that” Mr. Rushvvorth hath concealed truth, endeavoured to vindicate the prevailing detractions of the late times, as well as their barbarous actions, and, with a kind of a rebound, to libel the government at second-hand:“and so far it is certain, that his aim and design was to decry the conduct of the court, and to favour the cause of the parliament; for which reason it is easy to conceive that he would be more forward to admit into his collections what made for, than against that purpose. The authors of the” Parliamentary Chronicle" have also proved that Rushworth suppressed much which an impartial collector would have inserted, nor can we suppose that he could be very impartial in the early part of the work, which was submitted to Cromwell or his adherents. His Collections, however, cannot be without great use, if it be only to present us with one side of the question.

It is said that Rushworth supplied himself plentifully from the grand collection of pamphlets made by Tomlinson the bookseller, which commenced from the latter end of 1640, and was carried down to the Restoration. They were uniformly bound in upwards of two thousand volumes of different sizes, and consisted of about thirty thousand tracts. Tomlinson is said to have refused four thousand pounds for this collection. William Prynne had by far the greatest hand in these pamphlets, having written above 160 of them himself. Near an hundred were written by and concerning John Lilburne. The catalogue, which was taken by Marmaduke Foster, the auctioneer, consists of tsvelve folio volumes. So scarce were many of these tracts, even at their first publication, that king Charles I. is reported to have given ten pounds for only reading one of them over, which he could no where else procure, at the owner’s house in St. Paul’s Church-yard. The author from whom we have borrowed these particulars, says that Mr. Rushworth “did, most plentifully, supply himself from these fountains, how abundantly soever he represents the facts therein corrupted with fiction; how fondly soever he seems to magnify his own sagacity, in the distinguishment of one from the other; and how suspiciously soever he discountenances all farther examination into them, than that wherewith he hath been pleased to present us; where he expresses himself thus slightingly of these very authorities, which have yet so liberally contributed to such of the massy tomes, passing under his name, whereof he was the real compiler. ‘Posterity,’ says he (i. e. Rushworth), should know, that some durst write the truth, whilst other men’s fancies were more busy than their hands; forging relations; building, and battering castles in the air; publishing speeches, as spoken in parliament, which were never spoken there; printing declarations, which were never passed; relating battles which were never fought; and victories which were never obtained; dispersing letters which were never writ by the authors; together with many such contrivances to abet a party or interest Pudet h<ec opprobria. Such practices, and the experience I had thereof, and the impossibility for any man, in after-ages, to ground a true history, by relying on the printed pamphlets of our days which passed the press while it was without controul, obliged me to all the pains and charge I have been at for many years together, to make a great collection; and, whilst such things were fresh in memory, to separate truth from falsehood, things real from things fictitious, or imaginary.'”

, a Roman catholic writer, was born in Lancashire, and after being instructed in the classics at school, was admitted of Brazenose college, Oxford, about 1568, where he took his degree of A. B. in 1572. Next year, being a Roman catholic, he left the university, and joined his countrymen of that persuasion at Doway, where he pursued his studies, and took his degrees in divinity. In 1577, he was sent to Rome, and ordained priest, and appointed to go to England as a missionary. Here, however, he was taken up and sentenced to die, but after four years imprisonment, this was commuted for banishment, in 1585. He then went abroad, and was about to receive his academical honours at Lovaine, when he died there of the plague in 1586. He was the first publisher of Sanders’s book, “De schismate Anglicano,” 1585, 8vo, to which he added a third part; and a fourth, by way of appendix, appeared in 1628, which contained from his pen a list of those who suffered for popery in Henry the VHIth’s time. He also published “Synopsis rerurn ecclesiasticarum ad annum Christi 1577,” for the use of the students at Doway, ecclesiastical history being much his study and a “Profession of Faith.”

, physician to the English factory at Aleppo, was born at Edinburgh, and by his father devoted, at an early period, to medicine. After studying grammar, he spent two) ears in the university, and was then>laced under the care of his uncle, an eminent practitioner in physic. In 1732, 3, and 4, he continued his studies under the professors of Edinburgh, till the time of his coming to London, from which place he embarked for Turkey in 1740, and settled at Aleppo. Here he assiduously applied himself to acquire a knowledge of the language, and to form an intimate acquaintance with the most experienced practitioners; but he soon attained a superior distinction, and was consulted by all ranks and professions, Franks, Greeks, Armenians, Jews, and even Turks themselves. The Pascha of Aleppo particularly admitted him to his familiarity and confidence, which enabled Dr. Russel to render the most important services to the factory; the Pascha, indeed, die] not fail to consult him in every act of importance, and many of the criminals who were natives owed their lives to Dr. Russet’s interposition. The Pascha carried his esteem for him so far, that he sent some valuable presents to his aged father, saying to him, “I am obliged for your friendship and assistance.” His valuable “History of Aleppo” was first published in 1755; and has been translated into different European languages, and a new edition was more recently published, on a very enlarged scale, by his brother Dr. Patrick Russel. It is not necessary here to expatiate in praise of this publication, but the remarks on the plague have been found of utility to every European nation; and, possibly, have tended to check the progress of that dreadful scourge. On his return to England, he chose the metropolis for his residence, and in 1759 was elected physician of St. Thomas’s Hospital, in which situation he continued to the time of his death, which happened in 1770. The Royal Society are obliged to Dr. Russel for many valuable communications, and the Medical Society were under obligations to him for many important papers. His character was that of a constant, sensible, and upright friend, a physician of great skill and experience, a pleasing companion, and a benevolent man.

