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

, a very eminent Swedish surgeon and physician, was born near Stockholm in the beginning of the eighteenth century. He studied first at Upsal, and afterwards at Stockholm, under the ablest practitioners in physic and surgery. In 1741 he travelled to Germany and France, and served as surgeon in the French army for two years. In 1745 he took up his residence in Stockholm, where for half a century he was considered as the first man in his profession. He introduced many valuable improvements in the army-hospitals, and his general talents and usefulness procured him the most flattering marks of public esteem. He was appointed director general of all the hospitals in the kingdom, had titles of nobility conferred upon him, was created a knight of Vasa, and became commander of that order. In 1764, the university of Upsal made him doctor in medicine by diploma, and he was enrolled a member of various learned societies. He died in 1807, at an advanced age. He published various works in the Swedish language, the principal of which are: 1. “A treatise on Fresh Wounds,” Stockholm, 1745. 2, “Observations on Surgery,” 1750. 3. “Dissertation on the operation for the Cataract,” 1766; and 4. “A Discourse on reforms in Surgical Operations,” 1767.

, the historian of Mazara in Sicily, and a very eminent physician, who studied Latin at Mazara, rhetoric at Panorma, and philosophy and medicine at Naples, under the celebrated Augustine Niphus. He took his doctor’s degree at Salernum in 1510. He afterwards practised physic with great success at Palermo, and was made a burgess of that city. Charles V. afterwards appointed him to be his physician, and physician-general of Sicily. He died in 1560. His history is entitled “Topographia inclytae civitatis Mazariae,” Panorm. 1515, 4to. He wrote also some medical treatises on the plague, on bleeding, on the baths of Sicily; and “Epistola ad Conjugem,” a Latin poem, Panorm. 1516.

No part of the failure of this vast enterprize, however, was attributed to Alan, to whom the king of Spain now gave the archbishopric of Mecklin, and would have had reside there, as a place where he might more effectually promote the popish and Spanish interests in England; but the pope had too high an opinion of his merit to suffer him to leave Rome, where, therefore, he continued to labour in the service of his countrymen, and in promoting the Catholic faith. Some have asserted, that he and sir Francis Inglefield assisted Parsons, the Jesuit, in composing-his treasonable work concerning the succession, which he published under the name of Doleman, in 1593, and which was reckoned of such dangerous consequence, that it was made capital by law for any person to have it in his custody. Others, however, maintain that he had no hand in it, and that he even objected to it, because of its tendency to promote those dissentions which had for so many years distracted his native country; and this last opinion is probable, if what we have been told be true, that towards the close of his life he had changed his sentiments, as to government, and professed his sorrow for the pains he had taken in promoting the invasion of England. It is even asserted, by a very eminent popish writer (Watson), that when he perceived that the Jesuits intended nothing but desolating and destroying his native land, he wept bitterly, not knowing how to remedy it, much less how to curb their insolence. Such conduct, it is added, drew upon him the ill-will of that powerful society, who chose now to represent him as a man of slender abilities, and of little political consequence. On his death-bed, he was very desirous of speaking to the English students then at Rome, which the Jesuits prevented, lest he should have persuaded them to a loyal respect for their prince, and a tender regard for their country. He is generally said to have died of a retention of urine; but, as the Jesuits had shown so much dislike, they have been accused of poisoning him. Of this, however, there is no proof. He died Oct. 6, 1594, in the sixty-third year of his age; and was buried with great pomp in the chapel of the English college at Rome, where a monument was erected to his memory, with an inscription setting forth his titles and merits. What these merits were, the reader has been told. We have seen cardinal Alan in three characters: that of a zealous propagandist; of apolitical traitor to his country; and lastly, repenting the violence of his endeavours to ruin his country on pretence of bringing her back to popery. In the first of these characters he seems to have acted from the impulse of a mind firmly persuaded that every deviation from popery was dangerous heresy; and the only weapons he employed were those of controversy. As a writer, the popish party justly considered him as the first champion of his age; and both his learning and eloquence were certainly of a superior stamp. But in his worst character, as a traitor, there is every reason to think him influenced by the Jesuits, who at that time, and ever while a society, had little scruple as to the means by which they effected their purposes. Yet even their persuasions were not sufficient to inspire him with permanent hostility towards the political existence of his country. Some writers, not sufficiently attending to his history, have called him a Jesuit; but in all controversies between the Jesuits and the secular priests, the latter always gloried in cardinal Alan, as a man to whom no Jesuit could be compared, in any respect.

, a very eminent Arabian philosopher of the tenth century, was born at Farab, now Othrar, in Asia. Minor, from which he took the name by which he is generally known. His real name was Mohammed. He was of Turkish origin, but quitted his country to acquire a more perfect knowledge of the Arabic, and of the works of the Greek philosophers. He studied principally at Bagdat, under a celebrated Aristotelian professor, named Abou Bachar Mattey; and then went to Harran, where John, a Christian physician, taught logic. In a short time, he surpassed all his fellow-scholars; and after a visit to Egypt, settled at Damas, where the prince of that city, Seif-edDaulah, took him into his patronage, although it was with difficulty that he could persuade him to accept his favours. Alfarabi had no attachment but to study, and knew nothing of the manners of a court. When he presented himself, for the first time, before the prince, the latter, wishing to amuse himself at the expence of the philosopher, made known his intention to his guards in a foreign language, but was much surprised when Alfarabi told him that he knew what he said, and could, if necessary, speak to him in seventy other languages. The conversation then turning on the sciences in general, Alfarabi delivered his opinions with such learning and eloquence, that the men of letters present were completely put to silence, and began to write down what he said. He excelled likewise in music, and ingratiated himseif so with the prince, that he gave him a handsome pension, and Alfarabi remained with him until his death in the year 950. He wrote many treatises on different parts of the Aristotelian philosophy, which were read and admired, not only among the Arabians, but also among the Jews, who began about this time to adopt the Aristoteliaft mode of philosophizing. Many of his books were translated from Arabic into Hebrew, and it is by these versions principally that the Europeans have been made acquainted with his merit. His treatise “De Intelligentiis” was published in the works of Avicenna, Venice, 1495; another, “Dfc Causis,” is in Aristotle’s works, with the commentaries of Averroes; and his “Opuscula varia” were printed at Paris in 1638. One of his writings, which brought him much reputation, was a kind of encyclopaedia, in which he gives a short account and definition of all branches of science and art. The manuscript of this is in the Escurial.

, a very eminent artist, was born in 1488, at Altdorffin Bavaria, and rose to be a member of the senate of Ratisbon, and architect to the town, where he died in 1578. His merit as a painter appears to have been very considerable, but much more as a designer and engraver. His works in wood and metal are as numerous as, in general, remarkable for diminutive size, though neither his conceptions nor forms were puny. The cuts of “The Passion,” “Jael and Siserah,” “Pyramus and Thisbe,” “Judah and Thamar,” if we allow for the ignorance of costume in the three last, show a sensibility of mind, and a boldness of design, which perhaps none of his German contemporaries can boast. Holbein is said to have drawn great assistance from him, evident traces of the style of Altorfer appearing in the prints of that inimitable artist, although certainly much improved.

, a very eminent nonconformist minister, was the son of John Aneley, of Hareley, in Warwickshire, where his family were possessed of a good estate, and was born about the year 1620. In 1635 he was admitted a student in Queen’s college, Oxford, where he took his bachelor’s and master’s degrees. At the university he was distinguished by extreme temperance and industry. His inclination leading him to the church, he received holy orders, but it is uncertain whether from the hands of a bishop, or according to the Presbyterian way; Wood inclines to the former, and Calamy to the latter. In 1644, however, he became chaplain to the earl of Warwick, then admiral of the parliament’s fleet, and afterwards succeeded to a church at Clift'e, in Kent, by the ejectment, for loyalty, of Dr. Griffith Higges, who was much beloved by his parishioners. On July 26, 1648, he preached the fast sermon before the house of commons, which, as usual, was ordered to be printed. About this time, also, he was honoured with the title of LL. D. by the university of Oxford, or rather by the peremptory command of Philip earl of Pembroke, chancellor of the university, who acted there with boundless authority. The same year, he went to sea with the earl of Warwick, who was employed in giving chase to that part of the English navy which went over to the then prince, afterwards king Charles II. Some time after this, he resigned his Kentish living, although he had now become popular there, in consequence of a promise he made to his parishioners to “resign it when he had fitted them for the reception of a better minister.” In 1657, he was nominated by Cromwell, lecturer at St. Paul’s; and in 1658 was presented by Richard, the protector, to the vicarage of St. Giles’s, Cripplegate. But this presentation becoming soon useless, he, in 1660, procured another from the trustees for the approbation and admission of ministers of the gospel, after the Presbyterian manner. His second presentation growing out of date as the first, he obtained, in the same year, a third, of a more legal stamp, from Charles II.; but in 1662, he was ejected for nonconformity. He was offered considerable preferment, if he would conform, but refused it, and continued to preach privately during that and the following reign. He died in 1696, with a high reputation for piety, charity, and popular talents. His works, which are enumerated by Calamy, consist of occasional sermons, and some funeral sermons, with biographical memoirs. He was the principal support, if not the institutor, of the morning lecture, or course of sermons preached at seven o'clock in the morning, at various churches, during the usurpation, and afterwards at meeting-houses, by the most learned and able nonconformists. Of these several volumes have been printed, and of late years have risen very much in price. Collectors inform us that a complete set should consist of six volumes.

of Antwerp, a very eminent lawyer, died in his 80th year in 1668, and left several works on civil law, written with method and perspicuity. These are, “Codex Belgicus,” Antwerp, 1649, fol. “Tribunianus Belgicus,” Brussels, 1663, fol. A collection of “Edicts,” 1648, 4 vols. fol.; and another of “Consultations,” published at Antwerp in 1671, fol. All his works are written in Latin.

The other auction was that of Mr. Paget, at Ibstock. Mr. Paget had been many years the intimate friend, and in the Breeding Society, a very eminent and successful colleague, of Mr. Bakewell. The sale of his stock was therefore looked up to with much eagerness by the public. At this sale, one bull sold for the sum of four hundred guineas (and a sixth share of the same has since been sold for one hundred), and a two-year old heifer for eighty- four! Two hundred and eleven ewes and theaves fetched 3315 guineas —on the average, seventeen guineas each; and one lot of five ewes was sold for 310 guineas!

, Baldi, or Baldius, a native of Florence, in the seventeenth century, was a very eminent physician and medical writer. He was reader on medicine in the university of Rome, where he held a canon’s place, and acquired the first reputation throughout Italy. His great ambition was to be physician to pope Innocent X. which he had no sooner obtained than he contracted a distemper which proved fatal a few months after his promotion. None of his biographers give the date of his death (probably about 164. ), but all attribute it to the luxurious change in the mode of living at court. He published many works which bear a high character, and among others: 1. “Praelectio de Contagione pestifera,” Rome, 1631, 4to. 2. “Disquisitio iatrophysica de Aere,” Rome, 1637, 4to, 3. “De loco affecto in pleuritide disceptationes,” Paris, 1640, 8vo Rome, 1643, &c.

