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

, a German of great learning, was of a noble family of Strasburg, and was born there in 1489 or 1490. He made himself illustrious by the services he did his country; and discharged the most considerable offices of state with the greatest ability and probity, particularly in several deputations to the diets of the empire, the imperial court, and that of England. He contributed very much to the reformation of religion at Strasburg, to the erecting of a college which was opened there ten years after, and to the compilation of the history of the reformation in Germany by Sleidan, which that author acknowledges in his preface. “I received the assistance of that noble and excellent person, James Sturmius, who, having been above thirty years engaged in public and important affairs with the highest reputation, and having generously honoured me with his friendship, frequently cleared up my doubts, and put me into the right way; and, at my request before his last illness, read over the greatest part of the work, and made the necessary remarks upon it.” He died at Strasburg Oct. 20, 1555, after languishing of a fever for two months. Sleidan says that “he was a man of great prudence and integrity, and the glory of the German nobility, on account of the excellent qualities of his mind, and his distinguished learning.”

, the Cicero of Germany, if we may use the terms of Melchior Adam, was born at Sleida in Eiffel, near Cologne, Oct. 1, 1507. He was initiated in letters in his native country, with the sons of count de Manderscheid, whose receiver his father was, and afterwards studied at Liege in the college of St. Jerome. In 1524, he went to Louvain, where ne sp.-Mit five years, three in learning, and two in teaching; an 1 had for his fellowstudents, Sleidan, Vesalius, and some others, who afterwards became men of eminence, a:vi had a great esteem for him. He set up a printing-press with Rudger Rescins, professor of Greek, and printed several Greek authors. He began with Homer, and soon after carried those editions to Pans, in 1529, where he made himself highly esteemed, and read public lectures upon the Greek and Latin writers, and upon logic. He married also there, and kept a great number of boarders, who came from England, Germany, and Italy, and were the sous of considerable families; but as he had imbibed the principles of the reformation, he was more than once in danger; which, undoubtedly, was the reason why he removed to Strasburg in 1537. in order to take possession of the place offered him by the magistrates. The year following he opened a school, which became famous, and by his means obtained from the emperor Maximilian II. the title of an university in 1566. He was very well skilled in polite literature, wrote Latin with great purity, and understood the method of teaching; and it was owing to him, that the college of Strasburg, of which he was perpetual rector, became the most flourishing in all Germany. His talents were not confined to the schools; he was frequently entrusted with several deputations in Germany and foreign countries, and discharged those employments with great honour and diligence. He shewed extreme charity to the refugees who fled on account of religion: he was not satisfied with labouring to assist them by his advice and recommendations, but even impoverished himself by his great hospitality towards them. His life, however, was exposed to many troubles, which he owed chiefly to the intolerance of the Lutheran ministers. At Strasburg he formed a moderate Lutheranism, to which he submitted without reluctance, though he was of Zuinglius’s opinion, and afterwards declared himself for Calvinism, and was in consequence, in 1583, deprived of the rectorship of the university. He died March 3, 1589, aged above eighty. He had been thrice married, but left no children. Though he lost his sight some time before his death, yet he did not discontinue his labours for the public good. He published a great number of books, chiefly on subjects of philosophy. Having when at Paris studied medicine, he published in 1531, an edition of Galen’s works, fol. Among his other works, are, 1. “De Literarum ludis recte aperiendis liber,” 1538, 4to, twice reprinted, and inserted in Crenius’s collection “Variorum auctorum consilia, &c.” Morhoff praises this work very highly. 2. “In partitiones Oratorias Ciceronis libri duo,” Argent. 1539 and 1565, 8vo. He published some other parts of Cicero for the use of students. 3. “Beati Rhenani vita,” prefixed to that author’s “Rerum Germanicarum libri tres,” Basil, 1551, fol. 4. “Ciceronis Opera omnia,” Strasb. 1557, &.c. 9 vols. 8vo. 5. “Aristotelis Rheticorum libri tres,” Gr. and Lat. with scholia, &c. 1570, 8vo. 6. “Anti-Pappi tres contra Joannis Pappi charitatem et condemnationem Christianam.” 1579, 4to. This is the first of his controversial tracts against Pappus, who had been the cause of his losing his rectorship. There are many letters between Stimnius and Roger Ascham in that collection published at Oxford in 1703.

, a noted German mathematician and philosopher, was born at Hippo! stein in 1635. He was a professor of philosophy and mathematics at Altdorf, and died there Dec. 26, 1703. In 1670, he published, 1. A German translation of the works of Archimedes; and afterwards produced many other books of his own. 2. “Collegium experimental curiosum,” Nuremberg, 1676, 4to; reprinted in 1701, 4to, a very curious work, containing a multitude of interesting experiments, neatly illustrated by copper-plate figures printed upon almost every page, by the side of the letter-press. Of these, the 10th experiment is an improvement on father Lana’s project for navigating a small vessel suspended in the atmosphere by several globes exhausted of air. '6. “Physica electiva, et Hypothetica,” Nuremberg, 1675, 2 vols. 4to; reprinted at Altdorf, 1730. 4.“Scientia Cosmica,” Altdorf, 1670, folio. 5. “Architecture militaris Tyrocinia,” at the same place, 1682, folio. 6. “Epistola de veritate proposiiionum Borellide motu animalium,” 4to, Nuremb. 1684. 7. “Physicae conciliatricis Conamina,” Altdorf, 1684, 8vo. 8. “Mathesis enucleata,” Nuremb. 1695, 8vo. 9. “Mathesis Juvenilis,” Nureiwb. 1699, 2 vols. 8vo, 10. “Physicae modernae compendium,” Nuremb. 1704, 8vo. 11. “Tyrocinia mathematica,” Leipsic, 1707, folio. 12. “Praelectiones Academics,” 1722, 4to. 13. “Praelectiones Academics,” Strasburg, 12mo. The works of this author are still more numerous, but the most important of them are here enumerated.

, son of the preceding, and a very eminent writer on the subject of architecture, was born Nov. 5, 1669, at Altorff, and began his studies in 1683, at Heilbrunn. Returning home in 1688, he was created master of arts, his father being at that time dean of the university. In 1690 he went to Leipsic, and studied divinity, but soon quitted that for mathematics. About 1693, George Bose, a senator of Leipsic, a man of fortune and an amateur, put into his hands Nicolas Goldmann’s manuscript work on architecture, which he wished to publish, but which had been lelt imperfect in some parts. Sturmius accordingly undertook the ofhce of editor, and it appeared in 1708, in 2 vols. fol. in the German language. In 1714- he published also “Prodromus Architecture Goldmanniaoae,” and with it the prospectus of a new edition of Goldmann, which he produced in separate treatises from 1715 to 1721, the whole forming a “Complete course of Civil Architecture,” in 16 vols. fol. printed at Augsburgh. This was thought the most comprehensive and perfect work of the kind that had ever appeared. Until that time no one bad treated on tlu- doctrine of me five orders of architecture with so much skill as Goldmann his proportions were reckoned preferable to those of Scamozzi; more beautiful and elegant than those of l'atladio, and more in conformity with the antique than those of Vignola.

In the meantime, while this work was going on, Sturmius filled the office of professor of mathematics at Wolfenbuttel, and it was there he published his “Sciagraphia Templi Hierosolymitani,” in fol. In 1697 he obtained permission of the duke of Wolfenbuttel to travel, and went into the Netherlands and into France: the result of his observations, chiefly on subjects of architecture, he published in 1719, folio, with numerous plates, from his own designs. This work shows great skill in architecture, but, as his eulogist is disposed to allow, a taste somewhat fastidious, and a wish to estimate all merit in the art by certain preconceived opinions of his own. In 1702 he was appointed professor of mathematics in the university of Francfort on the Oder. The king of France having promised a reward to the inventor of a sixth order of architecture, Sturmius, among others, made an attempt, which he called the German order, and which he intended to hold a middle rank between the Ionic and the Corinthian. It is unnecessary to add that no attempt of this kind has succeeded.

In the science of fortification, Sturmius acquired great fame. The celebrated general Coehorn was of opinion that no man understood the subject better, and that he only wanted to have the conduct of some siege in order to prove himself one of the ablest engineers of the age. In 1711 he left Francfort, for the honourable offices of counsellor of the chamber of finances, and director of the buildings at the court of Frederick William duke of Mecklenburgh. There he built the palace of Neustadt on the Elde, which is acknowledged to be in a good taste, but it excited envy, and the duke having too easily listened to the prejudiced reports of some about him, Sturmius left his situation in 1713, and went to Hamburgh, where he employed some time in writing. While there he accepted the office of the duke of Brunswick to enter his service as first architect at Blanckenburgh, but did not enjoy that situation long. He died June 6, 1719, in the fiftieth year of his age. His mathematical and architectural works, not mentioned, were very numerous, but being mostly in the Germa-n language, are but little known. He also acquired reputation as a theologian, and had a controversy with certain Lutheran divines, in which persuasion he was originally bred up, on their peculiar notions respecting the Lord’s supper.

, an engraver of some note, was born in London in 1658. At the age of seventeen he became the pupil of Robert White. His prints are exceedingly numerous, and prove him to have been a very industrious man, but of no great genius. Indeed, the chief of his excellence lay in the engraving of letters, and the minuteness with which they were executed. His best work is the “Book of Common Prayer,” which he engraved on silver plates. The top of every page is ornamented with a small historical vignette. Prefixed is the bust of George 1. in a circle, and facing it the prince and princess of Wales. The peculiarity of this work is, that the lines of the king’s face are expressed by writing, so small that few persons can read it without a magnifying glass, and that this writing consists of the Lord’s prayer, the Ten Commandments, prayers for the royal family, and the 21st Psalm. Tins Common Prayer Book was published by subscription in London in 1717, 8vo, and was followed by a “Companion to the Altar” of the same size, and executed in the same manner. Sturt also engraved the Lord’s Prayer within the area of a circle of the dimensions of a silver penny, and an elegy on queen Mary on so small a size that it might be set in a ring or locket. This last wonderful feat, which was announced in the Gazette, was performed m 1694. He was, however, a faithful copyist, as may be seen by the English translation of Pozzo’s Perspective, published by James, in folio. When old and poor, for it does not appear that he had great success, he had a placa offered him in the Charter-house, which he refused. He died in 1730, aged seventy-two. Lord Orford says, he received near 500l. of Mr. Anderson of Edinburgh, to engrave plates for his “Diplomata,” but did not live to complete them.

, a law-writer, was an esquire’s son, as Wood says, but probably the son of sir Humphrey Style, knt. and bart. whose family are buried in Beckenham in Kent. He was born in 1603, and became a gentlemancommoner of Brasenose college, Oxford, in 1618; but, as usual with gentlemen destined for the law, left the university without a degree, and went to the Inner Temple. He was afterwards called to the bar, but, according to Wood, “pleased himself with a retired and studious condition.” He died in 1679, if he be the William Style buried that year at Beckenham, as Mr. Lysons conjectures with great probability. The most valued of his writings are his “Reports,” published in 1658, folio, from the circumstance of being the only cases extant of the common law courts for several years in the time of the usurpation, during which sir Henry Rolle, and afterwards John Glynn, sat as chief justices of the upper bench. His other works are, “The Practical Register, or the Accomplished Attorney,” 1657, 8vo, and “The Common Law epitomized, with directions how to prosecute and defend personal actions,” 8vo. Wood also mentions a non-professional work, translated from the Latin of John Michael Delher, a name we are unacquainted with, under the title of “Contemplations, Sighs, and Groans of a Christian,” Lond. 1640, 8vo, with a singular engraved title.

, a Spanish Jesuit, born at Grenada, Jan. 5, 1548, was a professor of reputation at Alcala, at Salamanca, and at Rome. He was afterwards invited to Coimbra in Portugal, where he became the principal professor of divinity. He is an author of the most voluminous kind: his works extended to twenty -three volumes, in folio; and so extraordinary was his memory, that if any passage was cited from them, he could' immediately go on to the end of the chapter or book. Yet, with all his talents, his examiners had such an indifferent opinion of him, that it was with some difficulty he gained admission into the order of Jesuits. He died at Lisbon, Sept. 25, 1617. By order of pope Paul V. he wrote a book “against the errors of the English sect,” which James I. caused to be publicly burnt at St. Paul’s. “Happy should I be,” said he, “could I seal with my blood the truths I have defended with my pen.” Yet unpopular as this work must have rendered his name in this country, his treatise on law, “Tractatus de Legibus,” was printed in London in 1679, in folio. His works are chiefly on the subjects of metaphysics, morality, and theology; and what seems to recommend them is, that he almost every where relates and explains, with great fidelity and precision, the different sentiments of divines concerning the subjects on which he treats. The Jesuits consider Suarez as the greatest and best scholastic divine their order has produced, and lavish the highest encomiums upon him. He was the principal author of the system of Congruism, which is at bottom only that of Molina, although, perhaps, better adapted to the method and language of the theolorians, and disguised under a less offensive form. Father Noel, a French Jesuit, made an abridgment of the works of this commentator, which was published at Geneva in 173;2, in folio. There is a prolix life of him by AntonyIgnatius Deschamps, printed at Perpignan in 1671, a 4to of 800 pages.

, an accomplished courtier, scholar, and poet, was the son of sir John Suckling, comptroller of the royal household, and was born at Whitton in Middlesex, where his father resided, in 1609. His biopraphers have hitherto fixed the time of his birth in 1612, but, according to some extracts from the parish-register of Twickenham, in Lysons’s " Environs/* it appears, that he was baptised Feb. 10, 160S-9. Lloyd, from whoop we have the first account of this poet, mentions a circumstance relating to his birth, from which more was presaged than followed. He was born, according to his mother’s computation, in the eleventh month, and long life and health were expected from so extraordinary an occurrence. During his infancy he certainly displayed an uncommon facility of acquiring every branch of education. He spoke Latin at five years of age, and could write in that language at the age of nine. It is probable that he was taught more languages than one at the same time, and by practising frequently with men of education who kept company with his father, soon acquired an ease and elegance of address which qualified him for the court as well as for foreign travel. His father is represented as a man of a serious turn and grave manners; the son volatile, good-tempered, and thoughtless; characteristics which he seems to have preserved throughout life. His tutors found him particularly submissive, docile, easy to be taught, and quick in learning It does not appear that he was sent to either university, yet a perusal of his prose works can leave no doubt that he laid a very solid and extensive foundation for various learning, and studied, not only such authors as were suitable to the vivacity of his disposition, but made himself acquainted with those political and religious controversies which were about to involve his country in all the miseries of civil war.

After continuing for some years under his father’s tutorage, he travelled over the kingdom, and then went to the continent, where, his biographer informs us, “he made an honourable collection of the virtues of each nation, without any tincture of theirs, unless it were a little too much of the French air, which was indeed the fault of his complexion, rather than his person” It was about this time, probably in his twentieth year, that he joined the standard of the illustrious Gustavus Adolphus, and was present at three battles and five sieges, besides lesser engagements, within the space of six months.

On his return he employed his time, and expended his fortune, among the wits of his age, to whom he was recommended, not only by generous and social habits, but by a solid sense in argument and conversation far beyond what might be expected from his years, and the apparent lightness of his disposition. Among his principal associates, we find the names of lord Falkland, Davenant, Ben Jonson, Digby, Carew, sir Toby Matthews, and the “ever memorable” Hales of Eton, to whom he addresses a lively invitation to come to town. His plays, “Aglaura,” “Brennoralt,” “The Goblins,” and an unfinished piece entitled “The Sad One,” added considerably to his fame, although they have not been able to perpetuate it. The first only was printed in his life-time. All his plays, we are told, were acted with applause, and he spared no expence in costly dresses and decorations.

While thus seemingly devoted to pleasure only, the unfortunate aspect of public affairs roused him to a sense of duty, and induced him to offer his services, and devote his life and fortune, to the cause of royalty. How justly he could contemplate the unfortunate dispute between the court and nation, appears in his letier to Mr. Germaine (afterwards lord Albemarle), a composition almost unrivalled in that age for elegance of style and depth of observation. It was, however, too much the practice with those who made voluntary offers of soldiers, to equip them in an expensive and useless manner. Suckling, who was magnificent in all his expenses, was not to be outdone in an. article which he had studied more than became a soldier, and which he might suppose would afford unquestionable proof of his attachment to the royal cause; and, having been permitted to raise a troop of horse, consisting of an hundred, he equipped them so richly, that they are said to have cost him the sum of twelve thousand pounds. This exposed him to some degree of ridicule, a weapon which the republicans often wielded with successful dexterity, and which, in this instance, was sharpened by the misconduct of his gaudy soldiers. The particulars of this affair are not recorded; but it appears, that in 1639, the royal army, of which his troop formed a part, was defeated by the Scotch, and that sir John’s men behaved remarkably ill. All this is possible, without any imputation on the courage of their commander; but it afforded his enemies an opportunity of turning the expedition into ridicule with an effect that is yet remembered. The lines in Dr. Percy’s collection, by sir John Mennis, are not the only specimen of the wit of the times at our author’s expense.

This unhappy affair is said by Lloyd to have contributed 10 shorten his days; but Oldys, in his ms notes on Langbaine, attributes his death to another cause. Lord Oxford informed Oldys, on the authority of dean Chetwood, who said he had it from lord Roscommon, that sir John Suckling, in his way to France, was robbed of a casket of gold and jewels, by his valet, who gave him poison, and besides stuck the blade of a pen-knife into his boot in such a manner, that sir John was disabled from pursuing the villain, and was wounded incurably in the heel. Dr. Warton, in a note to his Essay on Pope, relates the story somewhat differently: “Sir John Suckling was robbed by his valetde-chambre; the moment he discovered it, he clapped on his boots in a passionate hurry, and perceived not a large rusty nail that was concealed at the bottom, which pierced his heel, and brought on a mortification.” He died May 7, 1641, in the thirty-second year of his age. That he was on his way to France, when he met with the occasion of his death, seems to be confirmed by a ludicrous poem, lately re-printed in the “Censura Literaria,” entitled “A Letter sent by sir John Suckling from France, deploring his sad estate and flight: with a discoverie of the plot and conspiracie, intended by him and his adherents against England. Imprinted at London, 1641.” This poem is dated Paris, June 16, 1641, at which time the author probably had not learned that the object of his satire was beyond his reach.

As a poet, he was one of those who wrote for amusement, and was not stimulated by ambition, or anxious for fame. His pieces were sent loose about the world; and not having been collected until after his death, they are probably less correct than he left them. Many of his verses are as rugged and unhamionious as those of Donne; but his songs and ballads are elegant and graceful. He was particularly happy and original in expressing the feelings of artificial love, disdain, or disappointment. The “Session of the Poets,” the “Lines to a Rival,” the “Honest Lover,” and the “Ballad upon a Wedding,” are sufficient to entitle him to the honours of poetry, which the author of the lives published under the name of Gibber, is extremely anxious to wrest from him.

His works have been often reprinted; first in 1646, 8yo, again in 1659, and 1676; very correctly by Tonson in 1719, and elegantly, but incorrectly, by Davies in 1770. The edition of Tonson has been followed in the late edition of the “English Poets,” with the omission of such pieces as were thought degrading to his memory, and insulting to public decency . But whatever opinion is entertained of Suckling as a poet, it may be doubted whether his prose writings are not calculated to raise a yet higher opinion of his talents. His letters, with a dash of gallantry more free than modern times will admit, are shrewd in observation, and often elegant in style. That addressed to Mr. Germaine has already been noticed, and his “Account of Religion by Reason,” is remarkable for soundness of argument, and purity of expression, far exceeding the controversial writings of that age. This piece affords a presumption that he was even now no stranger to those reflections which elevate the human character, and that if his life had been spared, it would have been probably devoted to more honourable objects than those in which he had employed his youthful days.

, an ancient historian and biographer, was born at Rome about the beginning of the reign of Vespasian, perhaps in the year 70, as may be collected from his own words in the life of Nero. His father Suetonius Lenis was tribune of a legion, in the service of the emperor Otho, against Vitellius. He passed his first years probably at Romej and when grown up, applied himself to the bar. He appears to have very early acquired the friendship of the younger Pliny, who procured for him the office of tribune and aiteru lkl.N, upon his resignation, transferred it to his kinsman, at Sdetonius’s request. He ohtained also In* him th “Jus trimn liberon.m;” a favour seldom granted, and which Pliny could not have obtained, if, besides hU great interest at court, he had not very earnestly solicited the emperor Trajan, in a letter written from Bnhynia, of which he was at that time governor. In this letter he describes Suetonius as a man of gr<at integrity, honour, a. d learning, whose manners and studies were the same with his own; and he adds, “the better I have known him, the more I have loved him. He has been rather unhappy in his marriage; and the privileges of those who have three children are upon several accounts necessary. He begs through me, therefore, that your bounty will supply what his ill fortune has denied him. I know, sir, the high value of the favour I ask but I am asking a sovereign whose indulgence to all my wishes I have long experienced. How desirous I am to obtain it, you will easily conclude, from my applying to you at this distance; which I should not have done, if it had been a mutter of indifference to me.” Suetonius advanced himself to be afterwards secretary to the emperor Adrian; but he lost that place, for not paying a due respect to the empress. Spartian, speaking of him and others involved in the same blame, uses the words “quod apud Sabinam uxorem, injussu ejus, familiarius se tune egerant, quam reverentia domus aulicae postulabat.” On the nature of this disrespect, or “too great familiarity,” critics are not agreed. Their offence probably rose only from the capricious temper of the emperor, who, we are told, treated her with great contempt himself for some reason, and permitted others also to do so under certain limitations; which limitations Suetonius and others might ignorantly transgress.

We know nothing more of Suetonius, nor of the time of his death. He wrote many books, none of which are come down to us, except his Lives of the first twelve emperors, and part of his treatise concerning the illustrious grammarians and rhetoricians; for he applied himself much to the study of grammar and rhetoric, and many are of opinion that he was a teacher. Suidas ascribes to him several works of the grammatical kind; and observes, that he wrote a book respecting the Grecian games, two upon the shows of the Romans, two upon the laws and customs of Home, one upon the life of Cicero, or upon his books “De Republica,” and “A catalogue of the illustrious men of Rome.” Many other pieces of his are cited by various authors; and the lives of Terence, Horace, Juvenal, Persius, and Lucan, have usually gone under his name, and been printed at the end of his works, though it is not absolutely certain that they are his. His *' History of the Emperors“is a work of great value, as illustrative of the manners of the times, and the particular character of these sovereigns, but is not written strictly either in the historical or biographical form. It consists of a continued series of curious facts, related succinctly, without digressions or reflections. There is in it a character of sincerity, which shews very plainly, that the author feared and hoped for nothing, and that his pen was not directed by hatred or flattery.* Suetonius, says Politian,” has given us evident proofs of his diligence, veracity, and freedom. There is no room for any suspicion of partiality in his books; nothing is advanced out of favour, or suppressed out of fear: the facts themselves have engrossed his whole attention, and he has consulted truth in the first place.“Politian is also of opinion, that he forbore writing the lives of Nerva, Trajan, and Adrian, the emperors of his time, because he would not be tempted to disregard the love of truth. Some have blamed him for his descriptions of the horrid debaucheries of Tiberius, Caligula, Nero, and Domitian, which Erasmus is willing to excuse on the score of his care and fidelity as an historian; but certainly such descriptions can* not be defended, because they cannot be necessary even to fidelity itself. A good English translation was published in 1796 by Dr. Alexander Thomson, in which he softened or suppressed Suetonius’s indelicacies, without any injury to the general effect of the narrative. Suetonius speaks disrespectfully of the Christians, calling them” genus hominum superstitionis novae & maleficae, a sort of people of a new and mischievous superstition:" but Lardner has selected from him some important corroborations of the facts of gospel history.

Suetonius was first printed at Rome in 1470, fol. and was often reprinted in that century, with and without dates; since when, the best editions are those of Stephanus, 1543, 8vo “Cum notis & numismatibus a Carolo Patin,” Basil, 1675, 4to “Cum notis integris Isaaci Casauboni, Lævini Torrentii, Joannis Georgii Grævii, & selectis aliorum,” Hagae Comit. 1691, 4to. “Cum notis variorum & Pitisci,” L. Bat. 1692, 2 torn. 8vo. And, “Cum notis suctioribus Pitisci,” Leovard. 1714. This last is by far the best; but there is another printed at the Hague in 1727, 4to; “In usum Delpbini,” Paris, 1684, 2 torn. 4to *< Cum notis Burmanni,“1736, in 2 vols. 4to” Ernesti,“Leipsic, 1748 75, 8vo.” Oudendorp,“Leyden, 1751, 2 vols. 8vo; and” Wolfius," Leipsic, 1802, 4 vols. 8vo.

, one of the best painters hi his time which the French nation had produced, was born at Paris in 1617, and studied the principles of his art under Simon Vouet, whom he infinitely surpassed; and although he was never out of France, carried the art to a very high degree of perfection. His style was formed upon antiquity, and after the best Italian masters. He invented with ease, and his execution was always worthy of his designs. His attitudes are simple and noble, and his ex r pression well adapted to the subject. His draperies are designed after the manner of Raphael’s last works. Although he knew little of the local colours, or the chiaro scuro, he was so much master of the other parts of painting, that there was a great likelihood of his throwing off Vuuet’s manner entirely, had he lived longer. Immediately aiter Vouet’s death, he perceived that his master had led him out of the way: and by considering the antiques that were in France, and the designs and prints of the best Italian masters, particularly Raphael, he contracted a more refined style and happier manner. Le Brun could not forbear being jealous of Le Sueur, who did not mean, however, to give any man pain; for he had great simplicity of manners, and much candour, and probity. He died at Paris April 30, 1655, at no more than thirty-eight years of age. The life of St. Bruno, in twenty pictures, originally preserved in the Chartreux, and which employed him for three years, have, as Mr. Fuseli informs us, been “lately consigned to the profane clutch of restoration in the attic of the Luxembourg, and are now little more than the faint traces of what they were when issuing from the hand of their master. They have suffered martyrdom more than once.It is well that the nature of the subject permitted little more than fresco in the colouring at first, and that the great merit of their execution consisted in that breadth of vehicle which monastic drapery demands, else we should have lost even the fragments that remain.‘ The old man in the fore-ground, the head of St. Bruno, and some of the disputants in the back-ground of the Predication; the bishop and the condemned defunct in the funeral; the apparition of St. Bruno himself in the camp; the female figure in the eleemosinary scene, and what has suffered least of all, the death of St. Bruno, contain the least disputable marks of the master’s primitive touch. The subject of the whole, abstractly considered, is the personification of sanctity, and it has been represented in the series with a purity which seems to place the artist’s heart on a level with that of his hero. The simplicity which tells that tale of resignation and innocence, despises all contrast of more varied composition, though not always with equal success, St. Bruno on his bed, visited by angels, building or viewing the plan for building his rocky retreat; the hunting-scene, and’ the apotheosis; might probably have admitted happier combinations. As, in the different re* touchings, the faces have suffered most, the expression must be estimated by those that escaped; and from what still remains, we may conclude that it was not inferior to the composition.”

, the abbé, a celebrated minister under Louis VII. was born at Touri in Beauce, in 1082, and being bred up at St. Denis with the young prince, afterwards Louis le Gros, became his principal guide and counsellor. On the death of Adam, abbot of St. Denis, in 1122, Suger obtained his place, and even in his abbey performed the duties of a minister. He reformed and improved not only his own society, as abbot, but all departments of the state as minister, and obtained so high a reputation, that after his death it was thought sufficient to write on his tomb, “Cy git l'abbé Suger.” “Here lies the abbé Suger.” He died at St. Denis, in 1152. His life has been written in 3 vols. 12mo, by a Dominican of the name of Gervaise, and some works which he wrote have been inserted by Du Chesne in his historical collections.

, a learned German divine, was born at Zurich June 26, 1619; became professor there of the Greek and Hebrew languages; and died at Heidelberg Nov. 8, 1684, according to Saxius. He was the compiler of a very useful work, called “Lexicon, sive Thesaurus Ecclesiastic us Patrum Graeconm):” the best edition of which is that of Amsterdam, 1728, 2 vols. fol. He had a son, Henry Suicer, distinguished by some literary productions, who was a professor, first at Zurich, then at Heidelberg, and who died in 1705.

, author of a celebrated Greek Lexicon, is a personage of whom we are unable to give many particulars. Who he was, or when he lived, are points of great uncertainty; no circumstances of his life having been recorded, either by himself or any other writer. Politian and some oihers have been of opinion that no such person ever existed; but thai Suidas was a real person, appears, not only from his name being found in all the manuscripts of his Lexicon, but from his being often mentioned by Eustathius in his Commentary upon Homer. The learned have differed in the same manner concerning the age of Suidas; some, as Grotins, supposing him to have lived under Conjstantinus, the son of Leo, emperor of the East, who began to reign in the year 912; while others have brought him even lower than Eustathins, who is known to have lived in 1180. The learned Bentley thinks that as he has referred a point of chronology to the death of the emperor Zimisces, that is, to the year of Christ 975: we may infer that he wrote his Lexicon between that time and the death of the succeeding emperor, which was in 1075. This Lexicon is a compilation of matters from various authors, sometimes made with judgment and diligence, but often from bad copies; and he therefore sometimes gives his reader corrupt and spurious words, instead of those that are pure and genuine. He also mixes things of a different kind, and belonging to different authors, promiscuously; and some of his examples to illustrate the signification of words are very little to the purpose. His Lexicon, however, is a very useful book, and a storehouse of all sorts of erudition. Scholars by profession have all prized it highly; as exhibiting many excellent passages of ancient authors whose works are lost. It is to be ranked with the Bbliotheca of Photuis ard works of that kind. The “Etymologicon Magnum” has been ascribed to Suidas, but without sufficient authority, though it may have been composed in the same period with the Lexicon. Suidas’s Lexicon was first published at Milan, 1499, in Greek only: it has since been printed with a Latin version: but the best edition, indeed the only good one, is that of Kuster, Gr. & Lat. Cambridge, 1705, 3 vols. folio. To this should be added Toup’s valuable “Emendationes in Suidam,” Oxon. 1790, 4 vols. 8vo. Mr. Taylor had begun an appendix to Suidas, four sheets only of which were printed off at the time of his death, April 4, 1766. It had the following title, “Appendix notarum in Suidae Lexicon, ad paginas edit. Cantab. 1705, adcommodatarum; colligente, qui et suas etiani aliquammultas adjecit, Joanne Taylor.” This, we believe, was never finished.

