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

In 1660, Valesius was honoured with the title of historicgrapber of France; and had also a pension settled on him by the king, in consideration of his edition of Eusebius, which had appeared the year before. In 1662 he lost his left eye, so that now he was blind; and, notwithstanding all the skill of oculists, the most that could be done for him was, to enable him to see a little with the left eye, a new cataract, almost as soon as it was removed, forming itself again in the right. In 1663 he had an addition to his pension from the crown. He had hitherto lived among his books, but now, at the age of sixty, he surprized his friends by marrying a handsome young woman, by whom he had seven children. He died the seventh of May, 1676, having spent the two last years of life in all the miseries of one oppressed with infirmities. He was a man of great abilities and learning, and an admirable critic; but his disposition was far from being amiable. He was sparing in his praise, but so tenacious of the respect he thought due to him, as to resent the smallest attempt to criticise or find fault with what he wrote, and this irritable temper increased with his years.

After his death, was published, by the care of James Gronovius, “Notae & animadversiones in Harpocrationem & Philippi Jacobi Maussaci Notas. Ex Bibliotheca Gulielmi Prousteau,” Lugd. Bat. 1682, in 4to. Three Latin, funeral orations upon three of his intimate friends are inserted in Bates’s “Vitæ selectoruip aliquot virorum;” the first made upon Sirmond in 1651, the second upon Petrus Puteanus in 1652, and the third upon Petavius in 1653. We omitted an hexameter poem, made upon the recovery of the king’s health, and published by himself in 1663, with the title of “Soteria pro Ludovico magno.” There are also “Harangues à la reine de Suede, & quelques autres petites pieces.”

, or Adrien de Valois, brother of Henry, and a very learned man also, was born at Paris in 1607, and educated in the college of Clermont there, under the Jesuits. He followed the example of his brother, and had the same counsellors in his studies, the fathers Sirmond and Petavius. History was his principal object; and he spent many years in searching into the most authentic records, manuscript as well as printed. His long perseverance in these pursuits enabled him to give the public an elaborate Latin work, entitled “Gesta Francorum, seu de rebis Francicis,” in 3 vols. folio; the first of which came out in 1646, the two others in 1658. This history begins with the year 254; and ends with 752. It is written with care and elegance, and may serve for an excellent commentary upon the ancient historians of France, who wrote rudely and barbarously: but some have considered it as a critical work filled with rude erudition, rather than a history. Colbert asked him one day concerning his Latin history of France, and pressed him to continue it; but he answered the minister, that he might as well take away his life, as put him upon a work so full of difficulties, and so much beyond what his age could bear; for he was then in years. He is the author of several other Latin works; as “Notitia Galliarum, ordine alphabetico digesta,” 1675, in folio; a work of great utility in explaining the state of ancient Gaul. He was the editor, as we have mentioned, of the second edition of “Ammianus Marcellinus;” to which, besides additional notes of his brother and Lindenbrog, he added notes and emendations of his own. He wrote also a Panegyric upon the king, and a life of his brother. There is also a “Valesiana.”

In 1660, he was, with his brother, honoured with the title of historiographer to the king; and had a pension settled upon him. In 1664, he lost the company of his brother; who, when he married, left his mother and brethren, with whom he had lived till then. Adrian, however, some years after, followed his brother’s example, and married a wife too; by whom he had children. He enjoyed good health, till he was eighty-five, and then died, July the 2d, 1692.

, a French miscellaneous writer, was born in 1653, of a good family, at St. Quentin in Picardy. He became secretary to the king’s closet, to the marine, a member of the French academy, an honorary member of the academy of sciences, and historiographer to his majesty. M. de Valincour had collected a great number of very curious and important memoirs respecting marine affairs; but these Mss. were consumed with his library by a fire, which burnt his house at St. Cloud in the night, between the thirteenth and fourteenth of January, 1725. He died January 5, 1730, at Paris, aged seventy. His works are, A Criticism on the romance of the princess of Cleves, entitled “Lettres a Madame la Marquise de sur le sujet de la Princesse de Cleves,” Paris, 1678, 12mo, which is much esteemed. A good “Life of Francis de Lorraine, duke of Guise,” 1681, 12mo. “Observations critiques sur PCEdipe de Sophocle,” and several short poetical pieces in Pere Boiihours’ collection.

, an Italian physician and professor of the belles lettres at Venice, was born at Picenza, and was a contemporary of Laurentius Valla. He was well skilled in the Latin and Greek tongues, and wrote a considerable number of books both in physic and literature. One of his books in the former has a title, which gives us no less an opinion of his honesty than of his skill in his profession: it is “De tuenda sanitate per victum;” but it is doubtful whether he practised physic. He wrote “Commentaries on some books of Cicero, Horace’s Art of Poetry, Juvenal, &c.” and “A Comment upon the second book of Pliny’s Natural History,” printed at Venice 1502, in 4to: which, however, must be certainly very scarce, since father Hardouin tells us that he could not meet with it. He was also the compiler of a work entitled “De expetendis et fugiendis rebus,” Venice, 1501, 2 vols. fol. a kind of philosophical and literary Cyclopædia, in which the articles are generally short, but many of them curious. Valla exasperated the duke of Milan so much by his too impetuous zeal for the Trivulcian faction, that the prince procured him to be committed to prison even at Venice. He suffered great hardships in that confinement, but was at last released. He died suddenly, as he was going from his lodgings, in order to read a lecture upon the immortality of the soul, about the close of the fifteenth century.

, a man of letters of great emience in the fifteenth century, was born at Rome in 1407. His father was a doctor of civil and common law, and advocate of the apostolic consistory. He was educated at Rome, and learned Greek under Aurispa; but in consequence of the troubles which arose on the death of pope Martin, and the advancement of Eugenius to the papal chair, he retired to Pavia. Here he read lectures on rhetoric, and wrote his three books “De Voluptate ac vero bono.” From thence he removed to Milan, and read the same lectures: and before 1435 read them to Alphonsus, king of Arragon, Sicily, and Naples, that learned patroa of letters, who took minutes of his lectures, and acknowledged his literary obligations to him. While in this place he wrote his book on free-will, against Bbetius, and his detection of the forged gift which Constantine is said to have made, of liome, to pope Sylvester, which was first published in 1492. Here too he translated Homer into Latin, and began his six books of “Elegantiae linguae Latinae.” All this while he had followed Alpbonsus in his wars, and had exposed his person in several sea-fights; and, among his other literary undertakings he had written three books of logical disputations, in which, having reduced the ten predicaments, or elements, to three, he was accused of heretical pravity by the inquisitor-general.

He next turned his thoughts to Livy, and drew up notes on that author on the following occasion. It was the custom of Alphonsus to have some ancient author read by one of the literati about his court, during his public dinners, where the king himself gave some opinion on the subject of the book, and invited the different guests to give theirs; and, as the discussion of any particular point pleased him, he divided the sweetmeats among the competitors, and poured out a glass of wine to the reader. This office had fallen on Beccadelli and Valla, who, from intimate friends, became inveterate enemies, by disputing about passages in Livy on these occasions. Valla became equally hostile to Bartholomew Facio (see Facio), whom Alphonsus had made his historiographer, and had appointed Valla at the same time to write the Life of his royal father Ferdinand. The first copy of this Life, in three books, drawn up in two months, and submitted to the king for his correction, was privately overlooked by Facio, who, boasting of having detected five hundred errors in it, was answered by Valla in four books of invectives, or recriminations, in the last of which he inserted his corrections and notes on the first six books of Livy, on the Punic war. These books he had heard Beccadelli read before Alphonsus, and his enemies charged him with saying that he would undertake to correct these better than Aretine, Guarini, and eve Petrarch himself, whose corrections were in the ms. at Naples sent to the king by Cosmo de Medici from Florence. Valla’s frequent attacks on barbarous Latinists and ignorant theologists of his time exposed him to imminent danger from the inquisition; bat he generally found a protector in the king.

Having accepted an invitation to return to Rome from pope Nicholas V. he was favourably received by that pontiff, who settled a handsome pension on him. He now applied himself to a translation of Thucydides, and on presentino- it to the pope, was rewarded by a gratuity of five hundred gold crowns, and was recommended to translate Herodotus, which death prevented him from finishing. What he had done came into the possession of Alphpnsus, and was published by Pontanus, but neither of these translations have been thought eminently successful. That of Thucydides is charged by H. Stephens (who printed it along with his edition of the original (1564) as well as separately) with ignorance, carelessness, and inelegance of language, and Dr. Hudson repeats the charge. Wesseling speaks equally unfavourably of his Herodotus, but he apologizes that the ms. whence he translated was imperfect, and himself overwhelmed with the hostilities of his enemies. Pope Nicholas, in addition to his other favours, appointed him professor of rhetoric; and he employed his leisure time in putting the finishing hand to his “Elegantise lingua: Latino?,” which, as we already noticed, he began at Naples, and sent to the king’s secretaries, one of whom published them without his knowledge. He seems to have written six more books on this subject, which may possibly be concealed in some of the libraries of Italy. He also completed his “Illustrations” of the New Testament, which the pope, and many of the cardinals, earnestly solicited him to circulate, and which Erasmus published in 1504. Valla attacked the Vulgate Latin version by Jerome, which drew on him the censure of his antagonists, and occasioned his notes to be condemned by Paul IV. after the council of Trent had given its sanction to Jerome’s translation. Among the bitterest of his antagonists was the celebrated Poggio, with whom he quarrelled late in life on account of some criticisms of that eminent scholar. It is difficult perhaps to say who gave the first provocation, but it is certain that nothing can exceed the intemperate language and low abuse which passed between them, for 'an account of which we may refer to Mr. Shepherd’s excellent Life of Poggio. Another of Valla’s enemies was Morandus of Bologna, who accused him to pope Nicholas V. of misrepresenting Livy. This Valla answered by two “Confutations,” written with much asperity.

As Valla had formerly entertained thoughts of a clerical life, he declined forming any matrimonial engagement, but is reproached by Poggio with having debauched his sister’s husband’s maid, by whom he had three children, and of whom he speaks, for he does not deny this charge, with tenderness and affection. He afterwards became a canon of St. John Lateran, and secretary and apostolical writer to the pope. He died in 1457, in his fiftieth year, and was buried in the church of which he was canon, where there is a monument and inscription, the latter wrong in stating his death to have happened in 1465. Of all his writings his “Elegantiae linguae Latinos” only serves now to preserve him in the rank of eminent schotars of his time. His irritable temper rendered his life a perpetual literary warfare, but at no time were the quarrels of authors more disgraceful than at the revival of literature.

If Valla had his enemies, he has also had his defenders, and of these Erasmus was one of the most strenuous. He expresses his indignation that Poggio should be in every body’s hands, while Valla, who had a hundred times his learning, “centuplo doctior,” was read by nobody and he declares, in the same epistle, that “the mordacity of Valla alone, if they will call it so, has contributed more to the promoting of literature than the foolish and insipid candour of thousands, who admire all the productions of all men without distinction, and who applaud and (as they say) scratch one another:” “itaque unius Laurentii mordacitas, siquidem ita malunt appellare, non paulo plus conduxit rei literarire, quam plurimorum ineptus candor, omnia omnium sine delectu mirantium, sibique invicem plaudentium, ac mutuum (quod aiunt) scabentium.” In short, this whole epistle, which is by no means a short one, is written entirely in the defence of Valla; though at the same time it would be easy to collect from it, if Valla’s works were not extant, that he cannot be defended from the charge of envious and abusive language. The first edition of his “Elegantiae” was printed at Rome in 1471, folio, and the last by Robert Stephens, at Paris, in 1542, 4to.

, a celebrated traveller, was a Roman gentleman, and member of the academy dell' Umaristi. He commenced his travels in 1614, over the East, and his account of it in Italian, 1662, 4 vols. 4to, has always been considered as giving the best account that had then appeared of Egypt, Turkey, Persia, and India. Gibbon calls him “a gentleman and a scholar, but intolerably vain and prolix.” The French have a good translation by Carreau and le Comte, 1663, 4 vols. 4to, and Rouen, 1745, 8 vols. 12mo. There is also an English translation, London, 1665, folio. He did not return from his travels until 1626. He married at Babylon a virtuous young woman, who accompanied him in his journeys, and died at Mina in Carainania, 1622, aged twenty-three. Her husband was so deeply affected with her loss, that he caused her body to be embalmed and carried it always with him in a wooden coffin, till his arrival at Rome, where he buried it with great magnificence in his family vault in the church of Ara cceli. He spoke her funeral oration himself, which may be found in Italian and French, in the 12mo edition of his Travels, He died at Rome in 1652.

, a celebrated professor of physic at Padua, was born May 3, 1661, at the old castle of Trasilico in Modena, of a noble and ancient family. He distinguished himself among the learned, with whom he held a very extensive correspondence, and was admitted a member of many learned societies; among others of our Royal Society. He practised and taught physic with great reputation, was honorary physician to the emperor, and created a knight by the duke of Modena. He died January 28, 173O, aged sixty-nine. His works on insects, natural history, and physic, are numerous, and were printed at Venice, in 1733, 3 vols, folio, in Italian. They are curious, learned, and much esteemed. He left a son, who was a physician also, and the editor of his father’s works.

, an eminent French naturalist, was bora at Rouen, Sept. 17, 1731, and had his classical education in the Jesuits’ college there, where he was principally distinguished for the proficiency he made in the Greek language. He afterwards became a pupil of the celebrated anatomist Lecat, and after studying pharmacy came to Paris in 1750. His father, who was an advocate of the parliament of Normandy, intended him for the bar, but his predilection for natural history was too strong for any prospects which that profession might yield. Having obtained from the duke d'Argenson, the war minister, a kind of commission to travel in the name of the government, he spent some years in. visiting the principal cabinets and collections of natural history in Europe, and in inspecting the mines, volcanos, and other interesting phenomena of nature. On his return to Paris in 1756, he began a course of lectures on natural history, which he regularly continued until 1788, and acquired so much reputation as to be admitted an honorary member of most of the learned societies of Europe, and had liberal offers from the courts of Russia and Portugal to settle in those countries; but he rejected these at the very time that he was in vain soliciting to be reimbursed the expences he had contracted in serving his own nation. He appears to have escaped the revolutionary storms, and died at Paris Aug. 24, 1807, in the seventy-sixth year of his age. He first appeared as an author in 1758, at which time he published his “Catalogue d‘un cabinet d’histoire naturelle,” 12mo. This was followed next year by a sketch of a complete system of mineralogy; and two years after by his “Nouvelle exposition du regne minerale,” 2 vols. 8vo, reprinted in 1774; but his greatest work, on which his reputation is chiefly built, was his “Dictionnaire raisonne” universe! d'histoire naturelle," which has passed through many editions both in 4to and 8vo, the last of which was published at Lyons in 1800, 15 vols. 8vo.

, an eminent physician, was born at Imola in 1666, and died in 1723. He was the pupil of the celebrated Morgagni, and taught anatomy at Bologna with the greatest reputation. His “Anatomical Dissertations” were published in Latin, at Venice, 1740, 2 vols. 4to, by Morgagni, who commented on them with great freedom, pointing out what he thought erroneous, and liberally praising his merits and discoveries. Of the latter kind are his observations on the ear, published at Bologna in 1707, 4to, “De Aure humana.” On this interesting subject the author employed sixteen years, and dissected a prodigious number of subjects to illustrate it.

, a gentleman eminent in the very different characters of dramatic poet and architect, was descended from a family originally of Ghent in Flanders. His grandfather, Giles Vanburg, being obliged to quit his native country on account of the persecution of the protestants by the duke of Alva, came to England, and settled as a merchant in London, in the parish of St. Stephen, Walbrooke, where he continued until his death in 1646. He left a son, Giles Vanbmgb, who settled in the city of Chester, and was, it is supposed, a sugar-baker, where he acquired an ample fortune. Blome, in his “Britannia,” calls him gentleman, and afterwards he was styled an esquire. Removing to London, he obtained the place of comptroller of the Treasury-chamber. He died in 1715. He married Elizabeth, the fifth and youngest daughter and coheir of sir Dudley Carleton, of Imber-court in Surrey, knt. She died in 1711. By her he had eight sons, the second of whom was John, the subject of the present article. The time of his birth has not been ascertained, b,ut it probably was about the middle of the reign of Charles II.

We have no account of his education, but it probably was liberal, and he seems to have made a rapid progress in the accomplishments suited to his rank in life. A gay, lively disposition led him to the army, in which at a very early age he bore an ensign’s commission, but does not appear to have remained long a candidate for higher promotion. His course of desultory reading, or the company he kept, seems to have given him a taste for the drama, which he cultivated with the greatest success, and divided with Congreve the merit of reviving the comic muse. In some of his winter-quarters he became acquainted with sir Thomas Skipwith; who being a sharer in a theatrical patent, though little concerned in the conduct of it, young Vanbrugh shewed him the outlines of two plays; and sir Thomas encouraged him to finish “The Relapse,” which, notwithstanding its gross indecencies, being acted in 1697, succeeded beyond their warmest expectations, placed Vanbrugh in a high degree of reputation, and stimulated him (under the patronage of lord Halifax) to complete his “Provok'd Wife;” which was successfully brought out at Lincoln’s Inn Fields in 1698. Though both these comedies met with greater applause than the author expected, yet both were liable to the severest censure, and verified the observation of Pope,

< f That Van wants grace, who never wanted wit.“In the same year, 1693, he brought out his comedy of” Æsop,“which was acted at Drury-Lane, and contains much general satire and useful morality, but was not very successful.” The False Friend,“his next comedy, came out in 1702. He had interest enough to raise a subscription of thirty persons of quality, at 100l. each, for building a stately theatre in the Hay-Market; on the first stone that was laid of this theatre were inscribed the words Little Whig, as a compliment to a celebrated beauty, lady Sunderland, second daughter of the duke of Marlborough, the tast and pride of that party. The house being finished in 1706, it was put by Mr. Betterton and his associates under the management of sir John Vanbrugh and Mr. Congreve, in hopes of retrieving their desperate fortunes; but their expectations were too sanguine. The new theatre was opened with a translated opera, set to Italian music, called” The Triumph of Love,“which met with a cold reception.” The Confederacy“was almost immediately after produced by sir John, and acted with more success than so licentious a performance deserved, though less than it was entitled to, if considered merely with respect to its dramatic merit. The prospects of the theatre being unpromising, Mr. Congreve gave up his share and interest wholly to Vanbrugh,” who, being now become sole manager, was under a necessity of exerting himself. Accordingly, in the same season, he gave the public three other imitations from the French; viz. 1. “The Cuckold in Conceit.” 2. “Squire Treeloby;” and, 3. “The Mistake.” The spaciousness of the dome in the new theatre, by preventing the actors from being distinctly heard, was an inconvenience not to be surmounted; and an union of the two companies was projected. Sir John, tired of the business, disposed of his theatrical concerns to Mr. Owen Swinney, who governed the stage till another great revolution occurred. Our author’s last comedy, “The Journey to London,” which was left imperfect, was finished to great advantage by Mr. Cibber, who takes notice in the prologue of sir John’s virtuous intention in composing this piece, to make amends for scenes written in the fire of youth. He seemed sensible indeed of this, when in 1725 he altered an exceptionable scene in “The Provoked Wife,” by putting into the mouth of a woman of quality what before had been spoken by a clergyman; a change which removed from him the imputation of prophaneness, which, however, as well as the most gross licentiousness, still adheres to his other plays, and gave Collier an irresistible advantage over him in the memorable controversy respecting the stage.

At what time Vanbrugh began to be an architect by profession, we do not find mentioned. His principal buildings are Blenheim Castle- Howard, in Yorkshire; Eastberry, in Dorsetshire; King’s Weston, near Bristol; Easton-Neston, in Northamptonshire; Mr. Buncombe’s, in Yorkshire; and the opera-house; to which we may indeed add his most tasteless pile, St. John’s church, in Westminster; but neither want of taste nor of grandeur of conception can be justly attributed to sir John’s greatest works, Blenheim and Castle-Howard. Walpole says, " However partial the court was to Vanbrugh, every body was not so blind to his defects. Swift ridiculed both his own diminutive house at Whitehall, and the stupendous pile at Blenheim. Of the first he says,

Thus far the satirist was well founded party-rage warped his understanding when he censured Vanbrugh’s plays, and left him no more judgment to see their beauties than sir John had when he perceived not that they were the only beauties he was formed to compose.“Walpole, perhaps, was not aware of the handsome apology Dr. Swift and Mr. Pope have made, in the joint preface to their miscellanies” In regard to two persons only we wish our raillery, though ever so tender, or resentment, though ever so just, had not been indulged. We speak of sir John Vanbrugh, who was a man of wit, and of honour; and of Mr. Addison, whose name deserves all the respect from every lover of learning.“And notwithstanding Walpole’s own contribution of wit and flippancy to depreciate the character of Vanbrugh’s Blenheim and Castle-Howard, we are far more inclined to the opinion of our illustrious artist and elegant writer, str Joshua Reynolds, delivered, as it is, with the modesty that distinguishes, however seldom it accompanies, superior genius.” In the buildings of Vanbrugh, who was a poet as well as an architect, there is a greater display of imagination than we shall find, perhaps, in any other; and this is the ground of the effect we feel it) many of his works, notwithstanding the faults with which many of them are charged. For this purpose Vanbrugh appears to have had recourse to some principles of the Gothic architectore, which, thoueh not so ancient as the Grecian, is more so to

our imagination, with which the artist is more concerned than will; absolute truth.“”To speak of Vanbrugh,“adds sir Joshua,” in the language of 'a painter, he had originality of invention; he understood light and shadow, and had great skill in composition. To support his principal object, he produced his second and third groupes or masses. He perfectly understood in his art, what is the most difficult in ours, the conduct of the back-ground, by which the design and invention are set off to the greatest advantage. What the back-ground is in painting, in architecture is the real ground on which the building is erected; and no architect took greater care that his work should not appear crude and hard, that is, that it did not abruptly start out of the ground without expectation or preparation. This is a tribute which a painter owes to an architect who composed like a painter, and was defrauded of the due reward of his merit by the wits of his time, who did not understand the principles of composition in poetry better than he, and who knew little or nothing of what he understood perfectly, the general ruling principles of architecture and painting. Vanbrugh’s fate was that of the great Perrault. Both were the objects of the petulant sarcasms of factious men of letters, and both have left some of the fairest monuments which, to this day, decorate their several countries; the fagade of the Louvre; Blenheim, and Castle Howard."

Castle-Howard Vanbrugh built for Charles, earl of Carlisle, deputy to the earl marshal, who gave him the appointment of Clarenceux, king-at-arms, in 1704. The appointment, however, was remonstrated against by the superseded heralds, and the college at large felt the slight put upon them by having a total stranger made king-at-­arms, and who was likewise ignorant of the profession of heraldry and genealogy. Swift’s pun was, that he might now build houses He was knighted at Greenwich, September 9, 1714, appointed comptroller of the royal works January 6, 1714-5, and surveyor of the works at Greenwich hospital, August 17, 1716. It was designed to have given him the place of garter but finding that the younger Anstis had a reversionary grant, he resigned his tabard to Knox Ward, esq. February 9, 1725-6, and died March 26 following, at Whitehall. His country residence was Vanbrugh-Fields, at Greenwich,- where he built two seats, one called the Bastile, standing on Maize, or Maze-Hill, on the east side of the park. Lady Vanbrugh, his relict, sold it to lord Trelawny, who made it his residence: the name was taken from the French prison of which it was a model. It is said, but no time is mentioned, that on a visit to France, his curiosity and natural taste exciting him to take a survey of the fortifications in that kingdom, he was taken notice of by an engineer, secured by authority, and carried to the Bustile, where his confinement was so much softened by humanity, that he amused himself by drawing rude draughts of some comedies. This circumstance raised such curiosity at Paris, that he was visited by several of the noblesse, and by their means procured his liberty before any solicitation for it came from England. He had another built in the same style at Blackheath, called the Mincepye-house, now or lately inhabited by a descendant. Lady Vanbrugh, his relict, died April 26, 1776, aged ninety, and their only son, an ensign of the second regiment of the foot-guards, died of the wounds he received in a battle fought near Tournay, in 1745.

, a learned writer, was born in Holland, Nov. 8, 1638. He early discovered an eager taste for acquiring the languages, which, for some time, his parents obliged him to give up for the more profitable pursuit of commerce. He, however, resumed his studies when about thirty years of age, acquired skill in Greek and Latin antiquities, and took his degrees in physic, which science he practised with success. He was also for some time a preacher in the sect of the Mennonites (a species of Anabaptists: see Menno) and seems, upon the whole, to have cultivated theological as much as medical studies. The latter, however, were not neglected, and he died at Harlem, physician to the hospital in that city, November 28, 1708. He wrote in Latin some learned dissertations “on the Heathen Oracles,” Amsterdam, 1700, 4to, in which he maintained that they were frauds of the idolatrous priests. Fontenelle has given an excellent abridgment of this work in French in his treatise “des Oracles.”; Van-Dale also published a treatise on the “Origin and progress of Idolatry,” 169G, 4to; “Dissertatio super Aristea, de 70 interpretibus,” Amsterdam, 1705, 4to, and “Dissertations” on important subjects, 1712, 4to, and 1743, 4to. All his works discover deep learning and great critical skill; but are defective in order and method.

, a learned professor of physic at Leyden, was descended from ancestors distinguished in the republic of letters. His grandfather, Henry, born in 1546, was a master of the learned languages, and suffered greatly on account of the reformation, which he embraced very young, having lost his father, his wife’s father, and other relations and friends, in the Spanish massacre at Naerden in 1572. After this he exercised the function as a minister at Enckhuisen till 1585, when he was invited to be professor of divinity at the university of Franeker, then founded, pi'onounced the inaugural oration when it was opened, and was the first lecturer. He died there in 1614, and left, among other children, a son, named Antony, also a man of talents and learning, and on that account promoted by the magistrates of Enckhuisen to be rector of their college. He was skilled in music, and no stranger to divinity; but his leading study was physic, in which faculty, having taken the degree of doctor at Franeker in 1608, he practised with success and reputation, first at Enckhuisen, and afterwards at Amsterdam, to which he removed in 1625.

His son, John Antonides, the subject of this article, was born at Enckhuisen, Jan. 13, 1609. He was sent to Leyden in 1625, tb study philosophy, and afterwards applied himself entirely to physic. From Leyden he went to Franeker in 1629, in order to continue his studies, and received the degree of doctor some months after. He then returned to Amsterdam, where his father died in 1633, and where he continned to practise physic with great reputation until, in 1639, he was invited to be professor of physic in the university of Franeker. He discharged that office with great applause for almost twelve years; reading lectures, both on the theory and practice of anatomy and botany; and it was by his care that the garden of the university was enlarged, and an house built to it. The library was no less indebted to him for a great number of books, which were procured by his address. The university of Utrecht offered him a professor’s place in 1649, which he declined; but, two years after, accepted the same offer from the curators of the university of Leyden, and filled the chair with high reputation till his death, which happened March 4, 1664. Guy Patin, who was a friend of this physician, often mentions him in his letters, and seems to insinuate that he neglected himself during his illness, for he died of a complaint of the lungs, in which bleeding might have been useful. Patin adds, in allusion to Vander-Linden’s learning, “I had rather be a blockhead, and bleed sometimes.”

Vander-Linden wrote many books upon physic, which are enumerated in our authorities, and one “De Scriptis Medicis.” This, which is a catalogue of books upon physic, was printed and enlarged several times by the author in his life-time; and very considerably so after his death, by a German, named Merklinns, who published it in a thick quarto, under the title of “Lindenius Renovattis,” at Nuremberg, in 1686, but it never was either correct or complete, and has since given place to more recent works of the kind, particularly Eloy’s Dictionary. Vander-Linden was also the editor of “Celsus,” Leyden, 1657, 12mo, and left an edition of the works of Hippocrates, published there in 1665, 2 vols. 8vo, Greek and Latin. With this he had taken great pains, but did not live to finish more than a correct text, to attain which he carefully compared all the old editions and several manuscripts, and restored a great number of passages, which were not correct even in Foesius’s edition. His Latin translation is that of Cornarius, because the oldest, and that commonly used. Having been attacked by his last illness a little before this edition was finished, he was prevented from publishing the notes which he intended.

, a learned member of the French Institute, whose Christian name we have not been able to discover, was born at Paris in 1735. In his youth he applied sedulously to study, but we have no account of his progress until he became acquainted with the celebrated geometrician Fontaine, who foresaw the progress which Vandermonde would one day make in the mathematics; and under his patronage, Vandermonde determined to devote himself to geometry. In 1771 he presented himself to the Academy of Sciences, into which he was admitted; and justified the suffrages of his associates, by a paper relative to the resolution of equations.

This work was quickly followed by another, on the problems called by geometricians, '“problems of situation.” Leibnitz was of opinion, that the analysis made use of in his time, by the geometricians, was not applicable to all questions in the physical sciences; and that a new geometry should be invented, to calculate the relations of positions of different bodies, in space; this he called “geometry of situation.” Excepting, however, one application, made by Leibnitz himself, to the i game of solitaire, and which, under the appearance of an object of curiosity, scarcely worthy the sublimity and usefulness of geometry, is an example for solving the most elevated and important questions, Euler was almost the only one who had practised this geometry of situation. He had resorted to it for the solution of a problem called the cavalier, which, also, appeared very familiar at first sight, and was also pregnant with useful and important applications. This problem, with the vulgar, consisted merely in running through all the cases of the chess-board, with the knight of the game of chess; to the profound geometrician, however, it was a precedent for tracing the route which every body must follow, whose course is submitted to a known law, by conforming to certain required conditions, through all the points disposed over a space, in a prescribed order. Vandermonde was chiefly anxious to find in this species or analysis, a simple notation, likely to facilitate the making of calculations; and he gave an example of this, in a short and easy solution "of the same problem of the cavalier, which Euler had rendered famous.

With these labours, intermingled with frequent researches on the mechanic arts, as well as on objects of political ceconomy, the attention of Vandermonde was taken up, until 1789, the period of the revolution, when he became so decided an enemy to every thing established, that he concurred even in the abolition of the Royal Academy, and associated himself with Robespierre, Marat, and the rest of that party who covered France with ruins, with scaffolds, and blood. This part of Vandermonde’s history is suppressed by his eulogist LaCepede, because discussions on political topics ought not, in his opinion, to be admitted into the sanctuary of the sciences. In that sanctuary, however, Vandermonde did not long remain. He died of a rapid decline brought on by a disorder of the lungs, Jan. 1, 1796.

, Vandenvelde, or Vandevelde (William), called the Old, one of a distinguished family of painters, was born at Leyden in 1610. He was originally bred to the sea, but afterwards studied painting, and retained enough of his former profession to make it the source of his future fame. In marine subjects, he became a most correct and admirable designer, and made an incredible number of drawings on paper, heightened with Indian ink, which he sketched after nature, with uncommon elegance and fidelity.

As the English were remarkable for constructing their vessels in a much more graceful form than any other European power, and were equally remarkable for their generous encouragement of artists, Vandervelde determined to come to London, with his son, and was soon after taken into the service of Charles II. with the salary of lOOl. ayear for himself, and the same sum for his sort: in the order of privy-seal for these salaries it is expressed that the salary is given to the father “for taking and making draughts of sea-fights,” and to the son “for putting the said draughts into colours.” It was, however, not much to the honour of William the Old that he conducted, it is said, the English fleet to burn Schelling. It was, adds Walpole, pushing his gratitude too far to serve the king against his own country.