His brother, Dr. Patrick Russel, who died July 2, 1805, in his seventy-ninth year, succeeded him as physician to the English factory at Aleppo. He published a copious “Treatise on the Plague,” in 1791, 4to, having had ample opportunities of treating that pestilential disease during the years 1760, 1761, and 1762. In this work, bcbides a journal of the progress, and a medical history of the plague, Dr. Russel inserted a full discussion of the subjects of quarantine, lazarettoes, and of the police, to be adopted in times of pestilence. He likewise published “Descriptions and figures of two hundred Fishes collected on the coast of Coromandel,” 1803, 2 vols. fol. and prevjousiy to this, in 1794, a new edition of his brothers “Natural History of Aleppo,” upon a very enlarged scale. He was a man of learning and wit: spoke the Arabic, which he acquired during his residence at Aleppo, with the fluency of his mother-tongue: and was, like his brother, of a friendly and benevolent disposition.

, a man of learning and ingenuity, the son of Christopher Russel, esq. of Minorca, was born in 1728. He was bred at Westminster-school, and in 1746 was admitted a member of St. Mary’s hall, Oxford. He commenced a poet in 1744, or before; for in his collection are verses on seeing lady Elizabeth Boyle dance at Marston on her father’s birth-day in that year. In April 1750 he was admitted bachelor of arts, but. did not determine or complete his decree until 1752. About 1753 he obtained the rectory of Skull, in the diocese of Cork, in Ireland, by r the patronage of John, fifth earl of Oork and Orrery. With that nobleman he appears to have lived in intimacy, as well as with his second son, Hamilton Boyle, and frequently visited Marston. He died in 1767; and two years after, were published, in 2 vols. 8vo, “The Works^of the late Rev. George Russel, Rector of Skull, in the diocese of Cork.” From the few specimens Mr. Malone has given, he seems justified in saying that these work?, though little known, owing probably to their having been published only in Ireland, have very considerable merit.

, author of the “History of Modern Europe,” and other works, was born in 1746, in the county of Mid- Lothian, Scotland, and received some knowledge of Greek and Latin at the school of Inverleithen. After some further instructions at Edinburgh, he was bound apprentice to the bookselling and printing business for five years, during which, at his leisure hours, he read much, and acquired a considerable fund of general knowledge. At the end of his apprenticeship, he published a “Collection of Modern Poems,” the selection of which was thought judicious. About 1763 he made an attempt to adapt Crebitlon’s “Rhadamisthe et Zenobie” to the British stage, which was offered to the manager of the Dmry-lane theatre but, as Murphy’s Zenobia was at that time in rehearsal, it was deemed imprudent to accept of another play on the same subject.

Next year. he issued proposals for publishing a second volume of his “Collection of Modern Poems,” and retired to the country in order to arrange the materials. During his absence from Edinburgh, he maintained an epistolary correspondence with lord Elibank, Miss Scott of Benham, Mr. Dalzel, and Dr. Ogilvie, to whose friendship his youthful ingenuity had recommended him but the projected volume never made its appearance. In 1765, lord Elibank having invited him to his seat in East Lothian, he there spent the greater part of the autumn, and had an opportunity of conversing with many eminent men. To this nobleman he seems to have looked for favour and protection; and in the hope of obtaining preferment through his influence, he relinquished his original employment, and prosecuted the study of history and polite literature.

Having resided with his father till the month of May 1767, he set out for London, with hopes that were soon disappointed, and after waiting in vain for promotion, he was under the necessity of engaging himself as a corrector of the press -of William Strahan, afterwards his majesty’s printer, vvhie llin 1769 he exchanged for the office of overseer to the printing-office of Brown and Adlard. During the same year he published an “Ode to Fortitude,” which was immediately reprinted at Edinburgh by his former masters, Martin and Witherspoon. His <; Sentimental Tales“appeared in 1770. From this time he wrote many essays in pvose and'verse for the monthly publications. In 1772, he published a” Collection of Fables, Moral and Sentimental,“and an” Essay on the Character, Manners, and Genius of Women,“from the French of M. Thomas; and seems about this period to have commenced an author by profession. His” Julia, a Poetical Romance,“made its appearance ia the year 1774, but with no great success. He was afterwards engaged in composing the” History of America,“which was published in numbers, and completed in 1779; this was favourably received by the public, and has far more of the spirit of original thinking and accurate information than is to be found in works published in that shape. In the course of the same year, he also published the two first volumes of his” History of Modern Europe," and the notice which they attracted exceeded his most sanguine expectations.

In 1780 his studies met with a temporary interruption: he embarked for Jamaica in order to recover some money due to him as the heir of his brother James, who had died in that island. In 1783 he published “The Tragic Muse,” a very just compliment to the transcendant abilities of Mrs. Siddons. In 1784 he completed his “History of Modern Europe,” by the addition of three volumes. He remained for some time in London, without any particular engagement of the literary kind, from which, being now in easy circumstances, he appears to have meditated a retreat. In 1787 he went to Scotland, married Miss Scott, a very amiable woman, and settled at a place called Knottyholm, a small distance from the town of Langholm in Scotland. In 1792 he obtained from the university of St. Andrew’s, the honorary degree of doctor of laws, with which he wished to adorn the title-page of his “History of Ancient Europe,” an undertaking which he had now begun, and completed two volumes in 1793; but this, neither as to plan or execution, was so highly valued as his former work. He was in truth less fit for the task than he had been, and being engaged in disputes with his booksellers, his mind became hurt and irritated. Some letters we have seen from him at this period shew that it was not quite sound; and that the strong sense of injury which he felt was in a great measure without foundation. While in this state a stroke of palsy terminated his life, Jan. 1, 1794, in the fortyseventh year of his age.