, one of the most able and honest ministers that France ever had, was descended from an ancient and illustrious house, and born in 1559 at Rosni, descended from a younger branch of the ancient counts of Flanders. His father was the baron de Rosni. He was bred in the opinions and doctrine of the reformed religion, and continued to the end of his life constant in the profession of it, which seems to have fitted him for the important services to which Providence had designed him. The queen of Navarre, after the death of her husband Antony de Bourbon, returned to Beam, where she openly professed Calvinism. She sent for her son Henry from the court of France to Pau in 1556, and put him under a preceptor, who trained him up in the Protestant religion. She declared herself the protectress of the Protestants in 1566; and went to Rochelle, where she devoted her son to the defence of the Reformed religion. In that quality Henry, then prince of Beam, was declared chief of the party; and followed the army from that time to the peace, which was signed at St. Germains, August 11, 1570. He then returned to Beam, and made use of the quiet that was given him, to visit his estates and his government of Guyenne, after which he went and settled in Rochelle, with his mother.

The advantages granted to the Protestants by the peace of St. Germains, raised a suspicion in the breasts of their leaders, that the court of France was acting treacherously, and that in reality nothing else was intended by the peace, than to prepare for the most dismal tragedy that ever was acted and the truth was, that the queen dowager Catharine de Medicis, and her son Charles IX. being now convinced that the Protestants were too powerful to be subdued by force, were determined to extirpate them by stratagem. They, however, dissembled their intentions; and, during the whole year 1571, talked of nothing but faithfully observing the treaties of entering into a closer correspondence with the Protestants, and carefully preventing all occasions of rekindling the war. To remove all possible suspicion, the court of France proposed a marriage between Charles the IXth’s sister, and Henry prince of Beam; and feigned, at the same time, as if they would prepare a war against Spain, than which nothing could be more agreeable to Henry. These things, enforced with the appearance of great frankness and sincerity, entirely gained the queen of Navarre; who, though she continued irresolute for some months, yet yielded about the end of 1571, and prepared for the journey to Paris, as was proposed, in May 1572.

Sully’s father was one of those who doubted the sincerity of the court, and conceived such strong apprehensions, that when the report of the court of Navarre’s journey to Paris first reached him, he could not give credit to it. Firmly persuaded that the present calm won Id be of short continuance, he made haste to take advantage of it, and prepared to shut himself up with his effects in Rochelle, when every one else thought of leaving it. But the queen of Navarre having informed him of her design, and requested him to join her in her way to Vendome, he went, and took Sully, now in his twelfth year, along with him. He found a general security at Vendome, and an air of satisfaction on every face; to which, though he durst not object in public, yet he made remonstrances to some of the chiefs in private. These were considered as the effects of weakness and timidity; and therefore, not caring to seem wiser than persons of greater understandings, he seemed to incline to the general opinion. He went to Rosni, to put himself into a condition to appear at the magnificent court of France; but, before he went, presented his son to the prince of Beam, in the presence of the queen his mother, with great solemnity, and assurances of the most inviolable attachment. Sully did not return with his father to Rosni, but went to Paris in the queen of Navarre’s train. He applied himself closely to his studies, without neglecting to pay a proper court to the prince his master; and lived with a governor and a valet de chambre in a part of Paris where almost all the colleges stood, and continued there till the bloody catastrophe which happened soon after.

Nothing could be more kind than the reception which the queen of Navarre, her children, and principal servants, met with from the king and queen; nor more obliging, than their treatment of them. The queen of Navarre died, and some historians make no doubt but she was poisoned; yet the whole court appeared sensibly affected, and went into deep mourning. Still many of the Protestants, among whom was Sully’s father, suspected the designs of the court; and had such convincing proofs, that they quitted the court, and Paris itself, or at least lodged in the suburbs. They warned prince Henry to be cautious; but he listened to nothing; and some of his chiefs were as incredulous, and the admiral de Coligni in particular, though one of the wisest and most sagacious men in the world. The fact to be perpetrated was fixed for the 24th of August, 1572, and is well known by the name of the massacre of St. Bartholomew. The feast of St. Bartholomew fell this year upon a Sunday; and the massacre was perpetrated in the evening.

All the necessary measures having been taken, the ringing of the bells of St. Germain TAuxerrois for matins was the signal for beginning the slaughter. The admiral de Coiigni was first murdered by a domestic of the duke of Guise, the duke himself staying below in the court, and his body was thrown out of the window. (See Coligni.) The king, as Daniel relates, went to feast himself with the sight of it; and, when those that were with him took notice that it was somewhat offensive, is said to have used the reply of the Roman emperor Vitellius, “The body of a dead enemy always smells sweet.” All the domestics of the admiral were afterwards slain, and the slaughter was at the same time begun by the king’s emissaries in all parts of the city. Tavanes, a marshal of France, who had been page to Francis I. and was at that time one of the counsellors and confidants of Catharine de Medicis, ran through the streets of Paris, crying, “Let blood, let blood! bleeding is as good in the month of August, as in May!” Among the most distinguished of the Protestants that perished was Francis de la Rochefoucault; who having been at play part of the night with the king, and finding himself seized in bed by men in masques, thought they were the king and his courtiers, who came to divert themselves with him. During this carnage, Sully’s safety is thus accounted for by himself: “1 was in bed,” says he, “and awaked from sleep three hours after midnight by the sound of all the bells and the confused cries of the populace. My. governor, St. Julian, with my valet de chambre, went hastily out to know the cause; and I never afterwards heard more of these men, who, without doubt, were among the first that were sacrificed to the public fury. I continued alone in my chamber dressing myself, when in a few moments I saw my landlord enter, pale, and in the utmost consternation. He was of the reformed religion; and, having learned what the matter was, had consented to go to mass, to preserve his life, and his house from being pillaged. He came to persuade me to do the same, and to take me with him: I did not think proper to follow him, but resolved to try if I could gain the college of Burgundy, where I had studied; though the great distance between the house where I then was, and the college, made the attempt very dangerous. Having disguised myself in a scholar’s gown, I put a large prayer/-book under my arm, and went into the street. I was seized with horror inexpressible at the sight of the furious murderers; who, running from all parts, forced open the houses, and cried aloud, ‘ Kill! kill! massacre the Huguenots!’ The blood which I saw shed before my eyes, redoubled my terror. I fell into the midst of a body of guards; they stopped me, questioned me, and were beginning to use me ill, when, happily for me, the book that I carried was perceived, and served me for a passport. Twice after this 1 fell into the same danger, from which I extricated myself by the same good fortune. At last I arrived at the college of Burgundy, where a danger still greater than any I had yet met with awaited me. The porter having twice refused me entrance, I continued standing in the midst of the street, at the mercy of the furious murderers, whose numbers increased every moment, and who were evidently seeking for their prey; when it came into my mind to ask for La Faye, the principal of this college, a good man, by whom I was tenderly beloved. The porter, prevailed upon by some small pieces of money which I put into his hand, admitted me; and my friend carried me to his apartment, where two inhuman priests, whom I heard mention Sicilian vespers, wanted to force me from him, that they might cut me in pieces; saying, the order was, not to spare even infants at the breast. All the good man could do was to conduct me privately to a distant chamber, where he locked me up; and here I was confined three days, unceriain of my destiny, seeing no one but a servant of my friend, who came from time to time to bring me provision.”

Henry king of Navarre, who had been married to Charles the IXth’s sister bnt six days before, with the greatest solemnity and with all the marks of kindness and affection from the court, was awaked two hours before day by a great number of soldiers, who rushed boldly into a chamber in the Louvre, where he and the prince of Conde lay, and insolently commanded them to dress themselves, and attend the king. They would not suffer the two princes to take their swords with them, who, as they went, saw several of their gentlemen massacred before their eyes. This was contrived, doubtless, to intimidate them; and, with the same view, as Henry went to the king, the queers gave orders, that they should lead him under the vaults, and make him pass through the guards, drawn up in files on each side, and in menacing postures. He trembled, and recoiled two or three steps back; but the captain of the guards swearing that they should do him no hurt, he proceeded through, amidst carbines and halberts. The king waited for them, and received them with a countenance and eyes full of fury: he ordered them with oaths and blasphemies, which were familiar with him, to quit a religion, which he said had been taken up only for a cloke to their rebellion: he told them in a fierce and angry tone, “that he would no longer be contradicted in his opinions by his subjects; that they by their example should teach others to revere him as the image of God, and cease to be enemies to the images of his mother;” and ended by declaring, that “if they did not go to mass, he would treat them as Criminals guilty of treason against divine and human majesty.” The manner of pronouncing these words not suffering the princes to doubt the sincerity of them, they yielded to necessity, and performed what was required of them: and Henry was even obliged to send an edict into his dominions, by which the exercise of any other religion but the Romish was forbidden.

In the mean time the court sent orders to the governors in all the provinces, that the same destruction should be made of the Protestants there as had been at Paris; but many of them nobly refused to execute these orders; and the viscount d'Orthe had the courage to write from Bayonne to Charles IX. that, “he found many good soldiers in his garrison, but not one executioner: and begged him to command their lives in any service that was possible.” Yet the abettors and prime actors in this tragedy at Paris were wonderfully satisfied with themselves, and found much comfort in having been able to do so much for the cause of God and his church. Tavanes, mentioned above, who ran about the streets crying “Let blood! let blood!” being upon his death-bed, made a general confession of the sins of his life; after which his confessor saying to him with an air of astonishment, “Why! you speak not a word of St. Bartholomew;” he replied, “I look upon that as a meritorious action, which ought to atone for all the sins I have ever committed.” This is related by his son, who has written memoirs of him. The king himself must have supposed real merit to have been in it; for, not content with setting his seal and sanction to these detestable butcheries, he is credibly affirmed to have taken the carbine into his own hands, and to have shot at the poor Huguenots as they attempted to escape. The court of Rome did all they could to confirm the Parisians in this horrid notion: for though Pope Pius V. is said to have been so much afflicted at the massacre as to shed tears, yet Gregory XIII. who succeeded him, ordered a public thanksgiving to God for it to be offered at Rome, and sent a legate to congratulate Charles IX. and to exhort him to continue it. Father Daniel contents himself with saying, that the king’s zeal in his terrible punishment of the heretics was commended at Rome; and Baronius affirms the action to have been absolutely necessary. The French writers, however, have spoken of it in the manner it deserves; have represented it as the most wicked and inhuman devastation that ever was committed “an execrable action,” says one of them, Prefixe, “that never had, and I trust God will never have, its like.” Seventy thousand, according to Sully’s Memoirs, was the numberof Protestants massacred, during eight days, throughout the kingdom.

At the end of three days, however, a prohibition against murdering and pillaging any more of the Protestants was published at Paris; and then Sully was suffered to quit his cell in the college of Btirgundy. He immediately saw two soldiers of the guard, agents to his father, entering the college, who gave his father a relation of what had happened to him; and, eight days after, he received a letter from him, advising him to continue in Paris, since the prince he served was not at liberty to leave it and adding, that he should follow the prince’s example in going to mass. Though the king of Navarre had saved his life by this submission, yet in other things he was treated very indifferently, and suffered a thousand capricious insults. He was obliged, against his will, to stay some years at the court of France; he knew very well how to dissemble his chagrin 5 and he often diverted it by gallantries, and the lady de Sauves, wife to one of the secretaries of state, became one of his chief mistresses. But still he did not neglect such political measures as seemed practicable, and he had a hand in those that were formed to take away the government from Catharine de Medicis, and to expel the Guises from court which that queen discovering, caused him and the duke of Alengon to be arrested, set guards upon them, and ordered them to be examined upon many heinous allegations. They were set at liberty by Henry III. for Charles IX. died, 1574, in the most exquisite torments and horrors, the massacre of St. Bartholomew’s -day having been always in his mind. Sully employed his leisure in the most advantageous manner he was able. He found it impracticable in a court to pursue the study of the learned languages, or of any thing called learning; but the king of Navarre ordered him to be taught mathematics and history, and all those exercises which give ease and gracefulness to the person; that method of educating youth, with a particular attention to the formation of the manners, being peculiar to Henry, who was himself educated in the same way.

In 1576, the king of Navarre made his escape from the court of France, while on a hunting-party near Senlis; from whence, his guards being dispersed, he instantly passed the Seine at Poissy, and went to Tours, where he no sooner arrived than he resumed the exercise of the Protestant religion. A war was now expected; and Catharine de Medicis began to tremble in her turn: and, indeed, from that time to 1S89, Henry’s life presents us only with a mixture of battles, negociations, and love-intrigues, which last made no inconsiderable part of his business. Sully- was one of those who attended him in his flight, and who continued to attend him to the end of his life, serving him in the different capacities of sofdier and statesman, as the various conditions of his affairs required. Henry’s wife whom Catharine had brought to him in 1578, was a great impediment to him yet by his management she was sometimes of use also. There were frequent ruptures between him and the court of France; but at last Henry III. confederated with him sincerely, and in good earnest, to resist the League, which was more furious than ever, after the death of the duke of Guise and the cardinal his brother. The reconciliation and confederacy of these two kings was concluded in April 1589: their interview was at Tours the 30th of that month, attended with great demonstration of mutual satisfaction. They joined their troops some time after to lay siege to Paris: they besieged it in person, and were upon the point of conquering that great city, when the king of France was assassinated by James Clement, a Dominican friar, the 1st of August, at the village of St. Cloud. “The league,” says Renault, “is perhaps the most extraordinary event in history; and Henry III. may be reckoned the weakest prince in not foreseeing, that he should render himself dependant on that party by becoming their chief. The Protestants had made war against him, as an enemy of their sect; and the leaguers murdered him on account of his uniting with the king of Navarre, the chief of the Huguenots.”

Henry III. upon his death-bed declared the king of Navarre his successor, who accordingly succeeded him, but not without very great difficulties. He was acknowledged king by most of the lords, whether catholic or protestant, who happened then to be at court; but the leaguers refused absolutely to acknowledge his title till he had renounced the protestant religion; 'and the city of Paris persisted in its revolt till the 22d of March, 1594. He embraced the catholic religion, as the only method of putting an end to the miseries of France, by the advice of Sully, whom he had long taken into the sincerest confidence; and the celebrated Du Perron, afterwards cardinal, was made the instrument of his conversion. He attempted also to convert Sully, but in vain: “My parents bred me,” said the minister, “in the opinions and doctrines of the reformed religion, and I have continued constant in the profession of it; neither threatenings, promises, variety of events, nor the change even of the king my protector, joined to his most tender solicitations, have ever been able to make me renounce it.”

This change of religion in Henry IV. though it seemed to create a present satisfaction, did not secure him from continual plots and troubles and being made upon political motives, it was natural to suppose it not sincere. Thus, Dec. 26, 1594, a scholar, named John Chastel, attempted to assassinate the king, but only wounded him in the mouth; and when he was interrogated concerning the crime, readily answered, “That he came from the college of the Jesuits,” and then accused those fathers of having instigated him to it. The king, who was present at his examination, said with much gaiety, that “he had heard, from the mouths of many persons, that the society never loved him, and he was now convinced of it by his own.” Some writers have related, that this assassination was at* tempted when he was with the fair Gabrieile, his mistress, at the hotel d'Estrees; but Sully, who was with him, says that it was at Paris, in his apartments in the Louvre. This Gabriel le was the favourite mistress of Henry IV. and it is said that the king intended to marry her; but she died in 1599, the year that his marriage with Margaret of Valois, sister of Charles IX. was declared null and void by the pope’s commissioners, with consent of both parties. He married Mary of Medicis, at Lyons, the year after, and appointed madame de Guercheville, to whom he had made love without success, to be one of her ladies of honour; saying, that “since she was a lady of real honour, she should be in that post with the queen his wife.” Henry, though he was a great monarch, was not always successful in his addresses to the fair; and a noble saying is recorded by many writers of Catharine, sister to the viscount de Rohan, who replied to a declaration of gallantry from this prince, that “she was too poor to be his wife, and of too good a fau.ily to be his mistress.”

Sully was now the first minister; and he performed all the offices of a great and good minister, while Henry performed the offices of a great and good king. He attended to every part of the government; prosecuted extortioners, and those who were guilty of embezzling the public money; and, in short, restored the kingdom, in a few years, from, a most desperate to a most flourishing condition; which, however, he could not have done, if the king had not resolutely supported him against favourite mistresses, the cabals of court, and the factions of state, which would otherwise have overwhelmed him. The king himself turned his whole application to every thing that might be useful, or even convenient, to his kingdom, without suffering things that happened out of it to pass unobserved, as soon as he had put an end to the civil wars of France, and had concluded a peace with Spain at Vervins, on the 2d of May, 1598. The state of the finances of France was at thu time in a wretched situation, as many of the provinces were entirely exhausted, and none of them in a condition of bearing any new imposition. The standing revenues brought into the king’s coffers no more than thirty millions, though an hundred and fifty millions were raised on the people: so great were the abuses of that government in raising money; and they were not less in the dispensation of it. The whole scheme of the administration was a scheme of fraud, and all who served cheated the public, from the highest offices down to the lowest; from the commissioners of the treasury, down to the under farmers and under treasurers. Sully beheld this state of things, when he came to have the sole superintendency of affairs, with horror; he was ready to despair but zeal for his master and for his country animated his endeavours, and he resolved to make the reformation of abuses, the reduction of expences, and a frugal management, the fund for the payment of national debts, and for all the great things he intended to do, without overcharging the people. This plan fully succeeded. The people were immediately eased, trade revived, the king’s coffers were filled, a maritime power was created, and every thing necessary was prepared to put the nation in a condition of executing great designs, whenever great conjunctures should offer themselves. “Such,” says Bolingbroke, “was the effect of twelve years of wise and honest administration: and this effect would have shewed itself in great enterprises against the house of Austria, more formidable in these days than the house of Bourbon has been in ours, if Henry IV. had not been stabbed by one of those assassins, into whose hands the interest of this house, and the frenzy of religion, had put the dagger more than once.”

Henry was murdered the 17th of May, 1610; and, it appears, had many presages of his cruel destiny, which, bully tells us, “were indeed dreadful and surprising to the Ja>t degree.” The queen was to be crowned purely to gratify her, for Henry was vehemently against the coronation; and, the nearer the moment approached, the more his terrors increased. “In this state of overwhelming horror, which,” says Sully, “at first I thought an unpardonable weakness, he opened his whole heart to me: his own words will be more affecting than all I can say. ` Oh my friend,‘ said he, `this coronation does not please me I know not what is the meaning of it, but my heart tells me some fatal accident will happen.’ He sat down, as he spoke these words, upon a chair in my closet; and, resigning himself some time to all the horror of his melancholy apprehensions, he suddenly started up, and cried out, Par Dieu, I shall die in this city; they will murder me here; I see plainly they have made my death their only resource!” for he had then great designs on foot against Spain and the house of Austria. He repeated these forebodings several times, which Sully as often treated as chimeras; but they proved realities.

After the death of his master, by which he was greatly afflicted, Sully retired from court; for, a new reign introducing new men and new measures, he was no longer regarded. The life he led in retreat was accompanied with decency, grandeur, and even majesty; yet it was, in some measure, embittered with domestic troubles, arising from the extravagance and ill conduct of his eldest son, the marquis of Rosni. He died Dec. 22, 1641, aged eighty-three, and his duchess caused a statue to be erected over his burying-place, with this inscription: “Here lies the body of the most high, most puissant, and most illustrious lord, Maximilian de Bethune, marquis of Rosni, who shared in, all the fortunes of king Henry the Great; among which was that memorable battle, which gave the crown to the victor; where, by his valour, he gained the white standard, and took several prisoners of distinction. He was by that great monarch, in reward of his many virtues and distinguished merit, honoured with the dignities of duke, peer, and marshal of France, with the governments of the Upper and Lower Poitou, with the office of grand master of the ordnance; in which, bearing the thunder of his Jupiter, he took the castle of Montmelian, till then believed impregnable, and many other fortresses of Savoy. He was likewise made superintendant of the finances, which office he discharged singly, with a wise and prudent occonomy; and continued his faithful services till that unfortunate day, when the Caesar of the French nation lost his life by the hand of a parricide. After the lamented death of that great king, he retired from public affairs, and passed the remainder of his life in ease apd tranquillity. He died at the castle of Villebon, Dec. 22, 1641, aged 82.” Though he lived to such an age, no life could be more frequently exposed to perils than that of Sully. One of these was of a very extraordinary kind, and deserves to be particularly mentioned. It was at the taking of a town in Cambray, in 1581, when, to defend the women from the brutality of the soldiers, the churches, with gu.irds about them, were given them for asylums; nevertheless, d very beautiful young girl suddenly threw herself into the arms of Sully, as he was walking in the streets, and, holding him fast, conjured him to guard her from some soldiers, who, she said, had concealed themselves as soon as they saw him. Sully endeavoured to calm her fears, and offered to conduct her to the next church; but she tpld him she had been there, and had asked for admittance, which they refused, because they knew she had the plague. Sully thrust her from him with the utmost indignation as well as horror, and expected every moment to be seized with the plague, which, however, did not happen.

The character of Sully, as it was given by his master Henry IV. is thus preserved in his memoirs. “Some persons,” said Henry, “complain, and indeed 1 do myself, sometimes, of his temper. They say he is harsh, impatient, and obstinate: he is accused of having too enterprising a mind, of presuming too much upon his own opinions, exaggerating the worth of his own actions, and lessening that of others, as likewise of eagerly aspiringafter honours and riches. Now, although I am well convinced that part of these imputations are true, and that I am obliged to keep a high hand over him, when he offends me with those sallies of ill humour yet I cannot cease to love him, esteem him, and employ him in all affairs of consequence, because I am very sure that he loves my person, that he takes an interest in my preservation, and that he is ardently solicitous for the honour, the glory, and grandeur of me and my kingdom. I know also that he has no malignity in his heart; that he is indefatigable in business, and fruitful in expedients; he is a careful manager of my revenue, a man laborious and diligent, who endeavours to be ignorant of nothing, and to render himself capable of conducting all affairs, whether of peace or war; who writes and speaks in a style that pleases me, because it is at once that of a soldier and statesman. In a word, I confess to you, that, notwithstanding all his extravagances and little transports of passion, I find no one so capable as he is of consoling me under every uneasiness.”

, an ancient Roman poetess, the wife of Calenus, flourished about the year 90, and was so admired as to be thought worthy of the title of the Roman Sappho. We have nothing left of her but a satire, or rather fragment of a satire, against Domitian, who published a decree for the banishment of the philosophers from Rome. This satire was published at Strasburgh, with other poems, by G. Merula,! 509, 4to, and may be found in other collections, but has usually been printed at the end of the “Satires of Juvenal,” to whom, as well as to Ausonius, it has been attributed by some critics. Grainger likewise added it to his “Tibullus,” with a translation and notes. From the invocation it should seem, that she was the author of many other po.ems, and the first Roman lady who taught her sex to vie with the Greeks in poetry. Her language is easy and elegant, and she seems to have had a happy talent lor satire. She is mentioned by Martial and Sidonius Apollinans, and is said to have addressed to her husband Calenus, who was a Roman knight, “A poem on conjugal love,” but this is lost. Her satire has been reprinted by Wernsdorf in the third volume of the “Poetae Minores Latini,” where may be seen some useful remarks respecting her works.

, an ecclesiastical writer, who flourished about the beginning of the fifth century, was a disciple of St. Martin of Tours, whose life he has written; and friend of Pauliims, bishop of Nola, with whom he held a constant and intimate correspondence. He was illustrious for his birth, his eloquence, and still more for his piety and virtue. After he had shone with great lustre at the bar, he married very advantageously; but, losing his wife soon after, he quilted the world, and became a priest. He was born at Agen, in the province of Aquitain, which at that time produced the best poets, the best rhetoricians, and the best orators of the Roman empire, of those at least who wrote in Latin. He lived sometimes at Elisso, and sometimes at Toulouse. Some have affirmed, that he was bishop of the Bitu rices; but they have erroneously confounded him with another Severus Sulpicius, who was bishop of that people, and died at the end of the sixth century. Sulpicius lived till about the year 420. He is said to have been at one time seduced by the Pelagians; and that, returning to his old principles, he imposed a silence upon himself for the rest of his days, as the best atonement he could make for his error; but some think that this silence meant only his refraining from writing or controversy. The principal of his works was his “Historia Sacra,” in two books; in which he gives a succinct account of all the reroaikible things that passed in the Jewish or Christian churches, from the creation of the world to about the year 400. He wrote, also, the “Life of St. Martin,” as we have said already; “Three Letters upon the death and virtues of this saint;” and “Three Dialogues;” the first upon the miracles of the Eastern monks, and the two last upon the extraordinary qualities and graces of St. Martin. These, with seven other epistles never before printed with his works, were all revised, corrected, and published with notes, in a very elegant edition, by Le Clerc, at Leipsic, in 1709, 8vo. There is another by Jerom de Prato, printed at Venice in 1741—54, 2 vols. 4to, the text of which is thought the most correct. Sulpicius has a purity in his style, far beyond the age in which he lived. He has joined a very concise manner of expressing himself to a remarkable perspicuity, and in this has equalled even Sallust himself, whom he always imitates and sometimes quotes. He is not, indeed, correct throughout in his “History of the Church;” and is very credulous upon the point of miracles. He admits also several opinions, which have no foundation in Scripture; and he is in some instances defective, taking no notice, for example, of the reign of Julian, &c. His “Dialogues” contain many interesting particulars, respecting the manners and singularities of the Eastern monks; the disturbances which the books of Origen had occasioned in Egypt and Palestine, and other matters of some curiosity.

, a very eminent German, or rather Swiss, philosopher, was born at Wmterthour, in the canton of Zurich, October 16, 1720, and is said to have been the youngest of twenty-five children. Both his parents died on the same day in 1734, and left him barely enough to defray the expence of his education. His taJents did not develope themselves early; and, at sixteen, jhe had not even acquired a taste for study. Wolfe’s Metaphyiics was the first book that awakened in him a love of philosophy; and the counsels and example of the celebrated Gesner soon after incited him to apply himself eagerly to mathematics and general science, and to resume the study of Grecian and Oriental literature. In 1739, he became an ecclesiastic; and a favourable situation for examining the beauties of nature, made him an enthusiast in that branch of knowledge. He published, therefore, at twenty- one, “Moral contemplations of the works of Nature” and, in the same year, 1741, “A Description of the most remarkable Antiquities in the Lordship of Knonau,” written in German. The year after, he published an account of a journey which he took in the Alps; in which he displayed, not only his sensibility of the beauties of nature, but his profound sense of the infinite power and goodness of its author. Becoming a tutor at Magdeburg, he obtained the acquaintance of Maupertuis, Euler, and Sack; in consequence of which his merits became more known, and he obtained, in 1747, the appointment of mathematical professor in the royal college at Berlin and became a member of the Royal Academy there in 1760.

The works of Sulzer are numerous; but the most important is, his Universal Theory of the fine Arts,“(Allgemeine Theorie der schbnen Kiinste, &c.) which is a dictionary in two volumes, quarto, containing all the terms of the various arts digested into one alphabet. In this he appears at once a profound thinker, and a man of singular worth. The first volume appeared at Leipsic in 1771; the second in 1774. He wrote also, *' Remarks on the Philosophical Essays of Hume;” a work in which he both acknowledges the acuteness, and detects the sophistry of our celebrated sceptic. The king of Prussia distinguished him by many marks of bounty and favour, but it so happened that he never saw him till near the end of 1777, although he had been member of the academy from the year 1750. Sulzer lived only to the age of sixty; and died February 25, 1779. His character is of the purest kind; amiable, virtuous, sociable, and beneficent. His philosophy was that of a true Christian, and the support he derived from it was proportionably uniform and steady, His dying mo-, ments were calm, humble, and sublime; and his countenance, when he expired, wore the composure of sleep. He had no enemy, and his friends were numerous and affectionate.

, denominated the founder of the Russian theatre, was the son of Peter Sumorokof, a Russian nobleman, and was born at Moscow November 14, 1727. He received the first rudiments of learning in his father’s house, where, besides a grammatical knowledge of his native tongue, he was well grounded in the Latin language. Being removed to the seminary of the cadets at St. Petersburg!*, he prosecuted his studies with unwearied application, and gave early proofs of his genius for poetry. Even on holidays he would retire from his companions, who were engaged in play, and devote his whole time to the perusal of the Latin and French writers: nor was it long before he himself attempted to compose. The first efforts of his genius were love-songs, whose tenderness and beauties, till then unexpressed in the Russian tongue, were greatly admired, and considered as certain prognostics of his future fame. Upon quitting the seminary, he was appointed adjutant, first to count Golovkin, and afterwards to count Rosomouski: and being soon noticed and patronized by count Ivan Shuvalof, he was introduced by that Maecenas to the empress Elizabeth, who took him under her protection. About the twenty-ninth year of his age, an enthusiastic fondness he had contracted for the works of Racine, turned his genius to the drama; and he wrote the tragedy of “Koref,” which laid the foundation of the Russian theatre. This piece was first acted by some of his former schoolmates, the cadets, who had previously exercised their talents in declamations, and in acting a French play. The empress Elizabeth, informed of this phenomenon in the theatrical world, ordered the tragedy to be exhibited in her presence, upon a small theatre of the court, where German, Italian, and French plays had been performed. The applause and distinction which the author received on this occasion, encouraged him to follow the bent of his genius, and he produced other tragedies, several comedies, and two operas. With respect to his tragedies, Racine was his model; and the Russian biographer of Sumorokof, who seems a competent judge of his merit, allows, that though in some instances he has attained all the excellence of the French poet, yet he has failed in many others; but it would be uncandid to insist upon such defects in a writer who first introduced the drama among his countrymen. The French overlook in their Corneille still greater faults. “His comedies,” continues the same author, “contain much humour; but I do not imagine that our dramatic writers will adopt him for their model: for he frequently excites the laughter of the spectator at the expence of his cooler judgment. Nevertheless, they present sufficient passages to prove, that he would have attained a greater degree of perfection in this line, if he had paid more attention to paint our manners, and to follow the taste of the best foreign writers.”