Vandervelde was such an enthusiast in his art, that in order more exactly to observe the movements and various positions of ships engaged in a sea-fight, he did not hesitate to attend sea-engagements in a small light vessel, and sail close to the enemy, attentive only to his drawing, and without the least apparent anxiety for the danger to which he was every moment exposed. In this way he took sketches of the severe battle between the duke of York and adnwral Opdam, in which the Dutch admiral and five hundred men were blown up, and of the memorable engagement which continued three days between Monck and )e Ruyter, sailing alternately between the fleets, so as to represent minutely every movement of the ships, and the most material circumstances of the action, with incredible exactness and truth. In the latter part of his life, he commonly painted in black and white, on a ground so prepared on canvas as to make it have the appearance of paper. He died in 1693, and was buried in St. James’s church, Piccadilly.

, called The Young, was born at Amsterdam in 1633, and was the son of the preceding, by whom he was carefully instructed in the art$ but afterwards he was placed under the direction of Simon de Vlieger, a very excellent painter of ships, sea-shores, and sea-ports, who however was far surpassed by his disciple. As soon as young Vandervelde felt his strength, and thought he might appear with advantage in his profession, he went to his father in London; and some of his paintings, being exhibited at the English court, immediately procured him employment from the king, and the principal nobility. His subjects were the same as those of his father, and he observed the same method of sketching every object after nature; but his pictures upon the whole are not only superior to the works of his father, but to all other artists in that style; and no age, since the revival of the art, is thought to have produced his equal. Whether we consider the beauty of his design, the correctness of his drawing, the graceful forms and positions of his vessels, the elegance of his disposition, the lightness of his clouds; the clearness and variety of his serene skies, as well as the gloomy horror of those that are stormy; the liveliness and transparence of his colouring; the look of genuine nature that appears in agitated and still waters; and the lovely gradation of his distances, as well as their perspective truth, they are all executed with equal nature, judgment, and genius. Houbraken and other writers observe, that the pictures of the young Vandervelde are so esteemed in England, that those which were scattered through the Low Countries were eagerly sought after, and purchased at vast prices; so that in Holland they rarely have the pleasure of seeing any of them. Undoubtedly the most capital of his works are in England in the royal collections, and in the cabinets of the nobility and gentry, and some few are also in Ireland. He died April 6, 1707, in the seventy -fourth year of his age.

, a most illustrious portraitpainter, whose works, lord Orford remarks, are so frequent in England, that the generality of our people can scarcely avoid thinking him their countryman, was born at Antwerp, March 22, 1598-9. His father was a merchant, and his mother, Cornelia Kersboom, was an admired flower-painter. He was first placed with Van Balen, who had studied at Rome, but afterwards with Rubens, under whom he made such progress as to be able to assist in the works from which he learned. While at this excellent school, the following anecdote is told of him: Rubens having left a picture unfinished one night, and going out contrary to custom, his scholars took the opportunity of sporting about the room; when one, more unfortunate than the rest, striking at his companion with a maul-stick^ chanced to throw down the picture, which not being dry acquired some damage. Vandyck, being at work in the next room, was prevailed on to repair the mischief; and when Rubens came next morning to his work, first going at a distance to view his picture, as is usual with painters, and having contemplated it a little, he cried out suddenly, that he liked the piece far better than he did the night before.

Rubens, discovering in his pupil an amiable temper joined to the most promising talents, took a pleasure in cultivating both, by not concealing from him any part of that knowledge which he had himself attained by long experience. Vandyck was yet young when he was capable of executing pictures, which astonished, as much from the facility with which they were painted, as the general knowledge which reigned throughout the whole. Rubens, at this time, gave him two pieces of advice; the first was, to devote himself to portraits, in which he foresaw he would excel; and the second to make the tour of Italy, where he would have an opportunity of extending his studies. Vandyck accordingly, after making Rubens presents of two or three historical paintings, and a portrait of that artist’s wife, esteemed one of his best, set out for Italy, and made his first residence at Genoa, where he painted many excellent portraits. From thence he went to Venice, where he so deeply imbibed the tints of Titian, that he is allowed to approach nearer to the carnations of that master than even Rubens. He then went to Rome and lived splendidly, avoiding the low conversation of his countrymen, and was distinguished by the appellation of the Pittore Cavalieresco. Soon after his arrival there, he had an opportunity of exercising his abilities upon the portrait of cardinal Bentivoglio, which is justly esteemed the mostiperfect of the kind that ever came from the pencil of this- artist. While at Rome he received an invitation to Palermo, and there he painted prince Philibert of Savoy, the viceroy, and a paintress Angosciola (see Angosciola, vol. II.) then at the age of ninety-one. But the plague soon drove him from Sicily, and he returned to Genoa, where he had gained the highest reputation, and left many considerable works in the Balbi, Durazzo, and other palaces.

But the advantages he reaped in his own country were not proportioned to his merits, and as he loved to make a figure, he resolved to augment his fortune by a visit to England, where he had heard of the favour king Charles I. shewed to the arts. On his arrival he lodged with Geldorp, a painter, hoping to be introduced to the king; but, owing to whatever means, this was not accomplished, and he went away chagrined. The king, however, soon learning what a treasure had been within his reach, ordered sir Kenelm Digby, who had sat to Vandyck, to invite him over. He immediately complied, and was lodged among the king’s artists at Black-friars. Thither the king went often by water, and viewed his performances with singular delight, frequently sitting to him himself, and bespeaking pictures of the queen, his children, and his courtiers; and he conferred the honour of knighthood on him at St. James’s July 5, 1632. This was the following year attended bv the grant of an annuity of 200^. a year, and with this he had the title of painter to his majesty.

According to Walpole, Vandyck’s prices were 40l. for a half, and 60l. for a whole length; but from some documents communicated by Mr. Malone, it appears that he painted, for the royal family at least, at the rate of 251. each portrait, and sometimes less. From the number of his works he must have been indefatigable; for though he was not above forty-two when he died, they are not exceeded by those of Rubens. He lived sumptuously, kept a great table, and often detained the persons who sat to him, to dinner, for an opportunity of studying their -countenances, and of retouching their pictures again in the afternoon. In summer he lived at Eltham in Kent. He was not only luxurious in his living, but in his pleasures; and this, with a sedentary life, brought on the gout, and hurt his fortune. He sought to repair it by the silly pursuit of the philosopher’s stone, in which probably he was encouraged by the example or advice of his friend sir Kenelm Digby. Towards the end of his life, the king bestowed on him for a wife, Mary, the daughter of the unfortunate lord Gowry, and soon after his marriage he set out for Paris, in hopes of being employed in the Louvre; but disappointed in this, he returned to England, and proposed to the king, by sir Kenelm Digby, to paint the walls of the Banquetting-house at Whitehall, of which the ceiling was already adorned by Rubens -, and Vandyck’s subject was to have been the history and procession of the order of the garter. The proposal struck the king’s taste, and, in Walpole’s opinion, was accepted; though, he adds, that “some say it was rejected, on the extravagant price demanded by Vandyck I would not specify the sum, it is so improbable, if I did not find it repeated in Fenton’s notes on Waller; it was fourscore thousand pounds!” But the sum being expressed in figures, this was probably a typographical error of 80,000l. for 8000l. The rebellion, however, prevented further thoughts of the scheme, as the death of Vandyck would have interrupted the execution, at least the completion of it. He died in Blackfriars Dec. 9, 1641, and was buried in St. Paul’s near the tomb of John of Gaunt.

By his wife, Maria Ruthven, lord Cowry’s daughter, he left one daughter, married to Mr. Stepney, whose grandson, Walpole says, was George Stepney the poet. Lady Vandyck, the widow, was married again to Richard Pryse, son of sir John Pryse, of Newton-Averbecham, in Montgomeryshire, knt. by whom she had no issue. Vandyck. died rich, and was generous in his legacies, but, owing to the confusions of the times, some were with difficulty recovered, and some lost.

, an English statesman, whose family name had for some generations been Fane, but originally Vane, to which he restored it, was born Feb. 18, 1589. The family is said to have been at first of the diocese of Durham, but were now settled in Kent. (See Collins, art. Darlington). In 16 11 he had the honour of knighthood conferred upon him by king James I. after which he improved himself by travel, and the acquisition of foreign languages. On his return he was elected member of parliament for Carlisle, in which his abilities were conspicuous. Such also was his attachment to the royal family, that king James made him cofferer to his son Charles, prince of Wales, on the establishment of his household, and he was continued in the same office by the prince when Charles I. He was also sent by the new king to notify to the States of Holland the death of his royal father, and made one of the privy-council. In Sept. 1631 he was appointed ambassador extraordinary, to renew the treaty of friendship and alliance with Christian IV. king of Denmark; and to conclude peace and confederacy with Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden. He returned to England in Nov. 1632, and in May of the following year, entertained Charles I. in a sumptuous manner, at Raby-castle, on his way to Scotland to be crowned; as he did again, April 30, 1639, in his majesty’s expedition to Scotland, when sir Henry commanded a regiment of 1099 men. In 1639 he was made treasurer of the household, and next year, principal secretary of state in the room of sir John Coke. Hitherto he had enjoyed the confidence of the king, and had always been employed in the most important public affairs. But when he appeared in the prosecution against the earl of Strafford, his motives to which appear to have been of a personal kind, the king was so offended, that he removed him from his places of treasurer of his household, and also from being secretary of state, though, in the patent granting that office to him, he was to hold it during life. The parliament therefore made this one of their pleas for taking up arms against the king. In their declaration, they avowed, “it was only for the defence of the king’s person, and the religion, liberties, and laws of the kingdom, and for those, who for their sakes, and for those ends, had observed their orders. That, by the instigation of evil counsellors, the king had raised an army of papists, by which he intended to awe and destroy the parliament, &c.; and the putting out the earl of Northumberland, sir Henry Vane, and others, &c. from their several places and employments, were sufficient and ample evidences thereof.”

It does not, however, appear that he was concerned in any measures against the king, but continued in London, without acting in the rebellion. And although on December 1, 1645, the parliament, debating on propositions of peace with the king, voted, that it be recommended to his majesty 10 create sir Henry Vane, senior, a baron of the kingdom, he never accepted any commission or employment under them. Before the murder of the king, he retired to his seat at Raby castle, neither he nor his sons being concerned therein. The earl of Clarendon is severe in his character of sir Henry Vane. He certainly was at one time in full confidence with the king, but his taking part against Strafford did incalculable mischief to the royal cause. Clarendon allows that, in his judgment, “he liked the government, both in church and state.” As to what his lordship observes, “of his growing at last into the hatred and contempt of those who had made most use of him, and died in universal reproach;” it may, says Collins, be more justly represented, that he saw the vile use they made of their power, and, contemning them, chose retirement. He lived to the latter end of 1654, when he departed this life, at his seat at Raby-castle, in the sixtyninth year of his age.

, eldest son of the preceding, and one of the most turbulent enthusiasts which the rebellion produced, was born in 1612, and educated at Westminsterschool, whence he went to Magdalen-hall, Oxford, and even at this early age seems to have embraced some of those republican opinions which were destined to plunge his country in all the miseries of anarchy. He is said to have then travelled to France and Geneva, and on his return betrayed such an aversion to the discipline and liturgy of the Church of England, as greatly displeased his father. Finding how obnoxious his principles made him, he determined to go to New England, then the resort of all who were disaffected to the Church of England. His father was against this wild scheme, but, according to Neal (in his History of New England), the king advised him to consent to it, and to limit his stay to three years. Young Vane’s purpose was to have begun a settlement on the banks of the river Connecticut; but the people upon his arrival, in 1635, complimenting him with the government of Massachusetts for the next year, he resolved to stay among them. He was, however, Neal says, ' no sooner advanced to the government, than he appeared to be a person of no conduct, and no ways equal to the post he was preferred to: being a strong enthusiast, he openly espoused the Antinomian doctrines, and gave such encouragement to the preachers and spreaders of them, as raised their vanity, and gave them such an interest among the people, as the very next year had like to have proved fatal both to the church and commonwealth; but the sober party observing his conduct, concerted such measures among themselves, as put an end to his government the next election.“Mather, another New England historian, speaks with still greater contempt of Vane, and says, that” Mr. Vane’s election will remain a blemish to their judgments who did elect him, while New England remains a nation.“Baxter tells us, that he became so obnoxious that” he was fain to steal away by night, and take shipping for England, before his year of government was at an end,“Baxter adds, that” when he came over into England, he proved an instrument of greater calamity to a people more sinful and more prepared for God’s judgments."

According to these accounts he must have returned home about 1636, and not 1639, as some have asserted. It is said that he now appeared to be reformed from the extravagances of his opinions, and married Frances, daughter of sir Christopher Wray, of Ash by, in Lincolnshire. He was also by his father’s interest joined with sir William Russel in the office of treasurer of the navy, a place of great trust and profit. He represented Kingston-upon-Hull in the parliament chosen 1640, and for some time seemed well satisfied with the government; but, upon his father’s taking umbrage at the lord Strafford’s being created in 1639 baron Raby (which title he had promised himself, and which Strafford laid hold of, merely out of contempt to the Vanes), both father and son formed a resolution of revenge. For this purpose the latter, who had received the honour of knighthood in 1640, joined Pymand other declared enemies of the court; and contributed all that intelligence which ended in the ruin of the earl, and which fixed himself in the entire confidence of the enemies of the king and of StrafFord, so that nothing was concealed from him, though it is believed that he communicated his thoughts to very few.

Upon the breaking out of the rebellion he adhered to the interest of the parliament with enthusiastic zeal. He began with carrying to the House of Peers the articles of impeachment against archbishop Laud; and was nominated one of the ]ay members of the assembly of divines. In 1643 he was appointed one of the commissioners sent by parliament to invite the Scots to their assistance. Under this character he distinguished himself as the “great contriver and promoter of the solemn league and covenant;” though, even at that time, he was known to have an equal aversion to it and to presbytery, which he demonstrated afterwards upon all occasions, being a zealous independent. In 1644, he was the grand instrument of carrying the famous self-denying ordinance, a delusive trick, which for a time gave life and spirit to the independent cause; and in his speech, upon introducing the debate on that subject, observed, that, though he had been possessed of the treasurership of the navy before the beginning of the troubles, without owing it to the favour of the parliament, yet he was ready to resign it to them; and desired that the profits of it might be applied towards the support of the war. He was likewise one of the commissioners at the treaty of Uxbridge, in Jan. 1644-5, and of that of the Isle of Wight in 1648; in which last, as he was now determined to procure, if possible, a change in the government, he used all his efforts to retard any conclusion with his majesty till the army could be brought to London; and for that purpose amused the king’s party by the offer of a toleration for the common prayer and the episcopal clergy. Like many others, however, he did not foresee the consequences of his favourite measures, and therefore did not approve of the force put upon the parliament by the army, nor of the execution of the king; withdrawing for some time from the scene while these things were acted. But, upon the establishment of the commonwealth, 1648-9, he was appointed one of the council of state, in which post he was continued till the memorable dissolution of the parliament by Cromwell in 1643. On this occasion Cromwell, who treated individual members with personal insolence, took hold of sir Henry Vane by the cloak, saying, “Thou art a juggling fellow.” Vane, however, was too much of a republican to submit to his, or any authority, and was therefore, in 1656, summoned by Cromwell to appear before him in council. On his appearance Cromwell charged him with disaffection to his government, which appeared in a late publication of his called “A healing question proposed and resolved.” Vane acknowledged the publication, and avowed his displeasure with the present state of affairs. Cromwell therefore ordered him to give security for his good behaviour; but instead of this, which such a man as sir Henry Vane might probably find very difficult, he delivered to Cromwell a justification of his conduct; and this not being satisfactory, he was imprisoned in Carisbrooke castle, the spot on which he had so recently contributed to injure the cause of his legitimate sovereign. About four months after, he was released, and Cromwell tried to bring down his spirit by threatening to deprive him of some of his estates by legal process, that is, by such perversion of the law as he might find some of his creatures capable of attempting; intimating at the same time, that all this should drop, and he be gratified with, what he pleased, provided he would comply with the present government. But he remained inflexible, as well during Cromwell’s life, as during the short reign of Richard, against whom many meetings of the republicans were held at his house near Charing Cross.

Endeavours were used to keep him out of Richard’s parliament in 1659, yet he was at last chosen for Whitchurch; in Hampshire. In that assembly, he and other republicans laboured to overturn the settlement of a protector and two houses of parliament, and to introduce a commonwealth, and gained considerable ascendancy. After the abdication. of Richard, the long parliament was restored, and sir Henry Vane made one of the committee of safety, and one of the council of state, and finally president of the council, at which time he proposed a new model of republican government. Still, however, he had the misfortune to displease his associates, and his temporary grandeur ended in their confining him to his house at Raby, in the county of Durham.

Upon the restoration it was imagined, that, as the declaration from Breda was full of indemnity to all except the regicides, he was comprehended in it; his innocence of the king’s death was represented in such a manner by his friends, that an address was agreed upon by both houses of parliament in his behalf, to which a favourable answer, though in general terms, was returned by his majesty; and this being equivalent to an act of parliament, though it wanted the necessary forms, he was thought to be secure. But the share he had in the attainder of the earl of Strafford, and in all the violent measures which overturned the government, and, above all, the great opinion which was entertained of his parts and capacity to embroil matters again, made the court think it necessary to include him among the most dangerous enemies of the restoration. He was brought therefore to his trial on the 4th of June, 1G62, for imagining and compassing the death of king Charles I, and for taking upon him and usurping the government: in answer to which he urged, that neither the king’s death, nor the members themselves, could dissolve the long parliament, whereof he being one, no inferior could call him in question; but, being found guilty, he was, on the 14th, beheaded on Tower-hill, where he intended to have addressed the spectators, but drummers were placed under the scaffold, who, as soon as he began to speak, upon a sign given, struck up their drums. This, which is said to have been a new and very indecent practice, put him in no disorder; he only desired they might be stopped, for he understood what was meant by it. Then he went through his devotions; and, as he was taking leave of those about him, happening to say somewhat with relation to the times, the drums struck up a second time. Upon this he gave over, and died with such resolution as to excite the sympathy of those who had no respect for his general character and conduct.

Lord Clarcndoq styles him a man of a very profound dissimulation, of a quick conception, and very ready, sharp, and weighty, expression; of a pleasant wit, a great understanding, which pierced into and discerned the purposes of other men with wonderful sagacity, whilst he had himself vtdtum clausum, that no man could make a guess of what he himself intended; of a temper not to he moved, though compliant, when it was not seasonable to contradict, without losing ground by the condescension. Burnet represents him as naturally a very fearful man, whose head was as darkened in his notions of religion as his mind was clouded with fear; for, though he set up a form of religion in a way of his own, yet it consisted rather in withdrawing from all other forms, than in any new particular opinion or form; from which he and his party were called seekers, and seemed to wait for some new and clearer manifestations. Baxter calls them the Vanuts. In their meetings sir Henry preached and prayed often himself, but with a peculiar darkness, which ran likewise through his writings, to a degree that rendered them wholly unintelligible. He inclined to Origen’s notion of an universal salvation to all, both the devils and the damned; and to the doctrine of pre-existence.

His writings, which were of a very peculiar cast, were, 1. “A healing Question, propounded and resolved, upon occasion of the late public and seasonable call to humiliation, in order to love and union amongst the honest party, 1656,” 4to. It was written upon occasion of a general fast; and contained, says Ludlow, the state of the republicans’ controversy with the king, the present deviation from that cause for which they engaged, and the means to unite all parties in the accomplishment of it. 2. “The retired Man’s Meditations; or, the mystery and power of godliness shining forth in the living world,” &c. 1656, 4to, an enthusiastic treatise on our Saviour’s coming down to erect a fifth monarchy upon earth, which would last 1000 years. 3. “Of the Love of God and Union with God,” 1657, 4to. Of this book lord Clarendon says, “When I had read it, and found nothing of his usual clearness and ratiocination in his discourse, in which he used much to excel the best of the company he kept, and that, in a crowd of very easy words, the sense was too hard to find out, I was of opinion that the subject-matter of it was of so delicate a nature that it required another kind of preparation of mind, and, it may be, another kind of diet than men are ordinarily supplied with.” 4. “An Epistle General to the mystical body of Christ on earth, the church universal in Babylon, who are pilgrims and strangers on the earth, desiring and seeking after the heavenly country,” 1662, 4to. 5. “The Face of the Times; whereby is briefly discovered, by several prophetical Scriptures, from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Revelation, the rise, progress, and issue, of the enmity and contest between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, to the final breaking of the serpent’s head, to the total and irrecoverable ruin of the monarchies of this world,” &c. 1662, 4to. 6. “The People’s Cause stated. The valley of Jehosaphat considered and opened, by comparing 2 Chron. xx. with Joel iii. Meditations concerning man’s life government friendship enemies death;” penned during his imprisonment, and printed at the end of his trial, in 1662, 4to.

, a man of letters, and one of the first periodical essayists on the continent, was born at Utrecht, April 21, 1684. He was the son of an officer, who had no other fortune than a moderate pension, and as he died before Justus had completed his studies, the latter was left to provide as he could for his mother and a sister. Some friends who took an interest in the family procured him to be appointed tutor to the baron de Welderen’s son, which placed him above want; but as he could not do so much for his family as he wished, he had recourse to his pen for a farther supply. His first publication was “Le Misanthrope,” a periodical paper in imitation of our “Spectator,” which he wrote in French, commencing May 1711, and continuing till December 17 12. In thi he had great, and from what we have seen, deserved success. If he falls short of his model in that delicate humour of Addison, which has never been equalled, he abounds in just remarks on life and manners, evidently derived from extensive observation. Van Effen contrived to conceal himself throughout the whole of this publication, of which a second and improved edition was published at the Hague in 1726, 2 vols. 12mo, to which is added his “Journey to Sweden,” performed in 1719, in the suite of the prince of Hesse PhiJippsthal, who promised to make his fortune, but disappointed him. He consequently returned to the Hague as poor as he left it, and resumed his labours on the “Journal litteraire de la Haye,” in which he had been engaged before his departure. Having got into a literary quarrel with Camusat, who had treated his “Misanthrope” with contempt, he was so much hurt as to be glad to embrace the opportunity of going to Leyden with a young gentleman to whom he was appointed tutor. Here he engaged in some literary schemes by which he got more money than reputation. Count de Welderen, however, having been appointed ambassador to England from the States General, took Van Efien with him as secretary, and on his return procured him the place of inspector of the magazines at Bois-le-Duc, where he died Sept. 18, 1735-. Van Effen’s works were numerous, but being almost all anonymous, it is not easy to ascertain the whole. The following are said to be the principal: 1. “Le Misanthrope,” already noticed. 2. “Journal Litteraire,” 1715 to 1718, many of which volumes are entirely of his editing. 3. “La Bagatelle, ou Discours ironiques, ou Ton prete des sophistries ingenieux au vice et a l'extravagance, pour en mieux faire sentir le ridicule,” Artist. 1718 1719, 3 vols. 8vo, reprinted at Lausanne, 1743, 2 vols. 4. “Le nouveau Spectateur Francais,” of which only twenty-eight numbers appeared; four of them are employed on a critique on the works of Houdard de la Motte, who thanked the author for his impartiality. 5. “The Dutch Spectator,” in Dutch, Amst. 173J 1735, 12 vols. 8vo. 6. “Parallele d'Homere et de Chapelain,” Hague, 1714, 8vo. This has been also printed in the different editions of the “Chef-d‘oeuvre d’un inconnu,” i. e. M. de Themiseuil de St. Hyacinthe. 7. Translations of Robinson Crusoe, Swift’s Tale of a Tub, and some of Mandeville’s writings. 8. “Le Mentor moderne,” a translation of “The Guardian,” except the political papers. 9. “Histoire metallique des dix-sept Provinces de Pays-Bas,” translated from the Dutch of Van Loon, Hague, 1732, 5 vols. Van Effen is said also to have written “Les Petits Maitres,” a comedy; “Essai sur la maniere de trailer la controverse;” and a part of the “Journal historique, politique, et galante.”

, a Jesuit, and a modern Latin poet of considerable talents, was born in 1664 at Gausses in the diocese of Beziers, in Languedoc. He was educated at the Jesuits’ college in Beziers, and became one of the society in 1680. He was afterwards professor and rector of the schools belonging to the Jesuits in Montpellier, Toulouse, and Auch and died at Toulouse in 1739. He published a volume of poetical “Opuscula” and a good “Dictionary of Poetry,” in Latin,“4to, and had made great progress on a Latin and French Dictionary, which he did not live to finish. His principal Latin poem is his” Praedium Rusticum,“on the subject of a country farm, which, some thought, raised him to the first rank of modern Latin poets. The poem, however, is confessedly tedious, perhaps from the nature of the plan, and cannot be read with pleasure unless by those who happen to unite the scholar’s taste with the farmer’s knowledge. Arthur Murphy published in 1799, a translation of the fourteenth book of the” Praedium Rusticum,“which treats of bees. This he says was a juvenile performance, but he has introduced among the bees” French principles,“” corresponding societies," and other articles of very recent date, the prototypes of which are certainly not to be found in Vaniere.

, a writer who has generally been distinguished by the title of Atheist, was born at Tourosano, in the kingdom of Naples, in 1585; and was the son of John Baptist Vanini, steward to Don Francis de Castro, duke of Tourosano, and viceroy of Naples. His Christian name was Lucilio: but it was customary with him to assume different names in different countries. In Gascony, he called himself Pompeio; in Holland, Julius Ceesar, which name he placed in the title-pages of his books; and, at Toulouse, when he was tried, he was called Lucilio. He had an early taste for literature, and his father sent him to Rome to study philosophy and divinity, and on his return to Naples, he continued his studies in philosophy, and applied himself some time to physic. Astronomy likewise employed him much, which insensibly threw him into the reveries of astrology: but he bestowed the principal part of his time upon divinity. The title of “Doctor in utroque Jure,” which he assumes in the title-page of his dialogues, may indicate that he had applied himself to the civil and canon law; and from his writings, it certainly appears that he understood both. He finished his studies at Padua, where he resided some years, and procured himself to be ordained priest, and became a preacher, with what success is not known. His mind appears to have been perverted or confused by the reading of Aristotle, Averroes, Cardan, and Pomponatius, who became his favourite guides. His admiration of Aristotle was such, that he calls him “the god of philosophers, the dictator of human nature, and the sovereign pontiff of the sages.” The system of Averroes, which is but a branch of that of Aristotle, was so highly approved of by him, that he recommended it to his scholars at their first entrance upon the study of philosophy. He styles Pomponatius his “divine master,” and bestows great encomiums upon his works. He studied Cardan very much, and gives him the character of “a man of great sense, and not at all affected with superstition.” It is supposed that he derived from these authors those infidel doctrines which he afterwards endeavoured to propagate. Father Mersene assures us, that Vanini, before he was executed at Toulouse, confessed to the parliament, that at Naples he had agreed with thirteen of his friends to travel throughout Europe, for the sake of propagating atheism, and that France had fallen to his share: but this is very improbable, as the president Gramond, who was upon the spot, says nothing of such a scheme in his account of Vanini’s trial and execution. It is more probable, that his inclination to travelling, or perhaps the hopes of procuring an agreeable settlement, led him to the several places through which he passed; and that he spread his singular sentiments according as he had opportunity.

It has been remarked that we have very few dates in the biography of Vanini. We can only therefore say generally that, after he had commenced his travels, he went through part of Germany and the Low Countries, to Geneva, and thence to Lyons; whence, having presumed to vent his irreligious notions, under the pretext of teaching philosophy, he was obliged to fly. He passed over into England, and in 1614 was at London, where he was imprisoned for nine and forty days, “well prepared,” says he, with that air of devotion which runs through all his writings, “to receive the crown of martyrdom, which he longed for with all the ardour imaginable.” Being set at liberty, he repassed the sea, and took the road to Italy. He first stopped at Genoa, and undertook to teach youth; but, it being discovered that he had infused pernicious notions into their minds, he was forced to abandon that city. He then returned to Lyons, where he endeavoured to gain the favour of the ecclesiastics by a pretended confutation of Cardan and other atheistical writers, in which he artfully contrived, by the weakness of his arguments, to give his opponents the advantage. This work was printed at Lyons, in 1615, 8vo, under the title of “Amphitheatrum eeternae Providentiae Divino-Magicum, Christiano-Physicum, necnon Astrologo-Catholicum, adversus veteres Philosophos Atheos, Epicureos, Peripateticos, & Stoicos. Autore Julio Ceesare Vanino, Philosopho, Theologo, ac Juris utriusque Doctore;” dedicated to the count de Castro, the protector of his family and his benefactor; and it so far imposed orVtbe licensers of books, as to receive their approbation. But Vanini being apprehensive that his artifice might be detected, went again into Italy; where being accused of reriving and propagating his former impieties, he returned to France, and became a monk in the convent of Guienne, a/nd from this he is said to have been banished for immorality. He then retired to Paris, where he endeavoured to introduce himself to Robert Ubaldini, the pope’s nuncio; and, in order to make his court to him and the clergy in general, undertook to write an apology for the council of Trent. He procured likewise several friends, and had access to the mareschal de Bassompierre, who made him his chaplain, and gave him a pension of two hundred crowns. Upon this account, he dedicated to him his “Dialogues,” which were printed at Paris in 1616, 8vo, with this title, “Julii Caesaris Vanini, Neapolitani, Theologi, Philosophi, & Juris utriusque Doctoris, de admirandis Naturae Reginae Deaeque Mortalium arcanis, libri quatuor.” This work likewise was printed with the king’s privilege, and the approbation of three learned doctors, either from carelessness or ignorance. In his “Amphitheatrum” he had taken some pains to disguise his irreligion; but in these “Dialogues,” his sentiments are too obvious, and notwithstanding their having escaped the censors of the press, the faculty of the Sorbonne soon discovered their tendency, and condemned them to the flames. Finding himself now become generally obnoxious, and in consequence reduced to poverty, he is said to have written to the pope, that, “If he had not a good benefice soon bestowed upon him, he would in three months’ time overturn the whole Christian religion;” but although it is not impossible that Vanini might have written such a letter for the amusement of his friends, it is scarcely credible that he should have sent it to Rome. Whatevermay be in this, it is certain that he quitted Paris in 1617, and returned to Toulouse; where he soon infused his impious notions into the minds of his scholars, in the course of his lectures on physic, philosophy, and divinity. This being discovered, he was prosecuted, and condemned to be burnt to death, which sentence was executed Feb. 19, 1619. Gramond, president of the parliament of Toulouse, gives us the following account of his death. “About the same time, Feb. 1619, by order of the parliament of Toulouse, was condemned to death Lucilio Vanini, who was esteemed an arch-heretic with many persons, but whom I always looked upon as an atheist. This wretch pretended to be a physician, but in reality was no other than a seducer of youth. He laughed at every thing sacred: he abominated the incarnation of our Saviour, and denied the being of a God, ascribing all things to chance. He adored nature, as the cause of all beings: this was his principal error, whence all the rest were derived; and he had the boldness to teach it with great obstinacy at Toulouse. He gained many followers among the younger sort, whose foible it is to be taken with any thing that appears extraordinary and daring. Being cast into prison, he pretended at first to be a catholic; and by that means deferred his punishment. He was even just going to be set at liberty, for want of sufficient proofs against him, when Franconi, a man of birth and probity, deposed, that Vanini had often, in his presence, denied the existence of God, and scoffed at the mysteries of the Christian religion. Vanini, being brought before the senate, and asked what his thoughts were concerning the existence of a Gpd answered, that < he adored with the church a God in three persons,‘ and that * Nature evidently demonstrated the being of a deity:’ and, seeing by chance a straw on the ground, he took it up, and stretching it forth, said to the judges, ‘ This straw obliges me to confess that there is a God;’ and he proved afterwards very amply, that God was the author and creator of all things, nature being incapable of creating any thing. But all this he said through vanity or fear, rather than an inward conviction; and, as the proofs against him were convincing, he was by sentence of parliament condemned to die, after they had spent six months in preparing things for a hearing. I saw him in the dung-cart, continues Gramond, when he was carried to execution, making sport with a friar, who was allowed him in order to reclaim him from his obstinacy. Vanini refused the assistance of the friar, and insulted even our Saviour in these words, ‘ He sweated with weakness and fear in going to suffer death, and I die undaunted.* This profligate wretch had no reason to say that he died undaunted: I saw him entirely dejected, and making a very ill use of that philosophy of which he so much boasted. At the time when he was going to be executed he had a horrible and wild aspect; his mind was uneasy, and he discovered in all his expressions the utmost anxiety; though from time to time he cried out that he ’ died like a philosopher.' Before the fire was applied to the wood-pile, he was ordered to put out his tongue, that it might be cut off; which he refused to do; nor could the executioner take hold of it but with pincers. There never was heard a more dreadful shriek than he then gave; it was like the bellowing of an ox. His body was consumed in the flames, and his ashes thrown into the air. I saw him in prison, and at his execution; and likewise knew him before he was arrested. He had always abandoned himself to the gratification of his passions, and lived in a very irregular manner. When his goods were seized there was found a great toad alive in a large crystal bottle full of water. Whereupon he was accused of witchcraft; but he answered, that that animal being burned, was a sure antidote against all mortal and pestilential diseases. While he was in prison he pretended to be a catholic, and went often to the sacrament, but, when he found there were no hopes of escaping, he threw off the mask, and died as he had lived.”