, a very eminent physician, was born in 1682 at Bononia. He received the first rudiments of education among the Jesuits. He then proceeded to the study of philosophy, in which he made great progress; but cultivated that branch of it particularly which consists in the contemplation and investigation of nature. Having gone through a course of philosophy and mathematics, he applied himself to medicine. Being appointed teacher of natural philosophy at an academy in Bononia, in consequence of his ardent pursuits in philosophy, his fellow citizens conferred on him the office of public professor. His first step in this chair was the interpretation of the Dialectics. He kept his house open to students, who found there a kind 6*f philosophical society. Here it was his practice to deliver his sentiments on the different branches of science, or to explain such metaphysical subjects as had been treated of by Descartes, Malebranche, Leibnitz, and others of the moderns. Among the frequenters of this little Society we find the names of John Baptist Morgagni, Eustathius Manfred, and Victorius Franciscus Stancarius, who, in concurrence with Beccaria, succeeded in shaking oil the old scholastic yoke, and formed themselves into an academy, adopting a new and more useful method of reasoning. In this institution it was thought fit to elect twelve of their body, who were called ordinarii, to read the several lectures In natural history, chemistry, anatomy, medicine, physics, and mathematics, in which partition the illustration of natural history fell to the share of Beccaria; who gave such satisfaction, that it was difficult to determine which was most admired, his diligence or his ingenuity. In 1712 he was called to give lectures in medicine, in which he acquired so great a reputation, that he found it scarcely practicable to answer the desires of the incredible number of those who applied to him for instruction. At the beginning of the year 1718, while entirely occupied in this station, and in collecting numberless anatomical subjects to exhibit and to explain to his auditors, he was attacked by a putrid fever, which brought his life in imminent danger, and from which he did not recover till afte.r a confinement of eight months; and even then it left him subject to intermitting attacks, and a violent pain in his side. But the vigour of his mind triumphed over the weakness of his body. Having undertaken to demonstrate and explain his anatomical preparations, he would not desist; and went on patiently instructing the students that frequented his house. On the death of Antonio Maria Valsalva, who was president of the institution, Beccaria, already vice-president, was unanimously chosen by the academicians to succeed him, in which post he did the academy much signal service; and to this day it adheres to the rules prescribed by Beccaria. He now practised as well as taught the art of medicine, and in this he acquired an unbounded fame; for it was not confined to his owa countrymen, but was spread throughout Europe. He communicated to the royal society of London several barometrical and meteorological observations; with others on the ignis fatuus, and on the spots that appear in stones, and in acknowledgement he was chosen a member of that learned body in 1728. He confesses thai in his constitution he was not without some igneous sparks, which were easily kindled into anger and other vehement emotions; yet he was resolved to evince by example what he had constantly taught, that the medicine of the mind is more to be studied than that of the body; and that they are truly wise and happy who have learnt to heal their distorted and bad affections. He had brought himself to such an equal temper of mind, that but a few hours before his death he wanted to mark the heights of the barometer and thermometer, which was his usual practice three times every day. Thus, after many and various labours, died this learned and ingenious man, the 30th of Jan. 1766, and was buried in the church of St. Maria ad Baracanum, where an inscription is carved en his monument. He published the following works: 1. “Lettere al cavaliere Tommaso Derham, intorno la nieteora chiamata fuoco fatuo. Edita primum in societatis Lond. transact.” 1720. 2. “Dissertatio mctheorologicamedica, in qua ae'ris temperies et morbi Bononizegrassantes annis 1729, et sequent! describuntur.” 3. “Pa re re intorno al taglio delia macchiadi Viareggio,” Lucca, 1739, 4to. 4. “De longis jejuniis dissertatio.” Patavii, 1743, fo'l. 5. “De quamplurimis phosphoris nunc primum detectis commentarius,” Bononia?,“1744, 4to. 6.” De quamplurim. &c. commentarius alter.“7.” De motu intestino corporum fluidorum.“8.” De medicatis Recobarii aquis.“9.” De lacte.“10.” Epistolrc tres mediciP ad Franciscum lloncalium Parolinum,“Brixiir, 1747, fol. 11.” Scriptura medico-legalis," 1749; and some others. He left behind him several manuscripts.

, or Benedetti, a very eminent physician and medical writer of the fifteenth century, was born at Legnano in the territory of Verona. When he had completed his studies, he went to Greece and the isle of Candy, as army surgeon, and on his return, he was made professor of medicine at Padua, where he remained until 1495, when he settled at Venice. The time of his death is not ascertained, but it appears that he was alive in 1511. Haller mentions him as at the head of the original medical writers, and says his style was far preferable to that of his predecessors. His works are, 1. “De observatione in Pestilentia,” Venice, 1493, 4to, Bonon, 1516, fol. Basil, 1538, 8vo, &c. 2. “Collectiones medicinæ, sive, aphorismi de medici et ægri officio,” Leyden, 1506. 3. “Anatomiae, sive de historia corporis humani, lib. v.” Venice, 1493, often reprinted. 4. “De omnium a capite ad calcem morborum causis, signis, differentiis, indicationibus, et remediis, lib. triginta,” Venice, 1500, foh also often reprinted. There are some remains of medical superstition in this work, but many excellent observations and useful cases. 5. “Opera omnia in unum collecta,” Venice, 1533, fol. Basil, 1539, 4to, and 1549 and 1572, fol.

, regius professor of divinity, and master of Trinity college, Cambridge, a very eminent critic of*he last age, was born January 27, 1661-2, at Oulton, in the parish of Wakefield, in the West Riding of Yorkshire. His ancestors, who were of some consideration, possessed an estate, and had a seat at Hepenstall, in the parish of Halifax. His grandfather, James Bentley, was a captain in king Charles I.'s army, at the time of the civil wars, and being involved in the fate of his party, had his house plundered, his estate confiscated, and was himself carried prisoner to Pomfret castle, where he died. Thomas Bentley, the son of James, and father of Dr. Bentley, married the daughter of Richard Willis of Oulton, who had been a major in the royal army. This lady, who was a woman of exceeding good understanding, taught her son Richard his accidence. To his grandfather Willis, who was left his guardian, he was, in part, indebted for his education; and having gone through the grammar-school at Wakefield with singular reputation, both for his proficiency and his exact and regular behaviour, he was admitted of St. John’s college, Cambridge, under the tuition of Mr. Johnson, on the 24th of May, 1676, being then only four months above fourteen years of age. On the 22d of March, 1681-2, he stood candidate for a fellowship, and would have been unanimously elected, had he not been excluded by the statutes, on account of his being too young for priest’s orders. He was then a junior bachelor, and but little more than nineteen years old. It was soon after this that he became a schoolmaster at Spalding. But that he did not continue Jong in this situation is certain from a letter of his grandfather Willis’s, still preserved in the family, from which it appears that he was with Dr. Stillingfleet, at the deanery of St. Paul’s, on the 25th of April, 1683. He had been recommended by his college to the dean, as preceptor to his son and Dr. Stillingfleet gave Mr. Bentley his choice, whether he would carry his pupil to Cambridge or Oxford. He fixed upon the latter university, on account of the Bodleian library, to the consulting of the manuscripts of which he applied with the closest attention. Being now of age, he made over a small estate, which he derived from his family, to his elder brother, and immediately laid out the money he obtained for it in the purchase of books. It is recorded of him, that having, at a very early age, made surprising progress in the learned languages, his capacity for critical learning soon began to display itself. Before the age of twenty-four, he had written with his own hand a sort of Hexapla, a thick volume in 4to, in the first column of which was every word of the Hebrew bible, alphabetically disposed, and in five other columns all the various interpretations of those words, in the Chalclee, Syriac, Vulgate Latin, Septuagint, and Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodosian, that occur in the whole Bible. This he made for his own private use, to know the Hebrew, not from the late rabbins, but the ancient versions, when, excepting Arabic, Persic, and Ethiopic, he must then have read over the whole Polyglott. He had also at that time made, for his own private use, another volume in 4 to, of the various lections and emendations of the Hebrew text, drawn out of those ancient versions, which, though done at such an early age, would have made a second part to the famous Capellus’s “Critica Sacra.”

, a learned divine in the seventeenth century, and bishop of St. Asaph, was born at Barrow in Leicestershire (where his grandfather, father, and brother, were vicars) in 1636-7. On the 24th of May, 1653, he was admitted of St. John’s college, Cambridge, and took his degrees of bachelor of arts in 1656, master of arts in 1660, and of doctor of divinity in 1679. At his coming to the university, he closely applied himself to the study of the learned languages and, by his great diligence and application, soon became so well skilled, particularly in all Oriental learning, that when he was not above eighteen years of age, he wrote a treatise of the excellency and use of the Oriental tongues, especially the Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic, and Samaritan, with a Syriac Grammar, in three books; which he published when he was about twenty years of age. He also distinguished himself, at the same time, by his early piety and seriousness of mind, and by his exemplary sobriety and integrity of life, all which procured him great esteem and veneration. January 3, 1660-1, he was ordained deacon in the church of St. Botolph, Aldersgate, by Robert, bishop of Lincoln and priest, in the same place, the 31st of that month. About this time, Dr. Sheldon, bishop of London, collated him to the vicarage of Ealing in Middlesex. On the 22d of November, 1672, he was chosen, by the lord-mayor and aldermen of London, rector of St. Peter’s, Cornhill, London, and then he resigned the vicarage of Ealing. He now applied himself, with the utmost labour and zeal, to the discharge of his ministry, and so instructive was he in his discourses from the pulpit, so warm and affectionate in his private exhortations, so regular and uniform in the public worship of the church, and in every part of his pastoral function, and so remarkably were his labours crowned with success, that as he himself was justly styled “the great reviver and restorer of primitive piety,” so his parish was deservedly proposed, as the best model and pattern, for the rest of its neighbours to copy after. His singular merit having recommended him to the favour of his diocesan, bishop Henchman, he was collated by him, on the 22d of December, 1674, to the prebend of Chiswick, in the cathedral of St. Paul’s, London and, by his successor bishop Compton, he was also, on the 3d of November, 1681, collated to the archdeaconry of Colchester. In this dignity he behaved, as he had done before in every station of life, In a most regular, watchful, and exemplary manner and not satisfied with the false, or at least imperfect, reports given in by church-wardens at visitations, he visited everjr parish within his archdeaconry in person. November the 5th, 1684, he was installed prebendary of Canterbury, and became also chaplain to king William and queen Mary. In 1691, he was offered, but refused the see of Bath and Wells, then vacant by the deprivation of Dr. Thomas Kenn, for not taking the oaths to king William and queen Mary. liut though he refused that see, because, probably, being a man of a tender conscience, he would not eat Dr. Kenn’s tread, adtording to the language of those times, he afterwards accepted of that of St. Asaph, vacant by the translation of Dr. George Hooper to Bath and Wells, and was consecrated July 16, 1704. Being placed in this eminent station, his care and diligence increased in proportion as his power in the church was enlarged and now when his authority was extended to larger districts, he still pursued the same pious and laborious methods of advancing the honour and interest of religion, by watching over both clergy and laity, and giving them all necessary direction and assistance, for the effectual performance of their respective duties. Accoruingly, he was no sooner advanced to the episcopal chair, but in a pathetic letter to the clergy of his diocese, he recommended to them the “duty of catechising and instructing the people committed to their charge, in the principles of the Christian religion to the end they might know what they were to believe and do in order to salvation” and told them, “he thought it necessary to begin with that, without which, whatever else he or they should do, would turn to little or no account, as to the main end of the ministry.” And to enable them to do this the more effectually, he sent them a plain and easy “Exposition upon the Church Catechism.” This good man did not enjoy his episcopal dignity above three years seven months and twenty days for he died at his lodgings in the cloisters in Westminster- abbey, March 5, 1707-8, in the seventy-first year of his age, and was buried in St. Paul’s cathedral. He left the greatest part of liis estate to the societies for propagating the gospel, and promoting Christian knowledge. To the curacy of MountSorrel in particular, and vicarage of Barrow in the county of Leicester, in a thankful remembrance of God’s mercies vouchsafed to him thereabouts, he bequeathed twenty pounds a year for ever, on condition that prayers be read morning and evening every day, according to the Liturgy of the church of England, in the chapel, and parish church aforesaid; with the sum of forty shillings yearly, to be divided equally upon Christmas-eve, among- eight poor housekeepers of Barrow, as the minister and churchwardens should agree, regard being had especially to those who had been most constantly at prayers, and at the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, the foregoing year. And if it should so happen, that the Common- Prayer could not be read in the church or chapel aforesaid, his will then was, that what should have been given in either place for that, be in each place allowed to one chosen by the vk-ar of Barrow to teach school, and instruct the youth in the principles of the Christian religion, according to the doctrine of the church of England. His works were many, and full of great variety of learning. Those published by himself were a? follows: 1. “De Linguarum Orientalium, praesertim HeIpraicce, Chaldaica?, Syriacae, Arabicae, et Samaritans, praestantia et usu,” &c. mentioned above. Loud. 1658, 8vo. 2- “Institutionum Chronologicarum libri duo, una cum totidem Arithmetices Chronoiogicae libellis,” Loud. 1669, 4to. 3. “Swvo'&Kov, sive Pandectse Canonum Ss. Apostolorum, et Conciliorum ab Ecclesia Graeca receptoium necnon Canonicarum Ss. Patrum Epistolarum una cum Scholiis antiquorum singulis eorurn annexis, et scriptis aliis hue spectantibus quorum plurima e Bibliothecae Bodleianae aliarumque Mss. Codicibus nunc primum edita reliqua cum iisdem Mss. summa fide et diligentia collata,” Oxonii, 1672, 2 vols. fol. 4. “Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Primitivae vindicatus et illustratus,” Lond. 1679, 4to. 5. “The Church Catechism explained, for the use of the diocese of St. Asaph,” Lond. J 704, 4to, reprinted several times since. Next follow bishop Beveridge’s works, published after his decease by his executor Mr. Timothy Gregory 1. “Private Thoughts upon Religion, digested into twelve articles, with practical resolutions formed thereupon.” Written in his younger years (when he was about twenty-three years old), for the settling of his principles and conduct of life, Lond. 1709. 2. “Private Thoughts upon a Christian Life or, necessary directions for its beginning and progress upon earth, in order to its final perfection in the Beatific Vision,” part II. Lond. 1709. 3. “The great necessity and advantage of Public Prayer and frequent Communion. Designed to revive primitive piety with, meditations, ejaculations, and prayers, before, at, and after the sacrament,” Lond. 1710, These have been reprinted several times in 8vo and 12mo. 4. “One hundred and fifty Sermons and Discourses on several subjects,” Lond. 170S, &c. in 12 vols. 8vo, reprinted at London, 17iy, in 2 vols. fol. 5. “Thesaurus Theologians or, a complete system of Divinity, summed up in brief notes upon select places of the Old and New Testament; wherein the sacred text is reduced under proper heads; explained and illustrated with the opinions and authorities of the ancient fathers, councils, &c.” Lond. 1711, 4 vols. 8vo. 6. “A defence of the book of Psalms, collected into English metre by Thomas Sternhold, John Hopkins, and others with critical Observations on the New Version, compared with the Old,” Lond. 1710, 8vo. In this book he gives the old version the preference to the new. 7. “Exposition of the XXXIX Articles,” Lond. 1710, 1716, fol. Bishop Beveridge’s character is in general represented in a most advantageous light. He was a person of the strictest integrity, of true and sincere piety, of exemplary charity, and of great zeal for religion, and so highly esteemed, that when he was dying, one of the chief of his order deservedly said of him, “There goes one of the greatest and of the best men that ever England bred.” He is also celebrated as a man of extensive and almost universal learning; furnished, to a very eminent degree, with all useful knowledge; and much to be admired for his readiness in the scriptures, which he had thoroughly studied, so that he was able to produce suitable passages from them on all occasions, and happy in explaining them to others. Mr. Nelson says, that he cannot forbear acknowledging the favourable dispensation of Providence to the present age, in blessing it with so many of those pious discourses, which our truly primitive prelate delivered from the pulpit; and that he the rather takes the liberty to call it a favourable dispensation of Providence, because the bishop gave no orders himself that they should be printed, but humbly neglected them, as not being composed for the press. But that this circumstance is so far from abating the worth of the sermons, or diminishing the character of the author, that it raises the excellency of both, because it shews at once the true nature of a popular discourse which is to improve the generality of hearers, and for that purpose to speak to them in a plain and intelligible style. Dr. Henry Felton says, that our learned and venerable bishop delivered himself with those ornaments alone, which his subject suggested to him, and wrote in that plainness and solemnity of style, that gravity and simplicity, which gave authority to the sacred truths he taught, and unanswerable evidence to the doctrines he defended. That there is something so great, primitive, and apostolical, in his writings, that it creates an awe and veneration in our mind that the importance of his subjects is above the decoration of words and what is great and majestic in itself looketh most like itself, the less it is adorned. The author of one of the Guardians, having made an extract out of one of the bishop’s sermons, tells us, that it may for acuteness of judgment, ornament of speech, and true sublime, compare with any of the choicest writings of the ancients, who lived nearest to the apostles’ times. But the author of a pamphlet published in 1711, entitled “A short view of Dr. Bevericlge’s Writings,” passes a very different judgment upon bishop Beveridge’s works, in order to stop, as he says, the mischief they are doing, and that which the publication of his Articles may do. With regard to the bishop’s language, he observes, that he delights in jingle and quibbling; affects a tune and rhyme in all he says, and rests arguments upon nothing but words and sounds, &c. &c. But perhaps this animadverter will “by some be ranked among the persons, of whom Dr. Lupton gives the following character” Those who are censorious enough to reflect with severity upon the pious strains, which are to be found in bishop Beveridge, &c. may possibly be good judges of an ode or essay, but do not seem to criticise justly upon sermons, or express a just value for spiritual things.“After all, whatever faults may be found in bishop Beveridge’s posthumous works, must be charged to the injudiciousness of his executor. He must himself have been an extraordinary man who, with all the faults pointed out by the author of” The short view," could have conciliated the good opinion and favour of men of all principles, and the most eminent patrons of the church and the estimation in which his works continue to be held to this day, prove how little he was injured by the captious quibblings of a writer who was determined to find fault with' that, into the spirit of which he could not enter. The life of bishop Beveridge, prefixed to the folio edition of his works, was written by Mr. Kimber, a dissenting minister of the Baptist persuasion, in London.