Besides dramatic writings, Sumorokof attempted every species of poetry, excepting the epic. He wrotelovesongs, idyllia, fables, satires, anacreontics, elegies, versions of the Psalms, and Pindaric odes. Superior to Lomonozof in the compositions of the drama, he yet was inferior to him in Pindaric writings. Though his odes, adds his biographer, are distinguished by their easy flow of versification, by their harmony, softness, and grace, yet they are far from reaching that elevation and fire which characterize those of Lomonozof. These two great poets had each their peculiar talents: the one displayed in his style all the majesty, strength, and sublimity of the Russian tongue; and the other all its harmony, softness, and elegance. The elegies of Sumorokof are full of tenderness: his idyls give a true picture of the pastoral life in all the pleasing simplicity of unimproved nature, without descending to vulgarity; and may serve as models in this species of composition, in all things excepting in strict morality. His satires are the best in the Russian language, but are extremely unequal, and deserve to have been wrought with more plan and regularity. In writing his fables, his pen seems to have been guided by the Muses and Graces; and his biographer seems inclined, if not to prefer them, at least to compare them with those of Fontaine. Sumorokof was also author of a few short and detached historical pieces. 1. “A Chronicle of Moscow,” in which he relates the origin of that city; and abridges the reigns of its monarchs from Ivan Danilovitch to Keodor Alexievitch. 2. “A History of the first insurrection of the Strelitz in 1682, by which Ivan was appointed joint-sovereign with Peter the Great, and the princess Sophia regent.” 3. “An account of Stenko Razin’s rebellion.” His style in these pieces is said to be clear and perspicuous, but somewhat too flowery and poetical for prose. Sumorokof obtained by his merit the favour and protection of his sovereign. Elizabeth gave him the rank of brigadier; appointed him director of the Russian theatre, and settled upon him a pension of 400l. per annum. Catherine II. created him counsellor of state; conferred upon him the order of St. Anne; and honoured him with many instances of munificence and distinction until his death, which carried him off at Moscow, October 1, 1777, in the fifty-first year of his age.

With respect to his disposition, says his biographer, it was amiable; but his extreme sensibility, an excellent quality in a poet when tempered with philosophy, occasioned that singularity and vehemence of character, which gave so much trouble and uneasiness to all his acquaintance, but particularly to himself. He was polite and condescending towards those who treated him with respect, but haughty to those who behaved to him with pride. He knew no deceit; he was a true friend, and an open enemy and coul neither forget an obligation nor an injury. Passionate, and frequently inconsiderate in his pursuits^ he could not bear the least opposition and oftentimes looked upon the most trifling circumstance as the greatest evil. His extraordinary fame, the many favours which the empress conferred upon him, with the indulgence and veneration of his friends, might have made him extremely fortunate, if he had understood the art of being so. He had conceived a great, perhaps too great, idea of the character and merits of a true poet; and could not endure to see with patience this noble and much-esteemed art, which had been consecrated by Homer, Virgil, and other great men, profaned by persons without judgment or abilities. These pretenders, he would say, shock the public with their nonsense in rhyme; and clothe their monstrous conceptions in the dress of the Muses. The public recoil from them with disgust and aversion; and, deceived by their appearance, treat with irreverence those children of heaven the true Muses. The examples of Lomonozof and Sumorokof have tended to diffuse a spirit of poetry, and a taste for polite learning, among the Russians; and they are succeeded bj a, numerous band of poets.

, a celebrated Hebrew and Greek professor in the university of Amsterdam, is most known for his edition of the Mischna of the Jews, with notes, and a Latin version, which he began to publish in 1698, and completed in 1703, in 3 vols. folio. It contains also the commentaries of the Rabbins, Maimonides, and Bartenora. The period at which he flourished is ascertained by this publication; but, in the books which we have been able to consult, we do not find any account of the time when he was born or died. The latter event must have, however, been posterior to 1713, when he published a learned work in Latin, “in which the passages of the Old Testament, quoted in the New, are vindicated and reconciled, according to the forms of quotation, and the several ways of interpreting the scripture, used by the ancient Hebrew Theologers,” Amst. 4to.

, a Spanish historian, was born at Saragossa, Dec. 4, 1512, of an ancient family. He made great progress in Greek and Latin, under a very able master, at Alcala de Henares; but his particular predilection was for the study of history. He afterwards became secretary to the inquisition, but employed his time chiefly in writing numerous works which procured him a very high reputation, not only with his countrymen, butiii the opinion of the learned of other nations. He died Oct. 31, 1580, in the sixty-eighth year of his age. His principal historical work is his “A Males de la corona del Reyno de Aragon,” 7 vols. fol. first printed at Saragossa in 1562, but the third edition of 1610 is accounted the most complete. He published also in Latin “Indices rerum ab Aragonice regibus gestarum, libri tres,” Sarag. 1578, with the addition of “Gaufredi Monachi de acquisitione regni Siciliac, Calabria?, &c. per Robertum Guiscardum et fratres Nortmannos principes,” and Celesinus “De Robert! Sicilin; regis rebus gestis, libri quatuor,” both before unpublished. He was the editor also of Antoninus 9 s Itinerary, and his notes were adopted by Dr. Thomas Gale in his edition. He left many other learned works in ms. particularly commentaries on Julius Caesar, and on Claudian.

, a voluminous compiler, was born at Lubeck in 1522, and entered the Carthusian order in that city, where he became celebrated for his virtues and learning. He died May 25, 1578, at Cologn, aged fifty-six. The principal among his numerous works are, “A Collection of Councils,” 1567, 4 vols. fol.; “The Lives of the Saints,” Cologn, 1618, 7 vols. fol.; and “A History of his Own Times from 1500 to 1566,” 1569, 8vo; translated into French, 1573, 8vo. Surius did not want learning, but those of his own communion are willing to allow that he gave credit blindly to fables, and was deficient in critical knowledge.

, an English divine of considerable abilities in controversy, was educated at Trinity-college, Cambridge, but of his early history we have no account. In 1586, he was installed archdeacon of Taunton, and on Oct. 22, 1588, confirmed dean of Exeter. He had been admitted a civilian in 1582. He died in 162U, leaving a daughter his heiress, who, Prince thinks, was married to the son and heir of the Halse family in Devonshire; and as the estates Dr. Sutcliffe left to Chelsea-college were in that country, it probably was his birth-place. He was esteemed a very learned writer in defence of the protestant establishment; but although long in favour with James I. upon that account, we find that this prince, in 1621, ordered him to be taken into custody for the freedom of his remarks upon public affairs. On the other hand Strype, in his life of Whitgift, has published a long letter from that eminent prelate to Beza, defending Sutcliffe against some disrespectful expressions used by the reformer. Among his works, may be noticed, 1. “A treatise of Ecclesiastical Discipline,” Loud. 1591, 4to. 2. “De Presbyterio, ejusque nova in Ecclesia Christiana Politeia,” the same year, 4to. 3. “De Turco-Papismo,” or, on the resemblance between Mahometanism and Popery, London, 1599, 4to. 4. “De Purgatorio, adversus Bellarminum,” the same year, 4to. 5. “De vera Christi Ecclesia,” 1600, 4to. 6. “De Missa, adversus Bellarminurn,” 1603, 4to. 7. “The Laws of Armes,” 1593, 4to. 8. lt Examination of Cartwright’s Apology," 1596, 4to; and many other works, enumerated in the Bodleian catalogue, of the controversial kind, against Beliarmin, Parsons, Garnet, and other popish propagandists.

But what has rendered Dr. Sutcliffe most celebrated was his project for establishing a college of polemical divines, to be employed in opposing the doctrines of papists and “Pelagianizing Arminians, and others, that draw towards popery and Babylonian slavery, &c.” And as this college has been incidentally mentioned in various parts of these volumes, we shall now give part of the succinct and perspicuous account furnished by Mr. Lysons.

At first the undertaking seemed attended with good omens: prince Henry was a zealous friend to it: the king consented to be deemed the founder, called the college after his own name, “King James’s college at Chelsea,” endowed it with the reversion of certain lands at Chelsea, which were fixed upon for its site, laid the first stone of the building, gave timber out of Windsor forest, issued his royal letters to encourage his subjects throughout the kingdom to contribute towards the completion of the structure; and as a permanent endowment, procured an act of parliament to enable the college to raise an annual rent, by supplying the City of London with water from the river Lea. It appears by the charter of incorporation, dated May 8, 1610, that the college consisted of a provost and twenty fellows, eighteen of whom were required to be in holy orders; the other two, who might be either laymen or divines, were to be employed in writing the annals of their times. Sutcliffe himself was the first provost; Camden and Haywood the first historians; and among the fellows we find the well-known names of Overall, Morton, Field, Ahbot, Howson, Spencer, Boys, &c. When a vacancy happened in any department, the successor was to he nominated and recommended by the vice-chancellor and heads of colleges in the two universities, and approved by the archbishop of Canterbury, the chancellor or' each university, and the bishop of London. The charter granted th college the power of using a common seal; various privileges and immunities, and licence to possess lands in mortmain to the value of 3000l. per ann.

With these good omens Dr. Sutcliflfe began to erect the college at his own expence, and built one side of the first quadrangle: “which long ran g6 alone (says Fuller) made not of free-stone, though of free-timber, cost, O the dearness of college and church work! full three thousand pounds.” Such was the progress of the work at SutclihVs death, who, by his will, dated Nov. I, 1628, bequeathed to the college the greater part of his estates, consisting of lands in Devonshire, the benefit of an extent on sir Lewis Stukeley’s estates valued at more than 3000l., a share in the great Neptune (a ship at Whitby in Yorkshire), at enement at Stoke Rivers, and other premises; all his books and goods in the college, and a part of his library at Exeter; but all these bequests were subject to this proviso, “if the work of the college should not be hindered.”

The total failure of pecuniary resources soon proved a very effectual hindrance to any farther progress in this undertaking. The national attention had been so much engaged by the extensive repairs of St. Paul’s cathedral, that the college saw little hopes of success from the circulation of the king’s letters for the purpose of promoting a public contribution; and at the time of his death no collections had been made under their sanction. The success of sir Hugh Middleton’s project for supplying London with water, which took place the very year after the act of parliament in favour of the college, and the total inability of its members to avail themselves of the privileges they enjoyed, for want of money to carry on *nch an undertaking, destroyed all hopes of advantage from that source. Of all Dr. SutclinVs benefactions, the college never possessed mo than a house and premises, worth about 34/ per annu the greater part of which was expended in repairs. After Sutcliffe’s death, Dr. Featly (see Featly), who was recommended by the dean as his successor, became provost; but so little was the original intention of the institution regarded, even at this early period, that one Richard Dean, a young merchant, was made one of the fellows. Such was the state of the foundation, when the court of chancery, in 1631, decreed that Dr. Sutcliffe’s estates should revert to the right heirs, upon their paying to the college the sum of 340l. Under these difficulties, which were afterwards increased by a dispute with lord Monson about the lease of the land on which the college stood, no farther progress, it may be supposed, was ever made in the building. That part which was already completed, consisted of a library, and a few rooms, occupied by the provost and twjp, fellows. For the subsequent reverses which this project met with, as they are not connected with the subject of our memoir, we refer to our authorities. On the site is now the Royal Hospital for soldiers.

, the co-founder of Brasen-nose college, Oxford, descended from the ancient family of the Suttons of Sutton near Macciestield in the county palatine of Chester, was the younger son of sir William Sutton, knight. Of the time or place of his birth, we have no cer tain account, nor whether he was educated in the university to which he became so bountiful a benefactor. He practised as a barrister of the Inner Temple, and probably with success. In 1490 he purchased some estates in Leicestershire, and afterwards increased his landed property in different counties. In 1498, if not earlier, he was a member of Henry Vllth’s privy council, and attended the court for many years after. In 1505, he was one of the governors of the Inner Temple, and was in other years chosen to this annual office.

It is uncertain at what time he became steward of the monastery of Sion near Brentford in Middlesex, but he occurs in this office in 1513, and had chambers in the monastery, where he frequently resided. Besides bestowing estates and money on this religions house, he bore the exr pense of publishing a splendid, and now very rare book, in honour of the house, called “The Orcharde of Syon.” In 1512, he was employed in purchasing the manor of Pinchepolles in Farringdon, Berkshire, with lands in Westbrook and Farnham in that county, which were given by Mrs. Morley, and constituted the first permanent benefaction bestowed on Brasen-nose college. He appears to have received the honour of knighthood in 152'J, about two years before his death, but the exact time of the latter event is not known. As an annual commemoration of him is observed by the society on the Sunday after Michaelmas, it may be inferred that he died about that time. His will, drawn up March 16, 1523-4, was proved November 7, 1524; and he is supposed to have been buried, either at Macclesfield, or in the monastery of Sion. His bequests are almost all of the religious or charitable kind. To these scanty memoirs we may add, in the grateful language of his biographer, that, “Unmarried himself, and not anxious to aggrandize his family, which had long ranked among the best in a county justly proud of its ancient gentry, sir Richard Sutton bestowed handsome benefactions and kind remembrances among his kinsmen; but he wedded the public, and made posterity his heir. An active coadjutor from the first to the bishop of Lincoln in laying the foundation of Brasen-nose college, he completed the building, revised the laws, and doubled.the revenues of the growing seminary, leaving it a perpetual monument of the consolidated wisdom and joint munificence of Smyth and of Sutton.”

The estates given by sir Richard Sutton were, the manor of Burgh or Borowe or Erdeborowe, in the parish of Somerby in the county of Leicester, and other estates in the same parish and neighbourhood; an estate in the parish of St. Mary, Strand, London, which in 1673 was sold to the commissioners for enlarging the streets after the great fire, for the sum of 1700l. and with this an estate was purchased at Burwardescot or Burscot in Oxfordshire, which has recently been exchanged for other lands at Stanford in the vale of White Horse. He gave also the manor of Cropredy in the county of Oxford, and certain lands there, and an estate in North Ockmgton or Wokyndon, in the county of Essex. All these sir Richard granted to the college by lease, July 18, 1519, and on Nov. 29th following, by a conveyance under his own hand and seal, he released them to the society for ever.

, founder of the Charter-bouse school and hospital, was descended of the ancient family of the Buttons of Lincolnshire, and was born at Knaith, in that county, in 1532. He received the first part of his education at Eton school, whence it is supposed he was sent to Cambridge, and matriculated of St. John’s college, Nov. 27, 1551, but this seems very doubtful, at least there is no direct proof, and his being afterwards a benefactor to Magdalen and Jesus colleges svould incline us to give them the preference, but his name does not occur in the registers of either. He is said to have removed afterwards to Lincolu’s-inn, for the study of the law; but this not suiting his disposition, or what we think extremely probable, his father, and perhaps himself, inclining to the reformation, he evaded the miseries of queen Mary’s reign, by employing almost the whole of that disastrous period in travelling on the continent.

His father Richard Sutton, steward of the courts in Lincoln, died in that city in 1558, and his son, on his return home in 1562, found himself in possession of considerable property. He was now about thirty years of age, and reckoned an accomplished gentleman. He was first retained by the duke of Norfolk, whose favours he acknowledges in his will by a legacy of 400l.; and afterwards became secretary to the earl of Warwick, and occasionally also to his brother the earl of Leicester. In 1569, the earl of Warwick being master-general of the ordnance, appointed Mr. Sutton master of the ordnance -at Berwick, a post of great trust at that time, Berwick being a frontier garrison to Scotland. In this situation he distinguished himself much on the breaking out of the rebellion in the north by the earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland; and by the recommendation of his two patrons, he obtained a patent the same year for the office of master-general of the ordnance in the north, for life; and in 1573, he commanded one of the five batteries, which obliged the strong castle of Edinburgh to surrender to the English. It is probable, that, as master-tyeneral of the ordnance, he attended the earl of Sussex, president of the North, into Scotland, with an army in 1570, though he is not expressly named in Camden’s annals for that year. But in 1573, he is named as one of the chief of those 1500 men who marched into Scotland to the assistance of the regent, the earl of Morton, by order of queen Elizabeth, and laid siege to Edinburgh castle.

While thus employed in military affairs, it appears that he made a very considerable accession of fortune, by purchasing of the bishop of Durham the manors of Gateshead and VVickham, with their valuable coal-mines, and in 1570 obtained a lease from the crown for the term of seventynine years: and this speculation was so successful, that in ten years afterwards he was reputed to be worth 50,000l. a very great sum in those days. He was not less successful in 1582, when some time after his return to London, he married Elizabeth, daughter of John Gardiner, esq. of Grove-place in the parish of Chalfont St. Giles in Buckinghamshire, and widow of John Dudley of Stoke Newington in Middlesex, esq. a near relation of the earl of Warwick. By this lady he had a considerable estate, and a moiety of the manor of Stoke Newington, where he resided as his country house. In the city about the same time he purchased a large house near Broken Wharf, Thames-street, where he began the business of merchant, and with such skill and success, that he was soon considered as at the head of his profession, and had vast concerns abroad. These last he contrived to be of importance even to his country, for when the design of the Spanish armada was first discovered by sir Francis Walsingham, Mr. Sutton had a chief hand in so draining the bank of Genoa, as to impede the Spanish monarch’s supplies, until England had time to prepare her defence. Mr. Sutton was likewise one of the chief victuallers of the navy, and is thought to have been master of the bark called Sutton of 70 tons and 3O men, one of the volunteers which attended the English fleet Against the Armada in 1588. He is likewise said to have been a commissioner for prizes under lord Charles Howard, high admiral of England, and going to sea with letters of marque, he took a Spanish ship worth 20,000l.

The disposition of his great property towards some charitable purpose seems now to have engrossed all his thoughts. Fuller gives it as a well-authenticated fact, that “Mr. Sutton used often to repair into a private garden, where he poured forth his prayers to God, and was frequently overheard to use this expression, * Lord, thou hast given me a large and liberal estate, give me also a heart to make use thereof.'” A man of his property, hesitating only how he was to dispose of it in his life-time, could not be long without advisers. It appears indeed to have been a general topic of curiosity, in what manner Mr. Sutton would bestow his wealth, and in 1608 a very singular instance of impertinent interference occurred. At that time a report was spread that he meant to leave his vast property to the duke of York, afterwards Charles I.; and in order to confirm him in this resolution, a peerage was to be offered to him. This report, and the mean trick of the peerage, so revolting to an independent mind, he traced to sir John Harrington, who defended himself but weakly. The matter, however, rested there. Among advisers of a better kind, was the pious and worthy Hall, afterwards bishop of Norwich, who wrote to him a long letter, exciting him to come to some determination respecting his intended charity. This probably was successful, as it certainly was acceptable, for soon after the receipt of it, he abandoned his design of building an hospital in Essex, and purchased of the earl of Suffolk, Howard- house, the late dissolved Charter-house near Smithfield, for the sum of 13,000l. and upon that in 1611 founded the present hospital, and endowed it with the bulk of his property. He intended to have been himself the first master, but soon after the foundation, being seized with a slow fever, and perceiving his end to approach, he executed a deed, nominating the Rev. John Hutton, vicar of Littlebury in Essex, to that office. He died at Hackney Dec. 12, 1611, and was interred with great magnificence in the chapel of the Charter-house, where a monument was erected to his memory. At his death he was the richest untitled suhject in the kingdom, having in land 5000l. a year, and in money upwards of 60,000l. His will contains many individual legacies of the charitable kind. Soon after his death, his nephew, Simon Baxter, to whom he left an estate worth 10,000l. and 300l. in money, all which he squandered away, made an ineffectual attempt to set aside the will; the matter was brought to a fair hearing, and in 1613 it was determined that the foundation, incorporation, and endowment of the hospital was sufficient, good, and effectual in law. This attempt of Baxter’s was much censured at the time, and it is to be regretted that much of the odium fell on sir Francis (afterward lord) Bacon, then solicitor-general, who was his chief adviser.

Of Mr. Sutton’s personal character, we are told, that “he was strong-built and compact, of a middle stature, with a good complexion and agreeable mien; neither nice nor negligent in his apparel, but modest and clean, enjoying a good state of health till the decays of old age broke in upon it. He was a very affectionate tender husband, an exact but kind master, a good natured honest man, sober and religious both at home and abroad, very compassionate and very grateful.” As a public benefactor, Sutton deserves to be held in honourable remembrance, and it is pleasing to reflect that his design has never been interrupted or impeded by improper administration, and that few schools have produced men of more eminence as teachers or scholars.

, or, as pronounced, Suvoroff, Rimnikski (Count Alexander), an eminent Russian general, of an ancient Swedish family, was born in 1730, or as some think in 1732, and was originally intended for the profession of the law. His inclinations, however, leading him to the army, he entered as a private in 1742, and in 1754 had attained the rank of lieutenant. He made his first campaign in the seven years war against the Prussians in 175.9, and entered upon actual service under prince Wolgon>ki. He marched against the Prussians with the rank of first major and was at the battle of Kimnersdorf, and at the taking of Berlin. He this campaign signalized himself by many acts of valour, until the year 1762, when a truce was made between Prussia and Russia, which was followed by a peace. Although he was attached to the infantry service, count Romanzow presented him at the general promotion as colonel of cavalry; from his superior knowledge in that department of the army; but there were certain obstacles which caused that line of promotion to be abandoned. Soon after, the count Panin, who commanded in Pomerania, sent him to Petersburgh with an account of the return oi the troops. On this occasion he gave him a special letter of recommendation to the empress, who presented him a colonel’s commission, written with her own hand.

In August 1762 he was appointed colonel of the regiment of infantry of Astracan, which was in garrison at Petersburgh; and when the ceremonial of her coronation called the empress to Moscow, she ordered him to remain at Petersburgh, where she charged him with the execution of some very important commissions. After her return, his regiment was sent to distant service, and was replaced by the infantry of Susdal, consisting of more than a thousand men, of which he received the command in 1763. In autumn of the following year he went into garrison at Ladoga. In 1768 he was advanced to the rank of brigadier; and as the war was just commenced against the confederates of Poland, he was ordered to repair with all speed to the frontiers of that kingdom in the course of November, and in the most unfavourable season of the year. During the winter he was continually engaged in improving his regiment in their manoeuvres, and habituating them to every action that would be required, and every circumstance that might happen in a state of actual service. In the following summer of 1769 these troops were stationed on the frontiers of Poland, from whence they were sent to Warsaw, a march of eighty German miles, which he completed in twelve days. He overcame Kotelpowski, near Warsaw, and defeated and dispersed the troops commanded by the two Pulavvskis. He afterwards took up his quarters at Lublin; and the Russian army in Poland requiring the establishment of four major-generals, he was advanced to that rank on the 1st of January, 1770.

In the middle of the summer, when colonel Moschinski had gained a reinforcement, our general gained a second victory over him; and in the autumn of the same year he attempted an operation on the Vistula, but from the rapidity of the current he missed the pontoon in leaping from the bank, and falling into the river, was in great danger of being drowned. After many fruitless attempts to save him, a grenadier at length seized a lock of his hair, and drew him to the bank; but in getting out of the water he struck his breast against a pontoon, which caused a violent contusion, that threatened his life, and from which he did not recover for several months. Towards the end of the year the empress sent him the order of St. Anne.

We shall not detail all the various exploits of the general; it will be sufficient to take notice of the principal of them. He afterwards fought and beat the army of the confederates under Pulawski and Nowisi, and the empress conferred on him the order of St. George of the third class, as a testimony of the satisfaction she had received from his services. A second confederation being formed in Lithuania, the general again defeated the army under Oginski; and this victory was considered so important that the empress sent him, as conqueror of the grand marshal, the order of Alexander. This victory was obtained on the 11th of September, 1771.

The confederates soon after surprized Cracow, which obliged Suworrow to hasten and blockade the place. After some time it capitulated. On this occasion he shewed his magnanimity to Mods. Choisi, one of the French officers, to whom he said, on being offered his sword, “I cannot receive the sword of a gallant man in the service of a king, who is the ally of my own sovereign.” Tranquillity was soon after restored to Poland, where Suworrow served during four years without interruption. Independent of the numerous inferior actions and multiplied skirmishes, in which his courage was always displayed, and his military capacity never failed to appear; he was covered with glory by the victory of Stalowiz and the capture of Cracow: which gave the promise of that brilliant career that he afterwards run.

In September 1772 he was attached to the corps of general Klmpt, ordered to Finland by the way of Petersburg, uhere he arrived in the winter. In Feb. 1773, he was employed in inspecting the frontiers of Finland, where he heard every complaint, and made e\rry necessary communication to redress them. Towards the spring the congress of the Turks at Soczan separated; the truce was at an end, and it appeared as if war would be rekindled. Our general now received orders to join the army in Moldavia, where he served under field marshal Romanzow. The years 1773 and 1774 included the first Turkish war. In May 1773 he arrived at Jassy, and received a command. He then passed the Danube, and defeated the Turks atTurtukey. On this victory he dispatched an account to marshal Romanzow, in the following terms:

As a recompence for this victory the empress transmitted to him the cross of the order of St. George. During the remainder of the war, which was of short continuance, Suvvorrow was constantly engaged and constantly successful and after the peace was ordered to Moscow, to assist in appeasing the troubles occasioned hy the famous rebel Pugatcheff, whom he took prisoner. For several years after this Suworrow was employed in the Crimea, on the Cuban, and against the Nogay Tartars, in a kind of service which, however important to the empress, furnished no opportunities for that wonderful display of promptitude and resource which had characterised his more active campaigns.

In the end of the year 1786, Suworrow was promoted to the rank of general- in-chief; and at the breaking out of the war with the Turks in 1787, he shewed how well he was entitled to that rank, by his masterly defence of Kinburn; a place of no strength, but of great importance, as it is situated at the month of the Dneiper, opposite to Oczakow. At the siege of Oczakow he commanded the left wing of the army under prince Potemkin, and was dangerously wounded. In 1789, he was appointed to the command of the army which was to co-operate with the prince of Saxe Cobourgin Walachia, and on the 22d of September, gained, in conjunction with that prince, the memorable victory of Rymnik, over the Turks, one of the greatest that has ever been achieved. According to the least exaggerated accounts, the Turkish army amounted to 90,000 or 100,000 men, while that of the allies did not exceed 25,000. The carnage was dreadful, no quarter having been given to the Turks, and on this account the Russian general has been charged with savage barbarity. It is said, however, that the commanders of the allied army, aware of the immense superiority of their enemies, had resolved, before the engagement, not to encumber themselves with prisoners, whom they could not secure without more than hazarding the fate of the day. The taking of Bender and Belgrade were the immediate consequences of the victory of Rymnik, for his share in which Suworrow was created a count of the Roman empire by the emperor Joseph, and by his own sovereign, a count of the empire of Russia with the title of Rymnikski, and the order of St. Andrew of the first class.

His next memorable exploit was the taking of Ismailow in 1790, which he accomplished after a most furious assault in about eleven hours. In this dreadful space of time, the Ottomans lost 33,000 men killed or dangerously wounded: 10,000 who were taken prisoners: besides 6000 women and children, and 2000 Christians of Moldavia, who fell in the general massacre. The plunder was immense; but Suworrow, who was inaccessible to any views of private interest, did not appropriate to himself a single article, not so much as a horse, of which about 10,000, many extremely beautiful, were found in the place. Having, according to his custom, rendered solemn thanks to God for his victory, he wrote to prince Potemkin the following Spartan letter “The Russian colours wave on the ramparts of Ismailow.”

Peace being concluded with the Turks in December 1791, no political events occurred from that period to call forth the military talents of Suworrow till 1794, when he was sent to disarm the Poles in Red Russia, as a step towards the partition of Poland then concerted between the empress, the emperor, and the king f of Prussia. He afterwards stormed and took Praja, with immense slaughter, and Warsaw having consequently capitulated, the kingdom of Poland was overturned. Suworrow’s character has suffered by the conduct of the taking of Praja as well as that of Ismailow; but it is not our purpose to enter into a discussion on the subject, still less on the policy of the partition of Poland. Suworrow never appears to have entered into the niceties of political deliberation. He was a mere soldier who obeyed the commands of his superiors, and we have every reason to think, tempered them with as much lenity as the difficult circumstances in which he was frequently placed, would admit. For his services in Poland, the empress advanced him to the rank of field-marshalgeneral, loaded him with jewels, and presented him with an estate of 7000 peasants, in the district of Kubin, which had been the scene of his first battle in the course of this campaign.

From the subjugation of Poland we hear little more of Suworrow, until he entered upon his career in Italy, when the emperor Paul, who had succeeded his mother on the throne of Russia, joined in the confederacy against France in 1799. He assumed the command of the combined army of Russians and Austrians, and such was his success that the French lost, one after another, all the principal towns in the north of Italy, and were defeated in the bloody battle of Novi. After that action, Suworrow crossed the Alps, and marched into Swisserland, driving the French from mount St. Gothard. But here his gallant career was interrupted by the defeat of another division of the Russians, who were attacked by the French general Massena near Zurich, and obliged to cross the Rhine into Germany. This disaster, with the failure of the expected aid from the Austrians, obliged Suworrow, who was opposed by Moreau, to commence a fighting retreat towards the lake of Constance; and after prodigious exertions of valour, he arrived there with a much diminished army, and effected a junction with the remainder of the troops that had been defeated by Massena, He was now recalled home, and under the pressure of fatigue, vexation, and fever, reached Petersburgh, where he soon fell into a childish state, and died May 18, 1300. His capricious master is said to have displayed his resentment by refusing the usual military honours to his remains, and even deprived his son of his rank of major-general. The present emperor Alexander, however, repaired this injustice to the memory of an officer so brave and faithful, by erecting his statue in the imperial gardens. Another account says that Paul, although he endeavoured to disgrace Suworrow at the end of his life, ordered him a magnificent funeral.