Vanini has not been without his apologists, who bay* considered him rather as a victim to bigotry and envy, than as a martyr to impiety and atheism. They even go so far as to maintain that neither his life nor his writings were so absurd or blasphemous as to entitle him to the character of a despiser of God and religion. The arguments of these apologists may be found in Buddeus’s “Theses de Atheismo et Superstitione,” in Arp’s “Apologia pro Vanino,” 1712, and in Heister’s “Apologia pro medicis.” The life of Vanini has been written several times; but that by M. Durand, entitled “La Vie et les Sentimens de Lucilio Vanini,” and printed at Rotterdam, 1727, in 12 mo, comprises every thing which has been said of him, bnt by no means justifies the zeal of his apologists. An English translation of Durand was published in 1730.

, a portrait-painter, brother to Carlo Vanloo, was born at Aix, in Provence, about 1684. He distinguished himself eminently in historic and portrait painting, both which he studied at Rome, and became painter to the king of Sardinia, in whose service he realized a considerable fortune; but lost it all in the Mississippi, going to Paris in the year of that bubble. In 1737 he came to England with his son. His first works were the portraits of Gibber and Mac Swinney; the latter, whose long silver grey hairs were very picturesque, contributed much to- give the new painter reputation, and he very soon bore away the chief business of London from every other painter, and introduced a better style than was then known. He died at Provence, whither he had retired for the benefit of the air, in April 1746. Louis Michael Vanloo, first painter to the king of Spain, and Charles Philip Vanloo, painter to the king of Prussia, were sons and pupils of the above-mentioned, and have with eclat supported the name.

, brother to the preceding, was born at Nice, Feb. 15, 1705. He went to Turin with his brother John in 1712, and thence to Rome in 1714. He learnt from his brother the first elements of design; and, by his constantly studying the antique, and the works of the greatest masters, he laid the foundation of his future fame. He came to Paris with his brother in 1719, and in 1723 gained the academy’s first medal for design: in the year following he carried the first prize for painting; and departed again for Rome in 1727. He returned to Turin in 1732, where he painted many historical pieces with success for the king of Sardinia. The next year he married Signora Sommis, who was celebrated for singing and knowledge of music, but more celebrated for the private virtues of domestic life. In 1734 he returned to Paris, and the year following was received into the academy. In 1749 he was chosen for the direction of the royal eleves. In 1751 he was honoured with the order of St. Michael, and in 1762 named first painter to the king, and died in 1765. His principal performances are in the churches of Paris, and are much admired.

, another eminent artist, was born at Meulebeke, a small distance from Courtray, in 1548, and was successively the disciple of Lucas de Heere, at Ghent, and Peter Vlerick, at Courtray; but his principal knowledge in the art of painting was acquired at Rome, where he studied for three years. There he designed after the antiques, and the curious remains of Roman magnificence; the temples, baths, ruinous theatres, sepulchral monuments and their decorations, and, in short, every elegant and noble object that invited his attention. He also studied after nature in the environs of Rome, sketching every scene that pleased his imagination, or could afford him materials for future compositions in the landscape-style; and having practised to paint with equal freedom in fresco and in oil, he executed several historical works as well as landscapes, for the cardinals and nobility of Rome, with extraordinary approbation.

At his return to his own country he was received with unusual respect, and soon after painted the representation of the Terrestrial Paradise, which procured him great honour, and a picture of the Deluge, which was highly applauded for the composition and expression, as it described all the passions of grief, fear, terror, horror, and despair, with a sensible and affecting variety. In general he was esteemed a good painter of landscape; the choice in his trees was judicious, his figures were well designed, his colouring was agreeable, and his composition full of spirit; though, in the advanced part of his life he appeared to have somewhat of the mannerist. This artist distinguished himself not only as a painter, but as a writer. He composed tragedies and comedies, which were acted with applause; and, what is very uncommon, he painted also the decorations of the theatre. At Haerlem he introduced an academy, to diffuse among his countrymen a taste for the Italian masters; and the world is indebted eminently to Van Mander for searching out, and transmitting to posterity, the characters and merits of so many memorable artists as are comprised in his “Lives of the Painters.” He died in 1605, aged fifty-eight.

, an eminent painter, was born at Siena, in 1563, the son of a painter who was in no great reputation, and received his earliest instruction in the school ofArchangelo Salimbeni; but when he was twelve years old he travelled to Bologna, and there studied for two years under the direction of Passerotti. Yet finding in himself an impatient desire to see the celebrated antiques, and the works of Raphael, he went to Rome, and placed himself with Giovanni da Vecchia. By the precepts of that master, his proficiency was extraordinary; so that his performances not only extorted applause from the ablest judges, but also excited the jealousy and envy of Gioseppino, who was instructed in the same school. Having thus established his taste, he returned to his native city, where he studiously contemplated the paintings of Baroccio, and so highly admired them, that he preferred the style and manner of that master to all others, imitated him with success; and was generally esteemed to be no way inferior. Yet he profited afterwards by studying the compositions of Correggio. He was principally engaged in grand works for the churches and convents at Siena and at Rome. To the latter of those cities he was invited by pope Clement VIII. and, by order of that pontiff, he painted in the church of St. Peter an incomparable design, representing Simon the sorcerer reproached by St. Peter; for which performance he received the honour of knighthood. He undoubtedly had an excellent genius; his invention was fruitful and ready, his style of composition truly fine, and his design correct. His manner of colouring was bold, lively, and beautiful his penciling tender and delicate; and the airs of his heads were remarkably graceful. The most capital works of Vanni are at Siena, Rome, Pisa, and Pistoia; among which are mentioned a Crucifixion, a Flight into Egypt, the Wise Men’s offering to Christ, and the Marriage of St. Catherine, all of them esteemed admirable. He died in 1610, aged forty-seven.

, one of the most celebrated physicians of the last century, and who attained the highest honours in his profession, was born at Leyden, May 7, 1700, of a very ancient family, which had furnished many distinguished characters for the state, the bar, and the array. He had the misfortune to lose his parents at a time when their affection would have been of most importance to him, and fell into the hands of tutors who took very little care of his property, and less of his education. This last, however, became early his own concern, and a thirst for knowledge led him to form a successful plan. After studying the classics at Leyden, he went in 1716 to Louvain, where, after a course of philosophy for two years, he was admitted into the first class, and his masters would have been glad to have detained him that he might become a farther ornament to their university; but he had by this time fixed his choice on medicine as a profession, and therefore returned to Leyden, where he placed himself under the illustrious Boerhaave. Van Swieten was not more happy in such a master than Boerhaave was in directing the studies of a pupil who soon promised to extend his favourite science. After seven years’ study here, Van Swieten, in 1725, received his doctor’s degree, and Boerhaave, notwithstanding the disparity of years and of fame, chose him for his friend, and discerned in him his future successor.

Van Swieten’s course of study was such as laid a solid foundation for his future fame. He began by tracing the fundamental principles of the healing art to their origin in the writings of the most eminent authors of antiquity, and examined with historical precision the progress of improvement through every age, distinguishing what was conjectural and temporary from what was founded on the basis of experience, and permanent; and during this extensive course of reading, he was content to abstract himself from rtie pleasures of society, and even abridged himself of the necessary hours of sleep and refreshment, until his faithful preceptor admonished him against an excess which would injure his health, and disappoint him of the object he wished to attain. Such, however, was the progress he made, that "at the age of twenty-five he was justly classed among the Savans of Europe.

After he had taken his doctor’s degree he continued to attend Boerhaave’s lectures for about twenty years, and having within this period been himself appointed a professor, his fame and talents brought a vast addition to the number of medical students at Leyden, who came from Germany, France, and England, to what was then the greatest and perhaps the only school of medicine in Europe. Celebrated as the school of Leyden was, however, from the joint labours of Boerhaave and Van Swieten, it was at last disgraced in the person of the latter. His growing reputation excited the envy of some of his contemporaries, who having nothing else to object, took the mean advantage of his being a Roman catholic, and insisting that the law should be put in force, obliged him to resign an office which he had filled with so much credit to the university. Van Swieten submitted to this treatment with dignified contempt, and being now more at leisure, began his great work, his Commentaries on Boerhaave’sAphorisms, the first volume of which was finished, and the second nearly so, when the empress Maria Theresa invited him to her court; and although he felt some reluctance at quitting the studious life he had hitherto led, he could not with propriety reject the offer, and accordingly arrived at Vienna in June 1745. Here he was appointed first physician to the court, with a handsome establishment, and some time after the dignity of baron was conferred upon him. How well he merited these honours, the favourable change effected by him in the state of medical science sufficiently proved. He was now in the prime of life, and perhaps few men in Europe were better qualified, by extent of knowledge, to lay the foundation for a school of medicine. He was not only thoroughly versed in every branch of medicine, in botany, anatomy, surgery, chemistry, &c. but was well acquainted with most of the European languages. He was a good Greek and Latin scholar, and wrote the latter with ease and elegance, and in his lectures was frequently happy in his quotations from the Greek and Latin classics. He was also well versed in all the branches of mathematics, and natural philosophy; and had paid no little attention to divinity, law, politics, and history. Such attainments procured him the confidence of his sovereign, whom he easily prevailed upon to rebuild the university of Vienna in an elegant style, and with every accommodation for the pursuit of the different sciences. The botanical garden was enlarged, and the keeping of it given to M. Langier; and a clinical lecture was established in one of the principal hospitals by M. De Haen. It was in 1746 that Van Swieten first began to execute his plan for reforming the study of medicine in the university of Vienna, by giving lectures in the vestibule of the imperial library; and when his business as first physician increased, he called in the aid of able professors who understood his views; among whom were the celebrated Storck and Crantz. Having been appointed keeper of the imperial library, his first measure was to abolish a barbarous law that had long been in force, which prohibited any person from making notes or extracts from any of the books. Van Swieten, on the contrary, laid the whole open to the use of readers, and provided them with every accommodation, and ample permission to transcribe what they pleased. He also prevailed on the empress to increase the salaries of the professors of the university, and to provide for the education of young men of talents. He was himself a most liberal patron to such as stood in need of this aid, and employed his whole influence in their favour; and he lived to promote the interests of learning in general throughout the Austrian dominions to an extent hitherto unknown.

Amidst all his engagements he enjoyed good health until 1769, when he perceived symptoms of decay: it was not, however, until 1772 that his constitution visibly declined, and a mortification in one of his toes coming on proved fatal June 18th of that year, in the seventy -third year of his age. Such was the respect of his royalmistress, that she visited him several times during his illness, and saw him only a few hours before his death, when she shed tears at the near prospect of that event. He died at Schonbrun, and his corpse was brought to Vienna, and interred in the chapel of the Augustines, and a statue was placed in the university to his memory. Few persons indeed have received more honours. At the time of his death he bore the titles ofcommander of the royal order of St. Stephen, counsellor, first physician, royal librarian, president of the censors of books; vice-president of the Imperial and royal commission of studies; perpetual director of the faculty of medicine; and a member of all the principal literary societies of Europe, and, among these, of our Royal Society, into which he was chosen in 1749. He married in 1729, and had two sons and two daughters. One of his sons, Geoffrey Baron Van Swieten, died in March 1803 he was commander of the order of St. Stephen, and director of the Imperial library, and was, some years since, the Imperial envoy at the court of Berlin. He bequeathed his library (including a very considerable musical collection) to the university of Vienna.

The work, which amidst all the changes of medical theory, must ever preserve the memory of Van Swieten, was his “Commentaria in H. Boerhaave Aphorismos,” 1743, &c. 5 vol. 4to. This has been often reprinted, and translated into French, German, and English. He wrote also “Description abregee des maladies qui regnent communement dans les arme'es,” Vienna, 1759, 8vo.

, an eminent landscape-painter, was born at Antwerp in 1595, and learned the art of painting from his father; but he derived his chief excellence from a diligent observation of nature. Every hour that was not employed at his easel was spent abroad in the fields, where he noticed, with curious exactness, the variety of appearances perpetually occurring from the dawn to the evening over the face of nature. He watched the different effects of light on different objects, nor suffered any incident to escape his observation. His pictures are agreeably pencilled, and the distant objects in particular delicately touched. So perfectly was his style of colouring suited to that of Rubens, that this great painter often had recourse to him in finishing the back-grounds of his pictures, particularly when they consisted of landscape. Strange engraved two of these, in which the figures are by Rubens. There are also several etchings by Vanuden, in a spirited and masterly style, and among them a set of landscapes, small plates, length-ways, inscribed “Lucas Vanuden pinx. inv. et fee.” He died about 1663. He had a brother, Jacques Vanuden, also a painter, and in his manner, but far inferior to Lucas.

, an Italian historian, poet, and critic, was born at- Florence in 1502. His father, a lawyer, placed him with a master, who reported that he was not fit for literature, and advised him to breed the boy up to merchandise. He was accordingly sent to a counting-­house, and there his masters discovered that he never was without a book, and minded nothing but reading. His father then, after examining him, found that he had been deceived by the school-master, and determined to give his son a learned education, and for that purpose sent him to Padua and Pisa. Unfortunately, however, he prescribed the study of the law, which Varchi relished as little as commerce; and although, out of filial respect, he went through the usual courses, he immediately, on his father’s death, relinquished both the study and practice of the law, and determined to devote all his attention to polite literature. In this he acquired great reputation; but when Florence became distracted by civil commotions, he joined the party in opposition to the Medici family, and was banished. During his exile he resided at Venice, Padua, and Bologna, where his talents procured him many friends; and his works having diffused his reputation more widely, Cosmo de Medicis had the generosity to forgive the hostility he had shewn to his family, and, respecting him as a man of letters, recalled him home, and appointed him his historiographer. In this capacity he recommended him to write the history of the late revolutions in Florence. All this kindness, accompanied with a handsome pension, produced a great change in the mind of the republican Varchi, who became now the equally zealous advocate of monarchy. As soon as he had finished a part of it, he submitted it to the inspection of his patron, and some copies were taken of it. These being seen by soma persons who suspected that he would make free with their characters, or the characters of their friends, they conspired to assassinate the apostate author, as they thought him; and having one night attacked him, left him weltering in his blood, but his wounds were not mortal; and although it is said he knew who the assassins were, he declined appearing against them. He was, however, so much affected by the affair, that he embraced the ecclesiastical profession, and obtained some preferment. He died at Florence in 1565. His history, which extends from 1527 to 1538, was not published until 1721, at Cologne, and reprinted at Leydeu 1723; but both these places are wrong, as both editions were published in Italy. There is a recent edition, Milan, 1803, 5 vols. 8vo. The style, like that of all his works, is pure and elegant, though a little too much elaborated. The facts, of course, are strongly tinctured with an attachment to the house of Medici.

Varchi was a man of extensive literature, and particularly excelled in criticism, grammar, and the classics; nor was he unacquainted with philosophy, law, morals, and the fine arts. He published many orations, delivered in the Florentine academy, and wrote some poetry, greatly applauded in his time. But his chief merit lay in the elegance of his Italian style, which is still reckoned a model. His principal philological work is his “L'Ercolano,” a dialogue on language, one object of which is to prove that the Italian ought to be called the Florentine language, an opinion which has been successfully opposed.

, a Dutch physician, is known in literary history as the author of a “System of Universal Geography,” which was accounted an excellent and comprehensive work, and was written originally in Latin, and printed at Amsterdam in 1650. It was re-published at Cambridge in 1672, with great improvements, by sir Isaac Newton; and in 1712, on the recommendation of Dr. Bentley, by Dr. Jurin. It was afterwards translated into English by Dr. Shaw, and illustrated with additional notes and copper-plates, 2 vols. 8vo; and in this form has gone through several editions. We have besides a curious description of Japan and the kingdom of Siam, in Latin, by this author, printed at Cambridge, 1673, 8vo. Varenius died in 1660, but we have no particulars of his life.

, a celebrated French mathematician and priest, was born at Caen in 1654. He was the son of an architect in middling circumstances, but had a college education, being intended for the church. Having accidentally met with a copy of Euclid’s Elements, he was inclined to study it, and this led him to the works of Des Cartes, which confirmed his taste for geometry, and he even abridged himself of the necessaries of life to purchase books which treated on this science. What contributed to heighten this passion in him was, that he studied in private: for his relations observing that the books he studied were not such as were commonly used by others, strongly opposed his application to them; and as there was a necessity for his being an ecclesiastic, he continued his theological studies, yet not entirely sacrificing his favourite subject to them. At this time the Abbé St. Pierre, who studied philosophy in the same college, became acquainted with him. A taste in common for rational subjects, whether physics or metaphysics, and continued disputations, formed the bonds of their friendship, and they became mutually serviceable to each other in their studies. The abbe, to enjoy Varignon’s company with greater ease, lodged in the same house with him; and being in time more sensible of his merit, he resolved to give him a fortune, that he might fully pursue his inclination. Out of only 18 hundred livres a year, which he had himself, he conferred 300 of them upon Varignon; and when determined to go to Paris to study philosophy, he settled there in 1686, with M. Varignon, in the suburbs of St. Jacques. There each studied in his own way; the abbé applying himself to the study of men, manners, and the principles of government whilst Varignon was wholly occupied with the mathematics. Fontenelie, who was their countryman, often went to see them, sometimes spending two or three days with them. They had also room for a couple of visitors, who came from the same province. “We joined together,” says Fontenelle, “with the greatest pleasure. We were young, full of the first ardour for knowledge, strongly united, and, what we were not then perhaps disposed to think so great a happiness, little known. Varignon, who had a strong constitution, at least in his youth, spent whole days in study, without any amusement or recreation, except walking sometimes in fine weather. I' have heard him say, that in studying after supper, as he usually did, he was often surprised to hear the clock strike two in the morning; and was much pleased that four hours rest were sufficient to refresh him. He did not leave his studies with that heaviness which they usually create; nor with that weariness that a long application might occasion. He left off gay and lively, filled with pleasure, and impatient to renew it. In speaking of mathematics, he would laugh so freely, that it seemed as if he had studied for diversion. No condition was so much to be envied as his; his life was a continual enjoyment, delighting in quietness.” In the solitary suburb of St. Jacques, he formed however a connection with many other learned men; as Du Hamel, Du Verney, De la Hire, &c. Du Verney often asked his assistance in those parts of anatomy connected with mechanics: they examined together the positions of the muscles, and their directions; hence Varignon learned a good deal of anatomy from Du Verney, which he repaid by the application of mathematical reasoning to that subject. At length, in 1687, Varignon made himself known to the public by a “Treatise on New Mechanics,” dedicated to the Academy of Sciences. His thoughts on this subject were, in effect, quite new. He discovered truths, and laid open their sources. In this work, he demonstrated the necessity of an equilibrium, in such cases as it happens in, though the cause of it is not exactly known. This discovery Varignon made by the theory of compound motions, and his treatise was greatly admired by the mathematicians, and procured the author two considerable places, the one of geometrician in the Academy of Sciences, the other of professor of mathematics in the college of Mazarine, to which he was the first person raised.

As soon as the science of Infinitesimals appeared in the world, Varignon became one of its most early cultivators. When that sublime and beautiful method was attacked in the academy itself (for it could not escape the fate of all innovations) he became one of its most zealous defenders, and in its favour he put a violence upon his natural character, which abhorred all contention. He sometimes lamented, that this dispute had interrupted him in his inquiries into the Integral Calculation so far, that it would be difficult for him to resume his disquisition where he had left it off. He therefore sacrificed Infinitesimals to the Interest of Infinitesimals, and gave up the pleasure and glory of making a farther progress in them when called upon by duty to undertake their defence. All the printed volumes of the Academy bear witness to his application and industry. His works are never detached pieces, but complete theories of the laws of motion, central forces, and the resistance of mediums to motion. In these he makes such use of his rules, that nothing escapes him that has any connection with the subject he treats. In all his works he makes it his chief care to place every thing in the clearest light; he never consults his ease by declining to take the trouble of being methodical, a trouble much greater than that of composition itself; nor does he endeavour to acquire a reputation for profoundness, by leaving a great deal to be guessed by the reader. He learned the history of mathematics, not merely out of curiosity, but because he was desirous of acquiring knowledge from, every quarter. This historical knowledge is doubtless an ornament in a mathematician; but it is an ornament which, is by no means without its utilityThough Varignon’s constitution did not seem easy to be impaired, assiduity and constant application brought upon him a severe disease in 1705. He was six months in clanger, and three years in a languid state, which proceeded from his spirits being almost entirely exhausted. He said that sometimes when delirious with a fever, he thought himself in the midst of a forest, where all the leaves of the trees were covered with algebraical calculations. Condemned by his physicians, his friends, and himself, to lay aside all study, he could not, when alone in his chamber, avoid taking up a book of mathematics, which he bid as soon as he heard any person coming, and again resumed the attitude and behaviour of a sick man, which unfortunately he seldom had occasion to counterfeit.

In regard to his character, Fontenelle observes, that it was at this time that a writing of his appeared, in which he censured Dr. Wallis for having advanced that there are certain spaces more than infinite, which that great geometrician ascribes to hyperbolas. He maintained, on the contrary, that they were finite. The criticism was softened with all the politeness and respect imaginable; but a criticism it was, though he had written it only for himself. He let M. Carre see it, when he was in a state that rendered him indifferent about things of that kind; and that gentleman, influenced only by the interest of the sciences, caused it to be printed in the memoirs of the Academy of Sciences, unknown to the author, who thus made an attack against his inclination.

He recovered from his disease; but the remembrance of what he had suffered did not make him more prudent for the future. The whole impression of his “Project for a New System of Mechanics,” having been sold off, he formed a design to publish a second edition of it, or rather a work entirely new, though upon the same plan, but naorc extended. It must be easy to perceive how much learning he must have acquired in the interval; but he often complained, that he wanted time, though he was by no means disposed to lose any. Frequent visits, either of French or of foreigners, somti of whom went to see him that they might have it to say that they had seen him, and others to consult him and improve by his conversation: works of mathematics, which the authority of some, or the friendship he had for others, engaged him to examine, and of which he thought himself obliged to give the most exact account; a literary correspondence with all the chief mathematicians of Europe; all these obstructed the book he had undertaken to write. Thus, says his biographer, a man acquires reputation by 'having a great deal of leisure time, and he loses this precious leisure as soon as he has acquired reputation. Add to this, that his best scholars, whether in the college of Mazarine or the Royal college (for he had a professor’s chair in both), sometimes requested private lectures of him, which he could not refuse. He sighed for his two or three months of vacation, for that was all the leisure time he had in the year, and he could then retire into the country, where his time was entirely his own.

Notwithstanding his placid temper, in the latter part of his life he was involved in a dispute. An Italian monk, well versed in mathematics, attacked him upon the subject of tangents and the angle of contact in curves, such as they are conceived in the arithmetic of infinites; he answered by the last memoir he ever gave to the Academy, and the only one which turned upon a dispute.

In the last two years of his life he was attacked with an asthmatic complaint. This disorder increased every day, and all remedies were ineffectual. He did not, however, cease from any of his customary business; so that, after having finished his lecture at the college of Mazarine, on the 22d of December 1722, he died suddenly the following night. His character, says Fontenelle, was as simple as his superior understanding could require. He was not apt to be jealous of the fame of others: indeed he was at the head of the French mathematicians, and one of the best in Europe. It must be owned, however, that when a new idea was offered to him, he was too hasty to object, and it was frequently not easy to obtain from him a favourable attention.

, a French writer, more known than esteemed for several historical works, was descended from a good family, and born at Gueret in 1624. After a liberal education, of which he made the proper advantage, he became a private tutor to some young persons of quality; and then went to Paris, where he was well received as a man of letters, and had access to the Dupuy’s, whose house was the common rendezvous of the learned. He obtained afterwards a place in the kings’ library, by his interest with Nicolas Colbert, who was made librarian after the death of James Dupuy in 1655. Mr. Colbert, afterwards minister of state, commissioned his brother Nicolas to find out a man capable of collating certain manuscripts. Varillzte was recommended, and had the abbe" of St. Real for his coadjutor; and handsome pensions were settled upon both. But whether Varillas was negligent and careless, or had not a turn for this employment, he did not give satisfaction, and was therefore dismissed from his employment in 1662; yet had his pension continued till 1670. He then retired from the royal library, and spent the remainder of his days in study, refusing, it is said, several advantageous offers. He lived frugally and with oeconomy, and yet not through necessity, for his circumstances were easy. St. Come was the seat of his retirement; where he died June 9, 1696, aged seventy-two.

He wrote a great number of works, chiefly of the historical kind; and published, at different times and in distinct portions, a history of France, comprising a period of 176 years under nine different reigns, beginning with Lewis XL and ending with Henry III. He published also “Les Anecdotes de Florence, ou THistoire secrette de la Maison de Medicis, at the Hague,” 1685, in 12mo; and, -“Histoire des Revolutions arrives en Europe en matiere de Religion,” Paris, 1686, and often reprinted. Varillas had some advantages of style to recommend him as an historian; he had likewise a pleasing manner of relating and setting off facts; and his characters, though somewhat diffuse, are drawn with art, and for the most part appear curious and interesting. Add to this, that he abounds in anecdotes, and told Menage that, “of ten things which he knew, he had learned nine from conversation.” He was also profuse in his professions of sincerity, and was thought to have penetrated into the inmost recesses of the cabinet, and drawn forth a great deal of secret history from the numerous and important manuscripts which he pretends in his prefaces to have been from time to time communicated to him. All this procured him a vast reputation at first: his books were read with eagerness: and such was the call for them, that the booksellers generally sent forth two editions, in different forms, at the same time. The public, however, were at length undeceived, and came to be convinced that the historical anecdotes, which Varillas put off for authentic facts, were wholly of his own invention, notwithstanding his affected citations of titles, instructions, letters, memoirs, and relations, all of them imaginary. As his design was to please rather than instruct his readers, he omitted nothing which he thought might conduce to this. Thus he characterised persons he knew little of, as if he had lived in the greatest familiarity with them; and gave particular reasons for all the steps they took, as if he had been privy to their councils. He advanced facts with the utmost confidence, which were scarcely probable: the air of politics, which runs through all his writings, is romantic; and every event, according to him, proceeded from premeditation and design. Such is the opinion which his own countrymen soon learned to give of his “History of France,” and “Florentine Anecdotes;” but his “History of the Revolutions in matters of Religion which have happened in Europe,” utterly ruined his reputation abroad, and exposed him to the criticisms of able men in each country: of Burnet and Dr. King, in England, Brunsmann in Denmark, Puffendorf and Seckendorf in Germany, vtho copiously detected and exposed his falsehoods and misrepresentations concerning the state of religion in their respective countries, and totally destroyed the reputation of his works.

, an able anatomist, was horn at Bologna in 1542. He taught surgery in his native place, until pope Gregory XIII. soon after his elevation to the pontificate in 1572, invited him to Rome, and appointed him his first physician. Here he lectured on anatomy, and acquired very great reputation, not only for his discoveries in that branch, but for his skill in lithotomy and other surgical operations; and he promised to have attained the highest rank in his profession, when a premature death deprived the world of his services. He died in 1575, at the age of thirty-two. The Pons Varolii, which still perpetuates his name, and his other discoveries in the ceconomy of the brain and nerves, are contained in his “Anatomise, sive de resolutione corporis hurnani, libri quatuor,” Padua, 1573, 8vo, and “De Nervis opticis Epistola,” ibid.

, usually styled the most learned of all the Romans, was born in the year of Rome 638, or 28 B.C. His immense learning made him the admiration of his time; which yet was the most flourishing for arts and glory that Rome ever knew. He was an intimate friend of Cicero; and his friendship was confirmed and immortalized by a mutual dedication of their learned works to each other. Thus Cicero dedicated his “Academic Questions” to Varro; and Varro dedicated his “Treatise on the Latin tongue” to Cicero, who, in a letter in which he recommends him as questor to Brutus, assures the commander, that he would find him perfectly qualified for the post, and particularly insists upon his good sense, his indifference to pleasure, and his patient perseverance in business. To these virtues he added uncommon abilities, and large stores of knowledge, which qualified him for the highest offices of the state. He attached himself to the party of Pompey, and in the time of the triumvirate was proscribed with Cicero: and, though he escaped with his life, he suffered the loss of his library, and of his own writings; a loss which would be severely felt by one who had devoted a great part of his hfe to letters. Returning, at length, to Rome, he spent his last years in literary leisure. He died in the 727th year of the city. His prose writings were exceedingly numerous, and treated of various topics in antiquities, chronology, geography, natural and civil history, philosophy, and criticism. He was, besides, a poet of some distinction, and wrote in almost every kind of verse. He is said to have been eighty when he wrote his three books “De Re Rustica,” which are still extant. Five of his books “De Lingua Latina,” which he addressed to Cicero, are also extant, and some fragments of his works, particularly of his “Menippean Satires,” which are medleys of prose and verse. Scaliger has likewise collected some of his epigrams from among the “Catalecta Virgilii. The first edition of Varro” De Lingua Latina“is a quarto, without date or place, but supposed to be Rome, 1471. There is a second, at Venice, 1474, 4to, and a third at Rome, 1474, fol. His whole works, with the notes of Scaliger, Turnebus, &c. were printed by Henry Stephens, 1573, 8vo, reprinted 1581; but the former edition is in greatest request among the curious, on account of a note of Scaliger' s, p. 212, of the second part, which was omitted in the subsequent editions. Varro” De Re Rustica“is inserted among the” Auctores de Re Rustica." The use which Virgil makes of this work in his Georgics entitles it *o some respect; and it is amusing as giving us a notion of the agriculture of his time, and the method of laying out gardens, and providing the luxuries of the table, in which the Romans were particularly extravagant. It contains many absurdities, however, and many of those remarks and pieces of information which would now be thought a disgrace to the meanest writer on agriculture. The rev. T. Owen, of Queen’s college, Oxford, and rector of Upper Scudamore, in Wiltshire, published a good translation of this work in 1800, 8vo.