Dr. Russel was a man of indefatigable industry. Before he had perfected one scheme, another always presented itself to his mind. Besides two complete tragedies, entitled “Pyrrhus” and “Zenobia,” he left behind him an analysis of Bryant’s Mythology, and the following unfinished productions: 1. “The Earl of Strafford,” a tragedy. 2. “Modern Life,” a comedy. 3. “The Love Marriage,” an opera. 4. “Human Happiness,” a poem intended to have been comprised in four books. 5. “A Historical and Philosophical View of the progress of mankind in the knowledge of the Terraqueous Globe.” 6. “The History of Modern Europe, part III. from the peace of Paris in 1763, to the general pacification in 1783.” 7. “The History of England from the beginning of the reign of George III. to the conclusion of the American war.” In the composition of the last of these works he was engaged at the time of his death. It was to be comprised in three volumes 8vo; for the copy-right of which Mr. Caclell had stipulated to pay seven hundred and fifty pounds. His “History of Modern Europe” has lately been reprinted, with an additional volume “to the peace of Amiens,” by Dr. Coote, and continues to be a standard book for scholars of the upper classes. His “Ancient History” has never been completed.

Dr. Russel, without exhibiting the graces of polished life, was an agreeable companion, and possessed a considerable fund of general knowledge, and a zeal for literature and genius, which approached to enthusiasm. In all his undertakings, he was strictly honourable, and deserved the confidence reposed in him by his employers.

, was eldest son of Francis fourth earl of Bedford, by Catharine, sole daughter and heir of Giles Bridges, lord Chandois, and was born in 1614. He was educated in Magdalen college, Oxford, and was made knight of the bath at the coronation of king Charles I. He was a member of the Long-parliament, which met at Westminster, November 3, 1640; and May 9 following, upon the death of his father, succeeded him in his honours and estate. In July 1642, having avowed his sentiments against the measures pursued by the court, he was appointed by the parliament general of the horse, in the army raised in their defence against the king; and the marquis of Hertford being sent by his majesty into the West to levy forces, iti order to relieve Portsmouth, the earl of Bedford inid the command of seven thousand foot, and eight full troops of horse, to prevent his success in those parts; and marched with such expedition, that he forced the marquis out of Somersetshire, where his power and interest were believed unquestionable, and thus destroyed all hopes of forming an army for the king in the West. He afterwards joined the eari of Essex, and in the battle of Edgehill commanded the reserve of horse, which saved the whole army, when the horse of both wings had been defeated, and, after doing great execution on the king’s infantry, brought off their own foot; so that it became doubtful who had the victory, this reserve being the only body of forces that stood their ground in good order. In 1643, he, and the earls of Holland and Clare, conferred with the earl of Essex, who became dissatisfied with the war; and they had so much influence in the House of Lords, that, on the 5th of August the same year, that House desired a conference with the Commons, and declared to them their resolution of senclHig propositions for peace to the king, and hoped they would join with him. But by the artin'ce of Pennington, lord mayor of London, who procured a petition from the common-council of that city against the peace, such tumults were raised to terrify these lords, that they left the town, the Commons refusing to agree to their propositions. The earls of Bedford and Holland resolved therefore to go to Oxford; but their purpose being discovered or suspected, they with some difficulty got into the king’s garrison at Wallingford, from whence the governor sent an account of their arrival to the council at Oxford. The king was then at the siege of Gloucester, and the council divided in their opinions, in what manner to receive them; but his majesty upon his return determined on a middle way, by allowing them to come to Oxford, and every person to treat them there as they thought fit, while himself would regard them according to their future behaviour. Accordingly the two earls came, and, together with the earl of Clare, entered into the king’s service in Gloucestershire, waited upon his majesty throughout his march, charged in the royal regiment of horse at the battle of Newbury with great bravery, and in all respects behaved themselves well. Upon the king’s return to Oxford, he spoke to them on all occasions very graciously; but they were not treated in the same manner by others of the court, so that the earl of Holland going away first, the earls of Bedford and Clare followed, and came to the earl of Essex at St. Alban’s on Christmas-day, 1643. Soon after this, by order of parliament, the earl of Bedford was taken into custody by the black rod, and his estate sequestered, as was likewise the earl of Clare’s, tili the parliament, pleased with their successes against % the king in 1644, ordered their sequestrations to be taken off, and on the 17th of April the year following, the earl of Bedford, with the earls of Leicester and Ciare, and the lords Paget, Rich, and Convvay, who had left Oxford, and joined the parliament at London, took the covenant before the commissioners of the great-seal. He did not, however, interpose in any public affairs, till the House of Peers met in 1660, when the earl of Manchester, their speaker, was ordered by them to write to him to take his place among them; which he accordingly did, being assured of their design to restore the king and on the 27th of April that year, he was appointed one of the managers of the conference with the House of Commons, “to consider of some ways and means to make up the breaches and distractions of the kingdom” and on the 5th of May was one of the committee of peers “for viewing and considering, what ordinances had been made since the House of Lords were voted useless, which now passed as acts of parliament, and to draw up and prepare an act of parliament to be presented to the House to repeal what they should think fit.”

After the restoration of king Charles II. the earl of Bedford, notwithstanding his past conduct, was so far in his favour, that at the solemnity of his coronation, on April 23, 1661, he had the honour to carry St. Edward’s scepter; and, on May 29, 1672, was elected a knight of the most noble order of the garter. When the prince and princess of Orange came to the throne, he was sworn one of their privy council and at their coronation, on April 11, 1689, carried the queen’s scepter with the dove. They constituted his lordship, on May 10, 1689, lord lieutenant of the counties of Bedford and Cambridge; and, on March 1, 1691, lord lieutenant and custos rotulorum for the county of Middlesex, and the liberties of Westminster. He sought for no other honours or employments; but their majesties, on May 11, 1694, created him marquis of Tavistock and duke of Bedford, and, in enumerating his merits in the patent it is expressed, “That this was not the least, that he was father to the lord Russel, the ornament of his age, whose great merits it was not enough to transmit by history to posterity; but they were willing to record them in their royal patent, to remain in the family, as a monument consecrated to his consummate virtue; whose name could never be forgot, so long as men preserved any esteem for sanctity of manners, greatness of mind, and a love to their country, constant even to death. Therefore to solace his excellent father for so great a loss, to celebrate the memory of so noble a son, and to excite his worthy grandson, the heir of such mighty hopes, more cheerfully to emulate and follow the example of his illustrious father, they intailed this high dignity upon the earl and his posterity.”