, called in Latin Blondus, or Blundus, a very eminent divine in the thirteenth century, was educated in the university of Oxford, and went afterwards for his improvement to Paris, where he quickly distinguished himself, among many of his learned contemporaries, by the vivacity of his wit. On his return into England, he again settled himself at Oxford, and read divinity lectures there with universal applause. Wood says he was the first that lectured on Aristotle both in Paris and Oxford. The reputation of his learning obtained him also several other preferments, particularly those of prebendary andhancellor in the church of York. In 1232, the archiepiscopal see of Canterbuiy being vacant by the death of Richard Wethershed, and the rejection of two of his successors, Ralph Nevil, bishop of Chichester and chancellor of England, and John, sub-prior of Canterbury, by the pope, Dr. Blount was, by the chapter of Canterbury, elected archbishop. He did not, however, enjoy that dignity; for the pope immediately objected to him, and after a summary inquiry into the validity of his election, declared it void, for several reasons, of which our historians take notice, though very probably Bale has hit upon the true, although not the ostensible cause, namely, that his abilities rendered him obnoxious to the court of Rome, or, as Bale expresses it, that he was more learned than that court wished an archbishop to be.

March 1646, he retired to his manor at Stalbridge, where he resided for the most part till May 1650. A room is still shown here, in which our author studied, and where he is said to have nlade his earliest experiments in natural philosophy and chemistry. He made excursions, sometimes to London, sometimes to Oxford and in February 1647, he went over to Holland but he made no considerable stay any where. During his retirement at Stalbridge, he applied himself with incredible industry to studies of various kinds, to those of natural philosophy and chemistry in particular, and omitted no opportunity of obtaining the acquaintance of persons distinguished for parts and learning, to whom he was in every respect a ready, useful, generous assistant, and with whom he held a constant correspondence. He was also one of the first members of that small, but learned body of men, which, when all aca-' demical studies were interrupted by the civil wars, secreted themselves about 1645; and held private meetings, first in London, afterwards at Oxford, for the sake of canvassing subjects of natural knowledge, upon that plan of experiment which lord Bacon had delineated. They styled themselves then the Philosophical College; and after the restoration, when they were incorporated and distinguished openly, took the name of the Royal Society. His retired course of life, however, could not hinder his reputation from rising to such a height, as made him be taken notice of by some of the most eminent members of the republic of letters’; so that, in 1651, we find Dr. Nathanael Highmore, a very eminent physician, dedicating to him a book, under the title of “The history of Generation:” examining the several opinions of divers authors, especially that of sir Kenelm Digby, in his Discourse upon Bodies.

, a very eminent scholar and historian, derived his name of Aretine, or Aretino, from Arezzo, in which city he was born in the year 1370, of parents sufficiently wealthy to bestow on him a good education. In his early youth he was incited to a love of letters by an extraordinary accident. A body of French troops, who were marching to Naples to assist Louis of Anjou in maintaining his claim to trie sovereignty of that kingdom, at the solicitation of the partizans of a faction which had been banished from Arezzo, made an unexpected attack upon that city; and, after committing a great slaughter, carried away many of the inhabitants into captivity; and, among the rest, the family of Bruni. Leonardo being confined in a chamber in which hung a portrait of Petrarch, by daily contemplating the lineaments of that illustrious scholar, conceived so strong a desire to signalize himself by literary acquirements, that immediately upon his enlargement he repaired to Florence, where he prosecuted his studies with unremitting diligence, under the direction of John of Ravenna, and Manuel Chrysoloras. During his residence at Florence, he contracted a strict intimacy with the celebrated Poggio Bracciolini, and the latter being afterwards informed by Leonardo that he wished to procure a presentation to some place of honour or emolument in the Roman chancery, took every opportunity of recommending him. In consequence of this, pope Innocent VII. invited him to Rome, where he arrived March 24, 1405, but was at first disappointed in his hopes, the place at which he aspired being intended for another candidate, Jacopo d'Angelo. Fortunately, however, the pope having received certain letters from the duke of Berry, determined to assign to each of the competitors the task of drawing up an answer to them, and the compositions being compared, the prize was unanimously adjudged to Leonardo, who was instantly advanced to the dignity of apostolic secretary, and by this victory considerably increased his reputation, as his competitor was a man of very considerable talents. (See Angelo, James.) In 1410 Leonardo was elected chancellor of the city of Florence, but finding it attended with more labour than profit, resigned it in 1411, and entered into the service of pope John XXII. and soon after went to Arezzo, where he married a young lady of considerable distinction in that city. He was thought by his contemporaries rather too attentive to the minutiae of economy, and having married a lady who loved dress and ornaments, was somewhat disappointed. In a letter to his friend Poggio, after giving an account of his marriage expences, he adds, “In short, I have in one night consummated my marriage, and consumed my patrimony.” In 1415 he accompanied pope John XXIII. to the council of Constance, and this pope having been there deposed, Leonardo returned to Florence, where he was chosen secretary to the republic, and was employed in several political affairs of importance. He died in thebeginning of 1444, and was interred with the most solemn magnificence in the church of Santa Croce, with the following inscription, which is still legible, but not worthy of the object:

, bart. a judge of the court of king’s-bench and common-pleas, the son of James Buller, esq. member of parliament for the county of Cornwall, by Jane, his second wife, one of the daughters of Allen earl Bathurst, was born in 1745, and educated at a private school in the west of England. After this he removed ta London, and was admitted of the Inner Temple, Feb. 1763, and became a pupil of sir William Ashurst, who was at that time a very eminent spe'cial-pleader, but whom, it has been thought, he excelled. He was always ranked among the most eminent of the profession in this branch, and his business, as a common -law draughtsman, was immediate, and immense. His practice also at the bar, to which he was called by the honourable society of the Middle Temple in Easter Term, 1772, was at first considerable, and in a very short period, became equal to that of almost any of his brethren. Devoting himself entirely to it, he never came into parliament. On Nov. 24, 1777, he was appointed king’s-counsel, and on the 27th of the same month, second judge of the Chester circuit. In Easter term, May 6, 1778, by the patronage of lord Mansfield, who had a high opinion of his talents, he was made a judge of the king’s-bench, in the room of sir Richard Aston. During the indisposition of lord Mansfield, for the last three or four years that he held the office of chief justice, sir Francis Buller executed almost all the business at the sittings ap nisi prius, with great ability, and lord Mansfield left him 2000l. in his will, which, it is said, Mr. justice Buller declined receiving of his lordship, when offered as a compensation for his trouble. On the resignation of lord Mansfield, his expectations were directed to the succession to the high office so long and ably filled by that venerable lawyer, but, for various reasons, sir Lloyd Kenyon was preferred. In 1794, in consequence of his declining state of health, which rendered him unequal to the laborious duties of that court, he was, on the death of judge Gould, removed to the court of common-pleas, but his health still continuing to decay, he was about to have obtained his majesty’s leave to resign, when he died suddenly, at his house in Bedford-square, June 4, 1800, and was interred in a vault in St. Andrew’s burying-ground. He was created a baronet in 1789, and was succeeded in titles and estate by his son sir F. Buller Yarde, which last name he took for an estate. Sir Francis Buller was allowed to be ably and deeply versed in the law, and was certainly more distinguished for substantial than showy talents. His eloquence at the bar was seldom admired, but his addresses from the bench were perspicuous, dignified, and logical. He possessed great quickness of perception, saw the consequences of a fact, and the drift of an argument at its first opening, and could immediately reply to an unforeseen objection, but was on some occasions thought rather hasty. He seldom, however, formed his opinions without due ^consideration, and was particularly tenacious of what he had thus considered.