, was born about ten years after the preceding, at a small town near Narbonne. Though infinitely below the Roman in learning, he was at least as good, if not a better poet; which perhaps has made Lilius Gyraldus, and other critics, confound them. He composed many works in verse; some fragments of which were collected, and published with those of other ancient poets at Lyons, 1603. His chief works were, *' A poem on the war with frhe Sequani, a people of Gaul;“and the” Astronomies,“which went under the name of Planciades the Grammarian. But the” Argonautics,“in four books, was what gained him the greatest reputation; and though indeed nothing but a translation of” Apollonius Rhodius," yet it has been liberally commended by Quintilian. Seneca also observes, that Virgil had so good an opinion of this author, that he sometimes inserted his verses into his works.

, an artist, though better known as the biographer of his profession, was born at Arezzo, in 1512, and was taught the rudiments of drawing by his father, and the first principles of painting by William of Marseilles, a Frenchman, and a painter on glass; but being taken to Florence by cardinal da Cortona, he improved himself under Michael Angelo, Andrea del Sarto, and other eminent masters. By the cardinal he was introduced into the Medici family, but in 1527, when they were driven from Florence, he returned to his native city. Finding an epidemic disease prevailing there, he spent his time in the surrounding country, improving himself by painting subjects of devotion for the farmers. His father unfortunately died of the contagion, and left a young family unprovided for. Vasari, to contribute more effectually to their support, quitted the uncertain profession of a painter, and applied himself to the more lucrative trade of a goldsmith. In 1529, the civil war, which then existed at Florence, obliged the goldsmiths’ company to remove to Pisa: and there, receiving commissions to paint some pictures both in oil and in fresco, he was induced to resume his former profession, and afterwards through life met with encouragement, that left him neither motive nor desire to change. The dukes of Florence and other distinguished persons were his liberal patrons, and he was constantly employed in works both profitable and honourable to himself.

In 1544, by the friendship of PaulJovius, he was recommended to make designs and paint a hall for the cardinal Farnese, in Rome. While he was executing this work, he attended the cardinal’s evening parties, which were frequented by men of genius. At one of these parties, Jovius, speaking of his own museum, arranged and embellished with inscriptions and portraits of illustrious men, said, “that it had always been his desire to add to it, and make his book of eulogiums more complete, by a treatise on the celebrated artists, from Cimabue down to his own time;” and enlarged upon the subject with much general information. The cardinal then turned to Vasari, and asked him “if he did not think that subject would make a fine work?” Vasari concurred with his eminence, but added, that “it would require the assistance of an artist to collate the materials, and arrange them in their proper order: for although Jo?ius displayed great knowledge in his observations, yet he had not been equally accurate in the arrangement of his facts.” “You can then,” replied the cardinal, “give him assistance, which will be doing an essential service to the arts.” To pay a proper deference to so flattering an opinion, he collected such materials as he thought necessary to the plan then suggested: and the information he contributed was drawn up so much to Jovius’s satisfaction, that he recommended him to enlarge upon it, and make a more complete work, alleging his own want of leisure and capacity to do justice to such an undertaking. Vasari, with reluctance, consented; and with his own industry, and some assistance from others, he fulfilled his task; and, in 1550, published his work in 2 vols, entitled “Vite de piu eccellenti Pittori, Scultori, e Architetti.” In 1571 he reprinted it in 3 vols. 4to, with portraits cut in wood, and with the addition of his own life to the fifty-fifth year of his age. The subsequent editions are, that of Bottari, Rome, 1759 60, 3 vols. 4to, and those printed at Leghorn, 1767 72, 7 vols. 4to; at Sienna, 1791—98, 11 vols. 8vo. There is likewise one printed at Bologna in 1647, 3 vols. 4to, but not esteemed a good one.

an eminent Hebrew scholar, was born at Gamache in Picardy, in the early part of the sixteenth century. In 1531 he was appointed regius professor of Hebrew in the university of Paris, one of the royal professorships at that time founded by Francis I. and in this office gained the highest reputation. Among his hearers were many learned Jews, who much admired his lectures, which were all delivered extempore, nor does he appear to have committed any of them to writing. Some of his scholars, however, having taken notes of his observations on the Old Testament, Robert Stephens made a collection of them, which he added to Leo Juda’s version of the Bible, printed at Paris in 1545. Of their accuracy no doubts have been entertained, although Stephens probably might correct what he thought the errors of the transcribers. Yet as a protestant translation was joined to them, the doctors of divinity of the faculty of Paris condemned them, while those of Salamanca, with more liberality, caused Vatablus’s Bible, for such it was called, to be reprinted in Spain with approbation. Stephens wrote a defence of it against the censures of the Parisian divines, who, Dupin allows, were at that time not sufficiently acquainted with the Hebrew language.

Vatablus was an excellent Greek scholar, and translated some parts of Aristotle’s works. He also assisted Clement Marot in his poetical translation of the Psalms, by giving him a literal version from the Hebrew. He had the credit of being the restorer of the study of the Hebrew language in France, and taught many able scholars, particularly Brentius and Mercerus (see Mercier), who both succeeded him in his professorship. He died March 16, 1547.

an eminent publicist, was the son of a clergyman of Neufchatel, where he was born April 25, 1714. After completing his studies, he went to Berlin, where he became acquainted with some of the literati of that city, and thence to Dresden, and was introduced to the king of Poland and the elector of Saxony, who received him with great kindness, and some years after he was appointed privy- councillor to the elector. He was residing at Dresden in 1765 when his health began to decline, which obliged him to try the air of his native country; but this proved ineffectual, and he died at Neufehatel in 1767, in the fifty-third year of his age. He owed his literary reputation first to some publications, which, we believe, are not much known in this country, as a “Defence of Leibnitz’s philosophy against M. de Crousaz,” published in 1741, and dedicated to Frederick the Great, king of Prussia; and “Pieces diverses de morale et d'amusement,” published at Paris in 1746. But he became known to all Europe by his “Droit des gens, ou Principes de la Loi Naturelle,” published at Neufchatel in 1758, and translated into most European languages, and often reprinted. We have at least two editions of it in English, under the title of “The Law of Nations; or, principles of the Law of Nature: applied to the conduct and affairs of nations and sovereigns,” 1760, 4to, and 1793, 8vo. What particularlyrecommended this work to the favour of the English, was their finding the opinions of their countrymen generally adopted, and England brought as a proof of a wise and happy constitution. The opinions of Milton and Harrington are frequently confirmed, while the maxims of Puffendorf and Grotius, who often adapted their opinions to the states in which they lived, are refuted with strength and perspicuity. In general Vattel takes Wolff, the celebrated Saxon philosopher, for his guide; but in many places be differs totally from him, and this produced a controversy between them. The points on which they differ may be seen in a publication by Vattel, which appeared in 1762, entitled “Questions sur le Droit Naturel: et Observations sur le Traite du Droit de la Nature de M. le Baron de Wolff.” In the mean time Vattel’s “Law of Nations” became more and more the favourite of men who study such subjects, and has for many years been quoted as a work of high authority, and as in many respects preferable to Grotius and Puffendorf, being more methodical, more comprehensive, and more simple than either.

a Jesuit of France, eminently distinguished for his accomplishments in the belles-lettres, was born in 1605, at Paray, a small town in Charolois, in the diocese of Autun. He entered into the society of the Jesnits in 1621; and, after having finished the course of his studies, taught polite literature and rhetoric for seven years. Afterwards he was called to Paris, to explain the Holy Scriptures; which province he sustained for six and thirty years, all the while cultivating poetry and classical literature, in which he particularly excelled. He died at Paris in Dec. 1681. He understood the Latin tongue very exactly, and also spoke it with the greatest purity and elegance. He was a man of good talents, great acuteness, solid and accurate judgment, and profound learning; so that he had all the qualities necessary to make him, what he was generally allowed to be, a very good critic.

His book “De Ludicra Dictione,” printed in 1658, was written to oppose a bad taste, which then prevailed in France, when the works of Scarron and Dassouci were very popular; by shewing, that the Greeks and Komans knew nothing of the burlesque style, although Mons. le Clerc is of opinion, that something of it may be found in Aristophanes. He wrote this at the request of Balzac, who had a great dislike to this style; but Balzac died before it was published. As all the authors of antiquity, who have mixed any pleasantries or bon-mots in their writings, were necessarily to be examined in the course of this treatise, Vavassor had an opportunity of shewing very extensive reading. Another of his works, not approved much less than the former, is his book “De Epigrammate,” printed in 1669, and reprinted with his “Epigrams” in 1672, 12mo; in which there are many new and just observations. It however laid the foundation of a dispute between him and Rapin who, in his “Reflections on Aristotle’s poesy,” printed in 1674, after having said, that the epigram, of all the works in verse that antiquity has produced, is the least considerable, adds, “I find nothing considerable to say on those who have attempted any thing in this way among the moderns. It is one of the sorts of verse, in which a man has little success; for, it is a kind of a lucky hit if it proves well. An epigram is little worth unless it be admirable; and, it is so rare to make them admirable, that it is sufficient to have made one in a man’s life. Maynard has succeeded the best in this way of all our French poets.” A man jealous of his reputation, and naturally splenetic, which is said to have been Vavassor’s character, must have been extremely hurt with this; and accordingly the year after, 1675, he published “Remarks upon the Reflections of Rapin,” which had no name to them and, for the sake of abusing him, pretended not to know, while every body else knew very well, who the author of those reflections was. Rapin complained loudly of this ill-treatment; and Vavassor’s book, by way of re* dress, was suppressed by order of the society. Vavassor’s other treatises are chiefly theological.;-*ii his works were collected and printed at Amsterdam, 1709, in folio; with a prefatory discourse by Le Clerc.

, marechal of France, commissioner-general of fortifications, and the greatest engineer which France has produced, was the son of Urban le Prestre, seigneur de Vauban, a descendant of an ancient and noble family of Nivernois. He was born May 1, 1633, and was in the army at the early age of seventeen, where his uncommon talents and genius for fortification soon became known, and were eminently displayed at the sieges of St. Menehould, 1652 and 1653, of Stenay 1654, and of several other places in the following years. He consequently rose to the highest military ranks by his merit and services: and was made governor of the citadel of Lisle in 1668, and commissioner-general of fortifications in 1678. He took Luxemburg in 1684, and, being appointed lieutenant-general in 1688, was present, the same year, at the siege and capture of Philipsburg, Manheim, and Frankendal, under the dauphin. This prince, as a reward for his services, gave him four pieces of cannon, which he was permitted to chuse from the arsenals of these three towns, and place in his castle at Bazoche; an honour afterwards granted to the famous marechal Saxe. M. de Vauban commanded on the coast of Flanders in 1689, and was made marechal of France, Jan. 14, 1703. His dignity was expensive to him, but the king would not permit him to serve as an inferior officer, though he offered it in a very handsome manner. He died at Paris, March 30, 1707, aged seventy-four. He was a man of high and independent spirit, of great humanity, and entirely devoted to the good of his country. As an engineer, he carried the art of fortifying, attacking, and defending towns, to a degree of perfection unknown before his time. He fortified above 300 ancient citadels, erected thirty- three new ones, and had the principal management and direction of fifty-three sieges, and was present at one hundred and forty engagements. But his countrymen tell us that it was unnecessary for him to exert his skill in defending a fort; for the enemies of France never attacked those in which he was stationed. His works are, a treatise entitled “La Dixme Roïale,” 1707, 4to and 12mo, which displays some patriotic principles, but the plan is considered as impracticable. A vast collection of Mss. in 12 vols. which he calls his “Oisivetés,” contain his ideas, reflections, and projects, for the advantage of France. The three following works are also attributed to him, but whether he wrote them, or whether they have been compiled from his Memoirs, and adapted to his ideas, is uncertain: “Maniere de fortifier,” 8vo and 12mo, printed also at Paris by Michalet, 8vo, under the title of “L'Ingéieur François.” M. Hebert, professor of mathematics, and the abbe“du Fay, have written notes on this treatise, which is esteemed, and is said to have been revised by the chevalier de Cambrai, and reprinted at Amsterdam, 1702 and 1727, 2 vols. 4to; 2.” Nouveau Traite de l'Attaque et de la Défense des Places, suivant le Systeme de M. de Vauban, par M. Desprez de Saint Savin,“1736, 8vo, much esteemed; 3.” Essais sur la Fortification, par M. de Vauban,“1740, 12mo. As to the” Political Testament" ascribed to him, it was written by Peter le Pesant, sieur de Boïs Guillebert, lieutenant-general of the bailiwic of Rouen, who died 1714. M. de Vauban’s second cousin, Anthony de Prestre, known by the name of Puy Vauban, was also a very eminent engineer. He died lieutenant-general of the king’s forces, and governor of Bethune, April 10, 1731, aged seventy-seven.

, an elegant French writer, was born of an ancient family at Chamberry in 1585. His father Antoine Favre, or Antony Faber, was first president of the senate of Chamberry, and published several learned works upon law-subjects. (See Favre.) Vaugelas was sent to the court very young, and there spent his whole life. He was gentleman in ordinary, and afterwards chamberlain, to the duke of Orleans, whom he attended in all his retreats out of the kingdom, and was afterwards governor to the children of prince Thomas. He had a pension from the crown early settled on him; but it never was paid him till Cardinal Richelieu employed the French academy upon forming a dictionary of the language. On that occasion the academy represented to the cardinal, that the only way to have one well executed, was to commit the chief management of it to Vaugelas. His pension was then re-established and punctually paid. But, although he had other advantages besides this, and a handsome patrimony from his father, and was not a man of luxury or extravagance, yet when he died in 1605, he did not leave enough to satisfy his creditors.

He was ont- of those who first corrected and refined the French language to an extraordinary degree of purity. He had cultivated it with peculiar care and attention from his infancy, and formed himself chiefly upon Coeffeteati, whose writings he held in such esteem, and, above all, his “Roman History,” that he could hardly allow any phrases or expressions to be pure and genuine but what were to be found in that work: which made Balzac say pleasantly, that, “in the judgment of Vaugelas, salvation was no more to be had out of the Roman History than out of the Roman church.” His principal talent was in prose: for though he wrote some verses in Italian that were admired, yet he could not succeed in his own language. His most important works are, 1. “Remarques sur la Langue Franchise, Paris, 1647,” in 4to. Mr. de la Monnoye has observed of the preface to this excellent treatise, that it is a masterpiece of elegance and solidity. 2. “Quint.-Curce de la vie & des actions d'Alexandre le Grand, traduit du Latin, Paris, 1653,” in 4to. Vaugelas spent thirty years in translating this author, perpetually altering and correcting it, as it was his principal object to make it a model of the purest style. Voiture, who was the intimate friend of Vaugelas, used to rally him on this fastidious nicety and long delay, and told him that it could never be finished; for that, while he was polishing one part, the language must needs undergo some revolution, and he would have all the rest to do over again: and he applied to him Martial’s epigram upon the barber, who was so long in shaving one part of the face, that the beard in the mean time grew again upon the other. It is allowed, however, that the French language owes much to Vaugelas, and Voltaire says his translation of Quintus Curtius was the first good book written with purity; and that there are few of the expressions and terms that are yet become obsolete.

, an English poet and translator, called the Silurist, from being a native of that part of Wales whose ancient inhabitants were called Silures, was born, in 1621, at Newton St. Bridget, in Brecknockshir. After being educated at home under Matthew Herbert, an able grammar- master, he was entered of Jesus college, Oxford, in 1638, but after two years residence, he departed without taking a degree, his father wishing him to study law in London. On the breaking out of the rebellion he was sent for home, and followed, as Wood says, “the pleasant paths of poetry and philology,” but afterwards studied and practised physic with reputation. He was, adds Wood, “esteemed by scholars an ingenious person, but proud and humorous.” He died in April 1695, and was buried in the parish church of Llansenfreid near Brecknock. His poetical works are, 1. “Olor Iscanus, a collection of some select poems,” Lond. 1650, 8vo. 2. “Silex scintillans, or the Bleeding Heart, sacred poems and private ejaculations,” 1650, 1655, 12mo. 3. “The Mount of Olives: or. Solitary Devotions,” 1652, 8vo. 4. “Thalia Rediviva,” poems, which Wood says were ready for the press in 1673, but knows not whether they were printed. Mr. Ellis has given a few specimens from Vaughan’s poetry, but without being able to applaud it much. He translated some parts of Plutarch’s Morals, which were printed in a second edition of his “Olor Iscanus;” Anselm’s “Blessed state of Man;” Guevara “On the praise and happiness of the Country Life;” the “Life of Paulinus bishop of Nola,” and a few other articles mentioned by Wood.

Henry Vaughan had a twin-brother, Thomas Vaughan, who styles himself in his strange writings, Eugenius Philalethes. He also came to Jesus college at the same time with his brother, but remained longer, and took one degree in arts, and was made fellow. He then entered into holy orders, and was made rector of St. Bridget, near Brecknock, a living conferred upon him by his kinsman, sir George Vaughan. But being interrupted in the quiet possession of this by the commotions of the times, he returned to Oxford, and distinguished himself for extravagant admiration of Cornelius Agrippa, and for many publications of the alchymical kind, replete with the grossest absurdities. Among these are his “Anthroposophia Theomagica,” dedicated to his brethren the Rosicrucians, Lond. 1650, 8vo, and his “Anima magica abscondita.” Dr, Henry More, on whom he had reflected, did him the honour to answer these publications in some “Observations” published the same year under the name of Alazonomastix Philalethes, and as he had made rather free with Vaughan, according to the controversial spirit of the times, and called him a Momus, a mimic, an ape, a fool in a play, a jackpudding, &c. Vaughan answered him in a work with a suitable title, “The Man-Mouse taken in a trap, and tortured to death for gnawing the margins of Eugenius Philalethes.” Mure again replied, but was afterwards ashamed of the controversy, and suppressed it in the edition of his collected works. Wood mentions other works, on magic, by Vaughan, the titles of which we may be excused transcribing. He is said to have died in consequence of some experiment with mercury, Feb. 27, 1665-6, and was buried in Oidbury church, Oxfordshire, at the expence of his friend and fellow Rosicrucian, sir Robert Moray, or Murray, of whom we have given an account in vol. XXII.

, lord chief justice of the commonpleas, was born in Cardiganshire, Sept. 14, 1608, and educated at Worcester school, whence he entered Christ Church, Oxford, in 1623, but left it without taking a degree, in 1626, and went to the Inner Temple for the study of the law. This, according to Wood, he neglected for some time, and was addicted to poetry and philosophy, until becoming acquainted with SeWen, he was advised to apply more diligently to his profession. In this he soon made such a figure as to be returned to the parliament of 1640, as member for the town of Cardigan. It is said that he was in his heart an enemy to monarchy, but never engaged in open hostility to Charles I. On the contrary, when the rebellion broke out he retired to his own country, and lived there principally until the restoration. He was then elected knight of the shire of Cardigan, in the parliament which began in 1661, and was much noticed by Charles II. In 1668 his majesty conferred the honour of knighthood upon him, and on May 22 of that year he was sworn serjeant-at-law, and the day following, lord chief justice of the common-pleas. He died Dec. 10, 1674, and was buried in the Temple church, near the grave of his friend Selden, who had appointed him one of his executors, and whose friendship for him is recorded on sir John’s monument.

Sir John Vaughan was not only versed in all the knowledge requisite to make a figure in his profession, but was also a very considerable master of the politer kinds of learning; but his behaviour among the generality of his acquaintances was haughty, supercilious, and overbearing; hence he was much more admired than beloved. The worst charge laid to him is that of having joined the enemies of lord Clarendon, who was once his friend, and had made him overtures of preferment.

Sir John Vaughan’s “Reports and Arguments in the Common Pleas, being all of them special cases, and many wherein he pronounced the resolution of the whole court of common pleas at the time he was chief justice there,” are fully and ably taken, and were first printed in 1677, and secondly in 1706, by his son Edward Vaughan, esq. with references, to which is added a tract concerning process out of the courts at Westminster into Wales.

, a Latin poet and moral writer, was the son of Walter Vaughan, of the Golden Grove, in Carmarthenshire, esq. and younger brother to sir John Vaughan, first earl of Carbery, and patron of bishop Jeremy Taylor. He was born at Golden Grove in 1577, and became a commoner of Jesus college, Oxford, in 1591, where he took his degrees in arts. The fruits of his scholastic attainments began to appear uncommonly early, as he was only in his fifteenth year when he prepared for printing an easy paraphrase of Persius in English and Latin; and his publications which appeared in 1597 and 1598 bespeak a prematurity of genius. After taking his degrees in arts, he applied to the study of the law, but before he proceeded in that faculty, set out on his travels, and at Vienna performed the necessary exercises for a doctor’s degree, in which he was incorporated at Oxford in 1605. He afterwards appears to have meditated a settlement in Cambriol, Newfoundland, where he was living in 1628, but the time of his death is not mentioned. His Latin poems are, 1. the “Song of Solomon, and some of the Psalms,” translated, Lond. 1597. 2. “Varia Poemata de Sphaerarum online,” 1589, 8vo. 3. “Poemata continent. Encom. Roberti Comitis Essex,” 1598, 8vo. 4. “Cambrensium Caroleia,” &c. a poem on the nuptials of Charles I. 1625 or 1630, 8vo. His English works are, “The Golden Grove, moralized in three books,” 1608, 8vo, which seems to have suggested to bishop Taylor the title of one of his most popular works; and “The Golden Fleece,” 1626, 4to: both works of the moral kind, and replete with observations on the manners of the times, and the principal personages. A particular account of both is given in the “Bibliographer,” vol. II. by which it appears that Vaughan had translated a part of Boccalini’s Advices from Parnassus, and had published “Circles called the Spirit of Detraction, conjured and convicted,” and “Commentaries upon, and paraphrase of, Juvenal and Persius,” all in early life.

, a French writer of considerable talents, was the son of John Vauvilliers, professor of rhetoric in the university of Paris, and of Greek in the royal college, who is known to the learned world by several Latin dissertations, particularly one “De praestantia Grsecarum literarum,” &c. He was born about 1736, and applied so diligently to his studies that he was able to assist his father in his rhetorical lectures. In 1767 he was appointed assistant to Vatry, the Greek professor in the royal college, and succeeding him, held that office for twenty years. On the commencement of the revolution he joined the revolutionists, and was for some time president of the first commune of Paris, and lieutenant to the mayor. In this office he had the care of furnishing Paris with'provisions, which he performed with great skill and success; but finding the mob gaining the superiority, resigned his office, and not only refused to sit in the constituent assembly, to which he was called, but published an opinion on the constitution of the clergy, which was so much in hostility to the measures then pursuing, that he was obliged for a time to conceal himself. He survived the worst period of the revolution, however, and in 1797 was chosen a member of the council of 500, but having joined the party of Clichy, was sentenced to transportation. On this he disappeared again, and found a refuge in St. Petersburgh, where the emperor Paul appointed him a member of the academy of sciences. The climate, however, and the sufferings he had been subjected to at home, did not permit him a long enjoyment of his present tranquillity. He died at St. Petersburg, July 23, 1800, in the sixtyfourth year of his age. He is characterised as a man of great simplicity of manners, joined to a tolerant and enlightened piety, and a contempt of riches. All his property, when confiscated at Paris, did not produce more than 1800 livres, and in Russia he scarcely left enough to pay for his funeral.

Vauvilliers had been in early life one of the French philosophers, and participated in all the sentiments of that sect, but was recalled to a better way of thinking by an incident, which is thus related. “In 1736 he had a dream, in which he saw himself transported to the judgment-seat of God; the book of his life was opened to him, and he was so strongly reproached for his conduct and principles, that he was deeply impressed by it: he awoke in a violent perspiration; his hair turned white; all at once he withdrew from the world, lived for some time in retirement, and did not appear again till the beginning of the revolution: from this time religious sentiments took the place of philosophical principles in his mind, and he became as exemplary in his faith and in his conduct as he had before been unbelieving.” This anecdote, his biographer informs us, he had a pleasure in repeating to his friends. His works are, 1.“Essai sur Pindare,” 1772, 12mo, which, as far as it goes, is the best translation the French have of Pindar, but it is not complete. The notes are very valuable. 2. “Extraits de divers auteurs Grecs a l‘usage de l’ecole militaire,” 1788, 6 vols. 12mo. 3. “Lettres sur Horace,” 12mo. 4. “Examen historique du government de Sparte,” 1769. This procured him admission into the academy of inscriptions. Besides these he completed Caperronier’s edition of Sophocles, published in 1781, and in it displays great diligence, research, and knowledge of the Greek language, although we are aware that this edition has not given universal satisfaction. He also assisted Brotier in his edition of Amyot’s Plutarch.

, Lord Vaux of Harwedon, an English poet, was the eldest son of Nicholas, the first lord Vaux, and was born in 1510. In 1527 he was among the attendants in Wolsey’s stately embassy, when that prelate went to treat of a peace between the emperor Charles V. and the kings of England and France; and in January 1530, he took his place in parliament as a baron. In 1532 he waited on the king in his splendid expedition to Calais and Boulogne, a little before which time he is said to have had the custody of the persecuted queen Catherine. In the following year he was made a knight of the bath, at the coronation of Anne Boleyn. He appears to have held no public office but that of the captain of the island of Jersey, which he surrendered in 1536. He died early in the reign of Philip and Mary.

, or Lope-Felix de Vega Carpio, a celebrated Spanish poet, was born at Madrid, Nov. 25, 1562. He informs us that his father was a poet, but what he was besides, or the time of his death, is not known. It appears that he was an orphan when at school, about thirteen or fourteen years old, and was then impelled by so restless a desire of seeing the world, that he resolved to escape; and having concerted his project with a schoolfellow, they actually put it in execution, but were soon brought back to Madrid. Before this time, according to his own account, he had not only written verses, but composed dramas in four acts, which, as he tells us, was then the custom. Upon his return to Madrid, however, he abandoned this mode of composition, and ingratiated himself with the bishop of Avila by several pastorals, and a comedy in three acts, called “La Pastoral de Jacinto,” which is said to have formed an epoch in the annals of the theatre, and a prelude to the reform which Lope was destined to introduce.

He shortly after studied philosophy at Alcala, and ingratiated himself with the duke of Alva, at whose instance he wrote his “Arcadia,” a mixture of prose and verse, romance and poetry, pastoral and heroic, the design of which was avowedly taken from Sannazarius, and which contains nearly as many deformities as beauties. Soon, after this he left the duke of Alva’s service, and married, but continued to cultivate his favourite studies, until, being involved in a duel, he wounded his antagonist so dangerously as to be obliged to leave Madrid, and his newly established family. He fixed upon Valencia as the place of his retreat, but returned to Madrid in a few years, when all apprehensions of evil consequences from his duel were allayed. He was probably soothing his imagination with prospects of domestic happiness, which his late absence had suspended, when he had the misfortune to lose his wife. The residence of Madrid, which he had so lately regarded as the summit of his wishes, now became insupportable; and scenes which had long been associated in his mind with ideas of present comfort and future reputation, served only to remind him of their loss. To fly from such painful recollections he hastily embarked on board the memorable Armada, which was then fitting out to invade England. The fate of this expedition is well known; and Lope, in addition to his share in the difficulties and dangers of the voyage, saw his brother, to whose society he had run for refuge in his late calamity, expire in his arms. During the voyage, however, his muse was not idle, for he composed the “Hermosura de Angelica,” a poem, which professes to take up the story of that princess where Ariosto had dropped it. When he published this poem in 1602, he added another, the “Dragontea,” an epic on the death of sir Francis Drake, who is abused by every coarse epithet, as indeed was his royal mistress Elizabeth, whose tyranny, cruelty, and above all, her heresy, are th_e perpetual objects of Lope’s poetical invective.

In 1590 he returned a second time to Madrid, and soon after married again. In 1598, on the canonization of St. Isidore, a native of Madrid, he entered the lists with several authors, and overpowered them all with the number if not with the merit of his performances. Prizes had been assigned for every style of poetry, but above one could not be obtained by the same person. Lope succeeded in the hymns; but his fertile muse, not content with producing a poem of ten cantos in short verse, as well as innumerable sonnets and romances, and two comedies on the subject, celebrated by an act of supererogation both the saint and the poetical competition of the day, in a volume of sprightly poems under the feigned name of Tom6 de Burguiilos. This success raised him, no doubt, in the estimation of the public, to whom he was already known by the number and excellence of his- dramatic writings and this was probably the most fortunate period of his life, and that in which he derived most satisfaction from his pursuits. About this time, however, we must fix the short date of his domestic comforts. Of three persons who formed his family, the son died at eight years, and was soon followed by his mother; the daughter alone survived our poet. He now resolved to seek consolation in the exercises of devotion; and, having been secretary to the Inquisition, he shortly after became a priest, and in 1609 an honorary member of the brotherhood of St. Francis.

Whatever the devotion of Lope, it did not break in upon his habits of composition, and as he had about this time acquired sufficient reputation to attract the envy of his fellow poets, he spared no exertions to maintain his post, and repel the criticisms of his enemies. Among these have been mentioned the formidable names of Gongora and Cervantes. Gongora had introduced an affected, bombast, and obscure style, which Lope first attacked irr hints in his plays, aad afterwards exposed its absurdities. in a letter prefixed to an eclogue on the death of Donna Isabel de Urbino, in 1621, and this he performed with great candour. As to Lope’s dispute with Cervantes, it is less distinctly narrated, and seems in some measure problematical. Whatever it was, posterity has long decided between them. “Cervantes,” says lord Holland,. “who was actually starving in the same street where Lope was living in splendour and prosperity, has been for near two centuries the delight and admiration of every nation in Europe; and Lope, notwithstanding the late edition of his works in 22 vols. is to a great degree neglected in his owft.”

Before the death of Cervantes, the admiration, of Lope was become a species of worship in Spain, and it was hardly prudent in any author to withhold incense from his shrine, much less to interrupt the devotion of his adherents. Nor was he himself entirely exempt from the irritability which frequently attends poets: he often speaks with peevishness of his detractors, and answers their criticisms, sometimes in a querulous, and sometimes in an insolent tone. He even complains of neglect, obscurity, and poverty, although he was laden with honours and pensions, courted by the great, and followed by the crowd.

Such was his reputation that he began to distrust the sincerity of the public, and seems to have suspected that there was more fashion than real opinion in the extravagance of their applause. This engaged him in a dangerous experiment, the publication of a poem without his name. But whether the number of his productions had gradually formed the public taste to his own standard of excellence, or that his fertile and irregular genius was singularly adapted to the times, the result of this trial confirmed the former judgment of the public; and his “Soliloquies to God,” though printed under a feigned name, attracted as much notice, and secured as many admirers, as any of his former productions. Emholdened probably by this success, he dedicated his “Corona Tragica,” a poem on the queen of Scots, to pope Urban VIII, who had himself composed an epigram on the subject. Upon this occasion he received from that pontiff a letter written in his own hand, and the degree of doctor of theology. Such a flattering tribute of admiration sanctioned the reverence in which his name was held in Spain, and spread his fame through every catholic country. The cardinal Barberini followed him with veneration in the streets; the king would stop to gaze at such a prodigy; the people crowded round him whereever he appeared; the learned and the studious thronged to Madrid from every part of Spain to see this phoenix of their country, this “monster of literature;” and even Italians, no extravagant admirers in general of poetry that is not their own, made pilgrimages from their country for the sole purpose of conversing with Lope. So associated was the idea of excellence with his name, that it grew in common conversation to signify any thing perfect in its kind; and a Lope diamond, a Lope day, or a Lope woman, became fashionable and familiar modes of expressing their good qualities.