In his person Suworrow was tall, considerably exceeding six feet, and full chested. His countenance was stern; but among his friends his manners were pleasant, and his dispositions were kind. His temper was naturally violent; but that violence he constantly laboured to moderate, though he was never ahle completely to extinguish it. According to Mr. Anthing, an effervescent spirit of impatience predominated in his character; and it perhaps never happened (says that author) that the execution of his orders equalled the rapidity of his wishes. Though he disliked all public entertainments, yet when circumstances led him to an)- of them, he appeared to partake, and endeavoured to promote, the general pleasure. Sometimes he condescended even to dance and play at cards, though very rarely, and merely that he might not interrupt the etiquette of public manners, to which, when not in the field, he was very attentive. In the field he may be said to have spent the whole of his life from the period at which he first joined the army in the seven year*' war: for during the time he was not engaged in actual warfare, and that time, taken altogether, did not exceed twelve years, he was always placed at the head of armies stationed on the frontier of some enemy’s country. He was therefore a mere warrior, and as such had no fixed habitation. With respect to his table and lodging, he contented himself with whatever he found, requiring nothing but what absolute necessity demands, and what might be transported with ease from one place to another. His couch consisted of a heap of fresh hay sufficiently elevated, and scattered into considerable breadth, with a white sheet spread over it, a cushion for his pillow, and a cloak for his coverlid. For the last twenty years of his life, he never made use of a looking-glass, or incumbered his person with either watch or money.

He was sincerely attached to the religion of his country, and a strict observer of its rites, which he equally strictly enjoined on all under his command. His biographer assures us that from his earliest years he was enamoured of the sciences, and improved himself in them; but as the military science was the sole object of his regard, those authors of every nation who investigate, illustrate, or improve it, engrossed his literary leisure. Hence Cornelius Nepos was with him a favourite classic; and he read, with great avidity and attention, the histories of Montecuculi and Turenne. Caesar, however, and Charles XII. wore the heroes whom he most admired, and whose activity and courage became the favourite objects of his imitation. The love of his country, and the ambition to contend in arms for its glory, were the predominant passions of his active life; and to them he sacrificed every inferior sentiment, am) consecrated all the powers of his body and mind.

, an eminent naturalist and anatomist, was born at Amsterdam in 1637, where his father was an apothecary, and had a museum of natural history. He intended his son for the church, and with this view gave him a classical education, but the boy prevailed upon him to let him apply to physic. He was therefore kept at home, till he should be prpperly qualified to engage in that study, and frequently employed in cleaning, and arranging the articles of his father’s collection. From this occupation he acquired a taste for natural history, and soon began to form a museum of his own. Entomology having particularly struck his fancy, be became indefatigable in discovering, catching, and examining, the flying insects, not only in the province of Holland, but in those of Gueldreland and Utrecht. In 1661 he went to Leydeu, to pursue his studies, which he did with so much success, that, in 1663, he was admitted a candidate of physic, after undergoing the examinations prescribed on that occasion. On his arrival at Leyden, he contracted a friendship with the great anatomist Nicolas Steno, and ever after lived with him in intimacy.

The arcana of anatomy now exciting his curiosity, one of his first objects was to consider how the parts of the body, prepared by dissection, could be preserved in a state for anatomical demonstration; and in this he succeeded, as he had done before in his nicer contrivances to dissect and prepare the minutest insects. After this, he made a journey into France, where he spent some time at Saumur with Tanaquil Faber, and made a variety of observations upon insects. From Saumur he went to Paris, in 1664, where he lived in the same house with his friend Steno. He likewise contracted an intimacy with Thevenot, who strenuously recommended him to Conrad Van Beuningen, a senator and burgomaster of Amsterdam, and at that time that republic’s minister at the court of France: Beuningen obtained leave for Svvammerdam, at his return home, to dissect the bodies of such patients as should happen to die in the hospital of that city.

He returned to Leyden to take his degrees; and took the occasion of his stay there to cultivate a friendship with Van Home, who had been formerly his preceptor in anatomy. It was at this time, Jan. 1667, that in Van Home’s house, Swammerdam first injected the uterine vessels of a humaa subject with ceraceous matter, which most useful art he afterwards brought to great perfection. In February the same year, he was admitted to his degree as doctor or physic, after having publicly maintained his thesis on respiration; which was then conceived only in short and contracted arguments, but appeared soon after with considerable additions, with a dedication to Thevenot. It was thus that Swammerdam cultivated anatomy with the greatest art and labour, in conjunction with Van Home; but a quartan ague, which attacked him this year, brought him so very low, that he found himself under a necessity of discontinuing these studies; which, on his recovery, he entirely neglected, in order to give himself up to his favourite pursuit of entomology.

In 1668, the grand duke of Tuscany being then in Holland with Mr. Thevenot, in order to see the curiosities of the country, carne to view those of Swammerdam and his father; and on this occasion, our author dissected some insects in the presence of that prince, who was struck with admiration at his uncommon dexterity in handling those minute objects, and especially at his proving, that the future butterfly lies with all its parts neatly folded up in a caterpillar; by actually removing the integuments that cover the former, and extricating and exhibiting all its parts, however minute, with incredible ingenuity, and by means of instruments of an inconceivable fineness. On this occasion his highness offered him 12,OOu florins for his share of the collection, provided he would remove them into Tuscany, and live at the court of Florence; but Swammerdam, from religious motives, as well as a dislike of a court life, declined the proposal. He now continued his researches into the nature and properties of insects, and in 1669, he published a general history of them, a work which afterwards proved the lasting monument of his talents. But, in the mean time his father resenting his neglect of his profession, endeavoured to recall him to it by refusing him any pecuniary aid. This induced him at last to promise to resume his profession; but, as he had injured his health by the closeness of his studies, a retirement to the country for some time was requisite that he might recover his strength, and return to his business with new force and spirits. He was, however, scarcely settled in his country retirement, when, in 1670, he relapsed into his former occupation. Thevenot, in the mean time, informed of the disagreement between Swammerdam and his lather, did all that lay in his power to engage the former to retire into France, and probably some amicable arrangement might have been made, had not Swammerdam, in 1673, formed a connection with the then famous Antonia Bourignon, and became totally absorbed in all her mysticism and devout reveries. After this he grew altogether careless of the pursuits in which he had so much delighted, and withdrew himself in a great measure from the world, and followed and adopted all the enthusiasms of Antonia. In this persuasion he neglected his person, wasted away to the figure of a skeleton by his various acts of mortification, and died at Amsterdam in 1680.

The works of this celebrated anatomist and naturalist, are, 1. “Tractatus Physico-Anatomico-Medicus de Respiratione,” Leyden, 1667, 1677, and 1679, in 8vo, and 1738, 4to. 2. “General History of Insects,” Utrecht, 1669, 4to, in Dutch, but published there in 1685, 4to, in French, and at Leyden, in Latin, 1685, with fine engravings. 3. “Miraculuai Naturae, seu, nteri rnuliebris fetbrica,” Leyden, 1672, 1679, 1717, 1729, 4to, with plates. He was impelled to this publication by Van Home, who had claimed some of his discoveries. 4. “Historia Insectorum generalis; adjicitur dilucidatio, qua specialia cujusvis ordinis exempla figuris accuratissime, tarn naturali magnitudine, quam ope microscopii aucta, illustrantur,” Leyd. 1733, 4to. This translation of his history of insects is by Henninius, but the best edition of this valuable work is that which appeared at Leyden in 1737, 2 vols. folio, under the title “Biblia Naturae, sive, Historia Insectorum in classes certas redncta, &c.” The learned owe this to Boerhaave, for the manuscript having been left by the author to his executors, had been handed about till it was difficult to be traced. Of this an English translation was published in 1757, folio, by sir John Hill and others, and with Boerhaave’s plates.

, an eminent Flemish landscape painter, was born in 1620, and is generally said to have been the disciple of Gerard Douw; but he went very young to Italy, and placed himself with Claude Lorraine, and soon proved worthy of so distinguished a master. He studied nature incessantly; and very frequently, along with Claude, observed the lingings of the morning-light on the surfaces of different objects, on the mountains, rocks, trees, skies, and waters; and the various effects of light at noon and evening; by which he was enabled to give his own works so much truth and nature, as will for ever render them extremely estimable, and in his life-time they were sold for very high prices. He also enriched his ideas by frequenting the elegant remains of antiquity about Home, and in that study spent all his leisure hours, and from his retired manner of life, although he was by birth a Fleming, he was distinguished by the name of the Hermit of Italy. The reputation xvhich his pictures procured him, and the demand he had for them, excited in some degree the jealousy of Claude, which is a proof how near he approached him. He etched also in a bold, free, and masterly style, and published, from his own designs, various sets of landscapes, amounting in all to one hundred and fourteen. He died in 1680.

, a Swedish enthusiast, and the founder of a well-known, although, we trust, declining sect, was born at Stockholm J.n. 29, 1689. His father was bishop of West Gothia, and it may be supposed that his education was good, since he published a volume of Latin poetry when he was only twenty years old. The title was, “Ludus Heliconius, sive Carmina Miscellanea, quie variis in locis cecinit.” The same year he began his travels; and having visited England, Holland, France, and Germany, returned in 1714 to Stockholm, where two years after, he was appointed by Charles XII. assessor of the metallic college. His studies during this part of his life, were chiefly devoted to mathematics and natural philosophy; and he was essentially useful to his king by enabling him to convey his heavy artillery by water, where they could not go by land. He published about this period, many scientih'cal and philosophical works; and succeeding to the favour of queen Ulrica Kleanora, after the death of Charles XI I. was by her ennobled in 171I>. In pursuance of his duty, as belonging to the metallic college, he travelled to view the mines, and then inspected aiso the manufactures of his country. In consequence of this, he published several tracts on subjects relating to the philosophy of the arts. He returned to Stockholm in 1722,;.nd divided his time between the duties of his ofiice and his private studies. In 1733, he had completed his great work, entitled “Opera Philosophica et Mineralia,” which was printed under his direction in 1734, partly at Dresden, and partly at Leipsic. It forms 3 vols. folio, is illustrated hy plates, and is written with great strength of judgment. In 1720, he had been admitted into the society of sciences at Upsal; and between that and 1724, had received a similar honour from the royal academy at Stockholm, and that of Petersburgh. He corresponded also with many learned foreigners. But the time was now approaching when all the desire of baron Swedenborg, for literary or other worldly distinction, was to be absorbed in feelings of a sublimer nature. Whether too intense an application to study had disordered, or a natural tendency to enthusiasm had inflamed his mind, he conceived himself miraculously called to the office of revealing the most hidden arcana. “In the year 1743,” he says, in one of his works, “the Lord was graciously pleased to manifest himself to me, in a personal appearance; to open in me a sight of the spiritual world, and to enable me to converse with spirits and angels; and this privilege has continued with me to this day.” From this time, he devoted his very able pen to such subjects as this most extraordinary state of mind suggested. He published, “De cultu et Amore Dei,” Lond. 1745, 4to; “De telluribus in mundo nostro solari,” 1758 “De Equo albo in Apocalypsi,” 1758 “De nova Hierosolyma” “De Ccelo et Inferno” “Sapientia angelica de Divina Providentia,” Amsterdam, 1764 “Vera Christiana religio,” Amst. 1771 and many other books. He particularly visited Amsterdam and London, where these extravagant works were published, and where they have since been translated by his admirers. One of his fancies about the spiritual world is, that it admits not of space: yet he tells us, that a man is so little changed after death, that he does not even know that he is not living in the present world; that he eats and drinks, and even enjoys conjugal delights, as in the present world; that the resemblance between the two worlds is so great, that in the spiritual there are cities, palaces, houses, books, merchandise, &c. &c. Universal Theology, vol. J. p. 734. This extraordinary man died in London, March 29, 1772; his remains lay in state, and were afterwards deposited in a vault in the Swedish church near Radcliff-highway.

Swedenborg was, in himself, a harmless, though a very extravagant enthusiast. His sect does not appear to have made much progress during his life, but is now established in England, under the title of The New Jerusalem Church. It is a kind of Christianity, modified according to the whims of the author; acknowledging a Trinity, but not exactly in the sense of any other church, and an unity in a peculiar sense also; pretending that the spiritual sense of the Scriptures was never known till it was revealed to Swedenborg. The continued intercourse of spirits with men is one part of his doctrine; with many other reveries, which would hardly appear to deserve notice, were they not still considered by many as the result of inspiration. That these strange delusions should subsist in a time when true faith has wavered without reason, is extraordinary. To a reasonable person, the inspection of any one of his mystical books seems a sufficient preservative from the infection. Some of his followers have been bold enough to represent him as a man without enthusiasm.

, a Flemish historian and antiquary, was born at Antwerp in 1567. We have no particulars of his literary progress, but a general character that he was a man of science and learning, of an amiable disposition, and occasionally a wit, a poet, and a man of business. He devoted much of his time to study, and published a great many works which brought him considerable reputation. Saxius says he does not know whother he married or lived single, nor, he acids, “is it of much importance. This, I know, that he does not speak very respectfully of the ladies and their company. He says of Janus Dousa, the father, that when he returned home, he married that necessary evil, a icife” Whatever reason Swert had for using this expression, Saxius might have known from Valerius Andreas, or from Foppen, that he married Susanna Van Erp, and had a family of six children. He died at Antwerp in 1629, aged sixty- two.

, an illustrious English wit, and justly celebrated also for his political knowledge, was descended from a very ancient family, and born Nov. 30, 1667. His grandfather, Mr. Thomas Swift, was vicar of Goodrich in Herefordshire, and married Mrs. Elizabeth Dryden, aunt of Dryden the poet; by whom he had six sons, Godwin, Thomas, Dryden, William, Jonathan, and Adam. Thomas was bred at Oxford, but died young; Godwin was a barrister of Gray’s-inn; and William, Dryden, Jonathan, and Adam, were attornies. Godwin having married a relation of the old marchioness of Ormond, the old duke of Ormond made him attorney-general in the palatinate of Tipperary in Ireland. Ireland was at this time almost without lawyers, the rebellion having converted men of all conditions into soldiers. Godwin, therefore, determined to attempt the acquisition of a fortune in that kingdom, and the same motive induced his four brothers tO'go with him. Jonathan, at the age of about twenty-three, and before he went to Ireland, married Mrs. Abigail Erick, a gentlewoman of Leicestershire; and about two years after left her a widow with one child, a daughter, and pregnant with another, having no means of subsistence but an annuity of 20l. which her husband had purchased for her in England, immediately after his marriage. In this distress she was taken into the family of Godwin, her husband’s eldest brother; and there, about seven months after his death, delivered of a son, whom she called Jonathan, in remembrance of his father, and who was afterwards the celebrated dean of St. Patrick’s.

It happened, by whatever accident, that Jonathan was not suckled by his mother, but by a nurse, who was a native of Whitehaven and when he was about a year old, her affection for him was become so strong, that, finding it necessary to visit a sick relation there, she carried him with her, without the knowledge of his mother or uncle. At this place he continued about three years; for, when the matter was discovered, his mother sent orders not to hazard a second voyage, till he should be better able to benr it. Mrs. Swift, about two years after her husband’s death, quitted the family of Mr. Godwin Swift in Ireland, and retired to Leicester, the place of her nativity; but her son was again carried to Ireland by his nurse, and replaced under the protection of his uncle Godwin. It has been generally believed, that Swift was born in England; and, when the people of Ireland displeased him, he has been heard to say, “I am not of this vile country; I am an Englishman:” but this account of his birth is taken from one which he left behind him, in his own hand-writing Some have also thought, that he was a natural son of sir William Temple, because sir William expressed a particular regard for him; but that was impossible; for sir WilJiam was resident abroad in a public character from 1665 to 1670; and his mother, who was never out of the British dominions, brought him into the world in 1667.

At about six years of age, he was sent to the school of Kilkenny, and having continued there eight years, he was admitted a student of Trinity college in Dublin*. Here applying himself to books of history and poetry, to the neglect of academic learning, he was, at the end of four years, refused his degree of bachelor of arts for insufficiency; and was at last admitted speciali gratia, which is there considered as the highest degree of reproach and dishonour. Stung with the disgrace, he studied eight hours a day, for seven years following. He commenced these studies at the university of Dublin, where he continued them three years; and during this time he drew up the first sketch of his “Tale of a Tub;” for Wassendon Warren, esq. a gentleman of fortune near Belfast in Ireland, wha was chamber- fellow with Swift, declared that he then saw a copy of it in Swift’s own hand-writing. In 1688, his uncle Godwin was seized with a lethargy, and soon after was deprived both of his speech and memory: by which accident Swift being left without support, took a journey to Leicester, that he might consult with his mother what course of life to pursue. At this time sir William Temple was in high reputation, and honoured with the confidence and familiarity of king William. His father sir John Temple, had been master of the Rolls in Ireland, and contracted an intimate friendship with Godwin Swift, which continued till his death; and sir William, who inherited his title and estate, had married a lady to whom Mrs. Swift was related: she therefore advised her son to communicate his situation to sir William, and solicit his direction what to do. Sir William received him with great kindness, and Swift’s first visit continued two years. Sir William had been ambassador and mediator of a general peace at Nimeguen before the Revolution; in which character he became known to the prince of Orange, who frequently visited him at Sheen, after his arrival in England, and took his advice in affairs of the utmost importance. Sir William being then lame with the gout, Swift used to attend his majesty in the walks about the garden, who admitted him to such a familiarity, that he shewed him how to cut asparagus after the Dutch manner, and once offered to make him a captain of horse; but Swift had fixed his mind upon an ecclesiastical life.

About this time a bill was brought into the house for triennial parliaments, to which the king was very averse; but sent, however, to consult sir William Temple, who soon afterwards sent Swift to Kensington with the whole account in writing, to convince the king how ill he was advised. This was Swift’s first embassy to court, who, though he understood English history, and the matter in hand very well, yet did not prevail. Soon after this transaction, he was seized with the return of a disorder, which he had contracted in Ireland by eating a great quantity of fruit, and which afterwards gradually increased, though with irregular intermissions, till it terminated in a total debility of body and mind.

About a year after his return from Ireland, he thought it expedient to take his master of arts degree at Oxford; and accordingly was admitted ad eundem in 1692, with many civilities. These, some say, proceeded from a misunderstanding of the words speciali gratia, in his testimonial from Dublin, which was thcr supposed to be a compliment paid to uncommon merit; but are more probably ascribed by others to his known connection with sir William Temple. It is easy to conceive, however, that Swift, after his reputation was established, might, while he was sporting with this incident in the gaiety of his heart, pretend a mistake which never happened. From Oxford he returned to sir William Temple, and assisted him in revising his works: he also corrected and improved his his own “Tale of a Tub,” and added the digressions. From the conversation of sir William, Swift greatly increased his political knowledge; but, suspecting sir William of neglecting to provide for him, merely that he might keep him in his family, he at length resented it so warmly, that in 1694 a quarrel ensued, and they parted.

Swift, during his residence with sir William, had never failed to visit his mother at Leicester once a year, and his manner of travelling was very extraordinary. He always went on foot, except the weather was very bad, and then he would sometimes take shelter in a waggon. He chose to dine at obscure ale-houses among pedlars and ostlers, and to lie where he saw written over the door, “Lodgings for a penny” but he used to bribe the maid with sixpence for a single bed and clean sheets.

His resolution was now to take orders; and he soon after obtained a recommendation to lord Capel, then lord deputy of Ireland, who gave him the prebend of Kilroot, in the diocese of Connor, worth about 100l. per annum. But sir William, who had been used to the conversation of Swift, soon found that he could not be content to live without him; and therefore urged him to resign his prebend in favour of a friend, promising to obtain preferment for him in England, if he would return. Swift consented; and sir William was so much pleased with this act of kindness, that during the remainder of his life, which was about four years, his behaviour was such as produced the utmost harmony between them. Swift, as a testimony of his friendship and esteem, wrote the “Buttle of the Books,” of which sir William is the hero; and sir William, when he died, left him a pecuniary legacy, and his posthumous works.

Upon the death of sir William Temple, Swift applied, by petition to king William, for the- first vacant prebend of Canterbury or Westminster, for which the royal promise had been obtained by his late patron, whose posthumous works he dedicated to his majesty, to facilitate the success of that application. But it does not appear, that, after the death of sir William, the king took the least notice of Swift. After this he accepted an invitation from the earl of Berkeley, appointed one of the lords justices of Ireland, to attend him as chaplain and private secretary; but he was soon removed from this post, upon a pretence that it svas not fit for a clergyman. This disappointment was presently followed by another; for when the deanery of Derry became vacant, and it was the earl of Berkeley’s turn to dispose of it, Swift, instead of receiving it as an atonement for his late usage, was put off with the livings of Laracor and Rathbeggin, in the diocese of Meath, which together did not amount to half its value. He went to reside at Laracor, and performed the duties of a parish priest with the utmost punctuality and devotion. He was, indeed, always very devout, not only in his public and solemn addresses to God, but in his domestic and private exercises i and yet, with all this piety in his heart, he could not forbear indulging the peculiarity of his humour, when an opportunity offered, whatever might be the impropriety of the time and place. Upon his coming to Laracor, he gave public notice, that he would read prayers on Wednesdays and Fridays, which had not been the cus-> torn; and accordingly the bell was rung, and he ascended the desk. But, having remained some time with no other auditor than his clerk Roger, he began, “Dearly beloved Roger, the Scripture moveth you and me in sundry places;” and so proceeded to the end of the service. Of the same kind was his race with Dr. Raymond, vicar of Trim, soon after he was made dean of St. Patrick’s. Swift had dined one Sunday with Raymond, and when the bells had done ringing for evening prayers, “Raymond,” says Swift, “I will lay you a crown, that I begin prayers before you this afternoon.” Dr. Raymond accepted the wager, and immediately both ran as fast as they could to the church. Raymond, the nimbler of the two, arrived first at the door, and when he entered the church, walked decently towards the reading-desk: Swift never slackened his pace, but running up the aite, left Raymond behind him, and stepping into the desk, without putting on the surplice, or opening the book, began the service in an audible voice, During Swift’s residence at Laracor, he invited to Ireland a lady whom he has celebrated by the name of Stella. With this lady he became acquainted while he lived with sir William Temple: she was the daughter of his steward, whose name was Johnson; and sir William, when he died, left her 1000l. in consideration of her father’s faithful services. At the death of sir William, which happened in 1699, she was in the sixteenth year of her age; and it was about two years afterwards, that at Swift’s invitation she Jeft England, accompanied by Mrs. Dingley, a lady who was fifteen years older, and whose whole fortune, though she was related to sir William, was no more than an annuity of 27l. Whether Swift at this time desired the company of Stella as a wife, or a friend, it is not certain: but the reason which she and her companion then gave for their leaving England was, that in Ireland the interest of money was higher, and provisions were cheap. But, whatever was Swift’s attachment to Miss Johnson, every possible precaution was taken to prevent scandal: they never lived in the same house; when Swift was absent, Miss Johnson and her friend resided at the parsonage; when he returned, they removed either to his friend Dr. Raymond’s, or to a lodging; neither were they ever known to meet but in the presence of a third person. Swift made frequent excursions to Dublin, and some to London: but Miss Johnson was buried in solitude and obscurity; she was known only to a few of Swift’s most intimate acquaintance, and had no female companion except Mrs. Dingley.

In 1701, Swift took his doctor’s degree, and in 1702, soon after the death of king William, he went into England for the first time after his settling at Laracor; a journey which he frequently repeated during the reign of queen Anne. Miss Johnson was once in England in 1705, but returned in a few months, and never crossed the channel afterwards. He soon became eminent as a writer, and in that character was known to both whigs and tories. He had been educated among the former, but at length attached himself to the latter; because the whigs, as he said, bad renounced their old principles, and received others, which their forefathers abhorred. He published, in 1701, “A discourse of the contests and dissentions between the nobles and commons in Athens and Home, with the consequences they had upon both those states” this was in behalf of king William and his ministers, against the violent proceedings of the House of Commons; but from that year to 1708, he did not write any political pamphlet.

In 1710, being then in England, he was empowered by the primate of Ireland, to solicit the queen to release the clergy from paying the twentieth part and first-fruits; and upon this occasion his acquaintance with Mr. Hariey commenced. As soon as he had received the primate’s instructions, he resolved to apply to Mr. Hariey; and, before he waited on him, got himself represented as a person who had been ill used by the last ministry, because he would not go such lengths as they would have had him. Mr. Hariey received him with the utmost kindness and respect; kept him with him two hours alone; engaged in, and soon after accomplished his business bid him come often to see him privately and toldhim, that he must bring him to the knowledge of Mr. St. John. Swift presently became acquainted with the rest of the ministers, who appear to have courted and caressed him with uncommon assiduity. He dined every Saturday at Mr. Harley’s, with the lord keeper, Mr. secretary St. John, and lord Rivers: on that day no other person was for some time admitted; but this select company was at length enlarged to sixteen, all men of the first class, Swift included. From this time he supported the interest of his new friends with all his power, in pamphlets, poems, and periodical papers: his intimacy with them was so remarkable, that he thought not only to defend, but in some degree to direct their measures; and such was his importance in the opinion of the opposite party, that many speeches were made against him in both houses of parliament: a reward was also offered, for discovering the author of " The Public Spirit of the Whigs/*

Amidst all the business and honours that crowded upon him, he wrote every day an account of what occurred, to Stella; and sent her a journal regularly, dated every fort* night, during the whole time of his connection with queen Anne’s ministry. From these unrestrained effusions of -his heart many particulars are known, which would otherwise have lain hid; and by these it appears, that he was not only employed, but trusted, even by Hariey himself, who to all others was reserved and mysterious. In the mean time, Swift had no expectations of advantage from his con* nection with these persons; he knew they could not long preserve their power: and he did not honour it while it lasted, on account of the violent measures which were pursued by both sides. “I use the ministry,' 1 says he,” like dogs, because I expect they will use me so. I never knew a ministry do anything for those whom they made companions of their pleasures; but I care not.“In the summer of 1711, he foresaw the ruin of the ministry by those misunderstandings among themselves, which at last effected it; and it was not only his opinion, but their own, that if they could not carry a peace, they must soon be sent to the Tower, even though they should agree. In order therefore to facilitate this great event, Swift wrote the” Conduct of the Allies;“a piece, which he confesses cost him much pains, and which succeeded even beyond his expectations. It was published Nov. 27, 1711; and in two months time above 11,000 were sold off, seven editions having been printed in England, and three in Ireland. The tory members in both houses, who spoke, drew their arguments from it; and the resolutions, which were printed in the votes, and would never have passed but for this pamphlet, were little more than quotations from it. From this time to 1713, he exerted himself with unwearied diligence in the service of the ministry; and while he was at Windsor, just at the conclusion of the peace of Utrecht, he drew the first sketch of” An history of the four last years of queen Anne." This he afterwards finished, and came into England to publish it, but was dissuaded from it by lord Bolingbroke, who told him, the whole was so much in the spirit of party-writing, that though it might have made a seasonable pamphlet in the time of their administration, it. would be a dishonour to just history. Swift seems to have been extremely fond of this work, by declaring that it was the best thing he had ever written; but, since his friend did not approve it, he would cast it into the fire. It did not, however, undergo this fate, but was published by Dr. Lucas, to the disappointment of all those who expected any thing great from it.

During all this time he received no gratuity or reward till 1713; and then he accepted the deanery of St. Patrick’s, Dublin. A bishopric had been some “time before intended for him by the queen; but archbishop Sharpe having represented him to her majesty as a man whose Christianity was very questionable, and being supported in this by a certain very great lady, it was given to another. He immediately crossed the channel, to take possession of his new dignity but did not stay in Ireland more than a fortnight, being urged by an hundred letters to hasten back, and reconcile the lords Oxford and Bolingbroke. When he returned, he found their animosity increased; and, having predicted their ruin from this very cause, he laboured to bring about a reconciliation, as that upon which the whole interest of their party depended. Havin<* attempted this by various methods in vain, he went to a friend’s house in Berkshire, where he continued till the queen’s death; and, while he was at this place, wrote a discourse called” Free thoughts on the present state of affairs," which, however, was not published till some time after.

Before we attend Swift to Ireland, it is necessary to give a little history of his Vanessa, because his connections with her were made in England. Among other persons with whom he was intimately acquainted during the gay part of his life, was Mrs. Vanhomrigh. She was a lady of good family in Ireland, and became the wife of Mr. Vanhomrigh, first a merchant of Amsterdam, then of Dublin, where he was raised by king William, upon his expedition into Ireland, to very great places. Dying in 1703, he left two sons and two daughters; but the sons soon after dying, his whole fortune, which was considerable, fell to the daughters. In 1709, the widow and the two young ladies came to England, where they were visited by persons of the first quality; and Swift, lodging near them, used to be much there, coming and going without any ceremony, as if he had been one of the family. During this familiarity, he became insensibly a kind of preceptor to the young ladies, particularly the eldest, who was then about twenty years old, was much addicted to reading, and a great admirer of poetry. Hence admiring, as was natural, such a character as that of Swift, she soon passed from admiration to love; and, urged a little perhaps by vanity, which would have been highly gratified by an alliance with the first wit of the age, she ventured to make the doctor a proposal of marriage. He affected at fust to believe her 'in jest, then to rally her on so whimsical a choice, and at last to put her off without absolute refusal; and, while he was in this situation, he wrote the poem called “Cadenus and Vanessa.” It was written in 1713, a short time before he left Vanessa and the rest of his friends in England, and returned to the place of his exile, as he used frequently to call it. In 1714, Mrs. Vanhomrigh died and, having lived very expensively, left some debts, which it not being convenient for her daughters, who had also debts of their own, to pay at present, to avoid an arrest they followed the dean into Ireland.