, an eminent divine of the church of England, was the son of Mr. Edmund Calamy, minister of Aldermanbury before-mentioned, by a second wife, and received the first tincture of learning at St. Paul’s school, from whence he was sent, when very young, to the university of Cambridge, and there entered of Catherine-hall. In 1664-5, he took the degree of bachelor of arts; in 1668, that of master of arts, and became also fellow of that hall, and a very eminent tutor there. April 25, 1677, he was chosen in the room of Dr. Simon Ford, minister of St. Mary Aldermanbury; and soon after appointed one of his majesty’s chaplains in ordinary. In 1680, he took his degree of doctor in divinity. In 1683, he preached in that church his famous sermon, which he afterwards published under the title of “A Discourse about a Scrupulous Conscience,” than which no piece of its kind or size gamed more credit to its author, or was more taken notice of by the public. This sermon he preached a second time at Bow church with great effect, and this excited a zealous nonconformist, one Mr. Thomas De Laune, who had been formerly a schoolmaster, to write against it; which he did in such a manner as drew upon him a fatal imprisonment, which he endeavoured by all means to ascribe to Dr. Calamy, though his complaints on this head had little or no foundation. In 1683, Dr. Calamy was admitted to the vicarage of St. Lawrence Jewry, with St. Mary Magdalen Milk-street annexed, to which he was collated by the dean and chapter of St. Paul’s, in the room of Dr. Benjamin Whichcot. June 18, 1685, he was, on the decease of Dr. John Wells, installed into the prebend of Harleston, in the cathedral church of St. Paul. These preferments are abundant proofs of his merit, and of his great interest in the city of London, which he maintained, not by attaching himself to any party, but by living in great intimacy with the best men of all parties. He was particularly acquainted with alderman Cornish, who was his parishioner, and for whom he had so great a respect, that he gave testimony in his favour when he was tried for high-treason, October 16, 1685, which was no ordinary mark of friendship in those times. It is thought, that a sense of public calamities had a great share in bringing his last illness upon our author, who fell into a declining state in the autumn of the year last mentioned, and died of a pleuritic fever in the month of January 1686. He was a man equally valuable for the abilities which he possessed, and the uses to which he applied them. He was a sincere son of the church of England, and very intent on gaining over dissenters of all sorts to her communion; and had an extensive charity, and a just aversion to persecution. He was heartily loyal, but without bitterness or passion; and his loyalty occasioned his grief, when he saw those steps taken which could end in nothing but public confusion. His own virtues, however, exempted him in a great measure from envy and scandal, even in the worst of times; insomuch, that the greatest men of all sects and all parties readily joined in paying a just tribute of praise to his memory. Though few in his situation were either better or more frequent preachers, yet he left behind him very little in print. Some sermons of his were after his decease, published by his brother, which served only to raise a great regret in the world, as that so many more of his excellent performances were buried in oblivion. His sermons are still valued as well for the beauty of their language as the excellent sentiments contained in them.

, a very eminent divine among the nonconformists, grandson to Mr. Edmund Calamy, minister of Aldermanbury, by his eldest son Mr. Edmund Calamy (who was ejected out of the living of Moreton in Essex, on St. Bartholomew’s day, 1662), was born April 5, 1671. Having made a considerable progress in grammar learning at several private schools, and under Mr. Hartcliffe at Merchant Taylors, where he contracted a close friendship with Mr. Dawes, afterwards sir William Dawes, and archbishop of York, as also with Mr. Hugh Boulter, the primate of Ireland, he went through a course of logic, natural philosophy, and metaphysics, under the tuition of Mr. Samuel Craddock at the academy kept by him at Wickham Brook in Suffolk. In March 1688, he went over to the university of Utrecht, where he studied philosophy under De Vries, and civil law under Vander Muyden, and attended Graevius’s lectures upon Sophocles and Puffendorf’s Introduction. His application to his studies at this place was so great, that he spent one whole night every week among his books; and his proficiency gained him -the friendship of two of his countrymen at that university, who rose afterwards to very high stations in church and state, lord Charles Spencer, the famous earl of Sunderland, and his tutor Mr. Charles Trimnell, afterwards successively bishop of Norwich and of Winchester, with both of whom he kept up his acquaintance as long as he and they lived. Whilst he resided in Holland, an oiler of a professor’s chair in the university of Edinburgh was made him by Mr. Carstairs, principal of that university, sent over on purpose to find a person properly qualified lor such an office; which he declined, and returned to England in 1691, bringing with him letters from Graevius to Dr. Pocock, canon of Christ-church, and regius professor of Hebrew, and to Dr. Edward Bernard, Savilian professor of astronomy, who obtained leave for him to prosecute his studies in the Bodleian library; and his resilience at Oxford procured him the acquaintance of the learned Mr. Henry Dodvvell. Having resolved to make divinity his principal study, he entered into an examination of the controversy between the conformists and nonconformists, and was led to join the latter. Coming to London in 1692, he was unanimously chosen assistant to Mr. Matthew Sylvester at Blackfriars; and oa June 22, 1694, was ordained at Mr. Annesley’s meetinghouse in Little St. Helen’s, which was the first public transaction of the kind, after the passing of the act of uniformity, and was not undertaken without some timidity on the part of the elder nonconformists, such as Mr. Howe and Dr. Bates, who seemed afraid of giving offence to government. Six other young ministers were ordained at the same time, and the ceremony lasted from ten o'clock in the morning to six in the evening. He was soon after invited to become assistant to Mr. Daniel Williams in Hand-alley, Bishupsgate-street. Oct. 20, 1702, he was chosen one of the lecturers at Salters’-lmll, and in 1703 succeeded Mr. Vincent Alsop, as pastor of v. congregation in Westminster. He drew up the table of contents to Mr. Baxter’s History of his life and times, which was sent to the press in 1696, made some remarks on the work itself, and added to it an index; and reflecting on the usefulness of the book, he saw the expediency of continuing it, for Mr. Baxter’s history came no lower than 1684. Accordingly he composed an abridgment of it; with an account of many others of those ministers who were ejected after the restoration of Charles II. their apology for themselves and their adherents; containing the grounds of their nonconformity and practice, as to stated and occasional communion witlx the church of England; and a continuation of their history till the year 1691. This work was published in 1702. The following year Mr. Hoadly (afterwards bishop of Winchckter) published the two parts of his “Reasonableness of Conformity to the Church of England, &c. in answer to Mr. Calamy’s Abridgement of Mr. Baxter’s history, &c.” As a reply to these treatises, Mr. Calamy published the same year, “A Defence of moderate Nonconformity;” and soon after Mr. Hoadly sent abroad, “A serious admonition to Mr Calamy,” occasioned by the first part of his “Defence, of moderate Nonconformity.”

, a native of Crete, became a very eminent Greek printer about the end of the fifteenth century, which business he carried on first at Venice, and afterwards at Rome. He had a principal concern in the compilation as well as printing of the “Etymologicuru magnum,” printed at Venice in 1499, and printed in the same year Simplicius’s Commentary on Aristotle’s categories. His edition of Pindar, with Greek scholia collected by himself, appeared at Rome in 1515, 4to, and was the first Greek book printed in that city. He also printed, which is thought to be the second Greek book executed at Rome, an edition of Theocritus, 1516, 8vo. Reiske considers it among the most accurate and complete of the early editions of Theocritus, and it was the first with the scholia. It is now both scarce and dear. An edition of Piuivorinus’s Lexicon was also published by Calliergus, at Rome, 1523. Of the personal history of this learned and ingenious printer we have no account. Erasmus calls him "juvenis exunie doctus,' and Gyraldus speaks of him as having been of a family of some rank.

, one of the sons of the preceding, was born in 1595, succeeded to his father’s employments, which he held for forty-six years, and died in 1666, He was accounted one of the ablest lawyers and law-writers of his time, and may likewise be praised as a legal antiquary, as he rescued from the archives, where they were unknown or forgot, many constitutions and decisions of great curiosity and importance. In his latter days he retired to Leipsic, and devoted his time entirely to the study of the Bible, which he is said to have read over fifty-three times, besides making notes as he went on, and consulting the commentators. The chief of his published works are, 1. “Practica rerum criminalium,” 1635, fol. often reprinted, and abridged by Suerus, Leipsic, 1655, 4to, 1669, 8vo. 2. “Detinitiones forenses,” 1638, fol.; also often reprinted, and abridged by Schroterus, with the author’s consent, Jena, 166 4-, 4to, and 1669, 8vo. 3. “Comment, ad legern regiam Germanorum,” 1640. 4. “Responsa juris Electoralia,” 1642, fol. 5. “Definitiones ecclesiastics,” 1649. 6. “Decisiones Saxonicae,” 1646 1654, 3 vols. folio, often reprinted. 7. “Processus Juris Saxonici,” 1657, folio. Other branches of this family acquired distinction as divines and philologists; but our accounts of them are too imperfect to be interesting, and those in the Diet. Historique evidently erroneous. The last upon record, John Benedict Carpzovius, was a very eminent classical scholar and critic. He published an excellent edition of Musaeus, Gr. and Lat. in 1775.

, a very learned and pious divine, bishop of Cork, Cloyne, and Ross, in Ireland, was descended, as he himself tells us, from parents in narrow circumstances, and was born at Lexington, in Nottinghamshire, Dec. 10, 1512. He was sent to a grammar-­school at Mansfield, in the same county; and thence, at the age of seventeen, removed to Christ’s-college, in Cambridge; of which, after having taken his degrees of B. and M. A. he was elected fellow in 1607. He became a very eminent tutor, and was also remarkable for his abilities as a disputant, concerning which the following anecdotes are recorded. In 1624 king James visited the university of Cambridge, lodged in Trinity-college, and was entertained with a philosophical act, and other academical performances. At these exercises Dr. Roberts of Trinity-­college was respondent at St. Mary’s, where Chappel as opponent pushed him so hard, that, finding himself unable to keep up the dispute, he fainted. Upon this, the king, who valued himself much upon his skill in such matters, undertook to maintain the question, but with no better success than the doctor; for Chappel was so much his superior at these logical weapons, that his majesty openly professed his joy to find a man of great talents so good a subject. Many years after this, sir William St. Leger riding to Cork with the popish titular dean of that city, Chappel, then dean of Cashel, and provost of Dublin, accidentally overtook them; upon which sir William, who was then president of Munster, proposed that the two deans should dispute, which, though Chappel was not forward to accept, yet he did not decline. But the popish dean, with great dexterity and address, extricated himself from this difficulty, saying, “Excuse me, sir; I don't care to dispute with one who is wont to kill his man.”