Lope’s poetry was as advantageous to his fortune as to his fame; the king enriched him with pensions and chaplaincies: the pope honoured him with dignities and preferments; and every nobleman at court aspired to the character of his Maecenas, by conferring upon him frequent and valuable presents. His annual income was not less rhan 1500 ducats, exclusive of the price of his plays, which Cervantes insinuates that he was never inclined to forego, and Montalvan, one of his biographers, estimates at 80,000. He received in presents from individuals as much as 10,500 more. His application of these sums partook of the spirit of the nation from which he drew them. Improvident and indiscriminate charity ran away with these gains, immense as they were, and rendered his life unprofitable to his friends, and uncomfortable to himself. He continued to publish plays and poems, and to receive every remuneration that adulation and generosity could bestow, till 1635, when religious thoughts had rendered him so hypochondriac, that he could hardly be considered as in full possession of his understanding. On the 22d of August, which was Friday, he felt himself more than Usually oppressed in spirits, and weak with age; but he was so much more anxious about the health of his soul than of his body, that he would not avail himself of the privilege to which his infirmities entitled him of eating meat; and even resumed the superstitious flagellation, to which he had accustomed himself, with more than usual severity. This discipline is supposed to have hastened his death. He became ill on that night, and having passed the necessary ceremonies with excessive devotion, he expired on Monday, Aug. 26, 1635, in the seventy-third year of his age.

The sensation produced by his death was, if possible, more astonishing than the reverence in which he was held while living. The splendour of his funeral, which was conducted at the charge of the most munificent of his patrons, the duke of Sesa, the number and language of the sermons on that occasion, the competition of poets of all countries in celebrating his genius and lamenting his loss, are unparalleled in the annals of poetry, and perhaps scarcel) equalled in those of royalty itself. The ceremonies attending his interment continued for nine days. His biographers, however, have been less careful to convey a just idea of this extraordinary man to posterity, and there is little in them that can throw any light upon his character as a man, or his history as an author. His intimate friend Montalvan praises him in general as a person of a mild and amiable disposition, of very temperate habits, of great erudition, singular charity, and extreme good breeding. His temper, he adds, was never ruffled but with those who took snuff before company; with the grey who dyed their locks; with men who, born of women, spoke ill of the sex; with priests who believed in gypsies; and with persons who, without intentions of marriage, asked others their age. These antipathies, which are rather quaint sallies of wit, than traits of character, are the only peculiarities which his intimate friend has t' >ught proper to communicate. We have already noticed his unreasonable complaints of illusage, neglect, and even poverty, which appear to have constituted the greatest blemish in his character. As an author, he is most known, as indeed he is most wonderful, for the prodigious number of his writings. Twenty-one million three hundred thousand of his lines are said to he actually printed; and no less than eighteen hundred plays of his composition to have been acted on the stage. Lord Holland has calculated that according to these accounts, allowing him to begin his compositions at the age of thirteen, we must believe that upon an average he wrote more than nine hundred lines a day; a fertility of imagination, and a celerity of pen, which, when we “consider the occupations of his life as a soldier, a secretary, a master of a family, and a priest; his acquirements in Latin, Italian, and Portuguese; and his reputation for erudition, become not only improhable, but absolutely* and, one may almost say, physically impossible. Yet although there does not now exist the fourth part of the works which he and his admirers mention, enough remains to render him one of the most voluminous authors that ever put pen to paper. Such was his facility, that he informs us himself, that more than an hundred times he composed a play and produced it on the stage in twentyfour hours. To this evidence we may add tins of Montalvan, that he wrote a comedy in two days, which it would not be very easy for the most expeditious amanuensis to copy out in the time. At Toledo he wrote fifteen acts in fifteen days, which, Montalvan adds, make five comedies. He also asserts that Lope wrote 1800 plays and 400 autos sacramentales, a species of dramatic composition” resembling' our old mysteries. That in all this there must be some exaggeration, cannot be doubted.

his dramatic works, in 25 vols. 4to, land’s elegant and interesting narrative, who observes in the conclusion that “it seems but an act of justice to pay some honour to the memory of men whose labours have promoted literature, and enabled others to eclipse their reputation. Such was Lope de Vega; once the pride and glory of Spaniards, who in their literary, as in their political achievements, have, by a singular fatality, discovered regions, and opened mines, to benefit their neighbours and their rivals, and to enrich every nation of Europe, but their own.”

, an ancient Latin writer, lived in the fourth century, under the reign of Valentinian, to whom he dedicates a work, entitled “Epitome iflstitutorum rei militaris.” This is a compilation from many authors: yet the subject is treated with much method and exactness, and the Latinity, all things considered, exceedingly pure. Of the author little is known; he probably was a military man, and has the title of Conies. His work was first published without date or place, supposed at Utrecht, about 1473. The best editions since, are that of Schwebelius, 1767, 4to of Valart, Paris, 1762; and of Strasburgh, 1806, 8vo. It was also published, with other writers upon “Tactics,” Frontinus, Ælian, and Mnezs, at Leyden, 1644, in 12mo; and afterwards “Vesaliae Clivorum,” 1670, 8vo. There are also extant, under Vegetius’s name, if indeed the same Vegetius, of which Fabricius doubts, “Artis Veterinarise sive Mulomedidnae libri quatuor,” Basil, 1524, 4to; and afterwards, 1574, 4to.

, or Mapheus Veqids, a Latin poet of the fifteenth century, was born at Lodi in 1406. He studied law, in compliance with his father, but had a stronger predilection for poetry. He made, however, such proficiency as to be successively chosen professor of both in the university of Pavia. He went afterwards to Rome, and was secretary of the briefs under the popes Eugenius IV. Nicholas V. and Pius II. and died there in 1458. He wrote a great many works in prose, as “Dialogues de miseria et felicitate,” “Disputatio inter solem, terrain et aurum,” and others of the ascetic kind, ali inserted in the Library of the fathers. Dupin and other writers of the Romish church, bestow the highest commendations on one of his treatises “De educatione liberorum,” in which he borrows much from St. Augustine. Such was his enthusiasm for this saint, that he built a chapel in his church at Rome on the right hand of the great altar, and having caused the bones of St. Augustine, and of St. Monica his mother, to be placed in a very fine shrine, he removed them from Ostia to that chapel. He wrote a poem on the death of Astyanax, four books on the expedition of the Argonauts, four on the life of St. Antony, and other poems, in which there is more of copiousness than force, and more of ease than elegance. But his supplement to Virgil is his most remarkable effort. Fancying that the Æneid was imperfect, and wanted a denouement, he wrote a thirteenth book, which has been printed in some editions of Virgil, and even translated into Italian and French. In English we have likewise a translation, published in 1758, but it is of the burlesque kind, in imitation of Cotton.

, an eminent Spanish history and portrait painter, was born at Seville in 1594, and was at first the pupil of Francis Herrera, and afterwards of Pacheco, in whose school his progress was remarkable, and he soon gave manifest proofs of his abilities. He studied diligently alter nature, and painted birds, beasts, fishes, ana landscapes) as they occurred, and designed them with such truth and exactness, that his performances rose into high esteem. His most favourite subjects, at first, were taverns, kitchens, conversations, and persons feasting; and those he executed with a bold pencil, and uncommon tints of colour, in a style peculiar to himself. But at length the sight of some pictures of the Italian masters inspired Velasquez with nobler ideas; and being particularly charmed with the colouring of Caravaggio, he made him his model, and his success in that" style answered his most sanguine expectations.

Having spent five years under I ajheco, he- went to Madrid, where he received great encouragement, and had an opportunity of improving himself still more by viewing the paintings in that city. There also he procured the patronage of the duke d'Olivarez, favourite of Philip IV.; and the portrait which he painted of that grandee obtained him, the royal favour, in consequence of which he was appointed principal painter to the king of Spain, with an honourable pension, and an apartment in the palace. While in that station, Rubens arrived in Spain; and having visited Velasqnez, and considered his works, recommended it to him to spend some time in Italy. Velasquez, convinced of the sincerity and probity of Rubens, as well as of his judgment, followed his advice, and travelled to Venice and Rome: at the former he copied the works of Titian, Tintoretto, and P. Veronese; and at the latter studied the works of Raphael, Buonaroti, and the Caracci’s; by which means he acquired such an improvement of taste, correctness, composition, and colouring, as placed him at the head of his profession.

At his return to Spain, he was received with every mark of esteem by the king, and applause by the public; and having finished a noble design of the Crucifixion for the convent of St. Placidia, the whole court had an incontestable evidence of his merit, and the improvement he had obtained, by studying the finest productions of art and genius in Italy. As the king had determined to procure the best collection possible of antique statues, and the works of the greatest masters of Italy, he commissioned Velasquez to purchase the most curious, and also to copy such celebrated paintings as he found unpurchaseable. During that progress, he painted the portrait of Innocent X. and most of the cardinals and princes at Rome; and was treated with the utmost distinction and honour, as long as he continued in that city. He had the happiness to enrich his own country with many admirable curiosities of ancient and modern artists; and adorned it also with a number of his own works, in portrait and history. The compositions of Velasquez were remarkable for strong expression, a freedom of pencil, a spirited touch, and an admirable tone of colour. The most capital performance of this eminent master, is the historical representation of the expulsion of the Moors by Philip III., which is in the grand saloon at Madrid. Velasquez died at Madrid in 1600, and was interred with great magnificence.

, a Spanish comic poet and satirist, was born at Icija, in Andalusia, and recommended himself at the court of Philip IV. by his humour and pleasantries, so as to obtain the title of the Spanish Scarron. He is said to have possessed in the highest degree the talent of ridicule. He was the author of several comedies, which were printed at different places in Spain; and of an humorous piece entitled “El diabolo cojuelo, novella de la otra vida,” printed at Madrid in 1641. This Le Sage afterwards imitated in French, and his work has been often printed in English under the title of the “Devil on Two Sticks,” but Le Sage is thought to have very much improved on his original. Velez died at Madrid in 1646.

, a French historian, was born near Fismes, in Champagne, in 1711. He entered the Jesuits’ order, but quitted it at the end of eleven years, was tutor to M. Goguet, counsellor to the parliament, and having finished that gentleman’s education, devoted himself wholly to the study of French history. He died suddenly at Paris, September 4, 1759, aged about forty-eight, leaving a “History of France,” written in a simple and correct style, and with great candour. Six only, however, of the eight volumes were published by him; the seventh, which he had entirely finished, and the eighth, which was nearly completed at the time of his death, have been published since by M. Villaret, who continued the history to vol. XII. But the complete edition, with Garnier’s continuation, amounts to 15 vols. 4to, 1770 1789. M. Velli also left a French translation of Dr. Swift’s “History of John Bull.”

, a learned civilian, and celebrated writer of Germany, was descended of an ancient and wealthy family, and born at Augsburg, June 20, 1558. He was educated with great care; and, as he discovered a love for polite literature, was sent very young to Rome, where he was a pupil of Antony Muretus, in 1575. He joined to the study of antiquity that of the Italian tongue, and wrote it with great elegance. Upon his return to his own country he applied himself to the bar in 1589; obtained the dignity of a senator in 1592; was advanced to be a member of the little council in 1594; and was elected praetor in 1600. He discharged all these offices with great reputation, and was the ornament of his country. He loved and patronized learning and learned men; and never any person had more friends in the republic of letters. He furnished assistance to several authors; and particularly contributed to the great collection of inscriptions published by Gruter. He gave the security of a thousand florins, in order to procure to Rittershusius a manuscript of the epistles of Isodorus Pelusiota, which was in the library of the duke of Bavaria, and could not be had without such security; and, what made this act of generosity the greater, he did it without Rittershusius’s knowledge. He was also the author of several works of reputation himself. His first essay, according to Melchior Adam, was a work which he published at Venice in 1594, thus entitled: “Reruin Augustanarum Vindelicarum Libri Octo, quibus a prima Rhaetorum ac Vindelicorum origine ad annum usque 552 a Nato Christo nobilissimae gentis Historia et Antiquitates traduntur; ac antiqua monumenta, tarn quae Augusta?, quam quae in agro Augustano, quia et quae alibi extant ad res Augustanas spectantia sere incisa et notis illustrata exhibentur.” In 1602 he published, at Augsburg, “Rerum Boicarum libri quinque, Historiam a gentis origine ad Carolum Magnum complexi,” containing the history of Bavaria from the year 600, when Sigoves led the Boii from Gaul to Germany, to the year 788, when Charlemagne dethroned the last Bavarian duke Tassilo II. and confined him in a cloister. Velser intended to continue this work, which is reckoned his best, and had already collected materials for it, and nearly composed two additional books, but was prevented by death from finishing his task; and the two books were a long time supposed to be lost. One of these, however, was discovered in 1778, by M. de Lippert, in the university library at Ingolstadt, and published at Augsburgh in that year. Velser published, at different times, the lives of several martyrs at Augsburg. His works were collected and reprinted at Nuremburg 1682, in folio, under the inspection and care of Arnoldus, professor there, who wrote “Prolegomena,” in which he informs us of many particulars concerning him. As Velserus held a great correspondence with the learned of Italy, and several other countries, many of his Latin and Italian letters were collected and inserted in this edition. He passed for the author of a celebrated piece called Squittinio della liberta Veneta," which was published in 1612. Gassendi having observed that several ascribed this book to Peiresc, adds, that they were deceived; and that it was probably written bv the illustrious Yemenis, as he calls him. Velserus’s genius, liberality of mind, his fine taste, and his classical diction, enabled him to communicate his historical acquisitions to the public with success and applause. He died June 13, 1614, and left no issue by his marriage. He was one of those who never would suffer his picture to be drawn; yet it was done without his knowledge, as Gassendi informs us in hi> life of Peiresc.

, or Venantius Honorius Clementianus Fortunatus, a Christian poet of the sixth century, was a native of Italy, and studied at Ravenna. He applied himself to grammar, rhetoric, poetry, and jurisprudence, but was most attached to rhetoric and poetry, and was honoured by Hilduinus, the abbot of St. Denis, with the title of Scholasticissimus. It sems uncertain what was the cause of his leaving Italy for France, but the step was peculiarly fortunate for him, as his poetical genius procured him the most honourable reception. Princes, bishops, and persons of the highest ranks, became eager to confer on him marks of their esteem. He arrived in France during the reign of Sigebert, king of Austrasia, who received him with great respect. This being about the time of the king’s marriage with Brunehaut, in the year 566, Venantius composed an epithaiamium, in which he celebrated the graces and perfections of the new queen. It is also said, that he gave the king lectures on politics. The following year he went to Tours to perform a vow to St. Martin, whose image had cured him of a complaint in his eyes. He then went to Poictiers, and was invited by St. Radegonda, the foundress of a monastery there, to reside in the capacity of her secretary; and afterwards, when he became a priest, she appointed him her chaplain and almoner. He resided here for some years, employing his time in study and writing, and edifying the church as much by his example as by his works. He was much esteemed by Gregory of Tours and other prelates, and was at last himself raised to be bishop of Poictiers, which dignity, it is said, he did not long enjoy. He died about the commencement of the seventh century, some say in the year 609. His works consist of eleven books of poetry, mostly of the elegiac kind, and generally short: hymns adapted to the services of the church: epitaphs, letters to several bishops, and some to Gregory of Tours: courtly verses addressed to queen Radegonda, and her sister Agnes, usually sent with presents of flowers, fruit, &c. four books of the “Life of St. Martin,” in heroic verse: several lives of the saints. Editions of his works were published at Cagliari in 1573, 1574, and 1584, and at Cologne in 1600: but all these are said to be incomplete and incorrect, yet they shew the respect paid to him as the best Latin poet of his time. In 1603 Christopher Brower, a German Jesuit, produced a very correct edition, with notes, printed at Fulda, and reprinted at Mentz, in 1617, 4to; but this contains only his poems. His other works are in the “Bibliotheca Patrum,” of Lyons, 1677. The most complete edition is that of Rome, published under the title of “Venantii opera omnia quae extant, post Browerianam editionetn mine recens novis addiiamentis aucta, not. et scholiis illustr. opera Mich-Ange Luchi,” 1786—87, 2 vols. 4to.

, who has the credit of promoting Italian literature in the last century, particularly in France, was a native of Verdun. His name was Vigntron, but as he had made the Italian language his study, and wished to acquire reputation at Paris as a teacher, he Italianized his name, and gave out that he was a native of Florence. He published an Italian Grammar and Dictionary; both of which have been repeatedly printed in France and Eng T land, but with modern improvements. He published also Translations of Bentivoglio’s and Loredano’s letters, the Italian on one side. His grammar, it is said, was not written by him, but by the famous Roselli, whose adventures have been printed as a romance. This latter, passing through France, dined with Veneroni, who finding that he reasoned very justly upon the Italian language, engaged him to compose a grammar, for which he gave him a hundred franks. Veneroni only made some additions according to his taste, and published the book under his own name. His “Translation of the Select Fables,” is printed with a German version and plates, Augsburg, 1709, 4to. We find no account of his death; but, from the dates of his publications, he appears to have flourished, if that phrase be allowable in his case, in the early part of the last century.

, or Agostino de Musis, a very eminent engraver, was a native of Venice, and was the scholar of the celebrated Marc Antonio Raimondi. It is not certain at what period he began his studies under that great master, but the first dated print by Agostino appeared in 1509, at which time, it is probable, his tutor still resided at Venice. After the death of Raphael, which happened in 1520, Veneziano and Marc de Ravenna, his fellow- pupil, who had conjointly assisted each other, separated, and worked entirely upon their own account. When the city of Rome was taken and sacked by the Spaniards in 1527, Veneziano retired to Florence, and applied for employment to Andrea del Sarto, who was then in high repute; but del Sarto, dissatisfied with the dead Christ which he had engraved in 1516, after his design, refused to permit him to engrave any more of his pictures. Veneziano afterwards returned to Rome, where he followed his professional pursuits with great success, and where he died some time about 1540.

a Dutch painter of great eminence, was descended of a considerable family in Leyden, and born in 1556. He was carefully educated by his parents in the belles lettres, and at the same time learned to design of Isaac Nicolas. In his fifteenth year, when the civil wars obliged him to leave his country, he retired to Liege, finished his studies, and there gave the first proofs of his talents. He was particularly known to cardinal Groosbeck, who gave him letters of recommendation when he went to Rome, where he was entertained by cardinal Maduccio. His genius was so active, that he at once applied himself to philosophy, poetry, mathematics, and painting, the latter under Frederico Zuchero. He acquired an excellence in all the parts of painting, especially in the knowledge of the chiar-oscuro, and he was the first who explained to the Flemish artists the principles of lights and shadows, which his disciple Rubens afterwards carried to so great a degree of perfection. He lived at Rome seven years, during which time he executed several fine pictures; and then, passing into Germany, was received into the emperor’s service. After this the duke of Bavaria and the elector of Cologn employed him: but all the advantages he got from the courts of foreign princes could not detain him there. He had a desire to return into the Low Countries, of which Alexander Farnese, prince of Parma, was then governor. He drew the prince’s picture in armour, which confirmed his reputation in the Netherlands. After the death of that prince, Venius returned to Antwerp, where he adorned the principal churches with his paintings. The archduke Albert, who succeeded the prince of Parma in the government of the Low Countries, sent for him to Brussels, and made him master of the mint, a place which took up much of his time; yet he found spare hours for the exercise of his profession. He drew the archduke and the infanta Isabella’s portraits at large, which were sent to James L of Great Britain: and, to shew his knowledge of polite learning, as well as of painting, he published several treatises, which he embellished with cuts of his own designing. Among these are, 1. “Horatii Emblemata,” Antwerp, 1607, 4to, often reprinted, but this edition has the best plates. 2. “Amoris divini emblemata,” Antwerp, 1615, 4to. 3. “Amorum emblemata,” ibid. 1608, 4to. 4. “Batavorum cum Romanis bellum, &c.” ibid. 1612, 4to, &c. Venius died at Brussels, 1634, in his seventy-eighth year. He had two brothers; Gilbert, who was an engraver; and Peter, a painter; but his greatest honour was his having Rubens for a pupil.

, a pious divine of the church of England, was the son of the rev. Richard Venn, rector of St. Antholiri’s, London, who distinguished himself as a noted disputant in his day, particularly in conjunction with bishop Gibson, in opposing the promotion of Dr. Rundle to a bishopric, on account of a conversation in which the doctor had expressed sentiments rather favourable to deism. Mr. Venn also assisted Dr. Webster in writing the “Weekly Miscellany,” a periodical publication which, under the venerable name of Richard Hooker, laboured zealously in defence of high church principles. He died in 1740; and a volume of his sermons and tracts was published by his widow, the daughter of Mr. Ashton, who had been executed in the reign of William III. for being concerned in a plot to bring back the Stuart family.

Mr. Henry Venn was born at Barnes, in the county of Surrey, 1725. He was educated, partly under Dr. Pitman, at Market-street, and partly under the reverend Mr. Catcott, rector of St. Stephen, Bristol, a Hutchinsonian divine of great ingenuity and learning, the author of a curious treatise on the deluge, and a volume of sermons. In 1742 Mr. Venn was admitted of Jesus college, Cambridge, proceeded to the degree of B.A. in 1745, and to that of M.A. in 1749. There being no fellowship vacant in his own college, the fellows of Queen’s unanimously elected him a member of their society, in which he continued till his marriage in 1757. The lady to whom he became united was daughter of Dr. Bishop of Ipswich, author of an Exposition of the creed, and a volume of Sermons preached at Lady Moyer’s lecture in 1724.

At this period Mr. Venn was curate of Glapham, where he was greatly beloved by the inhabitants, and contracted a close friendship with those eminently good men, sir John Barnard and John Thornton, esq. By way of exhibiting his gratitude to his parishioners, he published and dedicated to them, in 1759, on his resignation of the curacy, a volume cf sermons. In the course of that same year he was presented to the vicarage of Huddersfield in Yorkshire. While here, he laboured with unwearied assiduity in his vocation, and his memory will long be cherished with affection and veneration in that extensive parish. His zeal, however, carried him beyond his strength. By his earnest and frequent preaching, in the course of ten years, he had materially injured his constitution, and brought on a cough and spitting of blood, which rendered him incapable of officiating any longer in so extensive a sphere. He therefore accepted, in 1770, the rectory of Yelling in Huntingdonshire, a crown living, which was presented to him by his great and good friend the lord chief baron Smythe, then one of the commissioners of the great' seal During his residence at Huddersfield he published “The Complete Duty of Man,” which has gone through seven large editions, including those printed in Ireland and America. The great object of this book is to counteract certain Arniinian principles of the celebrated work which bears a similar title, and to infuse more of an evangelical spirit into the mind of the reader.

Mr. Venn was remarkably cheerful and facetious in conversation, so that piety, as recommended by him, was pleasant and alluring; and the young and the careless were often struck, in his company, with admiration at this circumstance. His works were, 1. “The Perfect Contrast, or the entire opposition of Popery to the Religion of Jesus the Son of God; a sermon preached at Clapham, November 5, 1758,” 8vo. A second edition was printed in 1778. 2. “Sermons on various subjects,” 1759, 8vo. 3. “The Variance between real and nominal Christians considered, and the cause of it explained,” a sermon, 1759, 8vo. 4. “The Duty of a parish priest,” a sermon preached at WakefieM, July 2, 1760, 8vo. 5. “Christ the joy of the Christian life, and death his gain,” a sermon preached at Haworth, on the death of William Grimshaw, minister of that parish, 1763, 8vo. 6. “The Complete Duty of Man, or a System of Doctrinal and Practical Christianity. Designed for the use of families,” 1764, 8vo. 7. “Man a condemned sinner, and Christ the strong hold to save him,” an assize sermon, 1769, 8vo. 8. “A full and free Examination of the rev. Dr. Priestley’s Address on the Lord’s Supper, with some siricrures on the treatise itself,” 1769, 8vo. 9. “A token of respect to the Memory of the rev. Mr. Whitfield,” preached at the countess of Huntingdon’s, Bath, 1770, 8vo. Jo. “Mistakes in religion exposed, in an essay on the Prophecy of Zachariah,” 1774, 8vo. 11. “The Conversion of Sinners the greatest charity: a sermon preached before the Society for promoting religions knowledge,” 1779, 8vo.

His son, John, whom we have mentioned as the late rector of Clapham, was born in that parish March 9, 1759, and received the early part of his education under Mr. Shute at Leeds. He was then removed to Hippasholme school, where he was well grounded in classics by the care of Mr. Sutcliffe. He had afterwards the benefit of the rev. Joseph Milner’s instruction at the grammar-school at Hull; and of the rev. Thomas Robinson’s and the rev. William Ludlam’s, the last an eminent mathematician at Leicester. He was admitted a member of Sidney Sussex college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of A. B. in 1781. In September 1782, he was ordained deacon, as curate to his father; he entered into priest’s orders in March 1783, and two days afterwards was instituted to the living of little Dunham, in Norfolk. In Oct. 1789, he married Miss Catherine King, of Hull, who died April 15, 1803, leaving a family of seven children. In June 1792, on the death of sir James Stonehouse (predecessor in the baronetcy to the sir James Stonehouse recorded in our vol. XXVIII.) he was instituted to the rectory of Clapham. In August Is 12, he married Miss Turton, daughter of John Turton, esq. of Clapham, and resided at this place from the beginning of 1793, to the day of his death, July 1, 1813, aged fifty-four. Mr. Venn never appeared in the character of an author, nor prepared any sermons for the press; but two volumes have since been published, selected from his manuscripts, and may be considered “as a fair exhibition of his manner, sentiments, and doctrine.” They are more polished in style than his father’s, but there is a perceptible difference in their opinions on some points, the father being a more decided Calvinist. Prefixed to these sermons, is a brief account of the author, from which we have extracted the above particulars.

, a physician of the seventeenth century, was born of genteel parents at Petherton, near Bridgewater, in Somersetshire, in 1577, and in 1594 became a commoner of St. Alban’s-hall, Oxford. After taking a degree in arts, he studied physic, and practised for a time about Oxford. In 1613, he took his doctor’s degree, and returning to his own country, practised for many years at Bridgewater; but afterwards, at or near Bath. He was highly esteemed in that part of the country for skill in his profession, and maintained the character of an upright and charitable person. He died March 27, 1660, and was buried in St. Peter’s church in Bath, where a monument with a large inscription, by Dr. Pierce of that city, was erected to his memory.

, a nonconformist divine, was born about 1620, and educated in Emmanuel college, Cambridge. He does not appear to have had any preferment in the church, except the lectureship of St. Olave’s, Southwark, from which he was ejected for nonconformity in 1662. After this he preached at a dissenting meeting at Pewterers’-hall, Lime-street, as colleague to a Mr. Bragge, who outlived him and preached his funeral sermon. As Mr. Venning was a man of no faction himself, men of different factions and sects were generally disposed to do justice to his character, which was that of a man, the object of whose labours and writings was to promote piety. He was, in his charity sermons, a powerful advocate for the poor, among whom he distributed annually some hundreds of pounds. His oratory on this topic is said to have been almost irresistible; as some have gone to church with a resolution not to give, and have been insensibly and involuntarily melted into compassion, and bestowed their alms with uncommon liberality. He died March 10, 1673. He was the author of nine practical treatises, specified by Calamy, among which the principal are, 1. “Orthodox and Miscellaneous Paradoxes,” 1647, 12mo. 2. “Things worth thinking on, or helps to piety,” 12mo, often reprinted. 3. “His Remains,” with a portrait by Hollar," &c. He was also one of the compilers of the English-Greek Lexicon published in 1661, 8vo.

, a very useful biographer and bibliographer, was born at Montbrison en Forez, Nov. 11, 1544. He appears to have served the king both in a military and civil capacity, and was historiographer and gentleman in ordinary to his majesty. He died at Duerne, Sept. 25, 1600. In his youth he had cultivated poetry, but of his poetical efforts he published only some indifferent specimens in his great work. He had, according to Scaliger, a fine library of Italian, French, Spanish, Greek, and Latin authors, and was conversant in books of all kinds. The fruits of his labours were, 1. “La Prosopographie, ou Description des personnes insignes, &c. avec les effigies d‘aucuns d’iceux, et braves observations de leur temps, annees, fails, et dits,” Lyons, 1373, 4to. This he reprinted three times with improvements; and the last, left also by him for the press, was published by his son Claude, who made some, few additions at Paris in 1603, 3 vols. folio. This is a very miscellaneous compilation, in which, although there are a few particulars of the eminent men of his time, it requires some patience to find them. 2. “Les Diverses lemons d'Antoine Duverclier, suivant celJes de P. Messi-e,” Lyons, 1576, 8vo. Of this there have been several editions, the most complete of which is that ofTournon, 1605. These legons were part of Duverdier’s extracts, in the course of his reading, from various Greek, Latin, and Italian authors, 3. “Le Compseutique, ou Traits facetieux,” 12mo; but there are some doubts whether this, which did not appear until 1584-, was not the compilation of another author. 4. “La Bibliotheque d'Ant. Duverdier, contenant le catalogue de tons les auteurs qui ont ecrit ou traduit en Frangais, avec le supplement Latin, du meme Duverdier, a la biblioiheque de Gesner,” Lyons, 1585, folio. Croix Du Maine’s work of the same kind had appeared the year before, and was thought to be the best executed of the two; but they have both been republished with so many improvements, that, like Moreri’s, they retain very little of the original authors. This improved edition was the production of Rigoley and Juvigny, who added the notes of Lamonnoye, the president Bouhier and Falconet, and published the whole in six handsome volumes, 4to, under the title of Les Bibliotheques Franchises de Lacroix du Maine et de Duverdier,“1772. The work is undoubtedly still capable of improvement, but, as it is, it forms a very valuable addition to the bibliographical library. There is a copy in the king’s library at Paris, with a vast mass of ms additions and corrections by Mercier de Saint-Leger. Le Long and some others attribute to Du. Verdier” La Biographic et Prosopographie des rois de France jusqu'a Henri III.“Paris, 1583, and 1586, 8vo. But others have doubted this, because he makes no mention of it in a list of his works which he wrote in 1585, and in which he gave not only what he had published, but what remained in manuscript, such as a translation of Seneca, &c. His son, Claude Verdier, was born about 1566, and had the ambition to become an author, but turned out to be a bad poet and a worse critic; he also spent the property his father left him, and lived an obscure and miserable life till about 1649, which is said to have been its period. The worst feature of his character is the disrespectful manner in which he has treated his father’s talents and labours, in a work which he published in 1586, and 1609, 4to, entitled” In autores pene omnes anttquos potissimum censiones et correctiones." It is a sufficient character of this work, that he blames Virgil for his bad Latin.