Upon his arrival to take possession of his deanery, he had been received with great kindness and honour; but now, upon his return after the queen’s death, he experienced every possible mark of contempt and indignation. The tables were turned; the power of the tories and the dean’s credit were at an end; and as a design to bring in the pretender had been imputed to the queen’s ministry, so Swift lay now under much odium, as being supposed to have been a well-wisher in that cause. As soon as he was settled at Dublin, Miss, or Mrs. Johnson, removed from the country to be near him, but they still lived in separate houses; his residence being at the deanery, and hers in lodgings on the other side of the river Liffy. The dean kept two public days every week, on which the dignity of his station was sustained with the utmost elegance and decorum, under the direction of Mrs. Johnson. As to his employment at home, he seems to have had no heart to apply himself to study of any kind, but to have resigned himself wholly to such amusements and such company as offered, that he might not think of his situation, the misfortunes of his friends, and his disappointments. “I was three years,” says he to Gay, “reconciling myself to the scene and business to which fortune had condemned me; and stupidity was what 1 had recourse to.”

The first remarkable event of his life, after his settlement at the deanery, was his marriage to Mrs. Johnson, after a most intimate friendship of more than sixteen years. This was in 1716; and the ceremony was performed by Dr. Ashe, then bishop of Clogher, to whom the dean had been a pupil in Trinity college, Dublin. But, whatever were the motives to this marriage, the dean and the lady continued to live afterwards just in the same manner as they had lived before. Mrs. Dingley was still the inseparable companion of Stella wherever she went; and she never resided at the deanery, except when the dean had his fits of giddiness and deafness. Till this time he had continued his visits to Vanessa, who preserved her reputation and friends, and was visited by many persons of rank, character, and fortune, of both sexes but now his visits were less frequent. In 1717 her sister died; and the whole remains of the family fortune centering in Vanessa, she retired to Selbridge, a small house and estate about twelve miles from Dublin, which had been purchased by her father. From this place she wrote frequently to the dean; and he answered her letters: she pressed him to marry her, but he rallied, and still avoided a positive denial. She pressed him still more, either to accept or refuse her as a wife; upon which he wrote an answer, and delivered it with his own hand. The receipt of this, which probably communicated the fatal secret of his marriage with Stella, the unhappy lady did not survive many weeks; she was, however, sufficiently composed to cancel a will she had made in the dean’s favour, and to make another, in which she left her fortune to her two executors, Dr. Berkeley, bishop of Cloyne, and Mr. Marshall, one of the king’s Serjeants at law.

From 1716 to 1720, is a chasm in the dean’s life which it has been found difficult to fill up; lord Orrery thinks, with great reason, that he employed this time upon “Gulliver’s Travels.” This work is. a moral and political romance, in which Swift had exerted the strongest efforts of a fine irregular genius: but while his imagination and wit delight, it is hardly possible not to be sometimes offended with his satire, which sets not only all human actions, but human nature itself, in the worst light. The truth is, Swift’s disappointments had rendered him splenetic and angry with the whole world; and he frequently indulged himself in a misanthropy that is intolerable: he has done so particularly in some parts of this work. About this time the dean, who had already acquired the character of a humourist and wit, was first regarded, with general kindness, as the patriot of Ireland. He wrote “A proposal for the use of Irish manufactures,” which made him very popular; the more so, as it immediately raised a violent flame, so that a prosecution was commenced against the printer. In 1724 he wrote the “Drapier’s Letters,” those brazen monuments of his fame, as lord Orrery calls them. A patent having been iniquitously procured by one Wood to coin 180,0001. in copper, for the use of Ireland, by which he would have acquired exorbitant gain, and proportionably impoverished the nation; the dean, in the character of a draper, wrote a series of letters to the people, urging them not to receive this copper money. These letters united the whole nation in his praise, filled every street with his effigy, and every voice with acclamations; and Wood, though supported for some time, was at length compelled to withdraw his patent, and his money was totally suppressed . Prom this time the dean’s influence in Ireland was almost without bounds: he was consulted in whatever related to domestic policy, and particularly to tra/le. The weavers always considered him as their patron and legislator, after his proposal for the use of the Irish manufactures; and when elections were depending for the city of Dublin, many corporations refused to declare themselves till they knew his sentiments and inclinations. Over the populace he was the most absolute monarch that ever governed; and he was regarded by persons of every rank with veneration and esteem.

He was several times in England on a visit to Pope, after his settlement at the deanery, particularly in 1726 and 1727. On Jan. 28, 1727, died his beloved Stella, in her forty-fourth year, regretted by the dean with such excess of affection as the liveliest sensibility alone could feel, and the most excellent character excite: she had been declining from 1724. Stella was a most amiable woman both in person and mind. Her stature was tall, her hair and eyes black, her complexion fair and delicate, her features regular, soft, and animated, her shape easy and elegant, and her manner feminine, polite, and graceful: there was natural music in her voice, and complacency in her aspect; she abounded with wit, which was always accompanied with good-nature her virtue was founded upon humanity, and her religion upon reason her morals were uniform, but not rigid, and her devotion was habitual, but not ostentatious. “Why the dean did not sooner marry this most excellent person; why he married her at all; why his marriage was so cautiously concealed; and why he was never known to meet her but in the presence of a third person; are enquiries which no man can answer,” says the writer of his life, “without absurdity.”

Supposing Swift to have been guided in this affair by mere caprice and humour, he cannot but be seen in a most ungracious light, and considered as a man utterly devoid of humanity; for it is generally agreed, that Stella’s immature death was occasioned by the peculiarity of his conduct towards her. It appears, by several incidents, that she regretted and disapproved this conduct / and that she sometimes reproached him with unkinduess; for to such regret and reproach he certainly alludes, in the following verses on her birth-day, in 1726:

It is said the dean did at length earnestly desire, that she might be publicly owned as his wife; but, as her health, was then declining, she said, “it is too late,” and insisted, that they should continue to live as they had lived before. To this the dean in his turn consented, and suffered her to dispose entirely of her own fortune, by her own name, to a public charity when she died.

The most inexcusable part of Swift T s conduct certainly appears in this unhappy affair, for which no proper apology can be made; and which the vain attempts of his friends have only tended to aggravate . One attributes his singular conduct to a peculiarity in his constitution; but, if he knew that he was unfit to enter into the married state, how came he to unite one lady to himself by the ceremony of marriage, and explicitly to declare his passion to the other? What can we think also of the sensibility of a man, who, strongly attached as he seems to have been to both, could silently throw down a paper before the one, which proved her “death-warrant,” and could throw the other (his beloved Stella) into unspeakable agonies, in her last illness, and quit her for ever, “only for adjuring him, by their friendship, to let her have the satisfaction of dying at least, though she had not lived, his acknowledged wife.” Another apologist insinuates, upon something like evidence, that Stella bore a son to Swift, and yet labours to excuse him for not declaring her his wife, because she had agreed at the marriage that it should remain a secret, unless the discovery should be demanded by urgent necessity. But what could be meant by urgent necessity, unless it alluded to the birth of children, he confesses it would be hard to say. The truth is, probably, what has been saicl by Dr*, Johnson, that the man whom Stella had the misfortune ttf love, was fond of singularity, and desirous to make a mode of happiness for himself, different from the general course of things, and the order of Providence. He wished for all the pleasures of perfect friendship, without the uneasiness of conjugal restraint. But with this state poor Stella was not satisfied; she was never treated as a wife, and to the world she had the appearance of a mistress. She lived sullenly on, hoping that in time he would own and receive her. This, as we have seen, he did at last offer to do but not till the change of his manners, and the depravation of his mind, made her tell him that it was too late.

From the death of Stella his life became much retired^ and the austerity of his temper increased; he could not enjoy his public days; these entertainments were therefore discontinued, and he sometimes avoided the company of his most intimate friends; but in time he grew more desirous of company. In 1732 he complains, in a letter to Mr. Gay, “that he had a large house, and should hardly find one visitor, if he was not able to hire him with a bottle of wine;” and, in another to Mr. Pope, that “he was in danger of dying poor and friendless, even his female friends having forsaken him; which,” as he says, “vexed him most.” These complaints were afterwards repeated in a strain of yet greater sensibility and self-pity: “All my friends have forsaken me:”

As he lived much in solitude, he frequently amused himself with writing; and it is very remarkable, that although his mind was greatly depressed, and his principal enjoyment was at an end when Mrs. Johnson died, yet there is aji air of levity and trifling in some of the pieces he wrote afterwards, that is not to be found in any other: such in particular are his “Directions to Servants,” and several of his letters to his friend Dr. Sheridan. In 1733, when the attempt was made to repeal the test act in Ireland, the Dissenters often affected to call themselves brother-protestants, and fellow-christians, with the members of the established church. Upon this occasion the dean wrote a short copy of verses, which so provoked one Bettesworth, a lawyer, and member of the Irish parliament, that he swore, in the hearing of many persons, to revenge himself either by murdering or maiming the author; and, for this purpose, he engaged his footman, with two ruffians, to secure the dean wherever he could be found. This being known, thirty of the nobility and gentry within the liberty of St. Patrick’s waited upon the dean in form, and presented a paper subscribed with their names, in which they solemnly engaged, in behalf of themselves and the rest of the liberty, to defend his person and fortune, as the friend and benefactor of his country. When this paper was delivered, Swift was in bed, deaf and giddy, yet made a shift to dictate a proper answer. These fits of deafness and giddiness, which were the effects of his surfeit before he was twenty years old, became more frequent and violent in proportion as he grew into years: and in 1736, while he was writing a satire on the Irish parliament, which he called “The Legion Club,” he was seized with one of these fits, the effect of which was so dreadful, that he left the poem unfinished, and never afterwards attempted a composition, either in verse or prose, that required a course of thinking, or perhaps more than one sitting to finish.

From this time his memory was perceived gradually to decline, and his passions to pervert his understanding; and in 1741, he was so very bad as to be utterly incapable of conversation. Strangers were not permitted to approach him, and his friends found it necessary to have guardians appointed of his person and estate. Early in 1742, his reason was subverted, and his rage became absolute madness. In October his left eye swelled to the size of an egg, and several large boils broke out on his arms and body; the extreme pain of which kept him awake near a month, and during one week it was with difficulty that five persons restrained him, by mere force, from pulling out his eyes. Upon the subsiding of these tumours, he knew those about him; and appears so far to have recovered his understanding and temper, that there were hopes he might once more enjoy society. These hopes, however, were but of short duration; for, a few days afterwards, he sunk into a state of total insensibility, and could not, without great difficulty, be prevailed on to walk across the room. This was the effect of another bodily disease, his brain being loaded with water. Mr. Stevens, an ingenious clergyman lin, pronounced this to be the case during his illness; and, upon opening his body, it appeared that he was not mistaken. After the dean had continued silent a whole year in this state of helpless idiotism, his housekeeper went into his room on the 30th of November in the morning, and told him, “it was his birth-day, and that bonfires and illuminations were preparing to celebrate it as usual:” to which he immediately replied, “It is all folly; they had better let it alone.” Some other instances of short intervals of sensibility and reason, after his madness ended in stupor, seem to prove, that his disorder, whatever it was, had not destroyed, but only suspended, the powers of his mind. In 1744, he now and then called his servant by name; and once attempting to speak to him, but not being able to express his meaning, he shewed signs of much uneasiness, and at last said, “I am a fool.” Once afterwards, as his servant was taking away his watch, he said, “Bring it here:” and when the same servant was breaking a large hard coal, he said, “That is a stone, you blockhead.” From this time he was perfectly silent till the latter end of October 1745, and then died, without the least pang or conYu4sion, in the seventy-eighth year of his age.

His works have been printed often, and in various forms, and from them it is easy to collect his character. Of these the most elegant is in fourteen vols. 4to; a kind of variorum edition, of which eight were published by Dr. Hawkesworth, three by Deane Swift, esq. and three by Mr. Nichols. These have been reprinted in twenty-five volumes large 8vo; in twenty-seven volumes of a smaller 8vo \ and also in twenty-seven volumes 18mo. In 1784 a new edition was printed, in seventeen volumes 8vo, with an elaborate, but most injudicious Life, or rather panegyric on him, by the editor, T. Sheridan, which occupies the first volume; since which two editions, very much improved, have been published, in nineteen volumes 8vo, under the superintendence of Mr. Nichols, whose original care and judgment in collecting information respecting Swift, and procuring inedited portions of his works, has never relaxed, and never been exceeded.

There are some particulars relating to Swift’s conversation and manners which may not improperly conclude thi article. He had a rule never to speak more than a minu at a time, and to wait for others to take up the conversetion. He greatly excelled in punning and he used to say, “that none despised that talent, but those who were without it.” He excelled no less in telling a story, but in the latter part of his life he used to tell the same too often: he never dealt in the double entendre, or profaneness upon sacred subjects. He loved to have ladies in the company, because it preserved, he said, the delicacy of conversation: yet it is certain there are in his writings the greatest indelicacies. He kept his friends in some degree of awe, yet was more open to admonition than flattery. Though he appeared churlish and austere to his servants, yet he was in reality a most kind and generous master; and he was also very charitable to the poor. In the mean time, it must be owned, that there was not any great softness or sympathy in his nature; although, perhaps, not quite so much misanthropy as appears in his writings: and all allow, that he grew covetous, as he grew old. As an ecclesiastic, he was scrupulously exact in the exercise of his function, as well with regard to spiritual as temporal things. His manner was without ceremony, but not rustic; for he had a perfect knowledge of all the modes and variations of politeness, though he practised them in a manner peculiar to himself. He was naturally temperate, chaste, and frugal; and being also high-spirited, and considering wealth as the pledge of independence, it is not strange that his frugality should verge towards avarice.

As to his political principles, if his own account may be taken, he abhorred Whiggisrn only in those who made it consist in damning the church, reviling the clergy, abetting the dissenters, and speaking contemptuously of revealed religion. He always declared himself against a popish successor to the crown, whatever title he might have by proximity of blood; nor did he regard the right line upon any other account, than as it was established by law, and had much weight in the opinions of the people. That he was not at any time a bigot to party, or indiscriminately transferred his resentment from principles to persons, was. so evident by his conduct, that he was often rallied by the ministers, for never coming to them without a Whig in his sleeve; and though he does not appear 'to have asked any thing for himself, yet he often pressed lord Oxford in favour of Addison, Congreve, Rowe, and Steele. He frequently conversed with all these, choosing his friends by their personal merit, without any regard to their political principles; and, in particular, his friendship with Mr. Addison continued inviolable, and with as much kindness, as when they used to meet at lord Halifax’s or lord Somers’s, who were leaders of the opposite party.

By his will, dated in May 1740, just before he ceased to be a reasonable being, he left about 1200l. in legacies and the rest of his fortune, which amounted to about 11,000l. to erect and endow an hospital for idiots and lunatics. He was buried in the great aile of St. Patrick’s cathedral, under a stone of black marble, inscribed with the following Latin epitaph. It was written by himself, and gives a dreadful picture of the state of mind which could dictate such words on such an occasion

, a near relation to the celebrated dean of St. Patrick’s, being grandson to Godwin Swift, the dean’s uncle, was in 1739 recommended by Swift to the notice of Pope, as “the most valuable of any in his family.” “He was first,” says the dean, “a student in this university [Dublin], and finished his studies in Oxford, where Dr. King, principal of St. Mary Hall, assured me, that Mr. Swift behaved with reputation and credit: he hath a very good taste for wit, writes agreeable and entertaining verses, and is a perfect master, equally skilled in the best Greek and Roman authors. He hath a true spirit for liberty, and with all these advantages is extremely decent and modest. Mr. Swift is heir to a little paternal estate of our family at Goodrich, in Herefordshire. He is named Deane Swift, because his great grandfather, by the mother’s side, was admiral Deane, who, having been one of the regicides, had the good fortune to save his neck by dying a year or two before the Restoration.” He published, in 1755, “An Essay upon the Life,' Writings, and Character of Dr. Jonathan Swift;” in 1765, the eighth quarto volume of the dean’s works; and, in 1763, two volumes of his “Letters.” Mr. Swift died at Worcester, July 12, 1783: he had long meditated a complete edition of his relation’s works, and had by him many new materials for that purpose.

, a law writer, of the seventeenth century, was the son of Thomas Swinburne of the city of York, where he was born. In his sixteenth year he was sent to Oxford, and entered a commoner of Hart-hall, whence after some time he removed to Broadgate-hall, now Pembroke college, and there took his degree of bachelor of civil law. Before he left the university he married Helena, daughter of Bartholomew Lant, of Oxford, and being then obliged to quit the college, he returned to York, and practised in the ecclesiastical courts as proctor. He afterwards commenced doctor of civil law, and became very eminent in his profession. On Feb. 10, 1612, he was advanced to be commissary of the Exchequer, and judge of the prerogative court of the province of York, in which office he continued till his death. Of this event we have no direct memorial; but, as his will was proved June 12, 1624, we may presume he died about that time. He was buried in the cathedral of York, leaving his dwelling house in York to his son Toby, and a benefaction to the poor of the city. It appears he was twice married, and that his second wife’s name was Wentworth. He wrote a “Treatise of Spousals, or Matrimonial contracts,” which was not published until 1686, 4to; but his more celebrated work was his “Treatise of Testaments and Last Wills, compiled out of the laws, ecclesiastical, civil, and canon, as also out of the common laws, customs, and statutes of this realm.” This work has passed through seven editions, 4to. 1590, 1611, 1635, 1677, 1728, fol. corrected and much en- x larged in 1743, and lastly in 1803, with valuable annotations illustrative of the subject to the present time, by the Jate John Joseph Powell, esq. and prepared for the press by James Wake, esq. in 3 vols. 8vo. Mr. Hargrave observes, that there is a curious dissertation on the customs of York, in respect to filial portions, which forms a valuable part of the work, but which is not contained in the first edition, having been afterwards added by Swinburne. Mr. Hargrave also complains that his later editors have not been careful to distinguish their own enlargements from what belongs to the author, but this is not the case in Powell’s edition, whose annotations are printed distinct from Swinburne’s text.

, a learned traveller, and probably a descendant of the preceding, was the youngest son of the late sir John Swinburne, bart. of Capheaton, in Northumberland, the long-established seat of that ancient Roman Catholic family. He was educated at Scorton school, in Yorkshire, and afterwards studied at Paris, Bourcleaux, and in the royal academy at Turin. He made the usual tour of Italy; and, in 1774, travelled with his lady on the Continent, for the express purpose of indulging their taste for antiquities and the fine arts. He spent six years in France, Spain, Italy, and Germany; formed an intimacy with some of the most celebrated literati of those coun­^ries, and received some signal marks of esteem from the sovereigns of the courts he visited. On his return to England he retired to his seat at Hamsterley, in the bishopric of Durham, which thenceforth became his principal residence. He published his Travels in Spain in a quarto volume, 1779; four years after, vol. I. of his Travels in the Two Sicilies, and a lid two years after. Both these works have been reprinted in octavo, the first in two, the other in four, volumes, with improvements. The learning and ingenuity of Mr. Swinburne have been generally acknowledged, and the warmth and animation of his descriptions discover an imagination highly susceptible of every bounty of nature or art; but he is perhaps too apt to relinquish simplicity for profusion of ornament. He was the first who brought us intimately acquainted with Spain, and the arts and monuments of its ancient inhabitants. By the marriage of his only daughter to Paul Benfield, esq. he became involved in the misfortunes of that adventurer, and obtained a place in the newly-ceded settlement of Trinidad, where he died in April 1803. His library had been sold by auction, by Leigh and Sotheby, the preceding year.

, a very celebrated English antiquary, was a native of the county of Chester, and the son of John Swinton, of Bexton in that county, gent. He was born in 1703. The circumstances of his parents were probably not affluent, as he was entered at Oxford in the rank of a servitor at Wadham college, in October 1719. It may be presumed that he recommended himself in that society by his talents and behaviour, for, on June 30, 1723, he was elected a scholar on a Cheshire foundation in the college. In the December following he took his first degree in arts. Before he became master of arts (which was on Dec. 1, 1726), he had chosen the church for his profession, and was ordained deacon by the bishop of Oxford, May 30, 1725; and was afterwards admitted to priest’s orders on May 28, 1727. He was not long without some preferment, being admitted to the rectory of St. Peter le Bailey in Oxford (a living in the gift of the crown), under a sequestration, and instituted to it in February 1728. In June the same year, he was elected a fellow of his college; but, desirous probably to take a wider view of the world, he accepted, not long after, the appointment of chaplain to the English factory at Leghorn, to which he had been chosen. In this situation he did not long enjoy his health, and, leaving it on that account, he was at Florence in April 1733, where he attended Mr. Coleman, the English envoy, in his last moments. Mr. Swinton returned through Venice and Vienna; and, in company with some English gentlemen of fortune, visited Presburg in Hungary, and was present at one of their assemblies.

It is possible that he had not quitted England in the summer of 1730, for he was elected a fellow of the Royal Society in June that year, and admitted about three months later. It was probably while he was abroad that he was admitted into some foreign societies, namely the academy degli Apatisti at Florence, and the Etruscan academy of Cortona. On his return he seems to have taken up his abode at Oxford, where he resided all the latter part of his life, and was for many years chaplain to the gaol in that city. It may be presumed that he married in 1743; it was then at least that he gave up his fellowship. In 1759 he became bachelor of divinity; in 1767 he was elected -Gustos Archivorum, or keeper of the university records; and, on April 4, 1777, he died, in the seventy-fourth year of his age, leaving no children. His wife survived till 1784, and both were buried, with a very short and plain inscription, in the chapel of Wadham college.

In 1740 Mr. Swinton was involved in a law-suit, in consequence of a letter he had published. It appears from one of the newspapers of the time, that a letter from the Rev. Mr. Swinton, highly reflecting on Mr. George Baker, having fallen into the hands of the latter, the court of King’s Bench made the rule absolute for an information against Mr. Swinton. These two gentlemen were also engaged for some time in a controversy at Oxford; which took its rise from a matter relative to Dr. Thistlethwaite, some time warden of Wadham, which then attracted much attention. Mr. Swinton had the manners, and some of the peculiarities often seen in very recluse scholars, which gave rise to many whimsical stories. Among the rest, there is one mentioned by Mr. Boswell, in the Life of Johnson, as having happened in 1754. Johnson was then on a visit in the university of Oxford. “About this time,” he says, “there had been an execution of two or three criminals at Oxford, on a Monday. Soon afterwards, one day at dinner, I was saying that Mr. Swinton, the chaplain of the gaol, and also a frequent preacher before the university, a learned man, but often thoughtless and absent, preached the condemnation sermon on repentance, before the convicts on the preceding day, Sunday; and that, in the close, he told his audience that he should give them the remainder of what he had to say on the subject, the next Lord’s-day. Upon which, one of our company, a doctor of divinity, and a plain matter-of-fact man, by way of offering an apology for Mr. Swinton, gravely remarked, that he had probably preached the same sermon before the university:” Yes, sir, (says Johnson,) but the university were not to be hanged the next morning"

, a landscape painter, was born at Antwerp, about 1630, and brought up in that city under his father. He was a close imitator of nature in all his landscapes; and in his younger days went upon the Rhine and other adjacent places, where he drew several pleasant views in water-colours. Having spent more of his life in that way, than in painting, his drawings were more valued than his pictures. The duke of Buckingham, passing through the Netherlands, in his way home from his embassy into France, stayed some time at Antwerp; where, meeting with some of this master’s works, he was so well pleased with them, that he invited him over to England, and employed him at Cliefden. Sybrecht continued in his service three or four years, and then worked for the nobility and gentry of England, continuing in vogue a long time. He drew several sorts of cattle remarkably well, and usually contrived to place some of them in his landscapes. He died in London about 1703, and was buried in St. James’s church. There are some of his pictures at Newstede-abbey, lord Byron’s, and in other houses belonging to the nobility. In 1686 he made several views of Chatsvvorth.

, deserves a fuller account than can now be given of a learned and diligent man, unfortunately altogether un patronized, who undertook, and in part executed, a translation of the works of Plato. His proposals for this great undertaking were published in a quarto tract in 1759; and he produced successively, between that time and 1767, translation of the “lo, a discourse on poetry,” of “The Greater Hippias,” “The Lesser Hippias,” “The Banquet, Part I.” and “The Banquet, Part II.” He is said to have lived for some years, and finally to have died, in great indigence. The Gentleman’s Magazine places his death on April the 1st, 1787, and adds, that he was born in 1710, and educated at Wadham college, Oxford, where he took the degree of M. A. April 30, 1734. In an account published by the society called the Literary Fund, the following narrative of his death is given: “During the summer recess of the year 1788, an event took place, which tarnished the character of English opulence and humanity, and afflicted the votaries of knowledge. Floyer Sydenham, the well-known translator of Plato, one of the most useful, if not one of the most competent Greek scholars of his age; a man revered for his knowledge, and beloved for the candour of his temper and the gentleness of his manners, died in consequence of having been arrested, and detained, for a debt to a victualler, who had, for some time, furnished his frugal dinner. At the news of that event, every friend of literature felt a mixture of sorrow and shame; and one of the members of a club at the prince of Wales’s coffeehouse proposed, that it should adopt, as its object and purpose, some means to prevent similar afflictions, and to assist deserving authors and their families in distress.” Whether the account reported to these gentlemen, of the time and manner of Sydenham’s death was accurate or not, the friends of literature and humanity will feel great consolation in finding that it gave occasion to a society so benevolent in its designs; which arose 3 after a few changes and modifications, out of the proposal above-mentioned. The society is now in a flourishing and improving state, and has given very timely and important assistance to many deserving authors.

, a very eminent physician, and one of the most eminent as an improver of the art that England has produced, was born in 1624 at Winford Eagle in Dorsetshire, where his father William Sydenham, esq. had a large fortune. Under whose care he was educated, or in what manner he passed his childhood, is not known. At the age of eighteen, in 1642, he entered* as a commoner of Magdalen -hall, Oxford, where it is not probable that he continued long; for he informs us himself, that he was withheld from the university by the commencement of the war; nor is it very clearly known in what state of life he engaged, or where he resided during that long series of public commotion. It is indeed reported, that he had a commission in the king’s army*, but no particular account is given of his military conduct; nor are we told what rank he obtained (unless that of a captain), when he entered into the army, or when or on what occasion he retired from it. It is certain, however, that if ever he took upon him the profession of arms, he spent but few years in the camp; for in 1648 he obtained at Oxford the degree of bachelor of physic, for which, as some medical knowledge is necessary, it may be imagined that he spent some time in qualifying himself.

His application to the study of physic was, as he himself relates, produced by an accidental acquaintance with Dr. Cox, a physician eminent at that time in London, who in some sickness prescribed to his brother, and, attending him frequently on that occasion, inquired of him what profession he designed to follow. The young man answering that he was undetermined, the doctor recommended physic to him, and Sydenham having determined to follow his advice, retired to Oxford for leisure and opportunity to pursue his studies.

It is evident, says his biographer, that this conversation must have happened before his promotion to any degree in physic, because he himself fixes it in the interval of his absence from the university, a circumstance which will enable us to confute many false reports relating to Dr. Sydenham, which have been confidently inculcated, and implicitly believed. It is the general opinion, that he was made a physician by accident and necessity; and sir Richard Blackmore reports in plain terms (in the preface to his "Treatise on the Small-Pox 1 *), that he engaged in practice without any preparatory study, or previous knowledge,

been in the parliamentary army, in Wood, our earliest authority. of the medicinal sciences; and affirms, that, when he was consulted by him what books he should read to qualify him for the same profession, he recommended Don Quixote. That he recommended Don Quixote to Blackrnore, we are not, continues Dr. Johnson, to doubt; but the relater is hindered by that self-love which dazzles all mankind, from discovering that he might intend a satire very different from a general censure of all the ancient and modern writers’on medicine, since he might perhaps mean, either seriously or in jest, to insinuate, that Blackmore was not adapted by nature to the study of physic, and that, whether he should read Cervantes, or Hippocrates, he would be equally unqualified for practice, and equally unsuccessful in it. Whatever was his meaning, nothing is more evident, than that it was a transitory sally of an imagination warmed with gaiety, or the negligent effusion of a mind intent on some other employment, and in haste to dismiss a troublesome intruder for it is certain that Sydenham did not think it impossible to write usefully on medicine, because he has himself written upon it and it is not probable that he carried his vanity so far, as to imagine that no man had ever acquired the same qualifications besides himself. He could not but know that he had rather restored than invented most of his principles, and therefore could not but acknowledge the value of those writers whose doctrines he adopted and enforced.

That he engaged in the practice of physic without any acquaintance with the theory, or knowledge of the opinions or precepts of former writers, is undoubtedly false, for he declares that after he had, in pursuance of his conversation with Dr. Cox, determined upon the practice of physic, he applied himself in earnest to it, and spent several years in the university, before he began to practise in London. Nor was he satisfied with the opportunities of knowledge which Oxford afforded, but travelled to Montpellier, as Desault relates (“Dissertation on Consumptions” ), in quest of farther information, Montpellier being at that time the most celebrated school of physic. It is a common opinion that he was thirty years old before he formed his resolution of studying physic; but this arises from the misrepresentation of an expression in his dedication to Dr. Mapletoft, in which he observes that from his conversation with Dr. Cox to the publication of that treatise thirty years had intervened. The facts already related sufficiently confute this error, since it appears that Sydenham, after having been for some time absent from the university, returned to it in order to pursue his physical inquiries before he was twenty-four years old; for in 1648, when exactly of that age, he was admitted to the degree of M.B.

Among other reports respecting this great man, it has also been said that he composed his works in English, but was obliged to have recourse to Dr. Mapletoft to translate them into Latin. This has been asserted by Ward in his Lives of the Gresham professors, but without bringing any proof*; and it is observable that his “Processus Integri,” published after his death, discovers alone more skill in the Latin language than is commonly ascribed to him. It is likewise asserted by sir Hans Sloane, with whom he was familiarly acquainted, that Dr. Sydenham was particularly versed in the writings of the great Roman orator and philosopher; and there is evidently such a luxuriance in his style, as may discover the author who gave him most pleasure, and most engaged his imitation.

namely that Syilrnbam was not ca- king. There was r,olhing therefore in

Dr. Sydenham, however, was not destined for long life. His health began to fail in the fifty-second year of his age, by frequent attacks of the gout, to which he had long been subject, and which afterwards was accompanied with the stone in the kidneys, and its natural consequence, bloody urine. These were distempers, says his elegant biographer, which even the art of Sydenham could only palliate, without hope of a perfect cure, but which, if he has not been able by his precepts to instruct us to remove, he has, at least, by his example taught us to bear; for he never betrayed any indecent impatience, or unmanly dejection, under his torments, but supported himself by the reflections of philosophy, and the consolations of religion, and in every interval of ease applied himself to the assistance of others with his usual assiduity. After a life thus usefully employed, he died at his house in Pall-mall, Dec. 29, 1689, in the sixty-fifth year of his age, and was buried in the aile, near the south door, of the church of St. James’s, Westminster.