, an eminent and loyal citizen in the reigns of king Charles the First, and king Charles the Second, the son of a very eminent merchant of London, was born in 1598, and bred, according to the custom of those times, in a thorough knowledge of business, though heir to a great estate. He made a considerable addition to this by marriage; and being a man of an enterprizing genius, ever active and solicitous about new inventions and discoveries, was soon taken notice of at court, was knighted, and became one of the farmers of the king’s customs. When the trade to Guinea was under great difficulties and discouragements, he framed a project for retrieving it, which required a large capital, but his reputation was so great, that many rich merchants willingly engaged with him in the prosecution of the design; and to give a good example, as well as to shew that he meant to adhere to the work that he had once taken in hand, he caused the castle of Cormantyn upon the Gold Coast, to be erected at his own expence. By this judicious precaution, and by his wise and wary management afterwards, himself and his associates carried their trade so successfully, as to divide amongst them fifty thousand pounds a year. When the rebellion began, and the king was in want of money, sir Nicholas Crispe, and his partners in the farming of the customs, upon very short warning, and when their refusing it would have been esteemed a merit with the parliament, raised him one hundred thousand pounds at once. After the war broke out, and in the midst of all the distractions with which it was attended, he continued to carry on a trade to Holland, France, Spain, Italy, Norwaj', Moscovy, and Turkey, which produced to the king nearly one hundred thousand pounds a year, besides keeping most of the ports open and ships in them constantly ready for his service. All the correspondence and supplies of arms which were procured by the queen in Holland, and by the king’s agents in Denmark, were consigned to his care, and by his prudence and vigilance safely landed in the north, and put into the hands of those for whom they were intended. In the management of so many nice and difficult affairs, he was obliged to keep up a very extensive correspondence, for which he hardly ever made use of cypher, but penned his letters in such a peculiar style, as removed entirely his intentions from the apprehension of his enemies, and yet left them very intelligible unto those with whom he transacted. He had also great address in bringing any thing to bear that he had once contrived, to which it contributed not a little, that in matters of secrecy and danger he seldom trusted to any hands but his own, and made use of all kinds of disguises. Sometimes, when he was believed to be in one place, he was actually at another; letters of consequence he carried in the disguise of a porter; when he wanted intelligence he would be at the water side, with a basket of flounders upon his head, and often passed between London and Oxford in the dress of a butter-woman on horseback, between a pair of panniers. He was the principal author of a well-laid design for publishing the king’s commission of array at London, in which there was nothing dishonourable, so far as sir Nicholas Crispe was concerned, which, however, Clarendon inadvertently confounds with another design, superinduced by Mr. Waller, of surprizing the parliament, in bringing which to bear he proceeded very vigorously at first, till, finding that he had engaged in a matter too big for his management, he suddenly lost his spirits, and some of the chief men in the house of commons gaining intelligence that something was in agitation to their prejudice, May 31st, 1643, they presently seized Mr. Waller, and drew from him a complete discovery, which, from the account they published, plainly distinguished these two projects. By the discovery of this business, sir Nicholas Crispe found himself obliged to declare openly the course he meant to take; and having at his own expence raised a regiment of horse for the king’s service, he distinguished himself at the head of it as remarkably in his military, as he had ever done in his civil capacity. When the siege of Gloucester was resolved on, sir Nicholas Crispe was charged with his regiment of horse to escort the king’s train of artillery from Oxford, which important service he very gallantly performed; but in the month of September following, a very unlucky accident occurred, and though the circumstances attending it clearly justified his conduct to the world, yet the concern it gave him was such as he could not shake off so long as he lived. He happened to be quartered at Rouslidge, in Gloucestershire, where one sir James Ennyon, bart. of Northamptonshire, and some friends of his took up a great part of the house, though none of them had any commands in the army, which, however, sir Nicholas bore with the utmost patience, notwithstanding he was much incommoded by it. Some time after, certain horses belonging to those gentlemen were missing, and sir James Ennyon, though he had lost none himself, insinuating that some of sir Nicholas’s troopers must have taken them, insisted that he should immediately draw out his regiment, that search might be made for them. Sir Nicholas answered him with mildness, and offered him as full satisfaction as it was in his power to give, but excused himself from drawing out his regiment, as a thing improper and inconvenient at that juncture, for reasons which he assigned. Not content, however, sir James left him abruptly, and presently after sent him a challenge, accompanied with a message to this effect, that if he did not comply with it, he would pistol him against the wall. Upon this, sir Nicholas Crispe taking a friend of his with him, went to the place appointed, and finding sir James Ennyon and the person who brought him the challenge, sir Nicholas used his utmost endeavours to pacify him; but he being determined to receive no satisfaction, unless by the sword, they engaged, and sir James received a wound in the rim of the belly, of which he died in two days. Before this, however, he sent for sir Nicholas Crispe, and was sincerely reconciled to him. Upon the 2d of October following, sir Nicholas was brought to a court-martial for this unfortunate affair, and upon a full examination of every thing relating to it, was most honourably acquitted. He continued to serve with the same zeal and fidelity during 1644, and in the spring following; but when the treaty of Uxbridge commenced, the parliament thought fit to mark him, as they afterwards did in the Isle of Wight treaty, by insisting that he should be removed from his majesty’s presence; and a few months after, on April 16th, 1645, they ordered his large house in Breadstreet to be sold, which for many years belonged to his family. Neither was this stroke of their vengeance judged a sufficient punishment for his offences, since having resolved to grant the elector palatine a pension of eight thousand pounds a year, they directed that two thousand should be applied out of the king’s revenue, and the remainder made up out of the estates of lord Culpeper and sir Nicholas Crispe, Sir Nicholas finding himself no lon^ev in a capacity to render his majesty any service, thought it expedient to preserve himself; and in April 1646 embarked with lord Culpeper and colonel Monk for France, but as he had many rich relations who had interest with those in power, they interposed in his favour; and as sir Nicholas perceived that he could be of no service to the royal cause abroad, h did not look upon it as any deviation from his duty, to return and live quietly at home. Accordingly, having submitted to a composition, he came back to London, to retrieve his shattered fortunes, and very soon engaged again in business, with the same spirit and success as before. In this season of prosperity he was not unmindful of the wants of Charles II. but contributed cheerfully to his relief, when his affairs seemed to be in the most desperate condition. After the death of Oliver Cromwell, he was instrumental in reconciling many to their duty, and so well were his principles known, and so much his influence apprehended, that when it was proposed that the royalists in and about London should sign an instrument signifying their inclination to preserve the public tranquillity, he was called upon, and very readily subscribed it. He was also principally concerned in bringing the city of London, in her corporate capacity, to give the encouragement that was requisite to leave general Monk without any difficulties or suspicion as to the sincerity and unanimity of their inclinations. It was therefore very natural, after reading the king’s letter and declaration in common-council, May 3d, 1660, to think of sending some members of their own body to preSent their duty to his majesty; and having appointed nine aldermen and their recorder, they added sir Nicholas Crispe, with several other worthy persons, to the committee, that the king might receive the more satisfaction from their sentiments being delivered by several of those who had suffered deeply in his own and in his father’s cause. His majesty accordingly received these gentlemen very graciously, as a committee, and afterwards testified to them separately the sense he had of their past services, and upon his return, sir Nicholas Crispe and sir John Wolstenholme, were re-instated as farmers of the customs. Sir Nicholas was now in years, and somewhat infirm, spent a great part of his time at his noble country seat near Hammersmith, where he was in some measure the founder of the chapel, and having an opportunity of returning the tbligation he had received from some of his relations, he procured for them that indemnity from the king, gratis, for which he had so dearly paid during the rebellion. The last testimony he received of his royal master’s favour, was his being created a baronet, April 16th, 1665, which he did not long survive, dying February 26th, the next year, in the sixty-seventh year of his age, leaving a very large estate to his grandson, sir Nicholas Crispe. His corpse was interred with his ancestors, in the parish church of St. Mildred, in Bread-street, and his funeral sermon was preached by his reverend and learned kinsman Mr. Crispe, of Christ-church, Oxford. But his heart was sent to the chapel at Hammersmith, where there is a short and plain inscription upon a cenotaph erected to his memory; or rather upon that monument which himself erected in grateful commemoration of king Charles I. as the inscription placed there in sir Nicholas’s life-time tells us, under which, after his decease, was placed a small white marble urn, upon a black pedestal, containing his heart.