, one of the most prolific authors in the French series, deserves some notice as having been often mistaken for Claude Du Verdier, and even for Antony, who was dead long before this Gilbert was born. It is not known to what part of France he belonged. It appears that he was historiographer of France, and that after all his numerous publications, he was obliged in 1676 to apply for an asylum, for himself and his wife, in the hospital of Salpetriere, where he died in 1636. Bayle has a very superficial article on him. Joly allows him to have been the author of the historical works attributed to him, but doubts whether the romances under the name of Duverdier are not by another hand, and his reason is, that it is difficult to conceive a man’s continuing to write and publish for the long space of sixty years. This, however, is not absolutely decisive. Thirteen historical works are ascribed to Duverdier, all published in 12mo, in one, two, or more volumes each, consisting of histories of France, Turkey, Spain, England, Rome, and some lives. His romances amount to fourteen, but seem to be quite forgotten in his own country, and will not easily be revived in this by any list we can give. Some of them seem to be translations.

, a brave English commander, was second son to Geoffrey Vere, who was third son of John Vere, earl of Oxford. He was born in 1554, and applying himself early to the military art, became one of the most famous generals of his time. He served first among the forces sent by queen Elizabeth, under the command of the earl of Leicester, to the assistance of the States of Holland, where he gave proofs of a warlike genius, and undaunted courage. In 1588, he was part of the English garrison which gallantly defended Bergen -op- Zoom against the prince of Parma and “that true courage might not want its due reward or distinction,” says Camden, “the lord Willoughby, who was general of the English after Leicester’s departure, conferred the honour of knighthood on sir Francis Vere, whose great fame commenced from this siege.”

In 1589, the town of Bergh, upon the Rhine, being besieged by the marquis of Warrenbon, and distressed for want of provisions, sir Francis Vere was sent by the Statesgeneral to count Meurs, governor of Guelderland, with nine companies of English, to concert with him measures for the relief of that town. At his coming to Arnheim, the governor being greatly hurt by an explosion of gunpowder, and the states of the province representing to sir Francis the importance of the place, and the great extremity it was reduced to; at their earnest desire he hastened to its relief, with seven companies of Dutch foot, and twelve troops of horse. With these, and carriages laden with provisions, he marched towards Bergh, through a heathy and open country, with such diligence, that having surprised the enemy, who lay dispersed in their forts about the town, in full view of them", he put provisions into it, and returned without loss. After some days refreshment, the States, who had received advice how matters passed at Bergh, ordrred a fresh supply of provisions for it under the command of sir Francis. When he caine within two English miles of the town, the way they were to take being very narrow, and leading by the castle of Loo, th<- enemy from the castle galled his men and horses in their passage with such resolution, that sir Francis perceived they were not the ordinary garrison. Yet, by his military skill and valour, he beat them back to their castle, and was no farther interrupted by them in his passage through the narrow way: but before he could well form his men on an adjoining plain, he was again attacked by a fresh body of the enemy. At the first encounter, his horse was killed under him by a pike, and falling upon him, he could not presently rise, but lay between the two armies, receiving a hurt in his leg, and several thrusts with pikes through his clothes, till the enemy was forced to give way; and though his forces consisted only of the two English troops under his command, and did not exceed four hundred men, yet by his valour and conduct the enemy was defeated, and lost about eight hundred men. He afterwards threw in provisions into Bergh, and exchanged the garrison, though count Mansfeldt was near with thirteen or fourteen thousand foot, and twelve hundred horse.

In 1590, he bravely relieved the castle of Lickenhooven, in the fort of Recklinchusen, with the diocese of Cologn, in which the States had a garrison that was besieged; and he also recovered the town of Burick in Cleves, and a little fort on that side of the Rhine, which had been surprized by the enemy. In 1591, he took by stratagem a fort near Zutphen, in order to facilitate the siege of that town. The manner in which he made himself master of this place is thus related by himself in his “Commentaries:” “I chose,” he says, “a good number of lusty and hardy young soldiers, the most of which I apparelled like the country-women of those parts, the rest like the men: gave to some baskets, to others packs, and such burthens as the people usually carry to the market, with pistols, and short swords, and daggers under their garments, willing them, by two or three in a company, by break of day, to be at the ferry of Zutphen, which is just against the fort, as if they stayed for the passage boat of the town; and bade them there to sit and rest themselves in the mean time, as near the gate of the fort as they could for avoiding suspicion, and to seize upon the same as soon as it was opened, which took so good effect, that they possessed the entry of the fort, and held the same till an officer with two hundred soldiers (who was laid in a covert not far off) came to their succour, and so btcame fully master of the place. By which means the siege of the town afterwards proved the shorter.”

Sir Francis also assisted count Maurice at the siege of Deventer, being the chief instrument in the taking that place; and it was also through his conduct and valour, that the duke of Parma received a signal defeat before Knodsenburgh fort, near Nimeguen: which obliged that prince to retire from thence, with more dishonour than m any action that he had undertaken in those wars. In 1596 he was recalled from the Low Countries, and employed in the expedition against Cadiz, -with the title of Lord Marshal: and in this enterprize he displayed his usual courage and military skill. He returned again to Holland the following year, and had a principal share in the action near Turnhout, where near three thousand of the enemy were killed and taken. Some time after he was appointed governor of the Brill, one of the cautionary towns in the Low Countries, and was permitted at the same time to retain the command of the English troops in the service of the States. In 1599, when a new Spanish invasion was apprehended, the queen constituted him Lord Marshal: and being sent over in all possible haste, he embarked on the 22d of August at the Brill, and arrived in London the next day, where he remained until all apprehensions of an invasion were over. He then returned back to the Hague, and had there an audience of the States.

In the beginning of 1600, he had much dispute with the States about some accounts, and particularly their having lessened, in his absence, the companies he commanded for them, from an hundred and fifty to an hundred and thirteen men. He still however continued in his command, and abomt this time the forces of the States laid siege to Nieuport; but Albert, archduke of Austria, who commanded the Spanish forces, having recovered many forts which had been surprized by the troops in the Dutch service, and cut off eight hundred Scots who were posted as a rear-guard to intercept his passage, came to the relief of Nieuport, and a battle became unavoidable The army of the States was commanded by prince Maurice, and the chief officers under him were sir Francis Vere, who was lieutenant-general of the foot, and colonel Lodovick of Nassau, general of the horse. Vere, who commanded in the front, having occasion to repass a ford, before he could come to a convenient place of action, ordered his men not to strip themselves; for which he assigned this reason, “that they would in a few hours either have better clothes, or stand in need of none.” A council of war being then held, prince Maurice was entirely directed by Vere, who was of opinion, that the army of the States ought to wait for the enemy. The dispositions for the battle were then made by Vere with admirable judgment: and the English, who were not above one thousand five hundred, were posted upon the eminences of the downs, and supported by a body of Friesland musqueteers. The archduke was all this time advancing: but his horse, the foot being left behind, were beat back by Vere. The foot, however, coming up, a bloody conflict ensued, in which Vere was wounded, receiving one shot through his leg, and another through his thigh, whilst his horse was killed under him, and himself almost taken prisoner: but prince Maurice advancing with the main body, the battle became general; and the Spaniards, by the courage and good conduct of Vere, received a total defeat.

The last and most signal military exploit performed by sir Francis Vere, was his gallant defence of Ostend, which, was besieged by the archduke Albert and a very numerous army. Vere had been appointed general of all the army of the States in and about Ostend; and accordingly he entered that city on the llth of July, 1601, in or-ier to undertake the defence of it, with eight companies of English, and found in the place thirty companies of Netherlanders, making about sixteen or seventeen hundred men. With this handful, for no less than four thousand were necessary for a proper defence, he resolutely defended the place for a long time against the Spanish army, which was computed at twelre thousand men. During the course of the siege he received a reinforcement of twelve companies of English, and. cut out a new harbour at Ostend, which proved of gi'eat service to him. On Aug. 14, he was wounded in the head by the bursting of a cannon, which obliged him to remov" into Zealand till Sept. 19, when he returned to Ostenti, and found that in his absence some English troops had arrived there to reinforce the garrison. On Dec. 4, in the night, the Spaniards fiercely assaulted the English trendies, so that sir Francis Vere was callt d up without having time to put on his clothes; but by his conduct and valour the enemy were repulsed, and lost about 500 men. In the mean time the place began to be much distressed; and sir Francis, having advice that the besiegers intended a general assault, in order to put them off, and gain time, he artfully contrived to enter into treaty with them for the surrender of the place; but receiving part of the supplies which he had long expected from the States, with an assurance of more at hand, he broke off the treaty. The archduke, equally surprized and enraged at this conduct, which indeed is scarcely to be vindicated, took a resolution to revenge himself of those within the town, saying he would put them all to the sword; and his officers and soldiers likewise took an oath, that, if they entered, they would spare neither man, woman, nor child. They made a general assault on Jan. 7, 1602; but sir Francis, with only twelve hundred men, kept off the enemy’s army of 10,000, which threw that day above 2,200 shot on the town; and had before discharged on it no less than 163,200 cannon shot, leaving scarcely a whole house standing. Our heroic general having acquired immortal honour in the defence of Osrend for eight months together, resigned his government March 7, 1602, to Frederic Dorp, who had been appointed by the States to succeed him; and he and his brother, sir Horatio Vere, returned into Holland.

Soon after his discharge from the government of Ostend, sir Francis, at the request of the States, came into England to desire fresh succours, which went over in May, and were to be under his command. He accordingly returned again to Holland; and upon receiving the news of queen Elizabeth’s death, he proclaimed king James I. at the Brill, in April 1603. A few months after he came to England, and his government of the Brill expiring, or he being superseded at Elizabeth’s death, it was renewed to him by king James. But under this pacific sovereign, a peace was concluded with Spain in 1601. Sir Francis survived this about four years, and died at home, Aug. 28, 1608, in the fifty-fourth year of his age. He was interred in St. John’s chapel, Westminster-abbey, where a monument was erected to his memory by his lady. Besides his other preferments, he was governor of Portsmouth. He had three sons and two daughters, who all died before him. He married Elizabeth, second daughter of John Dent, a citizen of London, and she re-married with Patrick Murray, a son of John earl of Tullibardine, in Scotland.

Sir Francis Vere was a general of the greatest bravery, and of equal military talents. Queen Elizabeth had an high opinion of him, and always treated him with the greatest respect, often saying that she “held him to be the worthiest captain of her time.” He was a man of letters, as well as an accomplished general, and wrote an account of his principal military transactions, which were published from the author’s original, compared with two other transcripts, in 1657, by William Dillingham, D. D. under the title of “The Commentaries of sir Francis Vere, being divers pieces of service, wherein he had command, written by himself, in way of commentary,” Cambridge, fol. with portraits of sir Francis, and sir Horace Vere, sir John Ogle, and maps and plans, &c. and additions by sir John Ogle, Henry Hexham, Isaac Dorislaus, and the editor.

, baron of Tilbury, and younger brother.to the preceding sir Francis Vere, was born at Kirby-hall, in Essex, in 1565. Entering early into a military life, he accompanied, in the twentieth year of his age, his brother, sir Francis, into the Low Countries, uhere he acquired great reputation by his valour and conduct. In 1600 he had a considerable share in the victory obtained by the English and Dutch near Nieuport. He afterwards, as well as his brother, signalized himself in the defence of Ostend. He commanded the forces sent by king James I. to the assistance of the elector Palatine. He was a man of a steady and sedate courage, and possessed that presence of mind in the greatest dangers and emergencies, which is the highest qualification of a general. It was owing to this quality that he made that glorious retreat from Spinola, the Spanish general, which was the greatest action of his life; and his taking of Sluys was attended with difficulties which were thought insuperable.

Upon the accession of king Charles I. sir Horace Vere, as a reward for his services, was advanced to the peerage, by the title of lord Vere, baron of Tilbury; being the first peer created by that monarch. He died the 2d of May, 1635, and was buried in Westminster-abbey. He married a lady who was then the widow of Mr. John Hoby: she was the youngest daughter of sir John Tracy of Doddington, or Tuddington, in Gloucestershire. She died in 1671, at a great age. The parliament placed the younger children of Charles I. under the care of this lady, who was a person of great piety and worth, and in her punning epitaph, written by Dr. Simon Ford, is thus addressed,

Clark has a long account of her in his lives published in 1684, fol. and so highly was sir Horace esteemed, that at his death a volume was published, dedicated to her, containing “Elegies celebrating the happy memory of sir Horatio Vere,” &c. Lond. 1642, 8vo.

, seventeenth earl of Oxford, was the only son of John the sixteenth earl, who died in 1563, by his second wife, Margaret, daughter of John Golding, esq. He is supposed to have been born about 1540 or 1541, and in his youth travelled in Italy, whence it is said he was the first who imported embroidered gloves and perfumes into England, and presenting queen Elizabeth with a pair of the former, she was so pleased with them, as to be drawn with them in one of her portraits. This gives us but an indifferent opinion of his judgment, yet he had accomplishments suited to the times, and made a figure in the courtly tournaments so much encouraged in queen Elizabeth’s reign. He once had a rencounter with sir Philip Sidney (see Sidney, vol. XXVII. p. 507), which did not redound much to his honour. In 1585, Walpole says he was at the head of the nobility that embarked with the earl of Leicester for the relief of the States of Holland; but Camden, who gives a list of the principal personages concerned in that expedition, makes no mention of him. In 1586 he sat as lord great chamberlain of England on the trial of Mary queen of Scots. In 1588 he hired and fitted out ships at his own charge against the Spanish Armada. In 1589 he sat on the trial of Philip Howard, earl of Arwndel; and in 1601, on the trials of the earls of Essex and Southampton. One of the most remarkable events of his life was his cruel usage of his first wife, Anne, daughter of the celebrated William Cecil, lord Burleigh, in revenge for the part acted by that statesman against Thomas duke of Norfolk, for whom he had a warm friendship. Camden says, that having vainly interceded with his father-in-law for the duke’s life, he grew so incensed that he vowed revenge against the daughter, and “not only forsook her bed, but sold and consumed that great inheritance descended to him from his ancestors;” but in answer to this, Collins says, that the estate descended to his son. It was probably, however, much impaired, as Arthur Wilson agrees with Camden, and something of the same kind may be inferred from a letter in Winwood’s Memorials, III. 422. The earl was buried at Hackney, July 6, 1604.

His character appears to have been marked with haughtiness, vanity, and affectation. He aped Italian dresses, and was called “the mirror of Tuscanismo.” His rank, however, and his illustrious family commanded the respect of a large portion of the literary world, and among his eulogists were the contemporary writers, Watson, Lily, Golding, Munday, Greene, Lock, and Spenser. Scattered pieces of his poetry are found in the collections of the times, and particularly in the “Paradise of dayntie devises,” lately reprinted in the Bibliographer. In these there appear the same traits as are said to have been exhibited in his character. They are generally affected, full of conceit and antithesis, and obscure. He is said also to have written comedies, and to have been reckoned the best writer of comedy in his time, but the very names of these plays are lost. His lady, Anne, has lately been introduced to public observation, as a poetess, by Mr. George Steeveris, the editor of Shakspeare. Her poetical attempts are to be found in a collection of odes and sonnets, entitled “Diana,” published by one John Southern or Soothern. Some account of these, which seem to be below mediocrity, is given by Mr. Park as a supplementary article to Walpole’s “Royal and Noble Authors.”

, abbot of St. Cyran, famous in the seventeenth century as a controversial writer, was born in 1581, at Bayonne, of a good family. He pursued his studies at Lou vain, and formed a strict friendship with the celebrated Jansenius, his fellow student. In 1610 he was made abbot of St. Cyran, on the resignation ( of Henry Lewis Chateignier de la Roche-Posai, bishop of Poitiers. The new abbot read the fathers and the councils with Jansenius, and took great pains to impress him with his sentiments and opinions, as well as a number of divines with whom he corresponded; nor did he leave any means untried to inspire M. le Maitre, M. Arnauld, M. d'Andilly, and several more disciples whom he had gained, with the same opinions. This conduct making much noise, cardinal Richelieu, who was besides piqued that the abbot of St. Cyran refused to declare himself for the nullity of the marriage between Gaston, duke of Orleans, the brother of Louis the thirteenth, and Margaret of Lorraine, confined him at Vincennes, May 11, 1638. After this minister’s death, the abbot regained his liberty, but did not enjoy it long, for he died at Paris, October 18, 1643, aged sixtytwo, and was buried at St. Jacques du Haut-Pas, where his epitaph may be seen on one side of the high altar. His works are, 1. “Lettres Spirituelles,” 2 vols. 4to, or 8vo, reprinted at Lyons, 1679, 3 vols. 12mo, to which a fourth has been added, containing several small tracts written by M. de St. Cyran, and printed separately. 2. “Question Royale,” in which he examines in what extremity a subject might be obliged to save the life of his prince at the expence of his own, 1609, 12mo. This last was much talked of, and his enemies drew inferences and consequences from it, which neither he nor his disciples by any means approved 3. “L‘Aumône Chrétienne, ou Tradition de l’Eglise touchant la charité envers les Pauvres,” 2 vols. 12mo. The second part of this work is entitled “L'Aumône ecclesiastique.” M. Anthony le Maitre had a greater share in the last-mentioned book than the abbot of St. Cyran. He published some other works of a similar cast, but his last appears to deserve most notice. It is entitled “Petrus Aurelius,” -and is a defence of the ecclesiastical hierarchy against the Jesuits. He was assisted in this book by his nephew, the abbé de Baicos, and it seems to have done him the most honour of all his works, though it must be acknowledged, says the abbé L'Avocat, that if all the abuse of the Jesuits, and the invectives against their order, were taken from this great volume, very little would remain. L'Avocat is also of opinion that M. Hallier’s small tract on the same subject, occasioned by the censure of the clergy in 1635, is more solid, much deeper, and contains better arguments, than any that are to be found in the great volume of “Petrus Aurelius.” The first edition of this book is the collection of different parts, printed between 1632 and 1635, for which the printer Morel was paid by the clergy, though it was done without their order. The assembly held in 1641 caused an edition to be published in 1642, which the Jesuits seized; but it was nevertheless dispersed on the remonstrances of the clergy. This edition contains two pieces, “Confutatio collections locorum quos Jesuits compilarunt, &c.” that are not in the third edition, which was also published at the clergy’s expence in 1646. But to this third edition is prefixed the eulogy, written by M. Godeau on the author, by order of the clergy, and the verbal process which orders it; whence it appears that their sentiments respecting him, differed widely from those of the Jesuits and their adherents. The abbot de St. Cyran was a man of much simplicity in his manners and practice: he told his beads; he exorcised heretical books before he read them: this simplicity, however, concealed a great fund of learning, and great talents for persuasion, without which he could never have gained so many illustrious and distinguished disciples, as Mess. Arnauld, le Maltre de Sacy, Arnauld d'Andilly, and the other literati of Port Royal, who all had the highest veneration for him, and placed the most unbounded confidence in him. But whatever talents he might have for speaking, persuading, and directing, he certainly had none for writing; nor are his books answerable to his high reputation.

, one of the most learned men of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, was born in 1349 at Justinopolis, now Capo d'Istria, a town situated at the extremity of the Adriatic gulph, not far from Trieste. Of his preceptors we only know that he learned Greek of Chrysoloras at Venice, and canon law of Francis de Zabarelia at Florence. -He is said to have composed the inscription on the monument of Chrysoloras in the Dominican monastery at Constance, where that eminent scholar died in 1415. After visiting several cities in Italy, where he displayed his knowledge of philosophy, civil law, mathematics, Greek, &c. he assisted at the council of Constance, and went thence to Hungary, to which it was thought he was invited by the emperor Sigismond. The prince of Carrara, then in possession of Padua, chose him for preceptor to his children. He is supposed to have died about 1431; Saxius says 1428. In his last days his faculties experienced a total decay, nor did he appear to have any enjoyment of his reason but at short intervals.

He wrote a history of the princes of Carrara, which is inserted in Muratori’s collection, vol. XVI. published at Milan 173iQ, who did not know that it had appeared eight years before in the “Thesaur. Antiq. Ital.” vol. VI. part III. published at Leyden. He wrote also alife of Petrarch, which may be seen in Tomasijii’s “Petrarcha Redivivus;” an elogium on St. Jerorn; a treatise de “Republica Veneta,” published at Rome in 1526; and testified his zeal for the honour of classical learning, by publishing an invective against Malatesta, who, by a misguided zeal, had removed from the market-place of Mantua a statue of Virgil. One of his most celebrated treatises was that “Deingenuis moribus,” composed for the use of the prince of Carrara’s children. This, which was so popular as to become a school-book, aod as such Paul Jovius mentions its being put into his hands when a youth, was first published, with other treatises of the same kind, at Milan in 1474, 4to, and reprinted in 1477. Brunet, however, mentions an edition prior to either of these, which he supposes printed about 1472, with the title “Ad Ubertinum Carariensem de ingenuis moribus opus e Magno Basileo, et e Xenophonti de tirannide Leonardi Aretini traductio.” Brunet also mentions, that the editions of 1474 and 1477 are to be found separate from the other treatises; but it was certainly afterwards printed with them, at Venice: for example in 1502, with Bonardus and others on the subject of education; and at Basil in 1541, with Vitruvius Roscius “de docendi studendique modo,” &c. Vergerius translated into Latin Arrian’s history of the expedition of Alexander the Great, and it is said purposely avoided any particular elegance of style, lest his royal reader should stand in need of the assistance of an interpreter. If this be true it cannot be a matter of much regret that such a translation was not printed. Vergerius is likewise said to have written poetry, and even a Latin comedy, which is preserved in manuscript in the Ambrosian library. It was the production of his youth, and is entitled “Paulus.” Sassi, in his typographical history of Milan, has printed the prologue.

, usually called the Younger, to distinguish him from the preceding, was born at Justinopolis, and of the same family. Where he was educated we are not told, but he soon became celebrated for his acquirements in canon-law and scholastic divinity; and these recommended him to the attention of the pope, Clement VII. who employed him as his nuncio at the memorable diet of Augsburgh in 1530, and entrusted him with a very ample commission. He was instructed to use every endeavour to prevent the holding of a national council in Germany, and to induce king Ferdinand, the emperor’s brother, to oppose any proposition of that kind. Vergerius executed this commission with great 2eal, and gave every opposition to the Lutherans, by shewing his partiality to Eckius, Faber, Cochlaeus, and other enemies to the reformation; he also made Eckius a canon of Ratisbonne, a piece of preferment which, as the pope’s legate, he could confer. Vergerius executed this commission with such ability, that he was thought the most proper person to succeed the superannuated bishop of Rhegio, as the pope’s ambassador to Germany. He accordingly was sent, with instructions, openly to represent his holiness’s ardent desire to convene a general council, but secretly to take every step to prevent that measure. On the death of Clement VII. and the accession of Paul III. the latter recalled Vergerius from Germany, in order to be exactly informed of the state of religion in that country; and, says Sleidan, he also consulted with the cardinals, as to the prevention of a national council, until they should, by private and unsuspected contrivances, be able to embroil the emperor afhd other princes in a war. As a part of this plan, Paul III. resolved at length to send Vergerius back to Germany to profer a general council, and in the mean time to learn what form the Protestants would insist upon as to the qualifications, votings, and disputations, of such a council; and his object in this was, to be able to impose such rules and terms as he was sure they would never accept; by which contrivance the odium of not holding a general council would fall upon them. Vergerius was also instructed to exasperate the princes of the empire against the king of England, Henry V1IL whose dominions the pope had in contemplation to bestow upon those who would conquer them: and he had also a secret article of instruction to tamper with Luther and Melancthon, in order to bring them over to the cause of Rome.

Early in the Spring of 1535, Vergerius set out on this embassy, in which he was exceedingly indiistrious, and negociated with almost all the princes of Germany. At Prague he met with John the pious elector of Saxony, with whom he dealt very artfully, and, among other things, suggested, that the intended council should be held at Mantua, pretending the convenience of its situation as to plenty and facility of access, but really because the heads of the protestant party being assembled in Italy would be more in the pope’s power. This, however, was easily seen through, and objected to. He also went to Wittemberg, and had a conference with Luther, which has been variously represented. It appears, however, both from father Paul and Pallavicino, that he treated Luther with urbanity, but made no impression on the steady mind of that illustrious reformer.

In 1556 Vergerius returned to the pope, and reported, as the issue of his inquiries, that the protestants demanded a free council, in a convenient place, within the territories of the empire, which the emperor had promised them: that as to the Lutheran party, there was no remedy but absolute force and entire suppression: that the protestants would hear nothing of hostility to the king of England, and that the rest of the princes had equal repugnance. The only comfortable hint Vergerius communicated was, that George duke of Saxony (Luther’s greatest enemy) had declared, that the pope and the emperor ought to make war against the protestants as soon as possible,. Catching at this, the pope immediately sent Vergerius to Naples, where the emperor then was, in order to propose such a war, as the quickest method of settling the controversy. The emperor so far listened to this as to take a journey to Rome to debate the matter; and the issue was, that a council was proposed to be held at Mantua: but to this, from motives of self-preservation, the protestants could not consent. As a reward, however, for his services, Vergerius was made bishop of Justinopolis.

From this time to 1541, Vergerius appeajrs to have remained in Italy. In this last mentioned year, he was commissioned to go to the diet at Worms, where he made a speech on the unity and peace of the church, which he printed and circulated, and in which he principally insisted on the arguments against a national council. On his return to Rome, the pope intended to have rewarded his services with a cardinal’s hat, but changed his purpose on hearing it insinuated that a leaning towards Lutheranism was perceptible in him, from his long residence in Germany. The pope, however, was not more offended than Vergerius was surprized at this charge, which he knew to be absolutely groundless; yet this circumstance, probably arising from personal malice or envy, proved ultimately the means of Vergerius’s conversion. With a view to repel the charge of heresy, he now sat down to write a book, the title of which was to be, “Adversus apostatas Germanise,” against the apostates of Germany; but as this led him to a strict investigation of the protestant doctrines, as found in the works of their ablest writers, he found his attachment to popery completely undermined, and rose up from the perusal of the protestant writers with a strong conviction that they were in the right. He then immediately went to confer with his brother, John Baptist Vergerius, bishop of Pola, in Istria, who was exceedingly perplexed at his change of sentiment, but on his repeated entreaties, joined him in examining the disputed points, particularly the article of justification, and the result was, that both prelates soon preached to the people of Istria the doctrines of the reformation, and even dispersed the New Testament among them in the vulgar tongue. The Inquisition, as well as the monks, soon became alarmed at this, and Vergerius was obliged to seek refuge in Mantua, under the protection of cardinal Hercules Gonzaga, who had been his intimate friend; but Gonzaga was after a short time obliged by remonstrances from Rome to withdraw his protection, and he finally went to Padua, and thence to the Grisons, where he preached the gospel for several years, until invited by the duke of Wirtemberg to Tubingen, and there he passed the remainder of his days. In the mean time his brother, the bishop of Pola, died, and, as suspected, by poison, administered by some of those implacable enemies who were also thirsting for Vergerius’s blood. But he was now out of their reach, and died quietly at Tubingen, Oct. 4, 1566. Verged us, after his conversion, wrote a great many treatises, most of them small, against popery and popish writers, the titles of which are to be found in our authorities, but they are all of rare occurrence, owing to their having been suppressed or strictly prohibited by his enemies. Some are in Italian, and some in Latin. A collection of them was begun to be printed at Tubingen in 1563, but one volume only was published, under the title of “Primus tomus operum Vergerii adversus Papatum,” 4to. A valuable defence of Vergerius was published by Schelhorn, in 1760, “Apologia pro P. P. Vergerio adversus loh. Casam. Accedunt Monumenta inedita, et quatuor epistoltE memorabiles,” 4to.

, a writer who did not want either genius or learning, was born at Urbino, in Italy, in the fifteenth century; but the year is not named, nor have we any account of his early history. He was first known in the literary world by “A Collection of Proverbs,” 1498, and this being the first work of the kind, it occasioned some jealousy between him and Erasmus. When Erasmus afterwards published his “Adagia,” and did not take notice of his work, Vergil reproached him in terms not civil, in the preface to his book “De llerum Inventoribus.” Their friendship, however, does not seem to have been interrupted by it; and Vergil, at the instigation of Erasmus, left the passage out in the later editions. These “Adagia” of Polydore Vergil were printed three or four times in a very short space; and this success encouraged him to undertake a more difficult work, his book “De Rerum Inventoribus,” printed in 1499. At the end of the 4th edition at Basil, 1536, 12mo, is subjoined a short commentary of his upon the Lord’s prayer. After this, he was sent into England by pope Alexander VI. to collect the papal tribute, called Peter-pence, and was the last collector of that oppressive tax. He recommended himself in this country so effectually to the powers in being, and was so well pleased with' it, that, having obtained the rectory of Church Langton in Leicestershire, he resolved to spend the remainder of his life in England. In 1507 he was presented to the archdeaconry of Wells, and prebend of Nonnington, in the church of Hereford; and was the same year collated to the prebehd of Scamelsby in the church of Lincoln, which he resigned in 1513 for the prebend of Oxgate in that of St. Paul’s. In 1517 he published at London a new edition of his work “De Rerum Inventoribus,” then consisting of six books, with a prefatory address to his brother John Matthew Vergil. About 1521 he undertook a considerable work at the command of Henry VIII.; upon which he spent above twelve years. It was a “History of England,” which he published and dedicated in 1533 to his royal patron. The purity of his language is generally allowed, and he excelled most of the writers of this age for elegance and clearness of style, but his work is chargeable with great partiality, and even falsehood, and this charge has been advanced by sir Henry Savile and Humphrey Lloyd, who reproaches him in very severe terms. Caius, in his book “De Antiquitatibus Cantabrigiae,” mentions it as a thing “not only reported, but even certainly known, that Polydore Vergil, to prevent the discovery of the faults in his history, most wickedly committed as many of our ancient and manuscript histories to the flames as a waggon could hold.” For this, however, we have no direct authority. His greatest fault is, that he gives a very unfair account of the reformation, and of the conduct of the protestants. Yet his work has been printed several times, and very much read; and is necessary to supply a chasm of almost seventy years in our history, including particularly the lives of Edward IV. and Edward V. which period is hardly to be found in Latin in any other author.

In 1526, he published a treatise “Of Prodigies:” consisting of dialogues, and attacks upon divination. He did not desire to leave England till 1550, and he would not have desired it then, if old age had not required a warmer and more southern climate. Bishop Burnet tells us, that “having been now almost forty years here, growing old, ha desired leave to go nearer the sun. It was granted him on the 2d of June: and, in consideration of the public service he was thought to have done the nation by his History, he was permitted to hold his archdeaconry of Wells, and his prebend of Nonnington, notwithstanding his absence from the kingdom.” It is said that he died at Urbino in 1555. Although a zealous papist in some points, he approved the marriage of the clergy, and condemned the worship of images; nor was he at all disgusted with the alterations that were made in the affairs of England under Henry VIII. and Edward VI. and it has been observed that there are several things occasionally dropped in his writings, which did not please the adherents of his own church. His name of late has been written “Virgil” but, before the Basil edition in 1536 of his book “De Rerum Inventoribus,” it is printed “Vergilius.”