This duke, in 1695, having made the settlements previous to his grandson’s marrying Elizabeth, only daughter and heir of John Howlancl, of Stretham, esq. who was one of the greatest fortunes of that time, it was thought convenient, for the honour of this alliance, to make him baron Howland, of Stretham in Surrey, on June 13 the same year. His grace died in the eighty-seventh year of his age, September 7, 1700, and was buried with his ancestors at Cheneys, where a most noble monument is erected for him and his countess (who died on May 10, 16S1-, aged sixty-four), their two figures being exhibited under a canopy, supported by two pillars of the Corinthian order.

, the third son of the preceding, and for whose sake indeed some account was thought necessary of his father, was born about 16H. Hi? was bred up in those principles of liberty for which his father had fought, but in his youth partook freely of the dissipations of the court of Charles II. until his marriage in 1667 reclaimed him, and he became afterwards a sedate and unblemished character, as to morals. He represented the county of Bedford in four parliaments, and was considered as one of the heads of the whig party. The first affair, however, in which he co-operated with this party, has thrown some obscurity on his character. When Charles II. exasperated against the court of France for withdrawing the pension he had been mean enough hitherto to receive, wished to join the continental confederacy against Louis XIV. the whigs, who dreaded the giving Charles an army that might as likely be employed against their own country as against France, raised an opposition to the measure; and this being acceptable to the French king, an intrigue commenced between some of the vvhigs and Barillon, the French ambassador, the consequence of which was their receiving bribes from him to thwart the measures of the court. Sir John Dalrymple has given a list of the members who thus accepted money from the enemy of their country; and although lord Russel is said positively to have refused to act so meanly, there seems little reason to doubt that he was concerned in the intrigue. The defence set up for him on this occasion amounts tolittle more than that in certain cases the means may be justified by the end.

In 1679, when the king found it expedient to ingratiate himself with the whigs, lord William Russel was appointed one of his new council; but this could not last long, for in the following year he promoted the bill for the exclusion of the duke of York from the throne, the debate upon which was opened by him on the 26th of October, with a declaration of his opinion, that the life of his majesty, the safety of the nation, and the protestant religion, were in great danger from popery; and that either that parliament must suppress the growth and power thereof, or else popery would soon destroy, not only parliaments, but all that was dear and valuable to them, for which reason he moved, that they might in the first place take into consideration, how to suppress popery, and prevent a popish successor. The bill being accordingly passed in the House of Commons, his lordship, on the J5th of November, carried it up to the peers; who rejecting it, the Commons were exasperated at this, and lord Russel in particular said, that if ever there should happen in this nation any such change, as that he should not have the liberty to live a protestant, he was resolved to die one; and therefore would not willingly have the hands of their enemies strengthened. But these, and similar speeches from other members, having disgusted the court, the parliament was prorogued on the 10th of January, 1680-1. However, the necessity of the king’s affairs requiring the meeting of another parliament, his majesty called one, which assembled at Oxford on the 21st o March following; in which lord Russel served again as knight of the shire for the county of Bedford. But another bill of exclusion being moved for by sir Robert Clayr ton, who was seconded -.hy. his lordship, that parliament was soon after dissolved, and no other called during the reign of king Charles II. who now seemed determined to govern without one.

This state of affairs led to a conspiracy, in which the duke of Monmouth, lord llussel, and others, were concerned, to act in concert with the duke of Argyle and the Scotch. The leaders of this party had different views; but lord William Russel is said to have wished for nothing more than the exclusion of the duke of York, and a redress of grievances. While this was in meditation, another plot was laid by other conspirators to assassinate the king on his return from Newmarket, at a farm called the Kye-house, from which this plot has taken its name. Both conspiracies having been discovered, lord William Russel was apprehended and brought to trial at the Old Bailey July 13, 1683. In the indictment, the noble lord was charged with the treasonable purpose of killing the king, which was made an inference from his being engaged in a plan of insurrection. “On the whole,” says Hume, after describing the nature of the evidence produced on the trial, “it was undoubtedly proved, that the insurrection had been deliberated on by the prisoner, and fully resolved; the surprisal of the guards deliberated on, but not fully resolved, and that an assassination had not been once mentioned or imagined by him. So far the matter of fact seems certain: but still, with regard to the law, there remained a difficulty, and that an important one. The English laws of treason, both in the manner of defining that crime, and in the proof required, are the mildest and most indulgent, and consequently the most equitable, that are any where to be found. The two chief species of treason contained in the statute of Edw. III. are the compassing and intending of the king’s death, and the actually levying of war against him; and by the law of Mary, the crime must be proved by the concurring testimony of two witnesses, to some overt act, tending to these purposes. But the lawyers, partly desirous of paying court to the sovereign, partly convinced of the ill consequences which might attend such narrow limitations, had introduced a greater latitude, both in the proof and definition of the crime; and the jury, after a very short deliberation, found the prisoner guilty, and sentence of death was passed upon him. As he refused to adopt some means which were very likely to have enabled him to escape, it has been imputed, by his admirers, to the pressing solicitations of his friends, that he wrote a very meanly supplicatory letter to the duke of York, in which he declared,” that what he had done in opposition to his royal highness, did not proceed from any personal ill-will or animosity to him, hut merely from opinion, that it was the best way for preserving the religion established by law; in which if he was mistaken, yet he had acted sincerely, without any ill end in it. And as for any base design against the duke’s person, he hoped he would be so just to him, as not to think him capable of so vile a thought. But that he was now resolved, and did faithfully engage himself, that if it should please the king to pardon him, and if his royal highness would interpose in it, he would in no sort meddle any more in the least opposition to his highness, but would be readily determined to live in any part of the world, which the king should prescribe, and would wholly withdraw himself from the affairs of England, unless called by his majesty’s orders to serve him; which he should never be wanting to do to the uttermost of his power. And that if his royal highness would be so gracious to him, as to move on his account, as ijt would be an engagement upon him beyond what he could in reason expect, so it would make the deepest impression on him possible; for no fear of death could work so much upon him, as so great an obligation would for ever do.“A few days after he wrote a letter to the king, to be delivered after his death, as it was by his uncle col. Russel; in which he observed,” that his chief business was humbly to ask his majesty’s pardon for any thing he had either said or done, which might look like want of respect to him, or of duty to his government; in which, though he did to the last moment acquit himself of all designs against his person, or of altering the government, and protested he knew of no design then on foot against either, yet he did not deny, but he had heard many things, and said some things, contrary to his duty; for which he had asked God’s pardon," &c. &c.