, a very eminent statesman, and secretary of state in the reign of queen Elizabeth, was, if not a native of Scotland, at least descended from those who were, as himself professed to sir James Mel vile. At what time he came into the court of queen Elizabeth, or in what state, is uncertain. It is most probable, that his parts and learning, together with that extraordinary diligence and wonderful address for which he was always distinguished, recommended him to Mr. Killigrew, afterwards sir Henry Kiiligrew, with whom he went in quality of secretary, at the time he was sent into Scotland, to compliment queen Mary upon the birth of her son. This was in 1566, and there is a good reason to believe that he remained from that time about the court, and was employed in several affairs of great consequence. In 1575, when the states of Brabant and Flanders assumed to themselves the administration of all affairs till his catholic majesty should appoint a new governor of the Low Countries, Mr. Davison was sent over with a public character from the queen to those states, under the plausible pretence of exhorting them to continue in their obedience to his catholic majesty; but, in reality, to see how things actually stood in that part of the world, that her majesty might be the better able to know how to proceed in respect to the several applications made to her from the prince of Orange, and the people of Holland. He executed this commission very successfully, and therefore the queen sent him over as her minister, to pacify the troubles that had arisen at Ghent; and when his presence was no longer necessary there, he was commissioned on her behalf to the States of Holland, in 1579. His conduct there gave equal satisfaction to the queen his mistress, and to those with whom he negotiated. He gave them great hopes of the queen’s assistance and support, and when a sum of money was desired, as absolutely necessary towards providing for their defence, he very readily undertook to procure it upon reasonable security; in consequence of which, a very considerable sum was sent from England, for which all the valuable jewels and fine plate that had been pledged by Matthias of Austria to the States of Holland, and which were the remains of the magnificence of the house of Burgundy, were transported to England. These journies, and the success attending them, gave Mr. Davison great reputation at court, insomuch, that in all matters of a nice and difficult nature, Davison was some way or other continually employed. Thus in 1583, when matters wore a serious aspect in Scotland, he was sent thither as the queen’s ambassador, in order to counteract the French ministers, and to engage the king of Scots and the people, both to slight the offers made them from that country, and to depend wholly upon assistance from England. Affairs in the Low Countries coming at last to a crisis, and the states resolving to depend upon queen Elizabeth, in the bold design they had formed of defending their freedom by force of arms, and rendering themselves independent, Mr. Davison, at this time clerk of the privy council, was chosen to manage this delicate business, and to conclude with them that alliance which was to be the basis of their future undertakings. In this, which, without question, was one of the most perplexed transactions in that whole reign, he conducted things with such a happy dexterity, as to merit the strongest acknowledgments on the part of the States, at the same time that he rendered the highest service to the queen his mistress, and obtained ample security for those expences which that princess thought necessary in order to keep danger at a distance, and to encourage the flames of war in the dominions of her enemy, whom at that juncture she knew to be meditating how he might transfer them into her own. Upon the return of Mr. Davison into England, after the conclusion of this treaty, he was declared of the privy-council, and appointed one of her majesty’s principal secretaries of state, in conjunction with sir Francis Walsingham; so that, at this time, these offices may be affirmed to have been as well filled as in any period that can be assigned in our history, and yet by persons of very different, or rather opposite dispositions; for Walsingham was a man of great art and intrigue, one who was not displeased that he was thought such a person, and whose capacity was still deeper than 'those who understood it best apprehended it to be. Davison, on the other hand, had a just reputation for wisdom and probity; and, though he had been concerned in many intricate affairs, yet he preserved a character so unspotted, that, to the time he came into this office, he had done nothing that could draw upon him the least imputation. It is an opinion countenanced by Camden, and which has met with general acceptance, that he was raised in order to be ruined, and that, when he was made secretary of state, there was a view of obliging him to go out of his depth in that matter, which brought upon him all his misfortunes. This conjecture is very plausible, and yet there is good reason to doubt whether it is well founded. Mr. Davison had attached himself, during the progress of his fortunes, to the potent earl of Leicester; and it was chiefly to his favour and interest that he stood indebted for this high employment, in which, if he was deceived by another great statesman, it could not be said that he was raised and ruined by the same hands. But there is nothing more probable than that the bringing about such an event by an instrument which his rival had raised, and then removing him, and rendering his parts useless to those who had raised him, gave a double satisfaction to him who managed this design. It is an object of great curiosity to trace the principal steps of this transaction, which was, without doubt, one of the finest strokes of political management in that whole reign. When the resolution was taken, in the beginning of October 1586, to bring the queen of Scots? to a trial, and a commission was issued for that purpose, secretary Davison’s name was inserted in that commission; but it does not appear that he was present when that commission was opened at Fotheringay castle, on the llth of October, or that he ever assisted there at all. Indeed, the management of that transaction was very wisely left in the hands of those who with so much address had conducted the antecedent business for the conviction of Anthony Babington, and his accomplices, upon the truth and justice of which, the proceedings against the queen of Scots entirely depended. On the 25th of October the sentence was declared in the star-chamber, things proceeding still in the same channel, and nothing particularly done by secretary Davison. On the 29th of the same month the parliament met, in which Serjeant Puckering was speaker of the house of commons; and, upon an application from both houses, queen Elizabeth caused the sentence to be published, which, soon after, was notified to the queen of Scots; yet hitherto all was transacted by the other secretary, who was considered by the nation in general as the person who had led this prosecution from beginning to end. The true meaning of this long and solemn proceeding was certainly to remove, as far as possible, any reflection upon queen Elizabeth; and, that it might appear in the most conspicuous manner to the world, that she was urged, and even constrained to take the life of the queen of Scots, instead of seeking or desiring it. This assertion is not founded upon conjecture, but is a direct matter of fact; for, in her first answer to the parliament, given at Richmond the 12th of November, she complained that the late act had brought her into a great strait, by obliging her to give directions for that queen’s death; and upon the second application, on the 24th of the same month, the queen enters largely into the consequences that must naturally follow upon her taking that step, and on the consideration of them, grounds her returning no definitive resolution, even to this second application. The delay which followed after the publication of the sentence, gave an opportunity for the French king, and several other princes, to interpose, but more especially to king James, whose ambassadors, and particularly sir Robert Melvile, pressed the queen very hard. Camden says, that his ambassadors unseasonably mixing threatenings with intreaties, they were not very welcome; so that after a few days the ambassadors were dismissed, with small hopes of succeeding. But we are elsewhere told, that, when Melvile requested a respite of execution for eight days, she answered, “Not an hour.” This seemed to be a plain declaration of her majesty’s final determination, and such in all probability it was, so that her death being resolved, the only point that remained under debate was, how she should die, that is, whether by the hand of an executioner, or otherwise. In respect to this, the two secretaries seem to have been of different sentiments. Mr. Davison thought the forms of justice should go on, and the end of this melancholy transaction correspond with the rest of the proceedings. Upon this, sir Francis Walsingham pretended sickness, and did not come to court, and by this means the whole business of drawing and bringing the warrant to the queen to sign, fell upon Davison, who, pursuant to the queen’s directions, went through it in the manner that Camden has related. But it is very remarkable, that, while these judicial steps were taking, the other method, to which the queen herself seemed to incline, proceeded also, and secretary Walsingham, notwithstanding his sickness, wrote the very day the warrant was signed, which was Wednesday, February 1st, 1586-7, to sir Amiss Pawlet and sir Drew Drury, to put them in mind of the association, as a thing that might countenance, at least, if not justify, this other way of removing the queen of Scots. It is true, that Mr. Davison subscribed this letter, and wrote another to the same persons two days after; but it appears plainly from the anssver, that the keepers of the queen of Scots considered the motion as coming from Walsingharn. The warrant being delivered to the lords of the council, they sent it down by Mr. Beale, their clerk, a man of sour and stubborn temper, and who had always shewn a great bitterness against the queen of Scots. The day of his departure does not appear; but queen Mary had notice given her on the Monday, to prepare for death on the Wednesday, which she accordingly suffered. As soon as queen Elizabeth was informed of it, she expressed great resentment against her council, forbad them her presence and the court; and caused some of them to be examined, as if she intended to call them to an account for the share they had in this transaction. We are not told particularly who these counsellors were, excepting the lord treasurer Burleigh, who fell into a temporary disgrace about it, and was actually a witness against Mr. Davison. As for the earl of Leicester and secretary Walsingharn, they had prudently withdrawn themselves at the last act of the tragedy, and took care to publish so much, by their letters into Scotland; but secretary Davison, upon whom it was resolved the whole weight of this business should fall, v.-deprived of his office, and sent prisoner to the Tower, at which nobody seerus to have been so much alarmed as the lord treasurer, who, though himself at that time in disgrace, wrote to the queen in strong terms, and once intended to have written in much stronger. This application bad no effect, for the queen having sent her kinsman Mr. Cary, son to the lord Hunsdon, into Scotland, to excuse the matter to king James, charged with a letter to him under her own hand, in which she in the strongest terms possible asserted her own innocence, there was a necessity of doing something that Davison[?] carry an air of evidence, in support of the turn she had now given to the death of that princess. On the 28th of March following, Davison, after having undergone various examinations, was brought to his trial in the star chamber, for the contempt of which he had been guilty, in revealing the queen’s counsels to her privy counsellors, and performing what he understood to be the duty of his office in quality of her secretary. We have several accounts of this trial, which, in a variety of circumstances, differ from each other. In this, however, they all agree, that the judges, who fined him ten thousand marks, and imprisonment during the queen’s pleasure, gave him a very high character, and declared him to be, in their opinions, both an able ana an honest man. One thing is very remarkable, that, in the conclusion of this business, sir Christopher Wray, chief justice of the queen’s bench, told the court, that though the queen had been offended with her council, and had left them to examination, yet now she forgave them, being satisfied that they were misled b? this man’s suggestions. Sir James Melvile, who wrote at that time, and who seems to have had some prejudice against Davison, said very candidly and fairly upon this occasion, that he was deceived by the council. As soon as the proceeding was over, the queen, to put it out of doubt with the king of Scots, that his mother was put to death without her privity or intention, sent him the judgment given against Davison, subscribed by those who had given it, and exemplified under the great seal, together with another instrument, under the hands of all the judges of England, that the sentence against his mother could not in the least prejudice his title to the succession. As for Mr. Davison, now left to a strange reward for his past services, a long imprisonment, which reduced him to indigence, he comforted himself with the thoughts of his innocence; and, to secure his memory from being blasted by that judgment which had withered his fortune, he had long before written an apology for his own conduct, which he addressed to secretary Walsingham, as the man most interested in it, and who could best testify whether what he affirmed was truth or not. In this he gave a very clear and natural detail of the transaction which cost him all his sufferings. It is allowed by all who have written on this subject, and especially by Camden, that he was a very unhappy, though at the same time a very capable and honest man. As such we have seen him recommended to queen Elizabeth by the treasurer Burleigh, and as such he was strongly recommended by the earl of Essex to king James I. It seems, that noble person stuck fast by him under his misfortunes, which plainly shews the party to which he had always adhered. That lord lost no opportunity of soliciting the queen in his favour, and never let slip any occasion of testifying for him the warmest and thesincerest affection. At length, it seems he was not altogether unsuccessful; for though, upon the death of secretary Walsingham, the queen absolutely rejected his motion, that Mr. Davison should come into his place, yet, afterwards, it seems that she yielded in some degree, as plainly appears by the earl’s letter to king James. That we are under an incapacity of tracing him farther, is owing to the profound silence of the writers of those times.

, a very eminent English printer in the sixteenth century, was born in St. Peter’s parish, Dunwich, in Suffolk, and is supposed to have descended from a good family in that county. From whom he learned the art of printing, is not clear, unless perhaps Gibson, one of whose devices Day frequently used. He first began printing about 1544, a little above Holborn Conduit, and at that time was in conjunction with William Seres. In 1549 he removed into Aldersgate-street, near St. Anne’s church, where he built a printing-office, but kept shops in various parts of the town, where his books were sold. It would appear that he forbore printing during the reign of queen Mary, yet continued improving himself in the art, as was evident by his subsequent publications. He was the first in England who printed the Saxon letter, and brought that of Greek to great perfection, as well as the Italic and other characters, of which he had great variety. Archbishop Parker, who frequently employed him, considered him as excelling his brethren in skill and industry. He was the first person admitted into the livery of the Stationers’ company, after they obtained their charter from Philip and Mary, was chosen warden in 1564, 1566, 1571, and 1575, and master in 1580. In 1583 he yielded up to the disposal of the company, for the relief of their poor, his right to certain books and copies. He died July 23, 1584, after having followed the business of a printer with great reputation and success for forty years, and was buried in the parish church of Bradley Parva, in the county of Suffolk, with a monument on which are inlaid the effigies of him, his wife, and family, and some lines, cut in the old English letter, intimating his services in the cause of the reformation by his various publications, especially of Fox’s Acts and Monuments; and that he had two wives, and numerous children by both. Besides Fox, he printed several valuable editions of the Bible, of the works of the martyrs, of Ascham, and other then accounted standard authors.

, a very eminent French architect, was born at Paris in 1653, and in 1674 was commissioned by Colbert to go to Home with some other academicians, but in the voyage they had the misfortune to be taken by a pirate and carried into Algiers, where they remained for sixteen months, until redeemed by the king of France’s orders. He then went with his companions ta Rome, where he applied with singular assiduity to the survey of the ancient buildings of that metropolis. He informs us, that when he undertook to measure the antiquities of Rome, his chief intention was, to learn which of the authors jn most esteem ought to be followed, as having given the most accurate measures; but he soon found reason to be convinced that they were all extremely defective in point of precision. This fault, however, he candidly imputes not to those authors themselves, but to the workmen who had been employed in their service. To prevent his being led into the same errors, he took the measures of all the ancient structures exactly, with his own hands, and repeated the whole several times, that be might arrive at an absolute certainty; ^causing such of the buildings as were under ground to be cleared, and erecting 'adders and other machines to get at those which were elevated. When, he returned to Paris he communicated his drawings to the members of the royal academy of architecture, and Colbert recommended them to the king, who caused them to be published at his own expence, in a splendid folio volume, 1682, and allotted all the profits to the author. The plates of this work remained in the family of a connoisseur until 1779, when they were purchased of his heirs for a new edition; but before this, in 1771, Mr. Marshal published a splendid edition at London, with the descriptions in French and English. In 1776 “Le Lois des Batimens” was printed from his manuscripts. In 1680 Colbert promoted him to the office of comptroller of the royal buildings at Chamber, but in 1694 he was recalled to hold the same office at Paris. In 1699 he was made king’s architect, with a pension of 2000 livres. In 1719 he succeeded M. de la Hire as professor of architecture, and commenced a course of lectures in June of that year, which he continued with great applause and success until his death, May 20, 1728. He was a man of an amiable and estimable character in private life.

, a very eminent divine, descended of a noble family of Lucca, was born June 6, 1576; but of his early years we have no information. When, however, he was only nineteen years of age, we find him appointed professor of Hebrew at Geneva. In 1619 the church of Geneva sent him to the synod of Dort, with his colleague Theodore Tronchin. Diodati gained so much reputation in this synod, that he was chosen, with five other divines, to prepare the Belgic confession of faith. He was esteemed an excellent divine, and a good preacher. His death happened at Geneva, Oct. 3, 1649, in his seventy-third year, and was considered as a public loss. He has rendered himself noticed by some works which he published, but particularly by his translation of the whole Bible into Italian, the first edition of which he published, with notes, in 1607, at Geneva, and reprinted in 16 n. The New Testament was printed separately at Geneva in 1608, and at Amsterdam and Haerlem in 1665. M. Simon observes, that his method is rather that of a divine and a preacher, than of a critic, by which he means only, that his work is more of a practical than a critical kind. He translated the Bible also into French, but not being so intimate with that language, he is not thought to have succeeded so well as in the Italian. This translation was printed in folio, at Geneva, in 1664. He was also the first who translated into French father Paul’s “History of the Council of Trent,” and many have esteemed this a more faithful translation than de la Houssaye’s, although less elegant in language. He also is said to have translated sir Edwin Sandys’ book on the “State of Religion in the West.” But the work by which he is best known in this country is his Annotations on the Bible, translated into English, of which the third and best edition was published in 1651, fol. He is said to have begun writing these annotations in 1606, at which time it was expected that Venice would have shaken off the popish yoke, a measure to which he was favourable; and he went on improving them in his editions of the Italian and French translations. This work was at one time time very popular in England, and many of the notes of the Bible, called the “Assembly of Divines’ Annotations,” were taken from Diodati literally. Diodati was at onetime in England, as we learn from the life of bishop Bedell, whom he was desirous to become acquainted with, and introduced him to Dr. Morton, bishop of Durham. From Morrice’s “State Letters of the right hon. the earl of Orrery,” we learn that when invited to preach at Venice, he was obliged to equip himself in a trooper’s habit, a scarlet cloak with a sword, and in that garb he mounted the pulpit; but was obliged to escape again to Geneva, from the wrath of a Venetian nobleman, whose mistress, affected by one of Diqdati'a sermons, had refused to continue her connection with her keeper. The celebrated Milton, also, contracted a friendship for Diodati, when on his travels; and some of his Latin elegies are addressed to Charles Diodati, the nepheiv of the divine. This diaries was one of Milton’s most intimate friends, and was the son of Theodore Diodati, who, although originally of Lucca, as well as his brother, married an English lady, and his son in every respect became an Englishman. He was also an excellent scholar, and being educated to his father’s profession, practised physic in Cheshire. He was at St. Paul’s school, with Milton, and afterwards, in 1621, entered of Trinity-college, Oxford. He died in 1638.