, count de Tressan, a lively French writer, was born at Mons, Nov. 4, 1705, of a noble family originally from Languedoc, one branch of which had been protestants, and fought on that side in the civil wars preceding the massacre. He came early in life to Paris, and attached himself to Voltaire and Fontenelle, who initiated him in the belles lettres, and in those principles which afterwards made him be ranked among the philosophers of France. He served afterwards in the French army, and attained the rank of lieutenant-general. In 1750 he was admitted a free associate of the French academy, and contributed a memoir on Electricity, a subject then not much known, and written with so much ability that it was supposed he might have acquired no small fame in pursuing scientific subjects. This, however, was not agreeable to his disposition. After the battle of Fontenoy, in 1741, in which he served as aide-de-camp to Louis XV. he went to the court of Stanislaus, king of Poland, at Luneville, where he recommended himself by the sprightliness of his temper, and by the freedom of his remarks, but at the same time made some enemies by his satirical and epigrammatic productions. On the death of Stanislaus, he retired from active life, and devoted his time to the composition of a variety of works, particularly romances. Some of which were however translations, and others abridgments. These fill 12 octavo volumes published in 1791. His translation of Ariosto seems to have done him most credit. A light, trifling spirit never deserted him, but still sported even in his grey-hairs, until death put a serious end to it, Oct. 31, 1782, in his seventy-seventh year. Almost up to this period he was abridging Amadis de Gaul, and writing tales of chivalry, after having begun his career with the grave and abstruse parts of science. While in this latter employment he was, in 1749, chosen a member of our Royal Society.

, a physician and anatomist, was born in 1643 at Vesbrouck, in the county of Waes. He was descended of a family who had many years subsisted from the profits arising from the cultivation of the earth; and he had himself worked with the spade to the age of twenty-two years; when the curate of his village, taking notice of him, gave him the first rudiments of learning. He afterwards obtained a place in the college of the Trinity at Louvain, where he was made professor of anatomy in 16y, and afterwards doctor in medicine. He died there in Feb. 1710, aged 62. The following epitaph was found after his decease, written with his own hand: “Philippus Vt-rheyen Medicina; Doctor & Professor, partem sui materialem hie in Cremeterio condi voluit, ne Templum dehonestaret, am nocivis halitibus inficeret. Requiescat in pace.”

, a celebrated French marine painter, was born at Avignon in 1712, and received the early part of his education at Rome. While there he contracted au acquaintance with Mr. Drake, of Sharlowes, in Buckinghamshire, then on his travels. Mr. Drake employed him to paint six pictures, and left the subjects to his own choice. They are very capital performances, in the painter’s best manner, and are now in the drawing-room at Sharlowes.

Having stayed a competent time, eagerly employed in the contemplation of the finest models of antiquity, he returned to France, and his first designs were views of some of the principal sea-ports on the coast. These being shewn to his late majesty of France, procured him the appointment of marine painter to the king, with a competent salary, and every assistance that he requested to go through his plan of giving a view of every sea' port in the kingdom. This he completed, and under royal and national patronage the views have been engraved and the prints, which are in general most exquisitely performed, have been disseminated through all Europe. Many of these engravings were by Balechon; one of them, well known to collectors by the name of “The Storm,” was much admired for the fluidity of the water, and the spirit of the figures. One hundred of the prints were consigned to an engraver in London, and part of them sold; but some persons objecting to the very clumsy style in which a long dedication, inscribed under the print, was written, Balechon said he would soon remedy that, and with his graver drew a number of black lines upon the copper, over the dedication, so as in a degree to obliterate the words, and sent 100 impressions to England. These our connoisseurs soon found to be “the second impression,” and eagerly bought up the first; but a print with the lines no man of taste would look at. This mortified the English printseller, who wrote to the French engraver, and complained that he could not sell the second set for half price. “Morbleu” cries the Frenchman, “How whimsical are these English Virtuosi! They must be satisfied, however.” To work he sets with his punch and hammer, and, repairing the letters, sends out the print, with the inscription apparently in its first state. A few of these were sold; but the imposition was soon discovered by the faintness of the impressions; and then those who did not possess the first impressions, were glad to have the plate in the second, rather than the third state; so that nearly all the third set lay upon the hands of the printseller. This produced a complaint; and the complaisant Frenchman, ever eager to satisfy his English customers, again punched out the lines, and brought the inscription to its second state.

After a long and active life, in a manner that did honour to himself and his country, Vernet began to fear that his well-earned pension would be stopped by the troubles arising in France; and as 81 years of age is rather too late a period for a man to take a very active part in national disputes, he meditated a retreat to England, which was put a stop to by his death in 1789. His works will, however, live as long as those of any artist of his day. In a light and airy management of his landscape, in a deep and tender diminution of his perspective, in the clear transparent hue of the sky, liquid appearance of the water, and the buoyant air of the vessels which he depicted on it, he had few superiors. In small figures employed in dragging off a boat, rigging a ship, or carrying goods from the quay to a warehouse, or any other employ which required action, he displayed most uncommon knowledge, and gave them with such spirit (though sometimes a little in the French fluttered style), as has never been equalled by any man except our most excellent Mortimer; and to be the inferior of Mortimer in that line is no dishonour. It has been the lot of every painter who ever lived, and will probably be the lot of all who ever will live. He carried that branch of the art to its highest degree of perfection. As a proof in what estimation Vernet was held, it may be mentioned that two of his pictures, now in the Luxembourg, were purchased by madame du Barry for 50,000 livres. It was said of him, that his genius neither knew infancy nor old age.

, a French refugee, was born at Bourdeaux in 1583, and educated in the university of Montauban until he took his master’s degree, when he was obliged to leave his country for the sake of his religion, and came to England, and found a friend in sir Thomas Leigh. In 1608 he was admitted a member of Magdalen college, Oxford, and in 1625 was incorporated master of arts, being then second keeper of the Bodleian library, in which Wood says, his services were valuable. He died at Oxford in Sept. 1647, and was buried in the church of St. Peter in the East, “at which time,” says Wood, “our library lost an honest and useful servant, and his children a good father.”

He wrote, for the use of his students, 1. “Catalogus ID­terpretum S. Scripturae, juxta numerorurn ordinem, qui extant in Bibl. Bodl.” Oxon. 1635, 4to, the second edition. This was first begun by Dr. Thomas James. To it is added an “Elenchus auctorum, tarn reoentium quam antiquorum, qui in quatuor libros sententiarmn et Thomas Aquinatis summas, &c. scripserunt.” 2. “Nomenclator of such tracts and sermons as hare been printed, or translated into English upon any place or book of Scripture, now to be had in Bodley’s library,” Oxon. 1637, and enlarged in 1642, 16mo. He also translated from French into English, principal Cameron’s “Tract of the sovereign judge of controversies,” Oxon. 1628, 4to, and from English into Latin, Daniel Dyke “On the deceitfulness of man’s heart.” This was printed at Geneva, 1634, 8vo.

, an eminent French anatomist, was born Aug. 15, 1648, at Feurs en Fores, where his father was a physician. He studied medicine for five years at Avignon, and soon acquired fame for skill in anatomy, on which subject he read lectures with great accuracy and perspicuity. In 1676 he became a member of the royal academy of sciences at Paris, and was appointed to give lessons on anatomy to the dauphin. In 167U he was appointed professor of anatomy, and attracted a great concourse of pupils, especially from foreign countries. He died Sept. 10, 1730, aged eighty-two, and had continued to the last his anatomical pursuits. He published in his life-time only one work, “Traite de I‘organe de I’ouie,” but which is said to have been enough for his fame. This appeared first in 1683, and was soon reprinted and translated into Latin and German. From his manuscripts was published in 1751, “Traite des maladies des os,” and published in English in 1762; and his “Oeuvresanatomiques,” in 2 vols. 4to, edited by his pupil Senac. He contributed a great many observations to the Memoirs of the Academy, and the Journal des Savans.

, esq. an admiral of distinguished bravery, was descended from an ancient family in Staffordshire, and born at Westminster on the 12th of November, 1684. His father, who was secretary of state to king William and queen Mary, gave him a good education, but never intended him for the sea-service: but, as the youth became desirous of entering on that employment, his father at last consented, and he pursued those studies which had a relation to navigation and gunnery with surprising alacrity and success. His first expedition at sea was under admiral Hopson, when the French fleet and Spanish galleons were destroyed at Vigo. In 1702, he served in an expedition to the West Indies under commodore Walker; and, in 1704, on board the fleet commanded by sir George Rooke, which convoyed the king of Spain to Lisbon, when Mr. Vernon received a hundred guineas and a ring from that monarch’s own hand. He was also at the famous battle of Malaga, the same year. In January 1705, he was appointed commander of the Dolphin; and, in 1707, commanded the Royal Oak, one of the ships sent to convoy the Lisbon fleet, which falling in with the French, three of our men of war were taken, and a fourth blown up. In 1708, Mr. Vernon commanded the Jersey, and was sent to the W'est Indies as rear-admiral under sir Charles Wager, where he took many valuable prizes, and greatly interrupted the trade of the enemy. In 1715, he commanded the Assistance, a ship of fifty guns, under sir John Norris, in an expedition to the Baltic; and, in 1726, the Grafton of seventy guns, under sir Charles Wager, in the same seas. On the accession of his late majesty George II. in 1727, Mr. Vernon was chosen member for Penryn, in Cornwall, and soon after was sent, to Gibraltar, as commander of the Grafton, to join sir Charles Wager. The next expedition in which he was engaged was that which immortalized his name. This was in 1739: he was sleeping in his bed at Chatham when the courier arrived with the news at about two in the morning; and, being informed that dispatches of the utmost importance were arrived from London, he arose. On opening the packet, he found a commission appointing him vice-admiral of the blue, and commander in chief of a squadron fitting out for destroying the settlements of the Spaniards in the West Indies, with a letter from his majesty, requiring his immediate attendance on him. Having received his instructions, he weighed anchor from Spithead on the 23d of July; and, on the 20th of November, arrived in sight of Porto Bello, with only six ships under his command. The next day he began the attack of that town; when, after a furious engagement on both sides, it was taken on the 22nd, together with a considerable number of cannon, mortars, and ammunition, and also two Spanish men of war. He then blew up the fortifications, and left the place for want of land forces sufficient to keep it; but first distributed 10,000 dollars, which had been sent to Porto-Bello for paying the Spanish troops, among the forces for their encouragement. In 1741, he made an unsuccessful attempt upon Carthagena in conjunction with general Wentworth. After his return home, the rebellion in 1745 breaking out, he was employed in guarding the coasts of Kent and Sussex; when he stationed a squadron of men of war in so happy a manner as to block up the French ports in the channel. But, soon after, complaints being made against him for superseding the orders of the lords of the admiralty, in appointing a gunner in opposition to one recommended by themselves, and for exacting too severe duty from his men, he was struck off the list of admirals; on which he retired from all public business, except attending the House of Commons as member for Ipswich in Suffolk. He died suddenly at his seat at Nacton in Suffolk, on the 29th of October, 1757, in the seventythird year of his age.

It was the misfortune of this brave man, that too much of temper and political ambition made his life turbulent and unhappy. “Of all men,” says the candid Charnock, “who have been fortunate enough to obtain celebrity as naval commanders, few appear to have taken greater pains to sully their public fame by giving full scope to all their private feelings; yet probably, for this very uncommon reason, he rose the greater favourite of fortune, in the minds of the people, to that pinnacle of popularity, the height of which was indeed great enough to dazzle and distract the firmest minds; so that to the infirmity of human nature may, in some measure, be ascribed that extravagance of conduct which might otherwise be more condemned. To say he was a brave, a gallant man, would be a needless repetition of what no person has ever presumed to deny him. His judgment, his abilities as a seaman, are unquestioned; and his character, as a man of strict integrity and honour, perfectly unsullied, &c.” Admiral Vernon wrote some pamphlets in his own defence, or in defence of his peculiar opinions.

, a learned lawyer, of whom our accounts are very imperfect, was the son and heir of Richard Vernon, esq. of Henbury-hall, Worcestershire, and made a considerable figure in the reigns of queen Anne and George I. representing the borough of Whitechurch, Hampshire, in the parliaments called in 1710, 1713, 1714, and 1722. He had been secretary to the unfortunate duke of Monmouth. He died at Twickenham-park, August 22, 1726. His “Law Reports” were printed by order of the court of chancery, in 2 vols. fol. 1726, 1728, under the title of the “Reports” of Thomas Vernon, esq. “of Cases argued and adjusted in the high court of chancery, from 33 Car. II. to 5 Geo. I.” Among other eminent authorities, the late lord Kenyon took occasion to observe, that it had been an hundred and an hundred times lamented that Vernon’s Reports were published in a very inaccurate manner; there were some private reasons, said his lordship, assigned for that, which he would not mention. Mr. Vernon’s notes were taken for his own use, and never intended for publication. He was, added lord Kenyon, the ablest man in his profession. There being a dispute after Mr. Vernon’s death, whether his Mss. should go to his heir-at-law, or pass under the residuary clause in his will to his legal personal representatives, the court of chancery made an order for the publication of them, under the direction of Mr. Melmoth and Mr. Peere Williams, but as many of the cases have been found inaccurate, and to consist of loose notes only, John Raithby, esq. has lately edited and republished them with great labour, and as he has taken pains to examine all the cases with the register’s book, they cannot fail to be an acceptable offering to the profession. Mr. Raithby 's elaborate edition appeared in 1806 and 1807, 2 vols. 8vo.

, a Dutch painter,- was the son of a captain, and born at Gorcum in 1727. Having discovered an early turn for designing, his father placed him at eight years of age with a portrait-painter at Gorcum, but at the age of thirteen he left this master to learn the greater principles of his art at Utrecht. After he had continued about six years with Both, a painter of good reputation there, he went to Rome, where he frequented the academies, and employed himself in designing after the best models. His genius leading him to paint animals, hunting, and battles, he studied every thing that might be useful to him in those ways. He also designed landscapes, and the famous buildings, not only in the neighbourhood of Rome, but all over Italy; which employment gave him a relish for architecture. After residing ten years in Italy, he resolved to return to his own country. He passed through Switzerland into France; and, while he was at Paris, met with a young gentleman who was going to make the tour of Italy, and was prevailed on to accompany him, after spending three years more in Italy, he came back to Holland, arriving at Gorcum in 1C62. His taste for battlepieces induced him to make a campaign in 1672, in the course of which he designed all the circumstances and accompaniments of war. His genius was fruitful; there was a great deal of fire in his imagination and in his works; and, as he had studied much after nature, he formed a particular taste which never degenerated into what is called manner, but comprehended a great variety of objects, and had more of the Roman than the Flemish in it. Such was the pleasure he took in his profession, that he had always a crayon in his hand; and, wherever he came, designed some object or other after nature. His best perfomances are at the Hague, Amsterdam, and Utrecht.

He was a man of so excellent a character, that he was chosen to be one of the magistrates of the city he lived in; and he accepted the office, with the condition that he should not be obliged to quit his profession. He was in the full career of fame and esteem both as a man and an artist, when, happening to undertake a small voyage, he was cast away two leagues from Dort, and drowned the 6th of April, 1G90, aged sixty-two.

, principally known as an antiquary, was the grandson of Richard Roland Verstegan, of an ancient family in the duchy of Guelderland, who being driven out of his own country by the confusions of war, came to England in the time of Henry VII. Here he married, and dying soon after, left an infant son, who was afterwards put apprentice to a cooper, and was father to the subject of this article. Richard was born in St. Catherine’s parish, near the Tower of London, and after receiving the rudiments of education, was sent to Oxford, where he was generally called Roland. It does not appear what college he belonged to, cr whether he is to be considered as a regular member of any, but he seems to have distinguished himself in Saxon literature, then very little studied. He was, however, a zealous Roman catholic, and finding no encouragement in his studies without taking oaths adverse to his principles, he quitted the university, and settled at Antwerp, and practised drawing and painting. About 1592 he published a work, now very rare, entitled “Theatrum crudelitatum Hsereticorum nostri temporis,” a thin quarto, with curious cuts representing the deaths of the Jesuits, and other missionaries who were hanged or otherwise put to death for their machinations against the church and state. This effort of zeal does not appear to have been in all respects agreeable to some of his own party; and either his fears on this account, or some other causes, induced him to leave Antwerp for Paris. There being complained of by the English ambassador as a calumniator of his royal mistress, he was thrown into prison by the French king’s orders. How long he was confined is not known, but when released he returned to Antwerp, and resumed his studies, which produced his “Restitution of decayed Antiquities,” 1605, 4to, several times reprinted, a work of very considerable merit and judicious research; but, the principal subjects on English antiquities having been since more accurately investigated and treated, Verstegan’s work is rather a curious than a necessary addition to the historical library. When he published it he seems to have been in better humour with England, and dedicated it very respectfully to James I. He corresponded much with sir Robert Cotton, and other antiquaries of the time. It is uncertain when he died, but some place that event soon after 1634. Verstegan wrote also “The successive regal Governments of England,” Antwerp, 1620, in one sheet, with cuts; “A Dialogue on Dying well,” a translation from the Italian; and a collection of very indifferent poetry, entitled “Odes; in imitation of the seven penitential Psalmes. With sundry other poems and ditties, tending to devotion and pietie,” imprinted 1601, 8vo, probably at Antwerp.

, a celebrated and learned monk of Cluni, born October 4, 1645, at Paris. He was treasurer to the abbey of Cluni, visitor of the order, and vicar-general, in 1694. In 1695 he obtained the priory of St. Peter, at Abbeville, and died there, May 1, 1708. De Vert made the ceremonies of the church his particular study, and undertook to explain them both literally and historically in the 4 vols. 8vo (the first two of 1720, and 3 and 4 of 1713) which he has left on that subject, under the title of “Explications simples, litteVales et historiques des Ceremonies de la Messe,” &c. This work contains many curious, and to those of his own persuasion, many interesting particulars, and still continues to be esteemed. He was the author of some other works of less note.

, a very pleasing French historian, whose principal works have been translated into English, was born at the castle of Bennetot, in Normandy, Nov. 25, 1655, of a good family. Such was his application to study, that in his seventeenth year he maintained his last philosophical theses. Much against his father’s will he entered among the Capuchins, and took the name of brother Zachary, but the austerities of this order proving hurtful to his health, he was induced to exchange it for one of milder rules. Accordingly, in 1677, he entered among the Premonstratenses, where he became successively secretary to the general of the order, curate, and at length prior of the monastery. But with this he does not appear to have been satisfied, and after some other changes of situation, became a secular ecclesiastic. In 1701 he came to Paris in that character, and was in 1705 made an associate of the academy of belles lettres. His talents soon procured him great patronage. He was appointed secretary of commands to the duchess of Orleans Bade-Baden, and secretary of languages to the duke of Orleans. In 1715 the grand-master of Malta appointed him historiographer to that order, with all its privileges, and the honour of wearing the cross. He was afterwards appointed to the commandery of Santery, and would, but for some particular reasons, not specified, have been intrusted with the education of Louis XV. His last years were passed in much bodily infirmity, from which he was released June 15, 1735. His literary career has in it somewhat remarkable. He was bordering on his forty- fifth year when he wrote his first history, and had passed his seventieth when he bad finished the last, that of Malta. He lived nine years afterwards, but under extreme languor of body and mind. During this, when, from the force of habit, he talked of new projects, of the revolutions of Carthage, and the history of Poland, and his friends would represent to him that he was now incapable both of reading or writing, his answer was, that he had read enough to compose by memory, and written enough to dictate with fluency. The French regard him as their Quintus Curtius. His st)le is pleading, lively, and elegant, and hjs reflections always just, and often profound. But he yielded too much to imagination, wrote much from memory, which was not always sufficiently retentive, and is often wrong in facts, from declining the labour of research, and despising the fastidiousness of accuracy. His works, which it is unnecessary to characterise separately, as they have been so long before both the French and English public, are, 1. “Histoire des Revolutions de Portugal,” Paris, i6?9, 12mo. 2. “Histoire des Revolutions de Suede,” 1696, 2 vols. 12mo. 3. “Histoire des Revolutions Romanies,” 3 vols. 12mo. 4. “histoire de Malte,” 1727, 4 vols 4to, and 7 vols. 12mo. 5. “Traité de la mouvance de Bretagne.” 6. “Hisjtoire critique de l'etablissment des Bretons dans les Gaules,” 2 vols 12mo, a posthumous work, 1713. H wrote also some dissertations in the Memoirs of the Academy of Belles Lettres, and corresponded much with the literati of his time on subjects of history, particularly with earl Stanhope, on the senate of ancient Rome. His and lord Stanhope’s Inquiry on this subject were published by Hooke, the Roman historian, in 1757, or 1758.

, an eminent engraver and antiquary, was born in the parish of St. Martin’s-in-the-fields, London, in 1684. His parents, he says himself, were more honest than opulent; but, according to his biographer, “if vanity had entered into his composition, he might have boasted the antiquity of his race: two of his name were employed by Henry VIII. in the board of works.” He might have added, that in Ashmole’s “History of the Order of the Garter,” p. 136, a William Vertue is mentioned, as free-mason, 21 Henry VII. and one of the architects of the royal chapel of St. George, at Windsor. About the age of thirteen Vertue was placed with a master who engraved arms on plate, and had the chief business of London; but who, being extravagant, broke, and returned to his country, France, after Vertue bad served him between three and four years. Vertue then studied drawing for two years, after which he entered into an agreement with Michael Vandergutch for three more, which term he protracted to seven, engraving copper-plates for him. Having in 1709 received instructions and advice from several painters, he quitted his master on handsome terms, and began to work for himself, and employed his first year in drawing and engraving for books. At intervals he practised drawing and music, learned French, a little Italian, and Dutch, and was able to read all that was written in these languages on his art.

About this time he acquired the notice of sir Godfrey Kneller, which he acknowledges with gratitude, as of great importance to him, for his father had died and left a widow and several children to be supported by his labours. His words on this occasion do him honour: “I was the eldest, and then the only one that could help them; which added circumspection to my affairs then, as well as industry to the end of my life.” When his works began to attract attention he found other patrons. Lord Somers employed him to engrave a plate of archbishop Tillotson, and rewarded him nobly. This print was the ground-work of his reputation; nothing like it had appeared for some years, nor at the hour of its production had he any competitors.

In 1711 an academy of painting was instituted by sir Godfrey Kneller, where Vertue continued to draw for some years with great assiduity. Soon after the accession of the present royal family, he published a large portrait of king George I. from a picture by Kneller. As it was the first portrait of that monarch, many thousands were sold, though by no means a laborious or valuable performance. However it was shewn at court, and was followed by his undertaking to engrave portraits of the prince and princess.

Vertue had now commenced those biographical and antiquarian researches, in which he has been so eminently successful. In these pursuits he made many journeys to different parts of our island, and his time was industriously employed in making drawings, catalogues, and various memoranda. His thirst after British antiquities soon led him to a congenial Maecenas. That munificent collector, Robert Harley, second earl of Oxford, distinguished the merit and application of Verttte; and the invariable gratitude of the latter, expressed on all occasions, attests at once the bounty. of his patron and his own humility. Another of his patrons was Heneage Finch, earl of Winchelsea, whose portrait he painted and engraved, and who, being president of the society of antiquaries on its revival in 1717, appointed Venue, who was a member, engraver to that learned body. Henry Hare, the last lord Coleraine, was also one of iiis antiquarian benefactors, and the university of Oxford employed him for many years to engrave the head pieces for their almanacks.

With lord Orford, lord Coleraine, and Mr. Stephens the historiographer, he made several tours to various parts of England. For the former he engraved portraits of Matthew Prior, sir Hugh Middleton, and other distinguished men: for the duke of Montague he engraved sir Ralph Windwood; for sir Paul Methuen, the portraits of Cortez, and archbishop Warham from Holbein’s original at Lambeth; and for lord Burlington, Zncchero’s queen Mary of Scotland, a plate which evinces more felicity, and a better taste of execution, than most other of his works. In 1727 he travelled with lord Oxford to Burleigh, Lincoln, Weibeck, Chatsworth, and York, at which latter place he obtained from Francis Place many of those anecdotes of Hollar which are inserted in his biography. In the next year, the duke of Dorset invited him to Knowle. From the gallery there, he copied the portraits of several of the poets, but he was disappointed on an excursion to Penshurst, at not finding there any portrait of sir Philip Sidney.

In 1730 appeared his twelve heads of distinguished poets, one of his capital works, which he meant to have followed with the portraits of other eminent men, arranged in classes, but this scheme was taken out of his hands by the Messrs. Knapton; and there is reason to think that Vertue’s rigid regard for veracity, which made him justly scrupulous of authenticating the likenesses of deceased characters without the clearest proofs, and not the superior taste or discernment of the Knaptons, made them engage the superior talents of Houbraken and Gravelot, to finish a work which our artist had begun, and had himself projected.

His next considerable production was, the portraits of king Charles I. and the loyal sufferers in his cause, with their characters subjoined from Clarendon. But this was scarcely finished, before Rapiu’s history of England appeared; a work which bad a prodigious run, insomuch that it became all the conversation of the town and country, and the noise being heightened hy opposition and party, it was, proposed to publish it in folio by numbers, of which thousands were sold every week. The Messrs. Knapton engaged Vertue to accompany it with effigies of the kings and other suitable embellishments, an undertaking which occupied three years of his life. He presented a copy of this work, when finished, richly bound, to the prince of Wales, at Kensington.

In 1749 he found a yet more exalted protector in the prince of Wales, whom he often had the honour of attending, and to whom he sold many prints, miniature pictures, &c. and had now reason to flatter himself with permanent fortune; but the death of this prince suddenly blasted the hopes of Vertue, and affected him with considerable dejection of spirits, from which he never perfectly recovered. He died in 1756, and was buried in the cloisters of Westminster-abbey. Lord Orford has given a catalogue of his engravings (amounting to near five hundred!) classed under the heads of Royal Portraits, Noblemen, Bishops, Poets, Antiquaries, Tombs, Historic Prints, Coins, Medals, Frontispieces, &c. &c. &c.

Valuable as Vertue’s engravings are, he would have had more admirers, if his style had been more spirited; yet the antiquary and the historian who prefer truth to elegance of design, and correctness to bold execution, have properly appreciated his works, and have placed him, in point of professional industry at least, next to his predecessor Hollar. But the public owe another obligation to Vertue. After his death the late lord Orford purchased the manuscript notes and observations which he had put down, as materials for a history of artists, and from them published that very useful and entertaining work, which he entitled “Anecdotes of Fainting in England; with some account of the principal Artists, and incidental notes on other Arts, collected by Mr. George Vertue,” 1762, 5 vols. 4to; since republished in 1782, 5 vols. 8vo. “Vertue,” says Mr. Walpole, “had for several years been collecting materials for a work ‘ upon Painting and Painters:’ he conversed and corresponded with most of the virtuosi in England he was personally acquainted with the oldest performers in the science: he minuted down every thin^ he heard from them. He visited every collection of them, attended sales, copied every paper he could find relative to the art, searched offices, registers of parishes, and registers of wills for births and deaths, turned over all our own authors, and translated those of other countries which related to his subject. He wrote down every thing he heard, saw, or read. His collections amounted to near forty volumes, large and small. In one of his pocket-books I found a note of his first intention of compiling such a work: it was in 1713, and he continued it assiduously to his death in 1757. These Mss. I bought of his widow after his decease.” Venue’s private character, it must not be omitted, was of the most amiable kind; friendly, communicative, upright in all his dealings, a most dutiful son, and an affectionate husband. He laboured almost to the last, solicitous to leave a decent competence to a wife, with whom he lived many years in tender harmony, and who died in 1776, in the seventy-sixth year of her age. He had a brother James, who followed the same profession at Bath, and died about 1765.

, a celebrated anatomist and physician, was descended from a family which had abounded with physicians. John Vesalius, his great-grandfather, was physician to Mary of Burgundy, first wife of Maximilian I.; and went and. settled at Louvain when he was old. Everard, his grandfather, wrote commentaries upon the books of Rhases, and upon Hippocrates’s “Aphorisms:” and his father Andrew was apothecary to the emperor Charles V. Our Vesalius was born at Brussels, but in what year seems to be uncertain; Vander-Linden finding his birth in 1514, while others place it in 1512. He was instructed in the languages and philosophy at Louvain, and there gave early tokens of his love for anatomy, and of his future skill in the knowledge of the human body; for, he was often amusing himself with dissecting rats, moles, dogs, and cats, and with inspecting their viscera.

Afterwards he went to Paris, and studied physic under James Sylvius; but applied himself chiefly to anatomy, which was then a science very little known. For, though dissections had been made formerly, yet they had long been discontinued as an unlawful and impious usage; and Charles V. had a consultation of divines at Salamanca, to know, if, in good conscience, a human body might be dissected for the sake of comprehending its structure. He perfected himself in this science very early, as we may know from his work “De Humani Corporis Fabrica:” which, though then the best book of anatomy in the world, and what justly gave him the title of “the Father of Anatomy,” was yet composed by him at eighteen years of age. Afterwards he went to Louvain, and began to communicate the knowledge he had acquired: then he travelled into Italy, read lectures, and made anatomical demonstrations at Pisa, Bologna, and several other cities there. About 1537, the republic of Venice made him professor in the university of Padua, where he taught anatomy seven years, and was the first anatomist to whom a salary was given; and Charles V. called him to be his physician, as he was also to Philip II. king of Spain. He acquired a prodigious reputation at those courts by his sagacity and skill in his profession, of which Thuanus has recorded this very singular proof. He tells us, that Maximilian d'Egmont, count of Buren, grand general, and a favourite of the emperor, being ill, Vesalius declared to him, that he could not recover; and also told him, that he could not hold out beyond such a day and hour. The count, firmly persuaded that the event would answer the prediction, invited all his friends to a grand entertainment at the time after which he made them presents, took a final leave of them, and then expired precisely at the moment Vesalius had mentioned. If this account be not true, it shews at least the vast reputation Vesalius must have risen to, where such stories were invented to do him honour.

Vesalius was now at the very height of his reputation, when all at once he formed a design of making a journey to Palestine. Many reasons have been given, and more conjectures formed, about his motive to this strange adventure; yet nothing certain appears concerning it. Hubert Languet, in a letter to Gasparus Peucerus, gives this account of the affair: “Vesalius, believing a young Spanish nobleman, whom he had attended, to be dead, obtained leave of his parents to open him, for the sake of inquiring into the real cause of his illness, which he had not rightly comprehended. This was granted; but he had no sooner made an incision into the body, than he perceived the symptoms of life, and, opening the breast, saw the heart beat. The parents, coming afterwards to the knowledge of this, were not satisfied with prosecuting him for murder, but accused him of impiety to the inquisition, in hopes that he would be punished with greater rigour by the judges of that tribunal than by those of the common law. But the king of Spain interposed, and saved him; on condition, however, that, by way of atonement, he should undertake a pilgrimage to the Holy Land.” Manget, in his “Bibliotheca Medicorum,” states the same; and the account has been generally adopted. In the mean time others pretend, that he undertook this journey out of an insatiable thirst after riches: but this is a more improbable reason than the former; for, how was a journey to Jerusalem calculated to make a man rich? Swertius ascribes it to the querulous and imperious humour of his wife, which made home insupportable to him: and Imperialis informs us, that the uneasiness arising from the cabals of envy, and the hatred of the Galenists, whose master and doctrines he censured with great freedom, without allowing any thing to inveterate prejudices, so disgusted him with his present situation, and perhaps hurt him with his prince, that, in order to withdraw from court with the best grace he could, he formed this extraordinary resolution. But, whatever was the motive, he set out with De Rimini, general of the Venetian army, whom he accompanied to Cyprus whence he passed to Jerusalem. He was returning, at the invitation of the senate of Venice, to fill the physic-chair at Padua, become vacant in 1563 by the death of Fallopius; but, being shipwrecked and thrown upon the island of Zante, perished miserably, Oct. 1564. His body was afterwards found, and buried in the church of St. Mary in that island.