As he drew near to the close of life, conjugal affection was the feeling that clung closest to his heart; and when he had taken his last farewell of his wife, he said, “The bitterness of death is now over.” He suffered the sentence of his judges with resignation and composure. Some of his expressions imply an unusual degree of indifference in this last extremity. The day before his execution he was seized, with a bleeding at the nose: “I shall not now let blood to divert this distemper,” said he to bishop Burnet, who was present; “that will be done to-morrow.” A little before the sheriffs conducted him to his carriage, that was to convey him to the scaffold, he wound up his watch, “Now I have done,” said he, “with time, and henceforth must think solely of eternity.”

The execution was performed July 21, not on Towerhill, the common place of execution for men of high rank, but in Lincoln’s-inn-fields; and as he passed on in his coach, the multitude imagined they beheld virtue and liberty sitting by his side. He was the most popular among his own party, and perhaps the least obnoxious to the opposite faction; and his melancholy fate united every heart in a tender compassion for him. Without the least change of countenance, he laid his head on the block, and at two strokes it was severed from his body. He was, at the time of his death, only forty-two years of age. Burnet says, “he was a man of great candour and of a general reputation, universally beloved and trusted of a generous and obliging temper. He had given such proofs of an undaunted courage and of an unshaken firmness, that no man of that time had so entire a credit in the nation as he had. He quickly got out of some of the disorders, into which the court had drawn him, and ever after that his life was unblemished in all respects. He had from his first education an inclination to favour the non-conformists; and wished the laws could have been made easier to them, or they more pliant to the law. He was a slow man, of little discourse; but he had a tree judgment, when he considered things at his own leisure. His understanding was not defective, but his virtues were so eminent, that they would more than balance real defects, if any had been found in the other.”

At the revolution an act was passed on March 16, 1688-9, for annulling and making void the attainder of William Russel, esq. commonly called Lord Russel; and about the same time Henry lord De la Mere published “The late Lord Russel’s Case: with Observations upon it,” in which he affirms that his lordship could not be guilty of the indictment he was tried on; which he inferred from the law of the case, and from the inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence against his lordship. Sir Robert Atkyns also, one of the judges of the court of common pleas, published a “Defence of the late Lord Russet’s Innoeency,” printed in 1694; but the greatest honour paid to his memory is in the preamble to his father’s patent, transcribed in our account of him. His lordship married the lady liachel, second daughter, and at length heir to Thomas Wriothesley, earl of Southampton, lord high treasurer of England, the widow of Francis Vaughan, eldest son of Richard earl of Carbery. She died Sept. 29, 1723, aged eighty-seven. This lady’s “Letters,” published in 1773, exhibit her piety, virtue, and conjugal affection, and have immortalized her memory.

His implacable enemy, the duke of York, when James II. was reminded of his courage and virtues in a very affecting manner. Upon the approach of the prince of Orange, the infatuated king called an extraordinary council to consider of his highness’s proposals. Lord William Russel’s father, the earl of Bedford, being of the number, the king made earnest application to him, saying, “My lord, you are a good man, and have a great influence; you can do much for me at this time.” His lordship replied, “I am an old man, and can do but little, but I once had a son.” The king felt the full force of this appeal, and was struck dumb.