, a very eminent artist, was born at Florence in 1616, and was a disciple of Jacopo Vignali. His first attempt was a whole figure of St. John, painted when he was only eleven years of age, which received extraordinary approbation and afterwards he painted the portrait of his mother, which gained him such general applause as placed him in the highest rank of merit. From that time his new and delicate style procured him great employment in Florence, and other cities of Italy, as much, or even more than he was able to execute. This great master was particularly fond of painting sacred subjects, although he sometimes painted portraits. His works are easily distinguished; not so much by any superiority to other renowned artists in design or force, as by a peculiar delicacy with which he perfected all his compositions; by a pleasing tint of colour, improved by a judicious management of the chiaroscuro, which gave his figures a surprising relief; by the graceful airs of his heads; and by a placid repose diffused over the whole. His pencil was tender, his touch inexpressibly neat, and his colouring transparent; though it ought to be observed, that he has often been censured for the excessive labour bestowed on his pictures and carnations, that have more the appearance of ivory than the look of flesh. In his manner of working he was remarkably slow; and it is reported of him that his brain was affected by having seen Luca Giordano dispatch more business in four or five hours, than he could have done in so many months. In the Palazzo Corsini, at Florence, there is a picture of St. Sebastian painted by Carlino Dolce, half figures of the natural size. It is extremely correct in the design, and beautifully coloured; but it is rather too much laboured in regard to the finishing, and hath somewhat of the ivory look in the rlesh colour. In the Palazzo Ricardi is another picture of his, representing the Four Evangelists; the figures are as large as life, at half length; and it is a lovely performance; nor does there appear in it that excessive high finishing for which he is censured. The two best figures are St. Matthew and St. John; but the latter is superior to all; it is excellent in the design, the character admirable, and the whole well executed. There is also a fine picture by him in the Pembroke collection at Wilton, of which the subject is the Virgin it is ornamented with flowers, and those were painted by Mario da Fiori. This artist died at Florence in 1686. His daughter Agnese Dolce was taught painting by him, and strove to imitate him, which, however, she did best by furnishing copies from his numerous pictures. Sir Robert Strange, who had a fine St. Margaret by Carlo, observes, that however perfect, and however studied his pictures are, it must be allowed that he laboured more to please the eye than to enrich the understanding by conveying to it great or noble ideas.

, a celebrated painter, was born at Brussels in 1656, but it is not ascertained from what master he learned the art. He travelled to Italy with his brother-in-law Lewis Deyster, a very eminent artist, with whom he painted in conjunction, during the whole time of his continuance abroad, Deyster executing the figures, and Eeckhout the fruit and flowers, and with such perfect harmony and union, that the difference of their pencils was quite imperceptible. When he returned to Brussels, he received many marks of respect and distinction, and also an appointment to a very honourable station; yet he soon forsook friends, honours, and a certainly of being enriched, and embarked for Italy, where he wished to spend the remainder of his days. But chance conducted him to Lisbon, where his pictures sold for an exceeding high price, as he painted all his subjects in the Italian taste, and, during his residence in Italy, he had taken pains to sketch so many elegant forms of fruits and flowers, that he had a sufficient number for all his future compositions. He had lived at Lisbon about two years, when he married a young lady of quality, and extremely rich. This splendid fortune probably raised him rivals, who were jealous of his prosperity. Being out one day in his coach, he was shot with a ball, of which he instantly died, in 1695; but the cause of this assassination, or who were the authors and perpetrators of it, was never disf covered.

, a very eminent antiquary, and particularly conversant in Greek, Roman, and German antiquities, was born at Bremen May 23, 1639, of a distinguished family. He studied at various seminaries, principally those of Helmstadt and Leipsic, and travelled into Swisserland, Italy, Spain, and France. On his return to his native country in 1679, he was received into the college called the college of ancients, and was deputed by the members of it to go to the imperial court, in order to explain some differences which had arisen between the magistrates and burgesses of Bremen. In this he acquitted himself so much to their satisfaction, that when he returned, in 1679, he was appointed secretary to the republic, an office which he held with great reputation until his death, Feb. 15, 1713. His antiquarian pursuits produced, I. “De nuinismatibus quibusdam abstrusis Neronis, cum Car. Patino per epistolas disquisitio,” Bremen, 1681, 4 to. 2. “Mysteria Cereris et Bacchi, in vasculo ex uno onyche,” ibid. 1682, 4to, reprinted by Gronovius in vol. VII. of his Greek Thesaurus. 3. “Discussio calumniarum Fellerianarum,” 1687, 4to, which Feller had provoked by his “Epicrisis,” and by his “Vindicise adversus Eggelingium,” published at Leipsic, 1685. 4. “De orbe stagneo Antinoi, epistola,” 1691, 4to. 5. “De Miscellaneis Germanise antiquitatibus exercitationes quinque,” 1694 1700.

, a very eminent mathematician, was born May 14, 1701, at Hurvvorth, a village about three miles south of Darlington, on the borders of the county of Durham, at least it is certain he resided here from his childhood. His father, Dutlly Emerson, taught a school, and was a tolerable proficient in the mathematics; and without his books and instructions perhaps his son’s genius might might never have been unfolded. Besides his father’s instructions, our author was assisted in the learned languages by a young clergyman, then curate of Hurworth, who was boarded at his father’s house. In the early part of his life, he attempted to teach a few scholars; but whether from his concise method (for he was not happy in expressing his ideas), or the warmth of his natural temper, he made no progress in his school; he therefore Sood left it oft', and satisfied with a small paternal estate of about 60l. or 70l. a year, devoted himself to study, which he closely pursued in his native place through the course of a long life, being mostly very healthy, till towards the latter part of his days, when he was much afflicted with the stone: towards the close of the year 1781, being sensible of his approaching dissolution, he disposed of the whole of his mathematical library to a bookseller at York, and on May the 26th, 1782, his lingering and painful disorder put an end to his life at his native village, in the eighty-first year of his age. In his person he was rather short, but strong and well-made, with an open countenance and ruddy complexion. He was never known to ask a favour, or seek the acquaintance of a rich man, unless he possessed some eminent qualities of the mind. He was a very good classical scholar, and a tolerable physician, so far as it could be combined with mathematical principles, according to the plan of Keil and Morton. The latter he esteemed above all others as a physician the former as the best anatomist. He was very singular in his behaviour, dress, and conversation. His manners and appearance were that of a rude and rather boorish countryman, he wasof very plain conversation, and indeed seemingly rude, commonly mixing oaths in his sentences. He had strong natural parts, and could discourse sensibly on any subject; but was always positive and impatient of any contradiction. He spent his whole life in close study and writing books; with the profits of which he redeemed his little patrimony from some original incumbrance. He had but one coat, which he always wore open before, except the lower button no waistcoat; his shirt quite the reverse of one in. common use, no opening before, but buttoned close at the collar behind; a kind of flaxen wig which had not a crooked hair in it; and probably had never been tortured with a comb from the time of its being made. This was his dress when he went into company. One hat he made to last him the best part of his lifetime, gradually lessening the flaps, bit by bit, as it lost its elasticity and hung down, till little or nothing but the crown remained. He never rode although he kept a horse, but was frequently seen to lead the horse, with a kind of wallet stuffed with the provisions he had bought at the market. He always walked up to London when he had any thing to publish, revising sheet by sheet himself; trusting no eyes but his own, which was always a favourite maxim with him. He never advanced any mathematical proposition that he had not first tried in practice, constantly making all the different parts himself on a small scale, so that his house was filled with all kinds of mechanical instruments together or disjointed. He would frequently stand up to his middle in water while fishing; a diversion he was remarkably fond of. He used to study incessantly for some time, and then for relaxation take a ramble to any pot ale-house where he could get any body to drink with and talk to. The duke of Manchester was highly pleased with his company, and used often to come to him in the fields and accompany him home, but could never persuade him to get into a carriage. When he wrote his sinall treatise on navigation, he and some of his scholars took a small vessel from Hurworth, and the whole crew soon gotswampt; when Emerson, smiling and alluding to his treatise, said “They must not do as I do, but as I say.” He was a married man; and his wife used to spin on an old-fashioned wheel, of which a very accurate drawing is given in his mechanics. He was deeply skilled in the science of music, the theory of sounds, and the various scales both ancient and modern, but was a very poor performer. He carried that singularity which marked all his actions even into this science. He had, if we may be allowed the expression, two first strings to his violin, which, he said, made the E more melodious when they were drawn up to a perfect unison. His virginal, which is a species of instrument like the modern spinnet, he had cut and twisted into various shapes in the keys, by adding some occasional half-tones in order to regulate the present scale, and to rectify some fraction of discord that will always remain in the tuning. He never could get this regulated to his fancy, and generally concluded by saying, 4< It was a bad instrument, and a foolish thing to be vexed with."