He was the author of several medical works; the chief of which is his “De Humani Corporis Fabrica,” published in 1543, a work which occupies a most conspicuous place in the annals of science, which freed medicine from the trammels of authority, laid the foundation of genuine anatomy, and even contained a bold and pretty full outline of the science. This work exhibited a regular and minute description of the human body, illustrated by excellent engravings, and a resolute exposure of the mistakes of Galen, whose ignorance Vesalius is at great pains to point out. He has therefore been justly considered as the restorer of anatomy, in which he was indeed profoundly skilled. Thuanus relates a singular proof he gave of his exact knowledge of the human body while he was at Paris; where, with his eyes bound, he undertook to mention any the least bone that should be put into his hands, defying them to impose upon him; and actually performed what he undertook. Being at Basil in 1542, he presented the university there with a human skeleton which he had prepared himself, and which is still in the lecture- room there, with a long inscription over it. The whole of his works were published by Boerhaave and Albinus at Leyden, 1725, 2 vols. fol.

, an able anatomist, was born in 1598, at Minden, in Westphalia, and studied the classics, philosophy, and medicine, at Vienna. After he had applied to thelatter for some time, he undertook a voyage to the Levant, in pursuit of natural history, remained a considerable time at Egypt, and finished by going to Jerusalem, where he was made a knight of the holy sepulchre. He then returned to Venice, and in 1608 gave private lectures on anatomy and botany, with such success that the regular professors were soon deserted. The republic, sensible of the services of so able a man, made him, in 1632, first professor of anatomy at Padua, a chair which was then vacant, and which he Ijded with increasing reputation, although he was a little deaf, and had impediments of speech which rendered him rather difficult to be understood. But these defects were soon overlooked, and he was also appointed to lecture on surgery and botany, until finding so many labours too much for his health, he obtained leave, in 1638, to con* fine himself to surgery and botany only, with the care of the botanic garden. Here he was in his element, for botany had always been his favourite study; and in order to render the garden at Padua the best in Europe, he solicited permission to pay another visit to the Levant, in 1648. The fatigues of this voyage, however, undermined, his constitution, and soon after his return he died, Aug. 30, 1649. His works, all of which were esteemed valuable, are, 1. “Observationes et notse ad Prosperi Alpini librum de plantis Ægyptii, cum additamentis aliarum plantarum ejusdem regionis,” Padua, 1638, 4 to. Of this work, Ray availed himself. 2 “Syntagma Anatomicum,” his principal work, of which there Inve been many editions, the best by Blasius, at Utrecht, 1696, 4to. It was also translated into Dutch and German, and into English by Culpepper, 1653, fol. 3. “Catalogns plantarum horti Patavini,” Padua, 1642, 12mo, reprinted with additions in 1644. 4. “Opobalsami veteribus cogniti vmdicias,” ibid. 1644, 8vo. 5. “A very curious work, compiled from his Mss. after his death,” De pullitione vEgyptioruin, et alias Observationes Anatomicae, et Epistolae medics posthurme," Hafnise, (Copenhagen), 1664, 8vo.

, or Amerigo Vespucci, a navigator from whose name the largest quarter of the world has very unjustly been named, was born at Florence, March 9, 1451, of a distinguished family, and educated by an uncle, a man of learning- who had the care of the education of the Florentine nobility. Vespucci made great progress in natural philosophy, astronomy, and cosmography, the principal branches in which the Florentine nobility were instructed, because being for the most part destined for commerce, it was necessary they should become acquainted with the sciences connected with navigation. Commerce had been the foundation of the grandeur and prosperity of the republic, and as each family educated some member who was to serve his country in that pursuit, that of Vespucci chose Amerigo, or Americus, to follow the example of their ancestors in this respect. Accordingly he left Florence in 1490, and went to Spain, to be initiated in mercantile life. He is said to have been at Seville in 1492, when Columbus was preparing for a new voyage, and the rage for new discoveries was at its height. The success of that celebrated navigator raised this passion in Americus, who determined to give up the pursuit of trade, in order to go and reconnoitre the new world, of whose existence Europe had just heard.

With this design he began his first voyage on May 10, 1497, leaving Cadiz with five ships under the command of Ojeda. This fleet sailed towards the Fortunate islands, and keeping a Western course, reached the continent of America, in thirty-seven days. They visited the gulph of Paria, and the island of St. Marguerite, and sailed along the coast for four hundred leagues. After a voyage of thirteen months, they returned to Cadiz, Nov. 15, 1498. Americus, who by his skill in navigation had very much contributed to the success of this expedition, was extremely well received at the court of Seville. In the month of May 1499, he left Cadiz for Cape de Verd, passed the Canaries within sight, and in forty-four days after his departure, reached an unknown land, situated under the torrid zone, which was the continuation of that which he had discovered io his first voyage. After sailing for some time along the coast, he returned to the Spanish island of St. Domingo, where Ojeda had some disputes with the Europeans, who six years before had come there with Columbus. The fleet now directed its course northwards, and discovered several islands, the number of which, Americus says, amounted to a thousand, a calculation which his panegyrist contents, himself with considering as a poetical exaggeration. Ojeda intended to have continued this route, but the complaints of the crew obliged him to return to Europe. On the arrival of his tieet, Ferdinand and Isabella, to whom Americus presented various productions of the new world, received him in the most flattering manner; and when his discoveries reached the ears of the Florentines, they rejoiced in having produced so great a man. Seduced, however, by the promises of Emanuel, king of Portugal, Americus quitted the service of Spain, and set sail from Lisbon, May 10, 1501, with three Portuguese ships. In this fleet he arrived at Cape St. Augustine, and coasted almost the whole of Brazil to Patagonia, but a succession of tempestuous weather forced him to return to Portugal, where he arrived Dec. 7, 1502. The king, very much pleased with this voyage, wished Americus to undertake another; and for the fourth time, this Florentine navigator embarked with a fleet of six ships, May 10, 1505, with the hope of discovering, by the West, a new way to Malacca; but this expedition was Jess successful than the preceding. After losing one of the vessels, and encountering the greatest dangers, they gained the bay of All Saints, Brazil, and lost no time in returning to Europe.

Americus remained in Portugal until 1506, the time of Columbus’s death, when the Spanish court wishing to repair the loss occasioned by that event, recalled Americus into their service, who again sailed, in 1507, in a Spanish fleet, with the title of first pilot, and it was during this voyage that the new world took its name from him. Thus, says the abbe kaynal, the moment America became known from the rest of the world, it was distinguished by an act of injustice. Americus jived a considerable time afterwards to enjoy this usurped honour, and is said to hare often visited the continent which bore his name. He died in 1516, at which time he was again in the service of Portugal. Emanuel, in order to do honour to his memory, caused the remains of his ship to be deposited in the cathedral of Lisbon, and Florence bestowed honours on his family.

In 1745, Bandini published in 4to, “Vitta e I.ettere di Amerigo Vespucci, &c.” a continued panegyric on the Florentine adventurer, to whom he does not hesitate to attribute the discovery of America. According, indeed, to the dates which he gives of the first two voyages of Americus, and which we have followed in the preceding account, it would appear that he had the priority in the discovery; but the Spanish writers have proved that the dates of those voyages are fictitious, and that the first, if it ever took place at all, must have been in 1499 instead of 1497. It seems also generally agreed that Americus never had the command in any expedition, that he acted only as geographer or pilot, and that he never undertook any of his voyages until after the return of Columbus. By some unaccountable caprice, however, America was at first, and is still, called by his name, and succeeding ages, although they may regret, cannot correct the error.

Americus left a journal of his four voyages, which was printed in Latin at Paris in 1532, and at Bale in 1555, but there are Italian and French translations of the earlier dates of 1519 and 1516. Some of his letters were printed in a thin 4to, of 22 pages, at Florence in 1516, which are addressed to Soderini and Lorenzo de Medici, and are said to discover a very superior knowledge of navigation.

, an extraordinary enthusiast in the seventeenth century, was born in London in 1582, descended from the family of Vicars in Cumberland. He was educated in Christ’s hospital, London, and afterwards was a member of Queen’s college, Oxford, but whether he took his degrees, Wood has rppt discovered. After leaving college he went to London, and became usher of Christ’s hospital, which place he held till towards the close of his life. It does not appear that he was a preacher, although most of his writings concern the religious controversies of the times Upon the commencement of the rebellion, “he showed his great forwardness,” says Wood, “for presbyterianism, hated all people that loved obedience, and affrighted many of the weaker sort, and others, from having any agreement with the king’s party, by continually inculcating into their heads strange stories of God’s wrath against the cavaliers. Afterwards, when the independents became predominant, he manifested great enmity against them, especially after the king’s death.” Foulis, in his “History of Plots,” says that “he could out-scold the boldest face in Billingsgate, especially if kings, bishops, organs, or maypoles, were to be the objects of his zealous indignation.” This indeed is a pretty just character of John Vicars’s writings, which form a store-house of the abusive epithets and gross personal reflections which passed between the lower order of sectaries in that period of confusion. The title of his work against John Goodwin, will afford a good specimen of John’s language. This was published in 1648, “Coleman-street Conclave visited; and that grand impostor, the schismatics’ cheater-in-chief (who hath long slily lurked therein) truly and duly discovered; containing a most palpable and plain display of Mr. John Goodwin’s self-conviction (under his own hand- writing), and of the notorious heresies, errors, malice, pride, and hypocrisy, of this most huge Garagantua in falsely pretended piety, to the lamentable misleading of his too credulous soul-murdered proselytes of Coleman-street, and elsewhere; collected principally out of his own big-braggadochio wave-like swelling and swaggering writings, full fraught with six-footed terms, and fleshlie rhetorical phrases, far more than solid and sacred truths, and may fitly serve (if it be the Lord’s will) like Belshazzar’s hand-writing on the wall of his conscience, to strike terror and shame into his own soul and shameless face, and to undeceive his most miserably cheated, and iuchanted or be-witched followers.” This is accompanied by a portrait of Goodwin (the only one mentioned by Granger, and of course in great request) with a windmill over his head, and a weather-cock upon it; the devil is represented blowing the sails; and there are other emblems, significant of Goodwin’s fickleness. Vicars died Aug. 12, 1652, in the seventy-second year of his age, and was buried in Christ church, Newgate-street. Wood has given a list of sixteen of his writings, the most curious of which is his “Parliamentary Chronicle.” This is still esteemed useful, and being scarce, is generally sold at a very high price. It was printed at different times under the following titles: 1. “God in the Molint; or England’s Remembrancer, being the first and second part of a Parliamentary Chronicle,” 1644, 4to. 2. “God’s Arke overtopping the World’s waves; or, a third part of a Parliamentary Chronicle,” 1646. 3. “The Burning-bush not consumed; or the fourth and last part of a Parliamentary Chronicle,” 1646. These were then published together, under the title of “Magnalia Dei Anglicana, or, England’s Parliamentary Chronicle,” 1646. Vicars was also a poet, and in the “Censura Literaria,” we have an account and specimen of a work of this kind entitled “Mischief’s Mysterie; or, Treason’s Master-piece; the powder-plot, invented by hellish malice; prevented by heavenly mercy truly related, and from the Latin of the learned and reverend Dr. Herring, translated, and very much dilated by John Vicars,” 1617. At the end of this are some smaller poems.

, of whose personal history we have no account, deserves some notice, as the first anatomical writer in the English language. He was a citizen of Londdn, serjeant-surgeon to Henry VIII. Edward VI. Mary I. and Elizabeth and chief surgeon of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, His book is entitled “A Treasure for Englishmen; containing the Anatomic of Man’s Bodie, 1548;” or, as given by Ames, “A profitable Treatise of the Anatomy of Man’s Body; compiled by T. Vicary, and published by the Surgeons of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital,” 1577, 12mo, and in 1633 in 4to; together with several other medical and chirurgical tracts’. It is a short piece, designed for the use of his more unlearned brethren, and taken almost entirely from Galen and the Arabians. Before the latter editions is prefixed a rude figure of a skeleton.

, a skilful medallist of the sixteenth century, was born at Parma, where, hearing of the reputation which Marc Antonio Raimondi had acquired at Rome by his engravings, he went to that city, and became his pupil. As an engraver, Strutt thinks that Vico was a man of abilities, but does not seem to have been endowed with patience enough to pay sufficient attention to the mechanical part of the execution of his plates. He could draw correctly, but seldom exerted himself. He is noticed here, however, chiefly for his knowledge of medals. In 1548, he published his “Discourses on the Medals of the Ancients,” Venice, 4to, succeeded by a second edition in 1555. This, which is a treatise of very considerable intelligence for that period, treats of the metals employed in ancient coinage of portraits to be found on coins of the types on their reverses of their legends of medallions of false medals, and rules for discerning them dates of history; forms of edifices names of magistrates, &c. This he dedicated to one of his patrons, the grand duke Cosmo, himself a distinguished amateur.

Vicq-D‘Azir (Felix), a French physician, was born at Valognes, in Normandy, April 28, 1748. His ’father was a physician, and probably inspired him with a loye for the same profession, as in his early years he became ambitious of a name in the medical world. At the age of seventeen he came to Paris, and soon was distinguished for some essays on anatomy and physiology, written in a, pure and correct style. He became one of the principal founders of the medical society of Paris, and it was long his office to pronounce the eloges of deceased men of eminence in the profession, which were so much admired that, in 1788, the French academy elected him a member in the room of Buffon. He had been before a member of the academy of sciences. He was in the height of fame and usefulness when his constitution, which had long suffered by a weakness of the chest, became sensibly affected by the horrors of the revolutionary victims daily presented to his eyes. He died June 20, 1794. His works, including his eloges, were collected by J. L. Moreau de la Sarthe, a physician, and published in 6 vols. 8vo, and one in 4to of places, 1804. To this is prefixed a life of Vicq-d'Azir, which is said to be interesting; but it has not fallen in our way.

, a Roman historian, lived in the fourth century, probably in the reigns of Constantius and Theodosius, as may be collected from some dates in his history. He was the son of very obscure parents, and had not the benefit of education. He was probably a native of Africa, as he makes very honourable mention of that country in his writings, calling it the glory of the world. In spite, however, of the meanness of his extraction, he had talents which raised him to the highest honours. In the year 361, Julian appointed him prefect of Pannonia; and, as, a recompense of his services, he was honoured with a statue of brass. A considerable time afterwards, he was prefect of Rome, and in the year 369 consul with Valentinian. He obtained this last dignity probably under the reign of Theodosius; for there is an inscription extant, which Se-xtus Aurelius Victor, prefect of the city, caused to be engraved on a monument in honour of Theodosiua. If all this belongs to the same Sextus Aurelius Victor, as is not unlikely, he filled, under various emperors, posts of great distinction, and appears to have lived till towards the end of the fourth century. There are some works extant under his name: 1. “Arigo gentis Romanae.” This history should extend, ats its title imports, from the uncertain times of Janus to the tenth consulate of Constantius; but what remains comes no lower down than the first year from the foundation of Rome.

2. “DC virjx illustrious urhis Romoe.” This was often reprinted in the sixteenth century, un.ler the names of the younger Pliny, or Suetonius or Emilius Probus. It has also been attributed to Cornelius Nepos. The series of illustrious men begins with Phocas, and ends with Pompey.

3. “De Cwsaribus histori-a, ab Augusto Octavio, id est, a fine Titi Livii usque ad cousulatum decimum Constantii Augusti et Jdliaiii Caesaris t^rtium.” 4. “De vita et moribus imperatorum Romauorum exeerpta, e Coesare Augusto usque ad Theodosium imperatorem.” The third of these works, “De Ca-sanbus historia,” is, perhaps, the only one that can be ascribed with certainty to Aurelius. The first edition of Aurelius Victor was printed at Antwerp, 1579, 8vo, with notes by Schottus, who was the first restorer of the text. The other good editions arr the “Variorum,” by Pitiscus, 1696, 8vo; that by Arntzenius, Amst. 1733, 4to; by Gruner, 1757, 8vo and the Bipont. 1789.

, an eminent Italian scholar, was born at Florence, in the month of July, 1499. In very early life he began his studies in philosophy, mathematics, jurisprudence, and particularly Greek and Latin. In 1522, he went to Spain with Paul Vettori, a relation, who was general of the gallies, and appointed to accompany the new pope, Adrian VI. into Italy. Our author stopt at Catalonia, and travelled over that and the neighbouring parts in quest of the remains of Roman antiquities, of which he took copies. He also afterwards continued this research at Rome, when he went there to congratulate Clement VII. on his accession to the popedom. This pope had been a npbleman of Florence, and of his own standing. When the revolt took place at Florence Vettori sided with the republican party, and, during the prevalence of the Medici family, retired to the country, and devoted himself to study, with the firm resolution to meddle no more with public affairs. When the duke Alexander was killed, and the senators and patricians were assembled to consider of a new form of government, they invited Vettori to take part in their deliberations; but instead of complying, he went to Rome, and left his discordant and tumultuous countrymen to determine among themselves whether they would be freemen or slaves. “My country,” he used to say, “is in the same situation as Rome formerly; it will neither tolerate liberty nor slavery. Riches have produced pride, and pride, ambition. The laws have no longer any force; every day they are repealing old laws and making new ones, and no more respect is paid to the new than to the old. In the present state of my country, I clearly see that it must have a sovereign, but I will not aid in giving it a sovereign, for fear of giving it a tyrant.”

With such arguments he always answered those who by letter or in person pressed him to return to Florence, and affected even to consider his refusal as criminal. He bad the wisdom to abandon politics, and dedicate his whole time and attention to the acquisition of knowledge. And in such esteem was he held on account of his learning, that Cosmo I. who could not love him on account of his hostility to the Medici family, yet sent him an invitation to become Greek and Latin professor in the university of Florence. This was a noble sacrifice of prejudice on the part of the duke, and Vettori executed the duties of his office for more than forty years with the highest reputation, and formed many distinguished scholars both Italians and foreigners. Whether we consider the utility of his lectures or his public works, it will appear that literature was as highly indebted to him as to almost any scholar of his time. Had he done nothing but collate and correct the editions of the Greek and Latin authors which had appeared from the invention of printing to his own time, his labours would have been of infinite service in that comparatively dark period; but we are indebted to his industry also for the collation of avast number of manuscripts, and selecting the best for the press, in which he shewed great judgment, and assigned his reasons with critical precision. But his services did not end even here, for he furnished the learned world with notes and commentaries, which gave superiority to many editions of the classics, as various parts of Aristotle’s works, Terence, Varro, Sallust, Euripides, Porphyry, Plato, Xenophon, &c. but of all his editions, that of Cicero, printed in 1534 37, four vols. folio, has justly received the encomiums of the literary world ever since his time. He has been called “Verus Ciceronis sospitator,” and Grasvius is of opinion that Cicero is more indebted to him than to all the other critics and commentators. Besides these and his “Variae lectiones,” of which there have been several editions, and which discover great critical knowledge, he was the author of some Latin poetry and orations, of letters both in Latin and Italian, and an Italian treatise on the culture of olives. Men of learning of all countries were happy in his acquaintance and correspondence, and princes and other great personages not only attended his lectures, but expressed their veneration of his talents and worth, by diplomas, titles, and presents. He died in the eighty-sixth year of his age, in 1585, and was interred with great solemnity at the public expence in the church of the Holy Spirit, where is a marble monument and inscription to his memory. It is said that his private virtues, as well as his talents, made his death the subject of universal regret.

, an elegant modern Latin poet and critic, was a native of Cremona, and was born, as is generally thought, about 1470, but with more probability about 1480. His parents were not wealthy, yet enabled to give him a good education. After having made considerable proficiency in philosophy, theology, an-d political science, he came to Rome in the latter part of the pontificate of Julius II. and appears to hate mixed in the literary societies of the place; and his poem on the game of chess, “Scacchiae Ludus,” introduced hi fcothe favour of Leo X. who received him with particular distinction and kindness, admitted him as an attendant at court, and rewarded him with honours and emoluments. But that upon which the poet appears chiefly to have congratulated himself was, that his works were read and approved by the pontiff himself. It was at the suggestion of Leo that he began his celebrated “Cbristiad,” which he afterwards completed in six books, but Leo did not live to see it finished. It was, however, published under the patronage of Clement VII. in 1535. In the mean time Clement had already raised Vida to the rank of apostolical secretary, and in 1532, conferred on him the bishopric of Alba. Soon after the death of that pontiff, Vida retired to his diocese, and was present at its defence against the attack of the French in 1542, where his exhortations and example animated the inhabitants successfully to oppose the enemy. After having attended in his episcopal character at the council of Trent, and taken an active part in the ecclesiastical and political transactions of the times, he died at his see at Alba, Sept. 27, 1566, more respected for his talents, integrity, and strict attention to his pastoral duties, than for the wealth which he had amassed from his preferments.

The first specimen of the talents of Vida in Latin poetry appeared in a collectoin of pieces on the death of the poet Aquila, which happened in 1500, towards which he contributed two piees, which were published in that collection at Bologna, in 1504. His whole works were first printed at Romae in 1527 and 1535, in 2 vols. 4to, but he published a more complete edition at Cremona, 1550, 2 vols. 8vo. The first contains, “Hymni de rebus divinis,” and “Christiados libri sex” the second “De Arte Poetica libri tres;” “De Bombyce libri duo;” Scacchiae Ludus“”Bucolica;“” Eclogæ, et Carmina diversi generis.“Besides the poems comprehended in these two volumes, others are ascribed to him, as” Italorum Pugilum cum totidem Gallis certamen;“” Carmen Pastorale in Obltum Juliill. Pontificis Maximi;“” Epicedion in Funera Oliverii Cardinalis Caraphæ;“but these he disavowed in a postscript to the above edition of his poems. He was also the author of some pieces in prose, as” Dialogi de Republics Dignitate“” Orationes tres Cremonensium adversus Papienses in Controversia Principatus“and” Constitutiones Synodales Civitati Albæ et Diœcesi prescriptæ.“Of such of these works, a-s his reputation as a Latin poet is at this day founded on, his three books” De Arte Poetica“were probably the first produced; and these were soon afterwards followed by the” Bombyx,“and by his” Scacchias Ludus,“which, as we noticed, introduced him to Leo X. The” Bombyx,“or silk-worm, is written with classical purity, and with a just mixture of the styles of Lucretius and Virgil. Dr. Warton says it was a happy choice to write a poem on” Chess;“nor is the execution less happy.” The various stratagems and manifold intricacies of this ingenious game, so difficult to be described in Latin, are here expressed with the greatest perspicuity and elegance; so that, perhaps, the game might be learned from this description.“Of the” Christiad,“the same excellent critic observes, that amidst many prosaic flatnesses, there are many fine strokes in this poem; particularly his angels, with respect to their persons and insignia, are drawn with that dignity which we so much admire in Milton, who seems to have had his eye on those passages. The” Poetics,“however, are perhaps the most perfect of his compositions; he had formed himself upon Virgil, who is therefore his hero, and he has too much depreciated Homer. He is, in truth, so much an imitator of Virgil as to be very defective in originality. Although his precepts principally regard epic poetry, yet many of them are applicable to every species of composition. This poem has the praise of being one of the first, if not the very first piece of criticism, that appeared in Italy since the revival of learning; for it was finished, as is evident from a short advertisement prefixed to it, in 1520. We have an excellent translation of this poem by Pitt, and one more recent, with notes, by Mr. Hampson. There are, if we mistake not, English translations also of the” Game of Chess,“a'.id the” Bombyx." Of his original works, the best recent editions are that of Oxford, by Tristram, 1722, 4 vols. 8vo, with elegant plates; that of the Vulpii (including the prose works) Padua, 1731, 2 vols. 4to.

, a learned converted Jew, of Metz in Lorrain, was originally educated in that religion, the rites and customs of which, it appears by his writings, he well understood; but by perusing the prophetical parts of the Old Testament, and comparing them with the New, he became convinced that Christ was the true Messiah, and embraced Christianity, according to the Roman Catholic form. His abilities recommended him to considerable promotion, and to the degree of D. D. from one of the French universities. In 1672 he published a “Commentary on the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke,” in which, besides a literal exposition of the text, collected from the monuments of the ancients, he took an opportunity to defend the doctrines of the church of Rome, which so advanced his reputation, that he was requested to write against the protestants, and much was expected from a man of his learning and an able reasoner. This, however, only led to another change; for, in examining the controversies between the papists and protestants, he became satisfied that truth was on the side of the latter. France was of course no longer a safe residence, and he immediately went to Holland, abjured the errors of popery, and soon after came over to England. Here he became acquainted with Stillingfleet, Sharp, Tillotson, Patrick, Lloyd, and other eminent English divines, and particularly with Compton bishop of London. Under this patronage, he was admitted into orders in the English church, and became chaplain to a nobleman, and tutor to his children.

In 1673 he revised his Commentary on St. Matthew and Mark, omitting what was in favour of the Romish church, and improving it in other respects. In 1679 he published his literal “Explication of Solomon’s Song,” dedicated to sir Joseph Williamson. This was so well received, that many of the most eminent of the clergy of England, and of the foreign reformed churches, encouraged him to proceed to a farther translation of the sacred writings. Accordingly in 1680 he published his “Literal Exposition of the minor Prophets.” But his principles were still unsettled, and meeting, in the bishop of London’s library, to which he had at all times access, with the writings of the English baptists, he became convinced that there was no foundation for infant baptism, and leaving the church, joined a small baptist congregation in Gracechurch-street, where he was publicly baptised. This is said to have lost him all his powerful friends, except Tillotson, who still preserved a respect for his talents. He now published an “Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles” in English, in which he endeavoured to defend his baptist sentiments. He preached also among that sect, but was not very popular, as he could not speak English fluently. His flock, however, raised him a salary, which he enjoyed till his death. He also practised physic for his maintenance. He is supposed to have died about the commencement of the last century.

There was another Lewis de Compiegne de Viel, also a converted Jew, and born at Metz, who published many learned pieces, particularly in 1679, in Hebrew, with a Latin version by himself, “Catechismus Judaeorum in disputatione & dialogo magistri & discipuli, scriptus a R. Abrahamo Jagel, monte Silicis onu^o,” with a dedication to Dr. Compton, bishop of London: this book was reprinted at Franeker, in 1690, in 8vo. He gave the public likewise a Latin translation of, and notes upon, rabbi Moses Maimonides’s book “De $acrificiis,” and his tract “De Consecratione & de Ratione irjtercalandi,” and Abarbanel’s “Exordium sive proo3mium in Leviticum,” printed at London, in 1683, in 4to. H,e had published also at Paris, in 1678, the eighth book of Maimonicles “De cultu divino,” with a Latin version, just before he left France, where he was the king’s interpreter for the Oriental languages. He was born a Jew, but afterwards embraced the Popish religion, which he at last renounced for the Protestant, and entered into the communion of the Church of England, whither he retired about 1679.

, a very celebrated French mathematician, was born in 1540, at Fontenai, or Fontenai-le-­Comte, in Lower Poitou, a province of France. He was master of requests at Paris, where he died in 1603, in the sixty-third year of his age. Among other branches of learning in which he excelled, he was one of the most respectable mathematicians of the sixteenth century, or indeed of any age. His writings abound with marks of great originality and genius, as well as intense application. His application was such, that he has sometimes remained in his study for three days together, without eating or sleeping. His inventions and improvements in all parts of the mathematics were very considerable. He was in a manner the inventor and introducer of Specious Algebra, in which letters are used instead of numbers, as well as of many beautiful theorems in that science. He made also corir siderable improvements in geometry and trigonometry. His angular sections are a very ingenious and masterly performance: by these he was enabled to resolve the problem of Adrian Roman, proposed to all mathematicians, amounting to an equation of the 45th degree. Romanus was so struck with his sagacity, that he immediately quitted his residence of Wirtzbourg in Franconia, and came to France to visit him, and solicit his friendship. His “Apollonius Gallus,” being a restoration of Apollonius’s tract on Tangencies, and many other geometrical pieces to be found in his works, shew the finest taste and genius for true geometrical speculations. He gave some masterly tracts on Trigonometry, both plane and spherical, which may be found in the collection of his works, published at Leyden in 1646, by Schooten, besides another large and separate volume in folio, published in the author’s life-time at Paris 1579, containing extensive trigonometrical tables, with the construction aad use of the same, which are particularly described in the introduction to Dr. Hutton’s Logarithms, p. 4, &c. To this complete treatise on Trigonometry, plane and spherical, are subjoined several miscellaneous problems and observations, such as, the quadrature of the circle, the duplication of the cube, &c. Vieta having observed that there were many faults in the Gregorian Calendar, as it then existed, he composed a new form of it, to which he added perpetual canons, and an explication of it, with remarks and objections against Clavius, whom he accused of having deformed the true Lelian reformation, by not rightly understanding it. Besides those, it seems, a work greatly esteemed, and the loss of which cannot be sufficiently deplored, was his “Harmonicon Cceleste,” which, being communicated to father Mersenne, was, by some perfidious acquaintance of that honest-minded person, surreptitiously taken from him, and irrecoverably lost, or suppressed, to the great detriment of the learned world. There were also, it is said, other works of an astronomical kind, that have been buried in the ruins of time, Vieta was also a profound decypherer, an accomplishment that proved very useful to his country. As the different parts of the Spanish monarchy lay very distant from one another, when they had occasion to communicate any secret designs, they wrote them in cyphers and unknown characters, during the disorders of the league: the cypher was composed of more than five hundred different Characters, which yielded their hidden contents to the penetrating genius of Vieta alone. His skill so disconcerted the Spanish councils for two years, that they reported at Rome, and other parts of Europe, that the French king had only discovered their cyphers by means of magic.

, a physician and anatomist, was born in 1641, at the village of Rovergue, and after studying and taking his degrees in medicine at Montpellier, settled there as a practitioner. In 1671, he was appointed physician to the hospital of St. Eloy, where from frequent opportunities of anatomical dissection, he was led to pay particular attention to the subject of neurology, which, notwithstanding what the celebrated Dr. Willis had published, was a part of the animal economy very little known. After ten years study of the nerves, he published the work which has redounded most to his honour, “Neurologia universalis, hoc est, omnium huniani corporis nervorum, simul ac cerebri, medullaeque spinalis, descriptio anatomica,” Leyden, 1685, fol. Even of this work, however, the anatomical part is the most valuable, for what respects the physiology, which forms a considerable part of the volume, deserves very little regard, as being founded on wrong principles. He afterwards published other anatomical works, but does not appear to have advanced his reputation by them. Astruc and Senac have given a very unfavourable account of his genius and judgment, yet neither can deny that his anatomical researches have been of service. In 1690 he was sent for to be physician to mademoiselle de Montpensier, but at her death returned to Montpellier, where he died in 1716.

, king’s physician, and historiographer of France, was born in 1530, of a good family, at Troyes, in Champagne. He became very celebrated by his practice, and died at Paris, 1596, aged sixty-six, after having abjured protestantism, in which he was brought up. His principal works are, 1. “Les Fastes des anciens Hébreux, Grecs, et Remains,” 4to. 2. “Bibliotheque Historiale,” 4 Vols. fol. 3. A collection of “Church History,” fol. but little valued. 4. An excellent treatise “On the state and origin of the ancient French,” fol. and 4to. 5. “Sommaire de l'Histoire des François,” fol. 6. “Traité de l'ancien etat de la petite Bretagne,” 4to, and other works on French history, which are said to be useful for consultation. His son, Nicholas Vignier, was minister at Blois at the beginning of the seventeenth century, but adopted the sentiments of the Catholic church after the year 1631, and left several controversial works.