, one of the learned divines who was contemporary with Cudworth, Whichcot, Tillotson, and Worth ington, at the university of Cambridge, was a native of that town, and educated at Christ’s college, of which he became fellow, and probably took his degrees at the usual periods, though we do not find his name in the list of graduates published some years ago. Mr. Joseph Glanvil, in his preface to Dr. Rust’s “Discourse of Truth,” tells us that, when at the university, he “lived in great esteem and reputation for his eminent learning and virtues, and was one of the first in the university who overcame the prejudices of the education of the times before the restoration, and was very instrumental to enlarge others. He had too great a soul for the trifles of that age, and saw early the nakedness of phrases and fancies. He out-grew the pretended orthodoxy of those days, and addicted himself to the primitive learning and theology, in which he even then became a great master.” In 1651 he delivered in his own. chapel a discourse upon Proverbs xx. 27, which in 1655 he preached again at St. Mary’s in Cambridge. This piece was first published by Mr. Joseph Glanvil at London in 1682, in 8vo, under the title of “A Discourse of Truth,” in a volume entitled “Two choice and useful Treatises; the one Lux Orientalis: or an inquiry into the opinion of the Eastern sages concerning the pre-existence of souls: being a key to unlock the grand mysteries of Providence in relation to man’s sin and misery.” The other, “A Discourse of Truth, by the late reverend Dr. Rust, lord bishop of Drornore in Ireland. With annotations on them both.” The annotations are supposed to be written by Dr. Henry More, to who-e school Dr. Rust appears to have belonged. On the restoration, bishop Jeremy Taylor, foreseeing the vacancy in the deanery of Connor in Ireland, sent to Cambridge for some learned and ingenious man, who might be fit for that dignity. The choice tell upon Dr. Rust, which corresponding with the great inclination he had to be conversant with that eminent prelate, he gladly accepted of it, hastened to Ireland, and landed at Dublin about August 1661. He was received with great kindness and respect by bishop Taylor, and preferred to the deanery of Connor as soon as it was void, which was shortly after, and in 1662 to the rectory of the island of Magee in the same diocese. Upon the bishop’s death, August 13, 1667, he preached his funeral sermon, which was printed. The bishoprics were now divided; Dr. Boyle, dean of Cork, was nominated bishop of Down and Connor, and Dr. Rust, bishop of Dromore, in which he continued till his death, which was occasioned by a fever in Dec. 1670. He was interred in the choir of the cathedral of Dromore in a va'ult made for his predecessor bishop Taylor, whose body was deposited there. Mr. Glanvil, who was very particularly acquainted with him, tells us “that he was a man of a clear mind, a deep judgment, and searching wit, greatly learned in all the best sorts of knowledge, old and new, a thoughtfql and diligent inquirer^ of a free understanding and vast capacity, joined with singular modesty and unusual sweetness of temper, which made him the darling of all that knew him. He was a person of great piety and generosity, a hearty lover of God and man, an 'excellent preacher, a wise governor, a profound philosopher, a close reasoner, and above all, a true and exemplary Christian. In short, he was one, who had all the qualifications of a primitive bishop, and of an extraordinary man.” Dr. Rust’s other works were, “A Letter of Resolution concerning Origen and the chief of his opinions,” Lond. 1661, 4to; two sermons, one at the funeral of the earl of Mount-Alexander, the other on the death of bishop Taylor; and “Remains,” published by Henry Hallywell, Lond. 1686, 4to.

, an able critic and negociator, was born of an ancient family at Dordrecht or Dort, Aug. 28, 1589. He received a part of his early education at home, and was afterwards placed under the instructions of Gerard Vossius. In 1605 he was sent to Leyden, where he studied under Baud-ins, with whom he also resided, Scaliger, and Heinsius. After remaining here six years, he travelled in 1611 into France, resided two years at Paris, and took the degree of licentiate in law at Orleans; less from inclination than to please his parents. He returned to Dort, September 13, 1613, the day after his mother died, and soon after went to the Hague, where he was admitted to the bar; but remaining averse to this profession, and uncertain what to adopt in its place, the Swedish ambassador, who had been desired by his royal master to send him a person from Holland qualified for the post of counsellor, proposed it to Rutgers, and he having accepted the offer, they departed for Stockholm in May 1614. Finding, on their arrival, that the king was in Livonia, on account of the war with Muscovy, they took that route, and when they arrived at Nerva, the king received Rutgers with so great kindness, that the latter, although he had taken this journey without any determined purpose, or the hopes of a fixed settlement, now resolved ta attach himself to his majesty’s service. He was after this employed three times as envoy from that prince to Holland upon very important affairs, in which he acquitted himself to the entire satisfaction of his majesty, who ennobled him in 1619. He visited Bohemia, Denmark, and several German courts, in the same quality; and lastly he resided at the Hague, as minister from Gustavus to that republic, where he died Oct. 26, 1625, at the early age of thirty-six. His works are, 1. “Notae in Horatium,” added to an edition of that poet by Robert Stephens, in 1613, and reprinted in 1699 and 1713. 2. “Variarum lectionum libri tres, quibus utriusque linguae scriptores, qua emendantur, qua illustrantur,” Leyden, 1618. This is justly esteemed as a very learned work, and, what was not so common then, a very judicious Specimen of criticism. 3. “Notse in Martialem,” added to Scriverius’s excellent and scarce edition of 1619, 12mo. 4. “Spicilegium in Apuleiurrt,” printed in Elmenhorst’s edition of 1621, 8vo. 5. “Emendationes in Q. Curtium,” given in the Leyden edition of 1625, 12mo. 6. “Poemata,” printed with Nicolas Heinsius’ s poems, Leyden, 1653, and Amst. 1669, 8vo. This Heinsius, the son of Daniel Heinsius, was Rutgers’s nephew. 7. “Lectiones Venusinae,” added to Peter Bui-man’s Horace, 1699, 12mo. 8. “VitaJani Rutgersii,” &c. written by himself, and published by another nephew, William Goes, Leyden, 1646, 4to, of 14 pages, but republished with his poems, and elsewhere. Rutgers bequeathed his library to Daniel Heinsius, his brother-in-law, who printed a catalogue of it in 1630.

, a learned physician, and one of the founders of the medical school of Edinburgh, was the son of the rev. Rutherford, minister of Yarrow, in the county of Selkirk, Scotland, and was born Aug. 1, 1695. He received his school-education at Selkirk, where there is every reason to believe he made a rapid progress in the knowledge of the Latin and Greek languages. In 1708, or 1710, he went to the university of Edinburgh, and after the regular course of classical studies, mathe^ matics, and natural philosophy, engaged himself as apprentice to Mr. Alexander Nesbit, at that time an eminent surgeon, with whom he remained until 1716, when he went to London. There he attended some of the hospitals, and the lectures read on anatomy by Dr. Douglas, on surgery by Andre, and on materia medica by Strother. He next proceeded to Leyden, which, from the lectures of Boerhaave, was then the most celebrated medical school in Europe. In 1719, he went to France, and about the end of July of that year was admitted to the degree of M. D. in the university of Rheims. He passed the following winter in Paris, chiefly for the sake of Window’s private demonstrations in anatomy, and in 1720 returned to Britain.