His works have been collected and frequently printed at London in one volume 8vo. The last edition is that by John Swan, M. D. of Newcastle in Staffordshire, 1742. To this is prefixed a life of Dr. Sydenham, by Dr. Johnson, which we have chiefly followed in the preceding account. His works were also printed at Leipsic in J 711, at Geneva in 1716, in 2 vols. 4to, and at Leyden in 8vo. They were written by himself in English, but translated afterwards into Latin, of which it is our opinion he was fully capable, although these translations, as already noticed, have been attributed to Dr. Mapletoft and others. The last English edition is that by Dr. George Wallis, 1788, 2 vols. 8vo, with notes and opinions of subsequent medical writers. Sydenham has frequently been called the father of physic among the moderns. He tells us, in the preface to his works, that “the increase and perfection of the medical art is to be advanced by these two means: by composing an history of distempers, or a natural and exact description of distempers and their symptoms; and by deducing and establishing a method of cure from thence.” This is the way which that great delineator of the right road to real knowledge in all its various branches, lord Bacon, had pointed out; and its being more closely pursued by Sydenham than by any modern physician before him, is what has justly entitled him to those high encomiums which have ever been paid him. Sir Richard Blackmore allows, and all are now convinced, that Sydenham, “who built all his maxims and rules of practice upon repeated observations on the nature and properties of diseases, and the power of remedies, has compiled so good an history of distempers, and so prevalent a method of cure, that he has improved and advanced the healing art much more than Dr. Willis with all his curious speculations and fanciful hypotheses.” He relates of himself, in his dedication to Dr. Mapletoft, that ever since he had applied himself to the practice of physic, he had been of opinion, and the opinion had been every day more and more confirmed in him, that the medical art could not be learned so surely as by use and experience; and that he, who should pay the nicest and most accurate attention to the symptoms of distempers, would infallibly succeed best in searching out the true means of cure. “For this reason,” says he, “I gave myself up entirely to thjs method of proceeding, perfectly secure and confident, that, while 1 followed nature as my guide, I could never err.” He tells him afterwards, that Mr. Locke approved his method, which he considered as no small sanction to it; and what he says upon this occasion of Mr. Locke is worth transcribing: “Nosti prseterea, quern huic meiE methodo suffragantem habeam, qui earn intimius per omnia perspexerat, utrique nostrum conjunctissimum dominum Joannem Locke; quo quidem viro, sive ingenio judicioque acri & subacto, sive etiam antiquis, hoc est, optimis moribus, vix superiorem quenquam, inter eos qui nunc.sunt homines repertum in confido; paucissimns rertci pares.” There are some Latin elegiac verses by Mr. Locke, addressed to Sydenham, prefixed to his 4< Treatise upon Severs." Mr. Granger has remarked that Sydenham received higher honours from foreign physicians than from his countrymen. This, however, applies only to his contemporaries, for no modern English physician has ever mentioned Sydenham unless in terms of high veneration. The encomiums of Boerhaave and Haller are well known to medical readers. His great merit consists in the accurate descriptions which he has left us of several diseases which first became conspicuous in his time. His account of the smallpox, and of his medical treatment of that disease, is admirable, and contributed in no small degree to establish his celebrity. He was the first person who introduced the cooling regimen in fevers, a method of treatment frequently attended with the happiest effects, though it must be acknowledged that he did not sufficiently distinguish between the typhus and the inflammatory fever, and on that account he sometimes carried his bleedings to an excess. He contributed also essentially to introduce the Peruvian bark as a cure for intermittents.

He had an elder brother William, who was some time gentleman commoner of Trinity college in Oxford, and, entering into the parliament’s army, acquitted himself so well, that he rose, by several gradations, to the highest post and dignities. In 1649, he was appointed governor of the Isle of Wight, and made vice-admiral of that isle and Hampshire. In 1653, he was summoned to parliament for Dorsetshire; in 1654, made commissioner of the treasury, and member of the privy-council; and in 1658, summoned to parliament by the protector Richard Cromwell. This connection, together with his own principles and former engagements, would probably hinder Dr. Sydenham from being a very popular physician, during the period of his flourishing, that is, in the reigns of Charles II. and James II.; yet he seems to hare owed more of his neglect to the envy of his contemporary brethren.

His biographer remarks that Dr. Sydenham’s skill in physic “was not his highest excellence that his whole character was amiable that his chief view was the benefit of mankind, and the chief motive of his actions the will of God, whom he mentions with reverence, well becoming the most enlightened and most penetrating mind. He was benevolent, candid, and communicative, sincere, and religious qualities, which it were happy if they could copy from him, who emulate his knowledge, and imitate liia methods.”

, a divine of the church of England, but to whom that church was little indebted, was the son of Mr. Arthur Sykes, of Ardely or Yardly in Hertfordshire, and was born in London about 1684. He was educated at St. Paul’s school under the celebrated Mr. Postlethwayte, and was admitted of Corpus Christi college, Cambridge, in 1701, under the care of the rev; Charles Kidman, B. D. tutor of that college. In Feb. 1701-2 he was appointed a scholar of the house. While an undergraduate he wrote some Hebrew verses on the death of king William, which were printed in the Cambridge collection on that occasion. He took the degree of B. A. in 1704-5, and proceeded M. A. in 1708, After leaving college he was employed for some time as one of the assistants at St. Paul’s school, but quitted this situation as inconsistent with the prosecution of his private studies. In 1712-13 he was collated to the vicarage of Godmersham in Kent by archbishop Tenison, who had a great personal regard for him, and was a generous patron to the members of Corpus Christi) of which he had himself been fellow. In April 1714 he was instituted to the rectory of Dry-Dray ton in Cambridgeshire, on the presentation of the duchess dowager of Bedford, and in August following he resigned his vicarage of Godmersham in Kent. In Nov. 1718, he was instituted to the rectory of Rayleigh in Essex, which he retained to his death, but now resigned the living of DryDrayton. In Dec. following, at a meeting of the governors and directors of King-street chapel, Golden-square, he was unanimously appointed afternoon preacher at that place, which is a chapel of ease to St. James’s Westminster, of which his friend Dr. Clarke was then rector. In 1721, on the morning preachership becoming vacant by Dr. Wilcocks’s promotion to the see of Gloucester, Mr. Sykes was unanimously appointed to succeed him. In January 1723-4 he was collated to the prebend of AltonBorealis in the cathedral of Salisbury, by bishop Hoadly, and three years afterwards his lordship appointed him to the pnrcentorship of the same cathedral, vacant by the death of their common friend Dr. Daniel Whitby. In April 1725, upon the nomination of Dr. Clarke, he was appointed assistant preacher at St. James’s church, Westminster. In 1726 he proceeded to take the degree of D. D. in the university of Cambridge. In Feb. 1739 he was advanced to the deanry of St. Burien in Cornwall, which is in the patronage of the crown; and on October 15, 1740, he was collated to a prebend in the cathedral of Winchester, through the friendship of his former patron bishop Hoadly, who had been translated to the see of Winchester in 1734. His ecclesiastical promotions seem to have ended here.

During many years Dr. Sykes had been greatly afflicted with the gout and stone, but had received much relief from the pains of the latter disorder, for fifteen or sixteen years before his death, by the medicine purchased by parliament of Mrs. Stephens, for the public use. And upon the whole he enjoyed a general state of good health and spirits, until he was seized with a stroke of the palsy, while attending the funeral of a friend, on Monday evening, Nov. 15, 1756, and died, at his house in Cavendish-square, at two o'clock in the afternoon of Tuesday the 23d, in the seventythird year of his age. He was buried near the pulpit in the parish church of St. James’s Westminster 6n the 30th of November. Dr. Gregory Sharpe, who succeeded him in King-street chapel, and was afterwards master of the Temple, and who had long been in habits of friendship with the deceased, officiated upon this occasion.

Dr. Sykes had been married many years to Mrs. Elizabeth Williams, a widow lady, and a native of Bristol, but had no children by her. He left the whole of his fortune, which was considerable, to her for life, and afterwards to his brother the rev. George Sykes, rector of Rayleigh in Essex, and vicar of Preston in Kent. Mrs. Sykes died in January 1763, and was buried near her husband in St r James’s church.

Dr. Sykes was a divine of the school of Clarke and Hoadly 3 who, while they made it the business of their lives to oppose the distinguishing doctrines of the established church, were content to enjoy both its dignities and emoluments. Such men have been well represented by an ingenious critic , as holding a grand debate between conviction and interest, and endeavouring to accommodate matters with as much ease as possible between both; a sort of half-way reformers, who endeavour to find out the secret band which will unite the two opposite extremes, and coalesce, in one mass, the most heterogeneous qualities of inward persuasion and outward profession. They subscribe articles which they do not believe, and reconcile it to their conscience by calling them articles of peace and not of faith; and by this principle of accommodation they endeavour to secure the character of the “children of light,” without wholly relinquishing the good things which fall to the share of the “children of the world.”

Such was Dr. Sykes, who in all his controversial writings (and the greater part of his writings were of that kind) endeavoured.- to lay open the church to persons of the most opposite sentiments, especially those approaching the Socinian scheme, and therefore argues in one of his tracts, that “a latitude of opinion is intended and allowed by the legislature to subscribers, as they are members of the church of England,” which the more recent author of “The Confessional” has amply refuted. It was of course very natural for Dr. Sykes, at a subsequent period, to maintain, in other pamphlets, that the fences which the church has determined to secure against innovation are of no importance.

His publications amount in the whole to sixty-three. Most of these are only pamphlets on temporary topics, and are now little known or sought after; but the following have been thought to possess a more permanent character: “Essay on the Truth of the Christian Religion; wherein its real foundation upon the Old Testament is shown” this was published in 1725 against Collins; and “The principles and connexion bf Natural and Revealed Religion distinctly considered,” 1740, 8vo.

, a learned German, eminent for his great skill in Greek, was born at Marpurg, in the landgraviate of Hesse, in 1546, or, as Saxius says, 1536. His father, who was a farmer, gave him a liberal education, of which he made so good a use, as to become perfect in the Latin, French, and Greek languages, at a time when the latter was understood by very few. He was a school-master at Licha, for some of the first years of his life; but afterwards quitted that employment, and applied himself wholly to the revision and correction of ancient authors, the Greek particularly; many of which, still held in estimation, were published by him, from the presses of Wechel and Commelin. Among these were Aristotle, Herodotus, Dionysius Halicarnassensis, Dion Cassius, Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Theodoret, &c. He gave some assistance to Henry Stephens in compiling his ^ Thesaurus Graecoe linguae;“and was also the author of a Greek grammar, which was much valued, a Hebrew grammar, notes upon Clenardus, &c. For these and other services, he had an arinual stipend allowed him by the university of Marpurg. He was universally well spoken of by the learned, and died much lamented by them in 1596.” Unhappy event,“says Casaubon,” to the republic of letters for, a few days before his death, he sent me word by Commelin of many new labours projected and begun. The lovers of Greek have more especially reason to deplore the loss of him."

, the laborious and quaint translator of Du Bartas, was born in 1563, and died September 28, 1618. His death happened at Middleburg in Holland. By what circumstances he was induced, or compelled, to quit his native country we have not discovered; but John Vicars, his friend, who styles him “the best of Poets,” speaks of it as a reproach to his country.

He was, in 1597, a candidate for the office of secretary to the company of merchant adventurers at Stade, of which he was a member; on which occasion the unfortunate earl of Essex interested himself in his favour, and wrote two letters in his behalf, dated from the court on the last of April; a private one to Mr. Ferrers, the deputy-governor, recommending Mr. Sylvester as an able and honest man; and a general one to the company, to the same purpose, in which he mentions that he had received a very good report of his sufficiency and fitness for the post of secretary, being both well qualified with language, and many other good parts, and honest and of good conversation; two especial motives of his lordship’s request in his behalf. Sylvester’s translation of Du Bartas is dedicated to king James;^nd among those who pay him the highest compliments appears Ben Jonson, whom tradition makes an intimate friend, and, as some think, a relation. He translated also the Quatrains of Pibrac, and many other pieces of French poetry; with some from the Latin of Fracastorius, &c. One of his own pieces has the ridiculously quaint title of “Tobacco battered, and the pipes shattered, (about their ears that idlely idolize so base and barbarous a weed; or at least-wise over-love so loathsome a vanitie:) by a volley of holy shot thundered from mount Helicon.” This may be supposed to have been written to please the great enemy of tobacco, James I. Not much can now be said in favour of his compositions, either the translations, or those that are original, although he gained greater reputation from the former than the latter. Dryden tells us, in the Dedication to the Spanish Fryar, that tf when he was a boy, he thought inimitable Spenser a mean poet, in comparison of Sylvester’s Dubartas," and ^ was wrapt into an ecstacy when he read these lines

He was apparently much admired in his time, and yet was neglected so that the most probable cause for his exile was the fear of a gaol at home.

, a celebrated physician of France, was the son of Nicholas du Bois, a camblet-weaver, who had eleven sons and four daughters. He was born at Amiens in Picardy, in 1478, and went through a course of classical learning, under his elder brother Francis Sylvius; who was principal of the college of Tournay at Paris, and was a great promoter of letters in that age of barbarism. There he learned the Latin language, in much greater purity than it had been taught for a long time; and hence it was, that his writings are distinguished to such advantage by the elegance of the style. He became a very accomplished scholar in Latin and Greek, and had some little knowledge of the Hebrew; and applied himself also to mathematics and mechanics so successfully, as to invent machines, which deserved public notice. When the time was come for giving himself entirely up to physic, to which study his inclination had always led him, he traced it to its sources; and engaged so deeply in the reading of Hippocrates and Galen, that he scarcely did any thing but examine and translate those two authors. He discovered from thence the importance of anatomy, and applied himself to it so ardently, that he became as great a master as that age would permit. He studied pharmacy with no less care, and took several journeys to see, upon the spot, the medicines which different countries produce. Upon his return to Paris, he read lectures, and explained in two years a course of physic from Hippocrates and Galen; which so much extended his reputation, that scholars from all parts of Europe resorted to him. But being prohibited at last from teaching as not having taken his degree, he went to Montpellier in 1520 for that purpose, but not being willing to pay the expences of graduation, he returned to Paris, and by an agreement with the faculty, recommenced his lectures, although only a bachelor of physic. In 1535 he taught in the college of Treguier, while Fernelius taught in tbat of Cornouailles; but the latter had few scholars, while the former had about five hundred. The reason of this difference was, that Sylvius dissected bodies, and read lectures upon botany and the preparation of medicines, advantages which the scholars of Fernelius had not. The professorship of physic in the royal college becoming vacant in 1548, Sylvius was nominated to fill it; which he did, after hesitating about it two years. He continued in it till his death, which happened Jan. 13, 1555. He was never married, and shewed even an aversion to women. His personal character was particularly obnoxious. His behaviour was rude and barbarous. He had nothing social in his temper, or ever departed from a certain pompous stiffness; and it was observed that when he attempted to relax, he did it aukwardly. The only witticism related of him is, that “he had parted with three beasts, his cat, his mule, and his maid.” His avarice was extreme, and he lived in the most sordid manner: he allowed his servants nothing but dry bread, and had no fire all the winter. Two things served him as a remedy against cold; he played at foot-ball, and carried a great log upon his shoulders: and he said that the heat which he gained by this exercise was more beneficial to his health than that of a fire. He was most rigid in demanding his fees from his scholars, yet was puzzled often what to do with his money, for when, in 1616, his house in the rue de St. Jacques was pulled down, the workmen found many pieces of gold, which he had probably hid and knew not where to find. This avarice, which was his ruling passion, exposed him to the wit of his contemporaries. Buchanan has a distich on him, beginning “Sylvius hie situs est, gratis qui nil dedit unquam, &c.” and a dialogue was published under the title of “Sylvius ocreatus,” or “Sylvius booted,” of which it was thought that Henry Stephens was the author, by the assumed name of Ludovicus Arrivabenus Mantuanus. It is founded on the supposition that Sylvius, wishing to pass Acheron without paying anything, went in boots that he might ford it. This satire was answered by John Melet, one of his pupils, who adopted the name of Claudius Burgensis, and entitled his performance “Apologia in Lud. Arrivabenum pro D. J. Silvio.”

The various works of Sylvius which had been published separately were collected by Ren6 Moreau, under the title *' J. Sylvii opecp. medica in sex partes digesta, castigata, &c.“Geneva, 1630, fol. with a life of the author, the satire and answer just mentioned, and Sylvius’s Latin poetry, which first appeared in 1584, 4to. He was a strenuous adherent to Galen, except in his love of judicial astrology, which Sylvius opposed. The French have some translations from his works, to which may be added, not in the preceding volume, a Latin and French grammar printed at Paris in 1531. He lived upon very bad terms with Vesalius, who occasioned him the greatest vexation he ever suffered. Sylvius, whose excellence lay in anatomy, had prepared a work upon that subject, which he considered as a master-piece. Upon this, Vesalius published, in 1541, his” Opus Anatomicum," which was so well written, and illustrated with so many beautiful figures, that it was universally admired. Two circumstances aggravated this grievance; Vesalius had been Sylvius’s pupil; and he had attacked Galen, whom Sylvius defended, even in his errors.

, a citizen and senator of ancient Rome, and consul in the year 391, has left us ten books of epistles; from which, as well as from other things, we collect, that he was a warm opposer of the Christian religion. This he shews particularly in the sixty-first epistle of the tenth book, addressed to the emperor Valentinian, whom he petitioned in favour of paganism. He was very unfortunate, after having enjoyed a high degree of favour at court. The emperor Theodosius thought proper to desire that he would pronounce his panegyric before him; but when he heard that Symmachus had been equally liberal in his praises of the tyrant Maximus, who reigned before him, and to whom Theodosius himself had submitted from political motives, he banished Symmachus, and persecuted him so even in his exile, that with all his prejudices in favour of paganism, he was obliged to take refuge in a Christian church to save his life. Ammianus Marcellinus speaks of him as a man of great learning and modesty; and his epistles shew him to have been a man of acute parts, and of eloquence, such as eloquence was in his time, that is, verbose and florid. Scioppius, Pareus, and other learned men, have written notes upon the epistles of Symmachus: 'but we know of no later edition of them than that of Leyden, 1653, 12mo. The first edition, which has no date, but probably was printed between 1503 and 1513, is very rare and valuable. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, wrote against Symmachus; and so did the Christian poet Prudentius.

, an ancient fathei: and bishop of the Christian church, flourished at the beginning of the fifth century. He was born at Cyrene in Africa, a town situated upon the borders of Egypt, and afterwards travelled to th neighbouring country for improvement, where he happily succeeded in his studies under the celebrated female philo-r sopher Hypatia, who presided at that time over the Platonic school at Alexandria, where also the eminent mathematicians Theon, Pappus, and Hero taught. Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople, who wrote annotations on a piece of Synesius, called “De insomniis,” represents him as a man of prodigious parts and learning and says, that “there was nothing he did not know, no science wherein he did not excel, no mystery in which he was not initiated and deeply versed.” His works are in high esteem with the curious; and his epistles, in Suidas’s opinion, are admirable, and in that of Photius, as well as Evagrius, “elegant, agreeable, sententious, and learned.' 1 Synesius was a man of noble birth, which added no less weight to his learning, than that reflected lustre on his quality; and both together procured him great credit and authority. He went, about the year 400, upon an embassy, which lasted three years, to the emperor Arcadius at Constantinople, on the behalf of his country, which was miserably harassed by the auxiliary Goths and other barbarians; and it was then, as he himself tells \is, that” with greater boldness than any of the Greeks, he pronounced before the emperor an oration concerning government.“About the year 410, when the citizens of Ptolemais applied to Theophilus of Alexandria for a bishop, Synesius was appointed and consecrated, though he took all imaginable pains to decline the honour. He declared himself not at all convinced of the truth of some of the most important articles of Christianity. He was verily persuaded of the existence of the soul before its union with the body; he could not^ conceive the resurrection of the body; nor did he believe that the world should ever be destroyed. He also owned himself to have such an affection for his wife, that he would not consent, either to be separated from her, or to Jive in a clandestine manner with her; and told Theophilus, that, if he did insist upon making him a bishop, he must leave him in possession of his wife and all his notions. Theophilus at length submitted to these singular terms,” upon a presumption,“it is said,” that a man, whose life and manners were in every respect so exemplary, could not possibly be long a bishop without being enlightened with heavenly truth. Nor,“continues Cave,” was Theophilus deceived; for Synesius was no sooner seated in hit bishopric, than he easily acquiesced in the doctrine of the resurrection.“Baronius says in his Annals,” that he does not believe these singularities of Synesius to have been his real sentiments; but only that he pretended them, with a view of putting a stop to the importunities of Theophilus, and of warding off this advancement to a bishopric, which was highly disagreeable to him." That the advancement was highly disagreeable to Synesius, is very certain; but it is likewise as certain, that Baronius’s supposition is without all foundation. There is extant a letter of Synesius to his brother, of which an extract may be given, as illustrative of his character and opinions.

Besides rejecting the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, in his “Hymns” Synesius adapts the triad, or rather quaternion of the schools, to the received Christian doc* trine of the Trinity. If the language of these mystical odes, says Brucker, be compared with that of the gnostics and cabbalists, with the theology of Proclus, and the Zo-> roastrean oracles, it will be easily seen that Synesius was a more worthy disciple of Hypatia than of Jesus Christ. His works were published, together with those of Cyril of Jerusalem, by Petavius at Paris, 1612; and afterwards, with an addition of notes, in 1633, folio. They are far from being voluminous, consisting only of about one hundred and fifty epistles, and some small pieces. He is chiefly celebrated for his eloquence, an elegant specimen of wbich remains in his “Dion,” a treatise on the manner in which he instructed himself.

, a pious and learned archbishop of Tuam in Ireland, was the second son of Edward, bishop of Cork, &c. and was born April the 6th, 1659, at Inishonaner, of which parish his father was then vicar. He was educated at the grammar school at Cork, and thence admitted a commoner at Christchurch, Oxford, where he tooTt the degree of B. A. but on his father’s death returned to Ireland, and finished his studies in the university of Drabiin. His first preferment was two small parishes in the di-ocese of Meath, both together of about the yearly value of 100l. These he exchanged for the vicarage of Christchurch in the city of Cork, of the same value, but one of the most painful and laborious cures in Ireland. This he served for above twenty years, mostly without any assistant; preached twice every Sunday, catechised, and discharged all the other duties of his function. Some ecclesiastical preferments, tenable with his great cure, were given him at different times by the bishops of Cork and Cloyne, which at last increased his income to near 400l. per annum. In this situation an offer was made him by government;,' in 1699, of the deanery of Derry; but, although this uras a dignity, and double in value to all that he had, yet he; declined it from a motive of filial piety. He would not; separate himself from an aged mother, who either could not, or was unwilling, to be removed. Remaining therefore at Cork, he was chosen proctor for the chapter, in the convocation called in 1703. Soon after, the duke of Ormond, then lord-lieutenant of Ireland, gave him the crown’s title to the deanery of St. Patrick’s, in Dublin. But the chapter disputed this title, and claimed a right of election in themselves; and to assert this right, they chose Dr. John Sterne, then chancellor of the cathedral, their dean. The title of the crown being thus thought defective, and, after a full discussion of the point, found to be so,Dr. King, archbishop of Dublin, proposed an accommodation, which took place, and in consequence Dr. Sterne continued dean, and the archbishop gave the chancellorship to Mr. Synge.

This brought Mr. Synge to Dublin, though without any addition of income, or relaxation from labour, for the chancellor of St. Patrick’s, as such, has the care of the parish of St. Werburgh, one of the most populous in Dublin. This great cure Mr. Synge served for eight years, preaching almost constantly to a crowded audience. During this period he took his degree of D. D. and a new convocation being summoned in 1713, he was chosen proctor for the chapter of St. Patrick’s. On Dr. Sterne’s promotion to the see of Dromore, the archbishop of Dublin appointed Dr. Synge his vicar-general, in which office he continued until he was made bishop of Raphoe, in 17 14. His distinguished zeal for the revolution, and the Hanover succession, which had effectually obstructed his preferment in the latter years of queen Anne’s reign, now as effectually promoted it, for, in 1716, he was made archbishop of Tuam, over which see he presided about twentyfive years. He died at Tuam, July 24, 1741, aged eightytwo, and was buried in the church-yard of his own cathedral.

It is remarkable of this prelate, that he was the son of one; bishop the nephew of another, namely, George Synge, bislnop of Cloyne and the father of two bishops, Edward, bishop of Elphin, and Nicholas, bishop of Killaloe. This learned divine, in the course of his ministry, composed and published several excellent treatises for the promotion of piety and virtue; they are written in a sensible, easy, and rational manner; and have been so well received by the public, as to go through many editions. His works form altogether 4 vols. 12mo, but consist of small tracts, whi ch are all printed separately for Rivingtons and others. It has been said of archbishop Synge, that his life was as exemplary as his writings were instructive and that, “what he wrote he believed and what he believed he practised.”

, a French author, generally known by the name of the sieur des Accords, was born in 1549, was proctor for the king in the bailiage of Dijon, and has obtained a kind of fame by some very eccentric publications. That which is best known, and is said to be least exceptionable, though certainly far from being a model of purity, was first published by him at the age of eighteen, but revised and much augmented when he was about thirty-five. It is entitled “Les Bigarrures et Touches du Seigneur des Accords” to which some editions add “avec les Apophtegmes du Sieur Gaulard et les escraignes Dijonnoises;” and the best of all (namely, that of Paris, in 1614), “de nouveau augmentees deplusieurs Epitaphes, Dialogues, et ingenieuses equivoques.” It is in two volumes, 12mo, and contains a vast collection of poems, conundrums, verses oddly constructed, &c. &c. The author died in 1590, at the age of forty-one. Having one daysent a sonnet to mademoiselle Be*gar, he wrote at bottom, “Atous Accords,” instead of his name; the lady in her answer called him the Seigneur des Accords, and the president Begar frequently giving him that title afterwards, Tabourot adopted it. The Dictionnaire Htstorique places his birth in 1547, and makes him forty-three years old at his death; but in his own book is a wooden cut of him inscribed, ætat. 35, 1584, which fixes his age as we hare given it, if the true time of his death was 1590.

, a Jesuit, and a missionary from France to the court of Siam, who died in Bengal of a contagious disorder in 1694, is recorded as the author of twcr voyages to Siam, in 2 vols. at Paris, 1686 and 1689. It has, however, been since proved, that he was credulous in the extreme; was much flattered and imposed upon^ and has given a most exaggerated account of the power and wealth of the king of Siam; other narratives are therefore preferred to his. He went first with the two French ambassadors, the chevalier de Chamont, and the abbe de Choisi.

, one of the most eminent Roman historians, was born, most probably, in the year of Rome 809 or 810, or about 56 of the Christian aera; but the place of his nativity is no where mentioned. He was the son of Cornelius Tacitus, a procurator appointed by the prince to manage the Imperial revenue, and govern a province in Belgic Gaul. Where he was educated is not known; but it is evident that he did not imbibe the smallest tincture of that frivolous science, and that vicious eloquence which in his time debased the Roman genius. He most probably was formed upon the plan adopted in the time of the republic; and, with the help of a sound scheme of home-discipline, and the best domestic example, he grew up, in a course of virtue, to that vigour of mind which gives such animation to his writings. His first ambition was to distinguish himself at the bar. In the year of Rome 828, the sixth of Vespasian, being then about eighteen, he attended the eminent men of the day, in their inquiry concerning the causes of corrupt eloquence, and is supposed to have been the author of the elegant dialogue concerning oratory, usually printed with his works.

Agrieola was joint consul with Domitian in the year of Home 830, for the latter part of the year. His name does not appear in the Fasti Consulares, because that honour was reserved for the consuls who entered on their office en the kalends of January, and gave their name to -the H hole year. Tacitus, though not more than twenty, had given such an earnest of his future fame, that Agricola chose him for his son-in-law, and, thus distinguished, our ai thor began the career of civil preferment. The circumstances ofhis progress, however, are not precisely menIthongh Mr. Murphy has given us some ingenious conjectures to supply this deficiency. He was favoured by Vespasian and by Titus, and rose to preferment even under the tyrant Domitian. It would be difficult, says his biographer, to account for the success of a man who in the whole tenourof his conduct preserved an unblemished character, if he himself had not furnished a solution of the problem. Agricola, he tells us, had the address to restrain the headlong violence of Domitian, by his prudence, and the virtues of moderation: never choosing to imitate the zeal of those who, by their intemperance, provoked their fate, and rushed on sure destruction, without rendering any kind of service to their country. The conduct of Agricola plainly shewed that great men may exist in safety under the worst and most barbarous tyranny. We may be sure, that he who commends the mild disposition of his father-in-law, had the prudence to observe the same line of conduct. Instead of giving umbrage to the prince, and provoking the tools of power, he was content to display his eloquence at the bar. Domitian, however, certainly advanced our author’s fortune. It is no where mentioned that Tacitus discharged the office of tribune and aedile, but it may be presumed that he passed through these stations to the higher dignity of praetor, and member of the quindecemviral college, which he enjoyed at the secular games in the year of Rome 841, the seventh of Domitian.