In 1721, he settled as a physician at Edinburgh, and soon afterwards Drs. Rutherford, Sinclair, Plummer, and Innes, purchased a laboratory, where they prepared compound medicines, an art then little known in Scotland; but, having higher views than the mere profits of such a speculation, they demonstrated, as far as they were the* known, the operations of chemistry, to a numerous audience: and soon afterwards, by the advice of their old tnaster Boerhaave, they extended their lectures to other branches of physic. In 1725, they were appointed joint professors in the university: where, we believe, each, for some time, read lectures in every department of medical science, anatomy exempted, and carried forward their classes in rotation. The anatomical lectures were read by the elder Monro, who had been settled a 3*ear or two before them in Edinburgh. But on the death of Dr. Innes, a particular branch of medical science was allotted to each of the other three professors. Dr. Plummer was appointed professor of chemistry and materia medica, Dr. Sinclair of the institutes of physic, and Dr. Rutherford of the practice; and thus they had the honour to establish the medical school of Edinburgh. The lectures on the institutes and practice of physic were then, and for many years afterwards, delivered in Latin, of which Dr. Rutherford had a great command, and talked the language more fluently than that of his country. This practice, we believe, was afterwards discontinued by the successors of these founders; but Dr. Rutherford lectured in Latin as long as he filled the practical chair.

About 1748, he introduced a very great improvement in the course of medical education. Sensible that abstract lessons on the symptoms and the mode of treating various diseases, of which the student knew little but the names, could scarcely be of any benefit, he had for some time encouraged his pupils to bring patients to him on Saturday, when he inquired into the nature of their diseases, and prescribed for them in the presence of the class. This gave rise to a course of clinical lectures, the utility of which was so obvious, that it was enacted, by a decree of the senate of the university, that no man should be admitted to an examination for his doctor’s degree, who had not attended those lectures, to which an excellent hospital, then lately erected, gave the professors every opportunity of doing ample justice. He resigned his professorship in 1765, after having taught medicine in different departments for upwards of forty years, and was succeeded, by Dr. John Gregory. Dr. Rutherford lived, after this period, highly respected by many eminent physicians who had been his pupils, till 1779, when he died at Edinburgh, in the eighty-fourth year of his age.

, an ingenious philosopher and divine, the son of the rev. Thomas Rutherforth, rector of Papworth Everard, in the county of Cambridge, who had made large collections for an history of that county, was born October 13, 1712. He was entered of St. John’s college, Cambridge, about 1725, and took his degrees of A. B. 1729, and A.M. 1733. He was then chosen fellow, and proceeded bachelor of divinity in 1740. Two years after he was chosen fellow of the Royal Society, and in 1745, on being appointed professor of divinity, took his doctor’s degree, and was appointed chaplain to his royal highness the prince of Wales. In the church, he was promoted to be rector of Barrow in Suffolk, of Shenfield in Essex, and of Barley in Hertfordshire, and archdeacon of Essex. He communicated to the Gentleman’s Society at Spalding a curious correction of Plutarch’s description of the instrument used to renew the vestal fire, as relating to the triangle with which the instrument was formed. It was nothing but a concave speculum, whose principal focus which collected the rays is not in the centre of concavity, but at the distance of half a diameter from its surface: but some of the ancients thought otherwise, as appears from Prop. 31 of Euclid’s il Catoptrics;“and, though this piece has been thought spurious, and this error a proof of it, the sophist and Plutarch might easily know as little of mathematics. He published” An Essay on the nature and oblirgations of Virtue,“1744, 8vo, which Mr. Maurice Johnson, of Spalding, in a letter to Dr. Birch, calls” an useful, ingenious, and learned piece, wherein the noble author of the Characteristics, and all other authors ancient and modern, are, as to their notions and dogmata, duly, candidly, and in a gentleman-like manner, considered, and fully, to my satisfaction, answered as becomes a Christian divine. If you have not yet read that amiable work, I must (notwithstanding, as we have been told by some, whom he answers in his Xlth and last chapters, do not so much approve it) not forbear recommending it to your perusal.“”Two Sermons preached at Cambridge,“1747, 8vo.” A System of Natural Philosophy, Cambridge,“1748, 2 vols. 4to.” A Letter to Dr. Middleton in defence of bishop Sherlock on Prophecy,“1750, 8vo.” A Discourse on Miracles,“1751, 8vo.” “Institutes of Natural Law,” 1754, 2 vols. 8vo. “A Charge to the Clergy of Essex,” 1753, 4to, reprinted with three others in 1763, 8vo. “Two Letters to Dr. Kennicott,” 1761 and 1762. “A Vindication of the Right of Protestant Churches to require the Clergy to subscribe to an established Confession of Faith and Doctrines, in a Charge delivered at a Visitation, July 1766,” Cambridge, 1766, 8vo. A second, the same year. “A Letter to Archdeacon Blackburn,” 1767, 8vo, on the same subject. He died Oct. 5, 1771, aged fifty-nine, having married a sister of the late sir Anthony Thomas Abdy, bart of Albins, in Essex, by whom he had two sons, one of whom survived him. Dr. llutherforth was interred in the church at Barley, where, on his monument, it is said, that “he was no less eminent for his piety and integrity than his extensive learning; and filled every public station in which he was placed with general approbation. In private life, his behaviour was truly amiable. He was esteemed, beloved, and honoured by his family and friends; a,nd his death was sincerely lamented by all who ever heard of his well-deserved character.”