In the course of the following year, our author and his wife left the city of Rome, and absented themselves more than four years. Some writers, willing to exalt the virtue of Tacitus, and aggravate the injustice of Domitian, assert, that Tacitus was sent into banishment. This, however, is mere conjecture, without a shadow of probability to support it. Tacitus makes no complaint against Domitian: he mentions no personal injury: he received marks of favour, and he acknowledges the obligation. It may, therefore, with good reason be affirmed, that prudential considerations induced our author to retire from a city, where an insatiate tyrant began to throw off all reserve, and wage open war against all who were distinguished by their talents and their virtue.

Tacitus had been four years absent from Rome when he received the news of Agricola’s death, which happened in the year of Rome 846, and of the Christian sera 93. A report prevailed that he was poisoned by the emperor’s orders; his rapid course of brilliant success in Britain having alarmed the jealousy of Domitian, who dreaded nothing so much as a great military character: but Tacitus acknowledges that this report rested on no kind of proof. After this event, however, Tacitus returned to Rome/ and from that time saw the beginning of the most dreadful aera, in which Domitian broke out with unbridled fury, and made the city of Rome a theatre of blood and horror. At length this tyrant fell the victim of a conspiracy, and was succeeded by a virtuous emperor, Nerva, in whose reign, in the year of Rome 850, Tacitus succeeded the celebrated Verginius Rufus, as consul for the remainder of the year, and for that reason, as before noticed, his name is not to be found in the Fasti Consulares. In honour of Verginius, the senate decreed, that the rites of sepulture should be performed at the public expence. Tacitus delivered the funeral oration from the rostrum, and the applause of such an orator, Pliny says, was sufficient to crown the glory of a well-spent life.

Nerva died Jan. 27, in the year of Rome 851, having, about three months before, adopted Trajan as his successor. In that short interval the critics have agreed to place the publication of the “Life of Agricola,” by Tacitus, but Mr. Murphy assigns very good reasons for referring it to the reign of Trajan. The “Treatise on the Manners of the Germans,” it is generally agreed, made its appearance in the year of Rome 851. The “Dialogue concerning Oratory” was an earlier production, and probably was published in the reign of Titus or Domitian, who are both celebrated in that piece, for their talents and their love of polite literature.

The friendship that subsisted between Tacitus and the younger Pliny, and which is well known, was founded on the consonance of their studies and their virtues. When Pliny says that a good and virtuous prince can never be sincerely loved, unless we shew our detestation of the tyrants that preceded him, we may be sure that Tacitus was of the same opinion. They were both convinced that a striking picture of former tyranny ought to be placed in contrast to the felicity of the times that succeeded. Pliny acted up to his own idea in the panegyric of Trajan, where we find a vein of satire on Domitian running through the whole piece. It appears in his letters, that he had some thoughts of writing history on the same principle, but had not resolution to undertake that arduous task. Tacitus had more vigour of mind: he thought more intensely, and with deeper penetration, than his friend. We find that he had formed, at an early period, the plan of his history, and resolved to execute it, in order to shew the horrors of slavery, and the debasement of the Roman people through the whole of Domitian’s reign. From the year of Rome 853, when along with Pliny, he pleaded in the famous cause of Priscus, the proconsul of Africa, and in behalf of those who had been oppressed by him, Tacitus appears to have dedicated himself altogether to his history. At what time it was published is uncertain, but it was in some period of the reign of Trajan, who died in the year of Rome 870, A. D. 117. In this work he began from the accession of Galba, and ended with the death of Domitian, i. e. from the year of Rome 82-2 to 849, a period of twenty-seven years. Vossius says that the whole work consisted of no less than thirty books; but, to the great loss of the literary world, we have only four books, and the beginning of the fifth. In what remains, we have little after the accession of Vespasian. The reign of Titus is totally lost, and Domitian has escaped the vengeance of the historian’s pen.

Tacitus intended, if his life and health continued, to review the reign of Augustus, in order to detect the arts by which the old constitution was overturned to make way for the government of a single ruler. This, in the hands of such a writer, would have been a curious portion of history; but it is probable he did not live to carry his design into execution. The time of his death is not mentioned by any ancient author. It seems, however, highly probable that he died in the reign of Trajan, and we may reasonably conclude that he survived his friend PJiny. The commentators assume it as a certain fact, that he must have left issue, because they find that M. Claudius Tacitus, who was created emperor in A. D. 275, deduced his pedigree from our historian; and Vopiscus telts us that he ordered the image of Tacitus, and a complete collection of his works, to be placed in the public archives, with a special direction that twelve copies should be made every year, at the public expence. But when the mutilated state, in which our author has come down to posterity is considered, there is reason to believe that the orders of this prince, who reigned only six months, were never executed.

Without entering on the merits of Tacitus as a historian, which have been the subject of very extensive discussion, we may refer to Mr. Murphy’s comprehensive view of his life and genius. It is universally acknowledged that his works are among the most precious remains of antiquity, and it is not much less universally acknowledged that he exhibits the defects as well as excellencies of the historian, The first edition of his works was published at Venice by John de Spira in 1468, containing the last six books of the “Annals,” four books of the “History,” with part of the fifth, the treatise on the “Manners of the Germans,” and the “Dialogue concerning Oratory,*' which we see has always been printed with Tacitus’ s works, although many critics have doubted whether it was his. Another edition was published in a year or two after by Franciscus Puteolanus, more correct and elegant than the former, with the addition of the life of Agricola. The first six books of the” Annals" had not then been found, but diligent search being made in all parts of Europe, they were at length discovered in the monastery of Corby in Westphalia. Leo X. purchased this treasure, and, under his patronage, Beroaldus, in 1515, gave the world a complete edition of the. whole, the manuscript having been deposited in the Florentine library. The principal subsequent editions were those of Froben, 1519, 1533, and 1544, fol.; several by Lipsius, 1574 1619; by Freinsheim, 1638 and 1664, 8vo; Elzivir, 1634, 1640, 2 vols. 12mo; the Variorum, 1672 and 1685, 2 vols. 8vo; by Rickius, 1687, 2 vols. 12mo; by Gronovius, 1721, 2 vols. 4to by Mrs. Grierson of Dublin, 1730, 3 vols. 8vo; by Ernest, 1752, 1772,2 vols. 8vo; by Lallemand, 1760, 3 vols. 12mo; by Brotier, 1771, 4 vols. 4to; by Crellius, 1779—02, 4 vols. 8vo; by Homer, 1790, 4 vols. 8vo; at Edinburgh, 1796, 4 vols. 4to and 8vo and by Oberlin, 1801, 2 vols. 8vo. Broiler’s, undoubtedly the best edition, is the model of all that followed. There have been translations of Tacitus in most European languages. His whole works have been published in English, with large political discourses annexed, by Mr. Gordon. The style of Gordon is, however, so vicious and affected, that it is impossible to read him with patience; and Tacitus has lately found a much more elegant and judicious translator in Mr. Murphy, whose work in 4 vols. 4to, was published in 1793, and has met with very general approbation. There have been in all, four English translations of Tacitus; that of Greenway and sir Henry Saville in the reign of Elizabeth that performed by Dry den and others; the translation by Gordon; and that of Murphy.

, an ingenious artist, born at Florence in 1213, was the person who introduced into Italy the art of designing in Mosaic, having learned it from some Greek artists, who were employed in the church of S. Mark at Venice. The chief of these artists was a man whose name was Apollonius. With him Taffi became associated, and they worked together at Florence, with great success. The most famous work of Taffi was a dead Christ, in a chapel at Florence; it was seven cubits long, and executed with abundance of care. He died in 1294, at the age of eighty one.

, a name mentioned with distinguished honour in the English annals, was second son to Richard lord Talbot, and was born at Blechmore in Shropshire, in the reign of king Richard II. His first summons to parliament was in the eleventh year of the reign of king Henry IV. He married Maud, the eldest of the two daughters and coheiresses of sir Thomas Nevil, by Joan, sole daughter and heiress to William lord Furnival. In the first year of Henry V. he was committed to the Tower, but far what reason we are not informed. He was, however, soon released, and constituted, in Feb. following, lord lieutenant of Ireland, and had letters of protection sent him thither by the name of sir John Talbot, knight, lord Furnival. While in this office, he took Donald Mac Murghe, an Irish rebel of considerable note and power: and afterwards brought him prisoner to the Tower of London.

Although we cannot fix the exact time of his going to France, it appears that he attended Henry V. at the siege of Caen in 1417; and the following year, in conjunction with Richard Beauchamp, earl of Warwick, lord Talbot took the strong castle of Dumfront: and was afterwards present at the siege of Rouen, on all which occasions he was esteemed one of the bravest of those officers who had contributed to the conquest of France. About 1422 we find him again in England, employed in suppressing some riots, in the counties of Salop, Hereford, &c. but he returned again to the continent before the year 1427, at which time he regained possession of the city of Mans, which had been a considerable time in the hands of the English, but had in part been retaken by the French, who were now attacked with such impetuosity, that all their troops were either killed or taken prisoners. The unexpected recovery of this important place, the capital of the province of Maine, as it was entirely owing to lord Talbot, contributed not a little to encrease his military fame. He then made himself master of the town of Laval, and having joined the earl of Warwick in the siege of Pontorson, carried that place too, which had before been the grand obstacle in preventing the regent, the duke of Bedford, from carrying the war beyond the Loire. On its surrender, the earl of Warwkk appointed lord Talbot and lord Ross governors of it.

In 1428, the earl of Warwick having returned to England, on being appointed governor to the young king Henry, Thomas Montacute, earl of Salisbury, arrived in France, and, accompanied by lord Talbot, sir John Fastolf (See Fastolf) and others, undertook the memorable siege of Orleans, in the course of which lord Talbot exhibited such striking proofs of uncommon valour, that his very name would strike terror into the French troops. The siege was long carried on with great valour on the part of the French, and the English had much reason to think that even if it concluded in their favour, the victory would be dearly purchased. They continued however to be apparently advancing towards the accomplishment of this important object, when the relative positions of the besiegers and the besieged began to assume a new appearance, in consequence of one of the most singular occurrences that is to be met with in history, namely the intervention of the celebrated maid of Orleans, Joan of Arc, whose actions have been already detailed. (See Joan.) It may suffice here to add, that when this heroine, whose valour was attributed to supernatural agency, had spread dejection throughout the English army, the earl of Suffolk raised the siege, and retreated with all imaginable precaution. He afterwards retired with a detachment of his army to Jergeau, where he was besieged by the French, attended by Joan of Arc, and, the place being taken, his lordship was made prisoner.

After the siege of Orleans was raised, lord Talbot retired to Meun, which he fortified, and then seized another town in the neighbourhood, and threw a reinforcement into Bangenci, and on the disaster of Suffolk, he succeeded to the command of the remainder of the British troops. He was now however doomed to sustain a fatal reverse in the battle of Patay, which the French, encouraged by their enthusiasm, began in so sudden a manner that the English had no time to form themselves, and were still so possessed with the opinion that their enemies were assisted by a supernatural power, that all the efforts of lord Talbot were insufficient to make them sustain the attack of the enemy. He did all that became a brave man and an able general, and his enemies were astonished at his valour, for in conjunction with the lords Scales and Hungerford, and sir Thomas Rempstone, he sustained almost the whole fury of the French attack; but the general rout of his army was at last completed by the French with great slaughter, and lord Taibot, who was wounded in the neck, was taken prisoner, together with some other officers of distinction.

Lord Talbot had sustained a tedious captivity of three years and a half in the hands of the French, when the duke of Bedford found means to have him exchanged, Feb. 12, 1433, for Xaintrailles, a French officer of great reputation; and after paying a short visit to England, his lordship resumed his command in France, and Joan of Arc’s magic having no longer any influence, she having, according to the common accounts, been put to death as an impostor, or a witch, Lord Talbot, whose name was still an object of terror, extended his conquests, and took several fortified places, with his accustomed skill and bravery. In some instances he is accused of having treated the garrisons with improper severity, and perhaps the long duration of his captivity might have contributed to increase his animosity against the enemy. Among the places he took were the castle of Joigny, Beaumont upon the Oise, Creil, Pont de Maxeme, Neufville, Rouge Maison, Crespi in Valois, Clermont, St. Dennis, and Gisors. One of his exploits was performed in a singular manner. In the beginning of H37, the weather was so extremely cold, that the generals on both sides could not undertake any regular operation in the field, yet even this lord Talbot contrived to turn to advantage. He collected a body of troops, and putting white cloths, or shirts, over their other clothes, marched with them all night, and brought them to the very walls of Pontoise, unperceived by the garrison, who did not distinguish them from the snow with which the ground was covered. They then mounted the walls by means of scaling-ladders, and seizing the chief gates, lord Talbot made himself master of this important place, which exposed the Parisians to the continual incursions of the English garrison up to the very gates of Paris.

His next conquests were Harfleur, Tankerville, Crotoy, where he defeated the troops of the duke of Burgundy, who had deserted the English interest, Longueville in Normandy, Carles, and Manille, and performed feats of great bravery, when the French attempted to recover Pontoise. In truth, all the reputation which the English arms in France still retained appears to have been almost wholly owing to the abilities, courage, and activity of lord Talbot: and in consideration of so great merit, he was advanced to the dignity of earl of Shrewsbury, his patent of creation bearing date May 20, 1442. In the following year, he was constituted one of the ambassadors to treat of peace with Charles VII. king of France; and the year after, the king acknowledging himself indebted to him in the sum of 10, M6l. 4. and a farthing, in consideration of his great services, as well to king Henry V. (his father) as to himself, botli in France and Normandy, granted, that after the sum of twenty-one thousand pounds, in which he stood indebted unto Henry the cardinal bishop of Winchester, were paid, he should receive, yearly, four hundred marks out of the customs and duties issuing from tfje port of Kingston upon Hull. He was, the same year, again retained to serve the king in his wars of France, with one baron, two knights, fourscore and sixteen men at arms, and three hundred archers, the king having given him ten thousand pounds in hand.

In 1444- he was again constituted lieutenant of Ireland, where he landed in 1446, and soon after held a parliament at Trim, in which several good laws were enacted for the security of the English. On July 17, the same year, having then the titles of earl of Shrewsbury, lord Talbot, Furnival, and Strange, “in consideration of his great services and blood spilt in the wars; as also considering the devastation and spoil done in the county and city of Waterford, and barony of Dungarvan, in the realm of Ireland, by several hostilities of the rebels; to the end that the said realm of Ireland might thenceforth be better defended and preserved, he was advanced to the title and dignity of earl of Wexford and Waterford; having the said city and county of Waterford, with the castles, honour, lands, and barony of Dungarvan, granted to him, with jura regalia, wreck, &c. from Youghal to Waterford, to hold to himself, and the heirs male of his body; and that he and they should thenceforth be stewards of that realm, to do and execute all things to that office appertaining, as fully as the steward of England did perform.” Which patent was granted by writ of privy- seal and authority of parliament. He returned to England the next year, leaving his brother Richard Taibot, archbishop of Dublin, his deputy.

In 1450, being again in the wars of France, where the good success of the English then more and more declined, he was at the surrender of Falaize, and quitted that; place on honourable terms. In 145 1 he was made general of the English fleet, then going out, having four thousand soldiers with him in that expedition; and the year following, 1452, lieutenant of the duchy of Aquitaine, having under him these captains of his men at arms and archers, viz. John Viscount Lisle (his eldest son by his second wife), sir Robert Hungerford, lord Molins, sir Roger Camoys, sir John Lisle, and the bastard of Somerset: and in consideration of his great charge in that high employment, had a grant of the thirds, and third of the thirds, which were reserved to the king upon his retainer therein. He then marched thither; took Bourdeaux, and put a garrison into it, which success caused several remote cities to submit to his authority. Hearing that the French had besieged Chastillon, he advanced thither, and gave them battle, on July 20; but the event of that day (though for a while it stood doubtful) at length proved fatal to the English; this renowned general being killed by a cannon ball, and his whole army routed.

He died on July 20, 1453, aged eighty, as the inquisition after his death shews; but the inscription, on a noble monument, erected to his memory at Whitchurch, in Shropshire, (to which his body was removed from Roan) makes his death on the 7th of that month.

He was first buried at Roan in France, together with his eldest son, and the inscription for him is thus translated “Here lyeth the right noble knt. John Talbot, earl of Shrewsbury, earl of Wexford, Waterford, and Valence, lord Talbot of Goderich and Orchenfield, lord Strange of Blackmere, lord Verdon of Alton, lord Cromwell of Wingfield, lord Lovetofte of Worsop, lord Furnival of Sheffield, lord Faulconbridge, knight of the noble orders of the garter, St. Michael, and the golden fleece, great marshal to Henry VI. of his realm of France, who died in the battle of Bourdeaux, 1453.”

It has been observed of this gallant soldier that he had been victorious in forty several battles and dangerous skirmishes. He was usually called the Achilles of England. Camden, in his “Remains,” says that his sword was "not long since found in the river of Dordon, and sold by a peasant to an armourer of Bourdeaux, with this inscription; but pardon (he adds) the Latin, for it was not his, but his camping chaplain’s

, lord high chancellor of Great Britain, descended from the noble family of Talbot, was the son of William , bishop of Durham, and was born in 168k In 1701 he was admitted a gentleman commoner of Oriel college, Oxford, where he proceeded A.B. in 1704, at three years standing, a privilege allowed him as the son of a bishop. In November of the same year, he was elected a fellow of All Souls, but voided this by marrying, in a few years, Cecily, daughter and heir of Charles Matthews, of Castle Munich, in the county of Glamorgan, esq. and great grand-daughter, by the mother’s side, of the famous judge Jenkins.

From his first admission into the university, he had fixed upon the law as a profession, and leaving Oxford before he proceeded farther in arts, was admitted a member of the society of Lincoln’s-inn, and was called to the bar a considerable time before his course of reading was expired. He set out with great success, and in 1719 was chosen member of parliament for Tregony in Cornwall. In April 1726 he was made solicitor-general, and likewise was chosen member for the city of Durham, probably assisted by his father’s interest, who was then bishop of that see. In Nov. 1733, George II. delivered to him the great seal, and he was then sworn of his majesty’s privy council, and likewise constituted lord high chancellor, and created a baron of Great Britain by the title of lord Talbot, baron of Hensol, in the county of Glamorgan. On these promotions, he resigned the chancellorship of the diocese of Oxford, which had been given him by his father, when bishop of that sec; and in August 1735, the honorary degree of doctor of laws was conferred upon him by that university. He died, in the height of his fame and usefulness, of an illness of only five days, Feb. 14, 1737, at his house in LincolnVinn-fields, in the fifty-third year of his age. He was interred at Barrington in Gloucestershire, where his estate was, in the chancel of the church.

It has been said of lord chancellor Talbot, that eloquence never afforded greater charms from any orator, than when the public attention listened to his sentiments, delivered with the most graceful modesty; nor did wisdom and knowledge ever support it with more extensive power, nor integrity enforce it with greater weight. In apprehension he so far exceeded the common rank of men, that he instantaneously, or by a kind of “intuition, saw the strength or imperfection of any argument; and so penetrating was his sagacity, that the most intricate and perplexing mazes of the law could never so involve and darken the truth, as to conceal it from his discernment. As a member of each house of parliament, no man ever had a higher deference paid to his abilities, or more confidence placed in his inflexible public spirit; and so excellent was his temper, so candid his disposition in debate, that he never offended those whose arguments he opposed. When his merit, and the unanimous suffrage of his country, induced his prince to intrust him with the great seal, his universal affability, his easiness of access, his humanity to the distress, which his employment too frequently presented to his view, and his great dispatch of business, engaged to him the affection and almost veneration of all who approached him. And by constantly delivering with his decrees the reasons upon which they were founded, his court was a very instructive school of equity, and his decisions were generally attended with such conviction to the parties, against whose interest they were made, that their acquiescence in them commonly prevented any farther expence. As no servile expedient raised him to power, his country knew he would use none to support himself in it. He was constant and regular in his devotions both in his family and in public. His piety was exalted, rational, and unaffected. He was firm in maintaining the true interest and legal rights of the church of England, but an enemy to persecution. When he could obtain a short interval from business, the pompous formalities of his station were thrown aside; his table was a scene where wisdom and science shone, enlivened and adorned with elegance of wit. There was joined the utmost freedom of dispute with the highest good breeding, and the vivacity of mirth with primitive simplicity of manners. Whtii he had leisure for exercise, he delighted in field-sports; and even in those trifles shewed, that he was formed to excel in whatever he engaged; and had he indulged himself more in them, especially at a time when he found his health unequal to the excessive fatigues of his post, the nation might not yet have deplored a loss it could ill sustain. But though he was removed at a season of life when others but begin to shine, he might justly be said,” satis & ad vitam & ad gloriam vixisse" and his death united in one general concern a nation, which scarce ever unanimously agreed in any other particular; and notwithstanding the warmth of our political divisions, each party endeavoured to outvie the other in a due reverence to his memory.

, a very ingenious lady, the only child of Edward Talbot, second son of William, bishop of Durham, and nephew to the chancellor, was born in May 1720. She was born five months after the decease of her father, who died at the early age of twenty-nine, and being a younger brother, left his widow in a situation very inadequate to his rank in life. She was the daughter of the rev. George Martyn, prebendary of Lincoln, and had been married to Mr. Talbot only a few months. Happily, however, for her, the kind attentions of a dear and intimate friend were not wanting at that critical period. Catharine, sister to Mr. Benson, afterwards bishop of Gloucester, who had been the companion of her early youth, and whose brother was upon an equally intimate footing with Mr. Talbot, was residing with her at the time of his death, and was her great support in that heavy affliction; and they continued to live together and bestow all their joint attention upon the infant Catherine. But before she was five years of age, this establishment was broken up by the marriage of Miss Benson to Mr. Seeker, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury (See Secker), but then rector of the valuable living of Houghton-le-Spring in Durham. Mr. Seeker, mindful of his obligations to Mr. Edward Talbot, as mentioned in our account of him, immediately joined with his wife in the request that Mrs. and Miss Talbot would from that time become a part of his family. The offer was accepted, and they never afterwards separated; and upon Mrs. Seeker’s death, in 1748, they still continued with him, and took the management of his domestic concerns.

Besides her mother’s instructions, which were chiefly confined to religious principles, Miss Talbot enjoyed the benefit of a constant intercourse with the eminent divine with whom they lived; and his enlightened mind soon discovered the extent of her early genius, and was delighted to assist in its improvement. Hence, although she never studied the learned languages, unless perhaps a little Latin, she reaped all the advantages of Mr. Seeker’s deep and extensive learning, of his accurate knowledge of the Scriptures, and of his critical and unwearied research into the sciences and languages more immediately connected with that important study. Yet though so much attention was bestowed on serious pursuits, the lighter and more ornamental parts of female education were not neglected; and for the acquirement of these there was abundant opportunity in the different situations in which Mr. Seeker’s rapid progress in the church placed him. From the time that she was seven years old, she lived, almost constantly, in or near large cities; and was consequently enabled to acquire every useful branch of education, and all elegant accomplishments. She made some progress in music, but much more in drawing and painting in water-colours. Nor were the sciences and modern languages neglected; she had a competent knowledge of French and Italian, and late in life she taught herself German. She studied also geography and astronomy with much care and attention, and her master in the latter of these sciences, a Mr. Wright, was the means of her becoming acquainted with the celebrated Mrs. Carter, with whom she formed a strict friendship, the amiable turn of which may be seen in their correspondence lately published. Miss Talbot formed also other friendly connections with persons of merit and rank, who highly esteemed her.

At what age she began to compose does not appear; but certainly it was early in life, for her poem on reading Hammond’s elegies was written when she was not more than twenty- two years of age and though not one of the best of them, it shows that she was familiar with composition, and that her powers of mind had been accustomed to exertion. There are no dates, however, to her different productions, and therefore we cannot trace her progress in composition or sentiment, nor could she be prevailed upon by her friends either to arrange her papers, or to publish them herself. This is much to be regretted, for the world has been sufficiently inclined to do justice to Miss Talbot’s talents; and few books of moral and religious instruction have had a greater sale, and gone through more editions than the little posthumous volume of her miscellaneous works. Of the “Reflections on the Days of the Week,” published separately, up wards of 25,000 copies have been sold; and of the collection of her works, that now before us (1812, 8vo) is the seventh edition. This is a circumstance not less creditable to the age, than it is to the author; and it also proves the correctness of her friend’s judgment into whose hands they were put by Mrs. Talbot. Mrs. Car* ter published them upon her own account and at her own hazard, and the event shewed that she had formed a just estimate both of their merit and the reception they would meet with.

But Miss Talbot ought not to be considered by posterity merely as an author. Great as her talents, and brilliant as her accomplishments were, she possessed qualities of infinitely more importance, both to herself and society. Her piety was regular, constant, and fervent. It was the spring of all her actions, as its reward was the object of all her hopes. Her charity, including the whole meaning of the word, in its apostolic sense, was extended to all her acquaintance, rich as well as poor; and to the latter she gave, not only such relief as her circumstances would allow (for she was never rich) but what was infinitely more valuable to her, no small portion of her time. There is reason to believe that she was often Dr. Seeker’s almoner, for there can be no doubt that he, who when he became archbishop of Canterbury, constantly bestowed in charity upwards of 2,000l. a year, had been equally bountiful before in proportion to his income.

On the death of this affectionate friend in 1768, who bequeathed Mrs. Talbot and her daughter about 400l. a year, they removed from Lambeth-palace to a house in Grosvenor-street, but in the following year the declining state of Miss Talbot’s health obliged them to leave London for a cooler and better air. Their kind and constant friend, the late marchioness Grey, lent them for this purpose her house at Richmond, together with every thing she could think of to contribute to their comfort or amusement; and from this delightful retreat Miss Talbot only returned in time to breathe her last in her mother’s house in town, Jan. 9, 1770, in the forty- ninth year of her age. Her chief disorder, added to a very weak, and now completely worn-out constitution, was a cancer, which had been for three years preying upon her enfeebled frame.

, a Roman catholic writer, of considerable celebrity in his day, was the son of sir William Talbot, and was born in 1620, of an ancient family in the county of Dublin. He was brother to colonel Richard Talbot, commonly called, about the court of England, “Lying Dick Talbot,” whom James II. created duke of Tyrconnell, and advanced to the lieutenancy of IrelandPeter was received into the society of the Jesuits in Portugal in 1635, and after studying philosophy and divinity, went into holy orders at Rome, whence he returned to Portugal, and afterwards to Antwerp, where he read lectures on moral theology. He was supposed to be the person who, in 1656, reconciled Charles II. then at Cologn, to the popish religion, and Charles is reported to have sent him secretly to Madrid to intimate to the court of Spain his conversion. He was also sent by his superiors to England to promote the interests of the Romish church, which he appears to have attempted in a very singular way, by paying his c ourt to Cromwell, at whose funeral he attended as one of the mourners, and even joined Lambert in opposing general Monk’s declaration for the king. He fled therefore at the restoration, but was enabled to return the year following, when the king married the infanta of Portugal, and he became one of the priests who officiated in her family. His intriguing disposition, however, created feome confusion at court, and he was ordered to depart the kingdom. The Jesuits, too, among whom he had been educated, thought him too busy and factious to be retained in their society, and it is supposed that by their interest pope Clement IX. was prevailed upon to dispense with his vows, and to advance him to the titular archbishopric of Dublin, in 1669. On his return to Ireland he recommenced his services in behalf of the church of Rome, by excommunicating those regulars and seculars of his own persuasion who had signed a testimony of their loyalty to the king. His ambition and turbulence led him also to quarrel with Plunket, the titular primate, a quiet man^ over whom he claimed authority, pretending that the king had appointed him overseer of all the clergy of Ireland; but when this authority was demanded, he never could produce it. In 1670, when lord Berkeley landed as lord lieutenant, Talbot waited upon him, and being courteously received, had afterwards the presumption to appear before the council in his archiepiscopal character, a thing without a precedent since the reformation. He was, however, disniissed without punishment; but when the popish plot was discovered in England in 1678, he was imprisoned in the castle of Dublin, on suspicion of being concerned in it, and died there in 1680. He was a man of talents and learning, but vain, ambitious, and turbulent. Sotwell, Harris, and Dodd have enumerated several of his publications, which, says Dodd, are plausible, and generally in defence of the Jesuits, but some of them are virulent against the English church.

, one of our earliest antiquaries, was born at Thorp, in Northamptonshire, and was educated at Winchester school, whence he was admitted of New college, Oxford, in 1525. He left the university in 1530, but took the degree of D. D. either there or in some other place. In 1541 he was made a prebendary of Wells, and April 9, 1547, treasurer of the cathedral church of Norwich, which he possessed at the time of his death, Aug. 27, 1558. He was a very diligent searcher into the antiquities of his country, and his collections proved of great service to Leland, Bale, Caius, Camden, and others. He also furnished archbishop Parker with many Saxon books, some of which he had from Dr. Ovvtn, physician to Henry VIII. He left his Mss. to New college. He was the first of our countrymen who illustrated Antoniiins’s Itinerary with various readings and notes, which were of great use to Camuen, and are printed by Hearne at the end of the third volume of Leland’s Itinerary from a ms in the Bodleian library, which belonged to John Stowe, and is in his ha 1 iwriting; but Talbot’s notes reach only to the sixth her. Two other copies are in Bene't college library a fourth is in Caius college library, with additions by Dr. Caius; and a fifth in the Cotton library. Camden followed his settlement of the stations in most instances, but William B 1 ir ton frequently differs from him in his “Commentary on Antoninus his Itinerary.” His other Mss. are “Aurum ex Stercore vel de Ænigmaticis et PropliL j ticis,” in Corpus college, Oxford; and “De chartis quibusdamRegnm Britannorurn,” in Bene't college, Cambridge.

, professor of medicine and anatomy in the university of Bologna, was born in that city in 1546, and died there Nov. 7, 1599, in the fifty-third year of his age. There is little recorded of his life; his fame depends on his having practised the art of restoring lost parts of the body by insition, particularly the nose, which has been a topic of ridicule ever since it was mentioned by Butler in his Hudibras^ “So learned Taliacotius from, &c.” Addison has also a humorous paper on the same subject in the Tatler (No. 260), and Dr. Grey some remarks in his notes on Hudibras. Taliacotius, however, was not the inventor of this art, for he allows that Alexander Benedictus and Vesalius had given some account of the same art before him, and Ambrose Pare mentions a surgeon who practised it much and successfully. Charles Bernard, serjeant-surgeon to queen Anne, asserts, that though those who have not examined the history may be sceptics, there are incontestable proofs that this art was actually practised with dexterity and success. Other writers have doubted whether Taliacotius did more than write on the theory, but there seems no foundation for depriving him of the honours of success in practice also. Our readers may, indeed, satisfy themselves as to the practicability of the art, as far as the nose is concerned, by perusing a very recent treatise, “An account of two successful operations for restoring a lost Nose, from the integuments of the forehead, in the cases of two officers of his majesty’s army,” by J. C. Carpue, surgeon, 1815, 4to. The lips and ears were the other parts which Taiiacotius professed to restore; and his writings on the subject are, 1. “Epistola ad Hieronymum Merculiarem de naribus, multo ante abscissis> reficiendis,” Francf. 1587, 8vo. 2. “De Curtorum Chirurgia per insitionem libri duo/ 7 Venice, 1597, fol. and reprinted at Francfort, 1598, 8vo, under the title” Chirurgia nova de narium, aurium, labiorumque defectu, per insitionem cutis ex humero, arte hactenus omnibus ignota, sarciendo." The magistrates of Bologna had such a high opinion of Taliacotius’s success, that they erected a statue of him, holding a nose in his hand.

, an admired general, and mareschal of France, was born Feb. 14, 1652, the son of Roger d'Hostun, marquis of la Beaume. Like other young nobles of France, he chose the army for his profession, and at the age of sixteen had the royal regiment of Cravates, in which command he signalized himself for ten years. In 1672 he attended Louis XIV. into Holland, obtained soon after the confidence of Turenne, and distinguished himself on several occasions. He was raised to the rank of lieutenant-general in 1693, and in 1697 was employed in an embassy to England. On the renewal of war, he commanded on the Rhine in 1702, and soon after was created mareschal of France. He distinguished himself in the ensuing year against the Imperialists, and gained a brilliant advantage, which, however, he rather disgraced by his pompous manner of announcing it. He was less fortunate in 1704, when being engaged against the English in the plains of Hochstedt, near Blenheim, he was defeated and brought a prisoner to England, where he remained for seven years. Soon after this battle, he said, in a kind of peevish compliment to the duke of Marlborough, “Your grace has defeated the finest troops in Europe” “You will except, 1 hope,” said the duke, “the troops who beat them.” His residence in England, say the French historians, was not without its use to France; as he very much assisted in detaching queen Anne from tha party of the allies, and causing the recall of the duke of Marlborough. He returned to Paris in 1712, and was created a duke. In 1726 he was named secretary of state, which honour he did not long retain, but died March 3, 1723, at the age of seventy-six. He was a man of good talents and character; his chief fault being that he was rather inclined to boasting.

, a non-conformist divine of considerable eminence and learning, was born at Paisley, near Chesterfield, Nov. 1619, and educated at the public schools at Mansfield and Newark, whence he went to Pete rhouse, Cambridge, but being chosen sub-tutor to the sons of the earl of Suffolk, removed for that purpose to Magdalen college, and in 1642 travelled with them on the continent. On his return he was chosen fellow of Magdalen college, and afterwards became senior fellow and president. In 1648 he was ordained at London, in the presbyterian form. In 1652 he left the university, and went to Shrewsbury, where he became minister of St. Mary’s. At the restoration, an event in which he rejoiced, he was inclined to conform, but probably scrupling to be re-ordained, which was the chief obstacle with many other non-conformists, he was ejected. In 1670 he again visited the continent as tutor to two- young gentlemen, and about three years afterwards returned to Shrewsbury, and preached in a dissenting meeting there, while unmolested. He lived also some time in London, but very privately. After reaching the very advanced age of eighty-nine, he died April 11, 1708, and was buried in St. Mary’s, Shrewsbury. His funeral sermon was preached by the celebrated Matthew Henry, who, in an account appended, gives him a very high character for piety, learning, and moderation. He was one of those of whom the great Mr. Boyle took early notice, and Jived in friendship with all his life. He published a few religious, chiefly controversial, tracts, but is principally remembered as the editor of a work once hi very high reputation, “A view of Universal History; or, chronological Tables,” engraved in his house and under his particular inspection, on sixteen large copper-plates.

, one of the greatest musicians of this country, or of Europe, in his time, flourished about the middle of the sixteenth century. He is said to have been organist of the royal chapel to king Henry VIII. king, Edward VI. queen Mary, and queen Elizabeth; but the inscription on his grave-stone warrants no such assertion. In the two reigns of Edward VI. and queen Mary, he was simply a gentleman of the chapel, and served for sevenpence halfpenny a day; but under Elizabeth, he and Bird were gentlemen of the chapel and organists. The studies of Tall is seem to have been wholly devoted to the service of the church, for his name is not to be found to any musical compositions of songs, ballads, madrigals, or any of those lighter kigds of music framed with a view to private recreation. Of the many disciples who had profited by his instruction, Bird seems to have possessed the greatest share of his affection, one proof of which was a joint publication by them of one of the noblest collections of hymns and other compositions for the service of the church that ever appeared in any age or country. This was printed by Vautrollier in 1575, with the title of “Cantiones qua? ab argumento sacrae vocantur quinque et sex partium, Autoribus Thomas T-allisio et Gulielmo Birdo, Anglis, sefenissimse reginee majestati a privato sacello generosis et organistis,” and was published under the protection of a patent of queen Elizabeth, the first of the kind that had ever been granted.

Though it has been commonly said that Tallis was organist to Henry VIII. and the three succeeding princes his descendants, it may well be doubted whether any \-ayman were employed in that office till the beginning of the reign of queen Elizabeth, when Tallis and Bird were severally appointed organists of the royal chapel. Notwithstanding he was a diligent collector of musical antiquities, and a careful peruser of the works of other men, the compositions of Tallis, learned and elegant as they are, are so truly original, that he may justly be said to be the father of the cathedral style; and, though a like appellation is given by the Italians to Palestrina, it is much to be questioned, considering the time when Tallis flourished, whether he could derive the least advantage from the improvements of that great man. Perhaps he laid the foundation of his studies in the works of the old cathedralists of this kingdom, and probably in those of the German musicians, who in his time had the pre-eminence of the Italians; and that he had an emulation to excel even these, may be presumed from the following particular. John Okenheim, a native of the Low Countries, and a disciple of Iodocus Pratensis, had made a composition for no fewer than thirty-six voices, which, Glareanus says, was greatly admired. Tallis composed a motet in forty parts, the history of which stupendous composition, as far as it can now be traced, i< ^iven by sir John Hawkins. Notwithstanding his supposed attachment to the Romish religion, it seems that Tallis accommodated himself and his studies to the alterations introduced at the reformation. With this view, he set to music those several parts of the English liturgy, which at that time were deemed the mojt proper to be sung, namely, the two morning services, the one comprehending the “Veriite Exultemus,” “Te Deum,” and “Benedictus” and the other, which is part of the communion-office, consisting of the “Kyrie Eleison,” “Nicene Creed,” and “Sanctus:” as also the evening service, containing the “Magnificat,” and “Nunc dimittis.” All these are comprehended in that which is called Tallis’s first service, as being the first of two composed by htm. He also set musical notes to the Preces ftnd Responses, and composed that Litany which for its excellence is sung on solemn occasions in all places where the choral service is performed. As to the Preces of Tallis in his first service, they are no other than those of Marbeck in his book of Common-prayer noted: the Responses are somewhat different in the tenor part, which is supposed to contain the melody; but Tallis has improved them by the addition of three parts, and has thus formed a judicious contrast between the supplications of the priest and the suffrages of the people as represented by the choir. The services of Tallis contain also chants for the “Venite Kxultemus,' 1 and the” Creed of St. Athanasius:" these are tunes that divide each verse of the psalm or hymn according to the pointing, to the end that the whole may be sung alternately by the choir, as distinguished by the two sides of the dean and thfe chanter. Two of these chants are published in Dr. Boyce’s Cathedral Music, vol. I. The care of selecting from the Common-prayer the offices most proper to be sung was a matter of some importance, especially as the rubric contains no directions about it; for this reason it is supposed that the musical part of queen Elizabeth’s liturgy was settled by Parker, archbishop of Canterbury, who was not only a great divine, an excellent canonlawyer and ritualist, and a general scholar, but also a skilful musician. Besides the offices above-mentioned, constituting what are now termed the Morning, Communion, and Evening Services, in four parts, with the Preces, Responses, and Litany, Tailis composed many anthems. He died Nov. 23, 1585, and was buried in the parishchurch of Greenwich in Kent; where there is a brass plate for him in the chancel; the inscription on which was repaired by dean Aldrich, and may be seen in Strype’s Stow, but no memorial now remains,

, or Timur Bec, the great conqueror of the East, was born in 1335, in the village of Kesch, belonging to the ancient Sogdiana. His name of Tamerlane is derived by some writers from Timur Lenc 9 or Timur the lame, as he had some defect in his feet. His origin is uncertain, some reporting him to be the son of a shepherd, and others of the royal blood. He raised himself, however, by his personal courage and talents. He was distinguished early by these qualities; and, having acquired some followers devoted to his fortunes, his first conquest was that of Balk, the capital of Khorasan, on the frontiers of Persia. He then made himself master of the whole province of Candahar, and returning to subdue the people beyond the Oxus, took Bagdad. He now determined to undertake the conquest of India; but his soldiers, fatigued by their former efforts, refused at first to follow him. On this occasion he employed a pretended prophet to exhort them in the name of heaven; and having made them ashamed of their reluctance, and filled them with a strong enthusiasm, led them on to greater victories. Delhi fell before him, aiifl he became possessed of the immense treasures of the Mogul empire. Returning from his Indian exploits, he entered Syria and took Damascus: and Bagclad having attempted to revolt, he made a terrible example, by putting many thousands of the inhabitants to the sword, and delivering the city to pillage. Bajazet, emperor of the Turks, now attracted his notice, and to him he sent an embassy, requiring him to do justice to some Mahometan princes whom he had deposed, and to abandon the siege of Constantinople. This haughty message being as haughtily answered, war was commenced between them. Tamerlane marched towards Bajazet, whom, in 1402, he engaged, conquered, and took prisoner, in the plains of Ancyra near Phrygia. The battle lasted three days. The Turkish writers say, that after this event, Tamerlane asked JBajazet what he would have done to him, if he had been victorious. “I would have shut you up,” said Bajazet, “in an iron cage.” Upon which he was himself condemned to the same punishment. Some writers, however, boast of the generosity and magnanimity of the conqueror. Be this as it may, he certainly carried his victories to a wonderful extent: while he was engaged in the war with Bajazet, he vanquished Egypt, and seized the immense treasures of Grand Cairo, nor could any thing in the East withstand him. He died about three years after his victory, on the first of April, 1405, in the seventy-first year of his age, and the thirty-sixth of his reign. When he found death approaching, he called the princes together, appointed his grandson to be his heir, and died, professing his implicit faith in the Koran, and repeating the sacred words of the Mahometans, “There is no God but God, and Mahomet is his prophet.”

Timur, according to Arabshah, was tall and corpulent, with a fair complexion, and agreeable countenance. He was very strong, and well made, except his lameness, which was on the right side; and as vigorous in constitution as undaunted in courage. He retained his faculties to the last. In his manners he appears to have been stern, hating not only falsehood, but even jesting. His history affords a wonderful example of long and invariable success attending one man. He conquered as much as Alexander, but with for less humanity.

, a gentleman who deserves to be recorded among the benefactors to literature, was great grandson to sir Richard Tancred, who was knighted for his services and severe sufferings during the rebellion. This sir Richard was the son of Charles Tancred, esq. who purchased the manor and rectory of Whixley, anciently Qnixley, situated between York and Aidborough. Christopher Tancred, the subject of this article, died in 1754 unmarried, and left his house and estate at Whixley for the maintenance of twelve decayed gentlemen who have borne arms in the service of their country, each of whom receive twenty-two guineas annually, and a separate apartment is assigned to each of them, but the whole dine in common. He also founded four medical exhir bitions at Caius college; four in divinity at Christ’s college, Cambridge, and four law studentships at Lincoln’sJnn, of which he was a bencher. These were originally of the yearly value of 50l., but are now 100l. each. The trustees in this foundation are the masters of Caius and Christ’s college, the president of the college of Physicians, the treasurer of Lincoln’s-Inn, the master of the Charterhouse, the president of Christ’s hospital, and the governor of Greenwich hospital. These exhibitions continue for about eight years, three years after taking the degree of M. A. or M. B. and after being called to the bar; and a Latin oration is spoken annually, by one of the exhibitioners and students, in commemoration of their liberal benefactor.

, an excellent antiquary, was the son of a father of both his names, vicar of Market Lavington in Wilts, and was born in 1674. He became a student in Queen’s-college, Oxford, in Michaelmas-term, 1689; admitted clerk in that house, 1690; B. A. 1693; entered into holy orders at Christmas, 1694; and became chaplain of All-souls-college in January following; chosen fellow of the same, 1697; chancellor of Norfolk, and rector of Thorpe near Norwich in 1701. He was installed prebendary of Ely, Sept. 10, 1713, (which he quitted in 1723); made archdeacon of Norfolk, Dec. 7, 1721 canon of Christ-church, Feb. 3, 1723-4; and prolocutor of the lower house of convocation, which was convened anno 1727. To this honour he was unanimously elected on account of his great abilities, however contrary to his own inclinations; and was consecrated bishop of St. Asaph, Jan. 23, 1732. Bishop Tanner died at Christ-church, Oxford, Dec. 14, 1735; and was buried in the nave of that cathedral, near the pulpit; without any funeral pomp, according to his own direction. He ordered his body to be wrapped up in the coarsest crape, and his coffin to be covered with serge, not cloth: the pall-bearers to have each of them one of Baskett’s folio bibles; the underbearers a Sherlock upon Death; to the dean of Christchurch, he left five pounds; to the eight canons five shillings each; eighty pounds to buy coats for eighty poor men; and one hundred pounds to the college, towards their library then building. A monument to his memory is affixed to one of the pillars, with an inscription. Another in>cription, and a translation of it, may be seen in the “Anecdotes of Bowyer.” He was thrice married, first, to Rose, eldest daughter of Dr. Moore, bishop of Ely, and by <her, who died March 15, 1706, aged twenty-five, he had a daughter who died in her infancy; secondly, to Frances, daughter of Mr. Jacob Preston, citizen of London. She died June 11, 1718, aged forty, and left two daughters, who both died young, and his son and heir, the rev. Thomas Tanner, who died in 1760, at that time precentor of St. Asaph, rector of Kessingland, and vicar of Lowestoff. The bishop married, thirdly, in 1733, Miss Elizabeth Scottow, of Thorpe, near Norwich, with a fortune of 15,000l. She survived him, and married Robert Britiffe, esq. recorder of Norwich, and M. P. She died in 1771.

Bishop Tanner’s character seems to have descended to posterity without any blemish. His virtues are acknowledged by his contemporaries, and of his learning as an antiquary, which was very extensive, he was most readily communicative to all who were engaged in publications of that nature. He had a considerable hand in the second edition of Wood’s “Athemr,” but appears to have given offence to some of Wood’s friends, by softening certain of his prejudices as well as his coarse language. This produced something like a controversy, which the reader may find detailed in the life of A. Wood, prefixed to his “Annals,” or in the preface to the new edition of the “Athenac,” by Mr. Bliss. Of the publications more particularly belonging to himself, the first appeared before he was twenty years old. It formed an excellent compendium of our religious houses, setting forth, when and by whom they were founded, their dedications, orders, and value; and v\as entitled, “Notitia Monastica, or a short History the Religious Houses in England and Wales,” 1695, 8vo. This was so favourably received that it became very scarce, and at the request of his friends he set about revising and enlarging it in 1715, but the duties of his station, and afteruarcls his infirmities, prevented him from leaving it quite complete. It appeared, however, under the care of the rev. John Tanner, his brotht-r, in 1744, folio, under the title of “Notitia Monastica; or an Account of all the Abbies, Priories, and House* of Friers, heretofore in England and Wales; and also of all the Colleges and Hospitals founded before A. D. 1511. By the right rev. Dr. Thomas Tanner, late lord bishop of St. Asaph. Published by John Tanner, A. M. vicar of Lowestoft in Suffolk, and precentor of the cathedral church of St. Asaph.” Of this a much improved edition was published in 1787, by Mr. Nasmith; but the greater part of the impression having been consumed in Mr. Nichols’s fire, it now ranks among scarce books. His “Bibliotheca Britannico-Hibernica,” which employed him forty years, was published in 1748, folio, with a posthumous preface by Dr. Wilkins. He left large collections for the county of Wilts, and large notes on Richard Hegge’s Legend of St. Cuthbert, 1663. His immense and valuable collections are now in the Bodleian library at Oxford. His portrait was engraved by Vertue in 1736, at the expence of the Society of Antiquaries. The portrait prefixed to the “Notitia,” is inscribed, “Reverendus admodum Thomas Tanner, Asaphensis Episcbpus, PilmaevEB Antiquitatis Cultor. G. Vertue sculp. 1743.” This print was a copy of that engraved by Vertue, with some difference in the decoration, and this addition to the inscription: “Hoc ectypum fratris sui dignissimi antiquis moribus ornati posteris sacratum esse voluit Soc. Ant. Lond. 1736.”

, an Italian poet, whose works were once proscribed by the inquisition, and having become scarce, are therefore accounted valuable, was born at Nola about 1520. He passed a great part of his life attached to the service of don Pedro de Toledo, viceroy of Naples, and don Garcias de Toledo, commander of the gallies in the same kingdom. The period of his death is not precisely known, but he is said to have been judge of Gaieta in 1569; and, as he was then in a very bad state of health, is supposed to have died soon after. He had the reputation of a very good poet, and his productions, as far as they are now known, are these 1. “II Vendeminiatore,” the Vintager, a poem in which he described in too free a manner, the licence of the inhabitants in the vicinity of Nola, at the time of the vintages; Naples, 1534; Venice, 1549, 4to. On this account all his poems were put into the Index expurgatorius. Mortified at this rigour, he addressed an ode to the pope, asserting, that, though his poem was licentious, his life had not been so; remonstrating against the inclusion of his innocent productions in the sentence with the culpable piece; and declaring that he was employed in a poem upon the tears of St. Peter, whose merits, he trusted, would atone for his offence, and procure him deserved honour. In consequence of this ode, when the next edition of the Index expurgatorius appeared, not only the innoxious poems, but the Vendemmiatore also, were omitted, as if the repentance of the poet had purified his poem! 2. “II Cavallarizzo,” Vicenza, 8vo. 4. Sonnets, Songs, Stanzas, and some Comedies, Lastly, in 1767, professor Ranza published an inedited poem of Tansillo’s, entitled “Balia,” which has been elegantly translated into English by Mr. Roscoe, under the title “The Nurse,” 1798, 4to.

, a French physician, born at Courtenai, died in 1761, at what age is uncertain. He was known by Tarious works, of which the following were the chief 1. “Elements of Physiology,” translated from the Latin of Haller, 17-52, 8vo. 2. “Adversaria Anatomica, 1750, 4to, with a medical Bibliography, extracted from the” Methodus Studii Medici“of Haller. 4.” Osteographia,“Paris, 1753, 4to, a compilation, illustrated by engravings. 5.” Anthropotomie,“or the art of dissecting, 1750, 2 vols. 12rno. 6.” Desmographie,“or a treatise on ligaments, the same year. 7.” Observations on Medicine and Surgery,“1758, 3 vols. 12mo. 8.” Myographia," or a description of the muscles, 1753, 4to, with figures from Albinus. He wrote also some medical articles for the Encyclopedia.

, styled by Dr. Burney, “the admirable,” was born in April 1692, at Pirano in the province of Istria. His father having been a great benefactor to the cathedral at Parenzo, was ennobled for his piety. Joseph was intended for the law, but taking up the study of music, among his other pursuits, it prevailed over all the rest in gaining his attachment. In 1710, he was sent to the university of Padua, to study as a civilian; but, before he was twenty, having married without the consent of his parents, they wholly abandoned him. After wandering for some time in search of an asylum, he was received in a convent at Assissi, by a monk to whom he was related. Here he amused himself by practising the violin, till being accidentally discovered by a Paduan acquaintance, family differences were accommodated, and he settled with his wife at Venice. While he remained there, he heard, ia 1714, the celebrated Veracini, whose performance, excelling every thing he had then heard, excited in his mind a wonderful emulation. He retired the very next day to Ancona, to study the use of the bow with more tranquillity, and attain, if possible, those powers of energy and expression which he had so greatly admired. By diligent study and practice, he acquired such skill and reputation, that iti 1721, he was invited to the place of first violin, and master of the band, in the famous church of St. Antony of Padua. He had also frequent invitations, which he declined, to visit Paris and London By 17i38, he had made many excellent scholars, and formed a school, or method of practice, that was celebrated all over Europe, and increased in fame to the end of his life. In 1744, he is said to have changed his style, from extremely difficult execution, to graceful and expressive; and Pasqualino Bini, one of his besfc scholars, having heard of the change, placed himself afresh under his tuition. This admirable musician, and worthy mail, for such he is represented, died Feb. 26, 1770, to the great regret of the inhabitants of Padua, where he had resided near fifty years; and where he was not only regarded as its chief and most attractive ornament, but as a philosopher, and even a saint, having devoted himself to the service of his patron St Antony of Padua.

The first book of solos by Tartiui, was published at Amsterdam, in 1734, the second at Home, in 1745; and Dr, Burney relates that he possesses the third, sixth, seventh, and ninth of his publications, besides two books printed in England, amounting to upwards of fifty solos, exclusive of manuscripts. His concertos amount to two hundred but a surreptitious copy of two sets having appeared ic- Hoilaud, he would never own them. Of taese, which are yet supposed to be certainly genuine, six were composed in his first manner, and six after 1744, when he had improved his style. But his most celebrated work is his “Traitato di Musica,” or treatise on music, in which, though his system, as to the scientific parr, has since been confuted, he appears as one of the most ingenious theorists of this century. It was published in 1754, in 4to. He published, in 1767, “Dissertazione de‘ principi dell’ Armenia Musicale, contenuta nel Diatonico genere,” another theoretical work. Tartini was so ambitious of being thought a follower of Corelli’s precepts and principles, that, after his own reputation was in its zenith, he refused to teach any other music to his disciples, till they had studied the opera quinta y or solos of Corelli. His musical character is thus drawn by the very able judge to whose account we have already referred: “Tartini, on a recent examination of his works, seems, to my feelings and conceptions, to have had a larger portion of merit, as a mere instrumental composer, than any other author who flourished during the first fifty or sixty years of the present century. Though he made Corelli his model in the purity of his harmony, and simplicity of his modulation, he greatly surpassed that composer in the fertility and originality of his invention; not only in the subjects of his melodies, but in the truly cantabile manner of treating them. Many of his adagios want nothing but words to be excellent, pathetic, opera songs. His allegros are sometimes difficult; but the passages fairly belong to the instrument for which they were composed, and were suggested by his consummate knowledge of the fingerboard, and powers of the bow. He certainly repeats his passages, a- d adheres to his original motive, or theme, too much for the favourite desultory style of the present times; but it must be allowed that, by his delicate selection and arrangement of notes, his passages are always good; play them quick, or play them slow, they never seem unmeaning or fortuitous. Indeed, as a harmonist, he was, perhaps, more truly scientific than any other composer of his time, in the clearness, character, and precision of his bases; which were never casual, or the effect of habit, or auricular prejudice and expectation, but learned, judicious, and certtin.”

, surnamed Firmanus, because he was a native of Firmum, a town in Italy, flourished at the same time with Cicero, and was one of his friends. He was a mathematical philosopher, and therefore was thought to have great skill in judicial astrology. He was particularly famous by two horoscopes which he drew, the one the horoscope of Romulus, and the other of Rome. Plutarch says, “Varro, who was the most learned of the Romans in history, had a particular friend named Tarrantius, who, out curiosity, applied himself to draw horoscopes, by means of astronomical tables, and was esteemed the most eminent in his time.” Historians controvert some particular circumstances of his calculations but all agree in conferring on him the honorary title Prince of astrologers.

, a noted mathematician, was born at Brescia in Italy, probably towards the conclusion of the fifteenth century, as we find he was a considerable master or preceptor in mathematics in 1521, when the first of his collection of questions and answers was written, which heafterwards published in 1546, under the title of “Quesiti et Invention! diverse,” at Venice, where he then resided as a public lecturer on mathematics, he having removed to this place about 1534. This work consists of nine chapters, containing answers to a number of questions on all the different branches of mathematics and philosophy then in vogue. The last or ninth of these, contains the questions in algebra, among which are those celebrated letters and communications between Tartalea and Cardan, by which our author put the latter in possession of the rules for cubic equations, which he first discovered in 1530.

The first work of Tartalea’s that was published, was his “Nova Scientia inventa,” Venice, 1537, in 4to. This is a treatise on the theory and practise of gunnery, and the first of the kind, he being the first writer on the flight and path of balls and shells. This work was translarH into English by Lucar, and printed at London in 1588, folio, with many notes and additions by the translator. Tartalea published at Venice, 1543, in folio, the whole books of Euclid, accompanied with many curious notes and commentaries. But the last and chief work of Tartalea was his “Trattato di Numeri etMisure,” 1556, and 1560, fol. This is an universal treatise on arithmetic, algebra, geometry, mensuration, c. It contains many other curious particulars of the disputes between our author and Cardan, which ended only with the death of Tartalea, before the last part of this work was published, or about 1558.

, a very ingenious artist, in the modelling department, was born in the neighbourhood of Glasgow, of obscure parents, and began life as a country stonemason, without the expectation of ever rising higher. Going to Glasgow on a fair-day, to enjoy himself with his companions, at the time when the Foulis’s were attempting to establish an academy for the fine arts in that city, he saw their collection of paintings, and felt an irresistible im^ pulse to become a painter. He accordingly removed to Glasgow; and in the academy acquired a knowledge of drawing, which unfolded and improved his natural taste. He was frugal, industrious, and persevering; but he was poor, and was under the necessity of devoting himself to stone-cutting for his support; not without the hopes that he might one day be a statuary if he could not be a painter. Resorting to Dublin for employment, he became known to Dr. Quin, who was amusing himself in his leisure hours with endeavouring to imitate the precious stones in coloured pastes, and take accurate impressions of the engravings that were on them.

That art was known to the ancients, and many specimens from them are now in the cabinets of the curious. It seems to have been lost in the middle ages; was revived in Italy under LeoX. and the Medici family at Florence; and became more perfect in France under the regency of the duke of Orleans, by his labours and those of Homberg. By those whom they instructed as assistants in the laboratory it continued to be practised in Paris, and was carried to Rome. Their art was kept a secret, and their collections were small. It is owing to Quin and to Tassie that it has been carried to such high perfection in Britain, and has attracted the attention of Europe.

Dr. Quin, in looking out for an assistant, soon discovered Tassie to be one in whom he could place perfect confidence. He was endowed with fine taste; he was modest and unassuming; he was patient; and possessed the highest integrity. The doctor committed his laboratory and experiments to his care. The associates were fully successful and found themselves able to imitate all the gems, and take accurate impressions of the engravings. As the doctor had followed the subject only for his amusement, when the discovery was completed, he encouraged Mr. Tassie to repair to London, and to devote himself to the preparation and sale of those pastes as his profession. Accordingly, m 1766, he arrived in the metropolis; but he was diffident and modest to excess; very unfit to introduce himself to the attention of persons of rank and of affluence; besides, the number of engraved gems in Britain was small; and those few were little noticed. He long struggled under difficulties which would have discouraged any one who was not possessed or' the greatest patience, and the warmest attachment to the subject. But he ^gradually emerged from obscurity, obtained competence, and what to him was more, he was able to increase his collection, and add higher degrees of perfection to his art. His name soon became respected, and the first cabinets in Europe were open for his use; and he uniformly preserved the greatest attention to the exactness of the imitation and accuracy of the engraving, so that many of his pastes were sold on the continent by the fraudulent for real gems. His taste led him to be peculiarly careful of the impression and he uniformly destroyed those with which he was in the least dissatisfied. The art has been since practised by others; anci many thousauds of pastes have been sold as Tassie’s, which he would have considered as injurious to his fame. Of the fame of others he was not envious; for he uniformly spoke with frankness in praise of those who executed them well, though they were endeavouring to rival himself.

To the ancient engravings he added a numerous collection of the most eminent modern ones; many of which approach in excellence of workmanship, if not in simplicity of design and chastity of expression, to the most celebrated of the ancients. Many years before he died he had a commission from the empress Catherine of Russia, for above 15,000 different engravings, which being executed in the best and most durable manner, were arranged in elegant cabinets, and were placed in the apartments of the palace of Czarsk Zelo. In executing this commission, Mr. Tassie availed himself of all the advantages which the improved state of chemistry, the various ornamental arts, and the knowledge of the age, seemed to afford. The impressions were taken in a beautiful white enamel composition, which is not subject to shrink, or form air-bladders; which emits fire when struck with steel, and takes a fine polishand which shews every stroke and touch of the artist in higher perfection than any other substance. When the colours, mixed colours, and nature of the respective originals, could be ascertained, they were imitated as completely as. art-tan imitate them: insomuch that many of the paste intaglios and cameos in this collection are such faithful imitations, that artists themselves have owned they could hardly be distinguished from the originals. And when the colour and nature of the gems could not be authenticated, the pastes were executed in agreeable, and chit- fly transparent colours: constant attention l>t:ing bestowed to preserve the outlines, extremities, attributes, and inscriptions. It was the learned Mr. Raspe (from whom this account is taki n), who arranged this great collection, and made out the dc srnptsve i at; iogue. (See “A Descriptive Catalogue,” &c. 2 vols. 4-to, 1791.)