, a Latin poet, who was advanced to high employments at the Roman court, was a military tribune, and about 414- A. D. was prefect of Rome> and in order to succour his native country, then over-run by the Visigoths, took a journey to Gaul, of which he wrote a description in elegiac verse. It consisted of two books, of which the latter is lost. The work gives a favourable impression of the writer, as a Pagan, though it has been greatly censured by Christian writers, on account of some remarks he makes on the conduct and manners of the Christians. This “Itinerarium” was discovered in 1494 at a monastery, and has been several times printed. The best editions are those of 1582 and 1687. It is inserted in Burmann’s “Poetac Minores,” and in Matlaire’s " Corpus Poetarn m.' 12

, a medical observer and writer of very considerable learning, was born in Ireland, most probably at Dublin, Dec. 26, 16&8. His parents appear to have belonged to the people called Quakers, and were, as he tells 115, among “the more refined professors” of that religion. In his eleventh year, he was sent “to a seminary of the like,” which, he says, was a school not only of learning, but religion. Two years after he was removed to a school where there “was far less religion,” and from this to his eighteenth year he was “at various mixed schools, and among aliens.” In his twentieth year he was again placed in a family of friends; and such were the religious impressions of his youth, that he seems at various times to have considered the acquisition of human learning as a crime. He pursued it, however, and began a course of medical studies in Ireland, which he continued in London, and finished in Holland, probably at Leyden, then the chief medical school in Europe. Even here he cannot help telling us, that “the object was all nature and physic, no grace.” In 1723, having returned to his native country, he began practice, in what place he does not mention, but in the following year he “was transplanted to Dublin by a singular providence,” and attained much reputation. Soon after, he began a scheme for the improvement of the Materia Medica, in which he persevered for upwards of forty years, and which produced a work which we shall shortly notice.

In 1733, he began his “History of the rise and progress of the people called Quakers in Ireland, from 1653 to 1750,” which was printed at Dublin in 1751, 4to. It was peculiar to Dr. Rutty that all his publications were the result of careful industry and observation long continued. Of this work, not having seen it, or any account of it, we are unable to speak with precision. He tells us, however, that he did not undertake it for reward, but from zeal, “and a cordial love to the exercise of Christian discipline among them, extended not to a few external particulars only, as dress and address, but also to the inordinate pursuit of riches, to lukewarmness, and to profaneness, and all immorality.” In 1737, he published an “Essay on Women’s preaching,” with a rebuke to false prophets, who had long given him offence: some censure, he adds, ensued from this. From L740 to 1745, he was engaged on the “Natural History of the county of Dublin.” This, however, was Dot published until 1772. He tells us, that now “he was led a long dance on birds, fishes, and fossils, and in compotations for information, and was greatly hurt in his spirituals by this means,” &c. In truth, these compotations appear throughout the greater part of his life, to have been an almost constant source of uneasiness, and self-condemnation. In every page of his “Spiritual Diary,” he laments over his doses of whiskey and the ill-humour they produced, although his friends assure us that, both as to temper and temperance, his conduct was rather exemplary than blameable. Yet he had acquired a habit of magnifying the least infirmities into crimes, and this pervades the whole of the volumes which he filled with his Diary.

The first publication by which he was known, in his professional character, in this country, was a very elaborate work, entitled, “A Methodical Synopsis of Mineral Waters, comprehending the most celebrated Medicinal waters, both cold and hot, of Great Britain, Ireland, France, Germany, and Italy, and several other parts of the world, wherein their several impregnating minerals being previously described, and their characteristics investigated, each water is reduced to its proper genus; and besides the particular analysis, the virtues, uses, and abuses of the water are described, in a method entirely new. Interspersed with tables, tending to throw a light upon this intricate subject; and abstracts of the principal authors who have treated of mineral waters; and the accounts dispersed in the acts of most of the learned societies in Europe, are collected and properly digested,” 1756, 4to. In the preface he informs us that his original intention was only to do justice to his own country, by giving a history of the mineral waters of Ireland, which appeared to him to be as considerable, both in number and variety, as those of any part of Europe of equal extent; but this inquiry obliging him to institute a comparison between the Irish waters, and those of other countries, he extended his plan at last to a general history of mineral waters. This, however, appears to have been unfortunate for the reputation of the work, by obliging him to give accounts, at second hand, of many mineral waters, particularly some remarkable ones in England, which he had no opportunity of examining and analyzing; and hence there are many inaccuracies in a work, otherwise valuable, and evidently the result of much study and extensive inquiry. Dr. Rutty informs us that this work engaged him in a controversy for three years. With this we are unacquainted, having seen only a scurrilous pamphlet by one Lucas, an apothecary, and of some note as a mob-patriot, but which was spoken of in the literary journals of the day with the contempt which it appears to have amply deserved, and could scarcely have been worthy of Dr. Rutty’s notice.

Dr. Rutty’s next publication, in 1770, was “A Chronological History of the Weather and Seasons, and of the prevailing diseases in Dublin: with their various periods, successions, and revolutions, during the space of forty years. With a comparative view of the difference of the Irish climate and diseases, and those of England and other countries,” 8vo. This was followed by “An Essay towards a Natural History of the County of Dublin,” 1772, 2 vols. 8vo. This work, we have seen, he had begun in 1740. It was now published in consequence of the institution of the “Physico- historical Society” of Dublin, the object of which was to procure the natural and civil history of every county in the kingdom. Those of Waterford, Cork, and Kerry, had been written by Mr. Smith, and that of the county of Down by another hand, and Dr. Rutty undertook that of Dublin, which he executed, if in a manner less pleasing than Mr. Smith, to the general reader, was not less interesting to men of science.