, a very eminent mathematician, was born at Basil, on the 14th of April, 1707: he was the son of Paul Euler and of Margaret Brucker (of a family illustrious in literature), and spent the first year of his life at the village of Richen, of which place his father was protestant minister. Being intended for the church, his father, who had himself studied under James Bernoulli!, taught him mathematics, as a ground-work of his other studies, or at least a noble and useful secondary occupation. But Euler, assisted and perhaps secretly encouraged by John Bernoulli, who easily discovered that he would be the greatest scholar he should ever educate, soon declared his intention of devoting his life to that pursuit. This intention the wise father did not thwart, but the son did not so blindly adhere to it, as not to connect with it a more than common improvement in every other kind of useful learn-, ing, insomuch that in his latter days men often wondered how with such a superiority in one branch, he could have been so near to eminence in all the rest. Upon the foundation of the academy of sciences at St. Petersburgh, in, 1723, by Catherine I. the two younger Bernouillis, NichoJas and Daniel, had gone thither, promising, when they set out, to endeavour to procure Euler a place in it: they accordingly wrote to him soon after, to apply his mathetics to physiology, which he did, and studied under the best naturalists at Basil, but at the same time, i. e. in 1727, published a dissertation on the nature and propagation of sound; and an answer to the question on the masting of ships, which the academy of sciences at Paris judged worthy of the accessit. Soon after this, he was called to St. Petersburgh, and declared adjutant to the mathematical class in the academy, a class, in which, from the circumstances of the times (Newton, Leibnitz, and so many other eminent scholars being just dead), no easy laurels were to be gathered. Nature, however, who had organized so many mathematical heads at one time, was not yet tired of her miracles and she added Euler to the number. He indeed was much wanted the science of the calculus integralis, hardly come out of the hands of its creators, was still too near the stage of its infancy not to want to be made more perfect. Mechanics, dynamics, and especially hydrodynamics, and the science of the motion of the heavenly bodies, felt the imperfection. The application of the differential calculus, to them, had been sufficiently successful; but there were difficulties whenever it was necessary to go from the fluxional quantity to the fluent. With regard to the nature and properties of numbers, the writings of Fermat (who had been so successful in them), and together with these all his profound researches, were lost. Engineering and navigation were reduced to vague principles, and were founded on a heap of often contradictory observations, rather than a regular theory. The irregularities in the motions of the celestial bodies, and especially the complication of forces whitfh influence that of the moon, were still the disgrace of geometers. Practical astronomy had jet to wrestle with the imperfection of telescopes, insomuch, that it could hardly be said that any rule for making them existed. Euler turned his eyes to all these objects he perfected the calculus integralis he was the inventor of a new kind of calculus, that of sines he simplified analytical operations and, aided by these powerful help-mates, and the astonishing facility with which he knew how to subdue expressions the most intractable, he threw a new light on all the branches of the mathematics. But at Catherine’s death the academy was threatened with extinction, by men who knew not the connection which arts and sciences have with the happiness of a people. Euler was offered and accepted a lieutenancy on board one of the empress’s ships, with the promise of speedy advancement. Luckily things changed, and the learned captain again found his own element, and was named Professor of Natural Philosophy in 1733, in the room of his friend John Bernouilli. The number of memoirs which Euler produced, prior to this period, is astonishing, but what he did in 1735 is almost incredible, An important calculation was to be made, without loss of time; the other academicians had demanded some months to do it. Euler asked three days—in three days he did it; but the fatigne threw him into a fever, and the fever left him not without the loss of an eye, an admonition which would have made an ordinary man more sparing of the other. The great revolution, produced by the discovery of fluxions, had entirely changed the face of mechanics; still, however, there was no complete work on the science of motion, two or three only excepted, of which Euler felt the insufficiency. He saw, with pain, that the best works on the subject, viz. “Newton’s Principia,” and “Herman’s Phoronomia,” concealed the method by which these great men had come at so many wonderful discoveries, under a synthetic veil. In order to lift this up, Euler employed all the resources of that analysis which had served him so well on so many other occasions; and thus uniting his own discoveries to those of other geometers, had them published by the academy in 1736. To say that clearness, precision, and order, are the characters of this work, would be barely to say, that it is, what without these qualities no work can be, classical of its kind. It placed Euler in the rank of the first geometricians then existing, and this at a time when John Bernouilli was still living. Such labours demanded some relaxation; the only one which Euler admitted was music, but even to this he could not go without the spirit of geometry with him. They produced together the essay on a new theory of music, which was published in 1739, but not very well received, probably, because it contains too much geometry for a musician, and too much music for a geometrician. Independently, however, of the theory, which is built on Pythagorean principles, there are many things in it which may be of service, both to composers, and to makers of instruments. The doctrine, likewise, of the genera and the modes of music is here cleared up with all the clearness and precision which mark the works of Euler. Dr. Burney remarks, that upon the whole, Euler seems not to have invented much in this treatise; and to have done little more than arrange and methodize former discoveries in a scientific and geometric manner. He may, indeed, not have known what antecedent writers had discovered before; and though not the first, yet to have imagined himself an inventor. In 1740, his genius was again called forth by the academy of Paris (who, in 1738, had adjudged the prize to his paper on the nature and properties of fire) to discuss the nature of the tides, an important question, which demanded a prodigious extent of calculations, aud an entire new system of the world. This prize Euler did not gain alone; but he divided it with Maclaurin and D. Bernouilli, forming with them a triumvirate of candidates, which the realms of science had not often beheld. The agreement of the several memoirs of Euler and Bernouilli, on this occasion, is very remarkable. Though the one philosopher had set out on the principle of admitting vortices, which the other rejected, they not only arrived at the same end of the journey, but met several times on the road; for instance, in the determination of the tides under the frozen zone. Philosophy, indeed, led these two great men by different paths; Bernouilli, who had more patience than his friend, sanctioned every physical hypothesis he was obliged to make, by painful and laborious experiment. These Euler’s impetuous genius scorned; and, though his natural sagacity did not always supply the loss, he made amends by his superiority in analysis, as often as there was any occasion to simplify expressions, to adapt them to practice, and to recognize, by final formulae, the nature of the result. In 1741, Euler received some very advantageous propositions from Frederic the Second (who had just ascended the Prussian throne), to go and assist him in forming an academy of sciences, out of the wrecks of the Royal Society founded by Leibnitz. With these offers the tottering state of the St. Petersburgh academy, under the regency, made it necessary for the philosopher to comply. He accordingly illumined the last volume of the “Melanges de Berlin,” with five essays, which are, perhaps, the best things in it, and contributed largely to the academical volumes, the first of which was published in 1744. No part of his multifarious labours is, perhaps, a more wonderful proof of the extensiveness and facility of his genius, than what he executed at Berlin, at a time when he contrived also that the Petersburgh acts should not suffer from the loss of him. In 1744, Euler published a complete treatise of isoperimetrical curves. The same year beheld the theory of the motions of tb.e planets and comets; the well-known theory of magnetism, which gained the Paris prize; and the much-amended translation of Robins’ s “Treatise on Gunnery.” In 1746, his “Theory of Light and Colours” overturned Newton’s “System of Emanations;” as did another work, at that time triumphant, the “Monads of Wolfe and Leibnitz.” Navigation was now the only branch of useful knowledge, for which the labours of analysis and geometry had done nothing. The hydrographical part alone, and that which relates to the direction of the course of ships, had been treated by geometricians conjointly with nautical astronomy. Euler was the first who conceived and executed the project of making this a complete science. A memoir on the motion of floating bodies, communicated to the academy of St. Petersburgh, in 1735, by M. le Croix, first gave him this idea. His researches on the equilibrium of ships furnished him with the means of bringing the stability to a determined measure. His success encouraged him to go on, and produced the great work which the academy published in 1749, in which we find, in systematic order, the most sublime notions on the theory of the equilibrium and mo. tion of floating bodies, and on the resistance of fluids. This was followed by a second part, which left nothing to be desired on the subject, except the turning it into a language easy of access, and divesting it of the calculations which prevented its being of general use. Accordingly in 1773, from a conversation with admiral Knowles, and other assistance, out of the “Scientia Navalis,” 2 vols. 4to, was produced, the “Theorie complette de la Construction et de la Manoeuvre des Vaisseaux.” This work was instantly translated into all languages, and the author received a present of 6000 livres from the French king: he had before had 300l. from the English parliament, for the theorems, by the assistance of which Meyer made his lunar tables . And now it was time to collect into one systematical and continued work, all the important discoveries on the infinitesimal analysis, which Euler had been making for thirty years, and which lay dispersed in the memoirs of the different academies. This, accordingly, the professor undertook; but he prepared the way by an elementary work, containing all the previous requisites for this study. This is called “An Introduction to the analysis of Infinitesimals,” and is a work in which the author has exhausted all the doctrine of fractions, whether algebraical or transcendental, by shewing their transformation, their resolution, and their developernent. This introduction was soon, followed by the author’s several lessons on the “calculus integralis, and differentialis.” Having engaged himself to count Orlow, to furnish the academy with papers sufficient to fill their volumes for twenty years after his death, the philosopher is likely to keep his word, having presented seventy papers, through Mr. Golofkin, in the course of his life, and left two hundred and fifty more behind him; nor is there one of these that does not contain a discovery, or something that may lead to one. The most ancient of these memoirs form the collection then published, under the title of “Opuscula Analytica.” Such were Euler’s labours, and these his titles to immortality His memory shall endure till science herself is no more! Few men of letters have written so much as Euler no geometrician, has ever embraced so many objects at one time or has equalled him, either in the variety or magnitude of his discoveries. When we reflect on the good such men do their fellow-creatures, we cannot help indulging a wish (vain, alas as it is) for their illustrious course to be prolonged beyond the term allotted to mankind. Euler’s, though it has had an end, was very long and very honourable; and it affords us some consolation for his loss, to think that he enjoyed it exempt from the ordinary consequences of extraordinary application, and that his last labours abounded in proofs of that vigour of understanding which marked his early days, and which he preserved to his end. Some swimmings in the head, which seized him on the first days of September, 1783, did not prevent his laying hold of a few facts, which reached him through the channel of the public papers, to calculate the motions of the aerostatical globes; and he even compassed a very difficult integration, in which the calculation had engaged him . But the decree was gone forth: on the 7th of September he talked with Mr. Lexell, who had come to dine with him, of the new planet, and discoursed with him upon other subjects, with his usual penetration. He was playing with one of his grand-children at tea-time, when he was seized with an apoplectic fit. “I am dying,” said he, before he lost his senses; and he ended his glorious life a few hours after, aged seventy-six years, five months, and three days. His latter days were tranquil and serene. A few infirmities excepted, which are the inevitable lot of an advanced age, he enjoyed a share of health which allowed him to give little time to repose. Euler possessed to a great degree what is commonly called erudition he had read all the Latin classics was perfect master of ancient mathematical literature and had the history of all ages, and all nations, even to the minutest facts, ever present to his mind. Besides this, he knew much more of physic, botany, and chemistry, than could be expected from any man who had not made these sciences his peculiar occupation. “I have seen,” says his biographer, Mr. Fuss, “strangers go from him with a kind of surprise mixed with admiration; they could not conceive how a man, who for half a century had seemed taken up in making and publishing discoveries in natural philosophy and mathematics, could have found means to preserve so much knowledge that seemed useless to himself, and foreign to the studies in which he was engaged. This was the effect of a happy memory, that lost nothing of what had ever been entrusted to it nor was it a wonder that the man who was able to repeat the whole Æneis, and to point out to his hearers the first and last verses of every page of his own edition of it, should not have lost what he had learned, at an age when the impressions made upon us are the strongest. Nothing can equal the ease with which, without expressing the least degree of ill-humour, he could quit his abstruse meditations, and give himself up to the general amusements of society. The art of not appearing wise above one’s fellows, of descending to the level of those with whom one lives, is too rare in these days not to make it a merit in Euler to have possessed it. A temper ever equal, a natural and easy chearfulness, a species of satirical wit, tempered with urbane humanity, the art of telling a story archly, and with simplicity, made his conversation generally sought. The great fund of vivacity which he had at all times possessed, and without which, indeed, the activity we have just been admiring could not have existed, carried him sometimes away, and he was apt to grow warm, but his anger left him as quickly as it came on, and there never has existed a man to whom he bore malice. He possessed a precious fund of rectitude and probity. The sworn enemy of injustice, whenever or by whomsoever committed, he used to censure and attack it, without the least attention to the rank or riches of the offender. Recent examples of this are in the recollection of all who hear me.” As he was filled with respect for religion, his piety was sincere, and his devotion full of fervour. He went through all his Christian duties with the greatest attention. Euler loved all mankind, and if he ever felt a motion of indignation, it was against the enemy of religion, particularly against the declared apostles of infidelity. He was of a very religious turn of mind. He published a New Demonstration of the Existence of God, and of the Spirituality of the Soul, which last has been admitted into several divinity schools as a standard book. With scrupulous exactness he adhered to the religion of his country, that of Calvinism, and, fortified by its principles, he was a good husband, a good father, a good friend, a good citizen, a good member of private society.

, a very eminent lawyer, and upright magistrate, was born at Gripskerque, in the island of Walcheren, in 1462, and studied law at Louvain under Arnold de Bek, and Peter de Themis, whose praises for profound knowledge he has celebrated in his “Topica juris.” In 1493 he took his doctor’s degree, and acquired so much reputation that Erasmus, in a letter to Bernard Buchon, pronounces him a man born for the good and service of his country. Everard’s first public situation was at Brussels, where he was appointed judge in ecclesiastical causes under Henry de Berg, bishop and prince of Cambray: he was then, although not in any of the ecclesiastical orders, presented to the deanry of the collegiate church of St. Peter of Anderlechten, in that city. In 1505 being invited to Mechlin, he was first appointed assessor of the grand Belgic council, and afterwards left that place to become president of the supreme council of Holland and Zealand. During the eighteen years that he executed this important trust, his whole conduct was so marked by profound knowledge, and upright decision, that in 1528, the emperor Charles V. recalled him to Mechlin to exercise the same functions. All who speak of him represent him as a man totally uninfluenced by any interest, or motives of favour, who admitted no solicitations from power or friendship, and administered strict justice without ever giving the laws an inclination that they did not fairly bear, whether the party concerned was poor or rich. He died at Mechlin, Aug. 9, 1532, in his seventieth year. His works were, 1. “Topica juris, sive loci argumentorum legales,” of which he printed the first part or century, at Louvain, in 1516, fol. This he afterwards reviewed and enlarged, and it was published by his sons in 1552, at Louvain, and reprinted in 1568 and 1579, at Lyons, and in 1591 at Francfort. It was afterwards abridged by Abraham Marconet, and published in that form at Magdeburgh, 1655, 12mo. 2. “Consilia, sive responsa juris,” Louvain, 1554, fol. and at Antwerp, 1577, enlarged and corrected by Molengrave. There are also other editions of 1643, &c. By his wife Elissa Bladelle of Mechlin, he left three daughters, one of whom, Isabella, whq became a nun, was celebrated for her learning and knowledge of the Latin language, and five sons, all of considerable eminence in the literary world; Peter Jerome, a religious of the order of the Premonstratenses, a doctor of the civil and canon law at Louvain, and afterwards abbot of St. Mary of Middlebourgh; Nicolas, first, president of the supreme council of Friesland, and afterwards successor to his father in the office of president of the grand council of Mechlin Nicolas Grudius Adrian Marius, and John Secundus. Of these last three, some notice will be taken here, as more suitable to the family connection than under the articles Grudius and Secundus, where they have hitherto been placed.

Secundus having nearly attained the age of twenty-one, and being determined, as it would seem; to comply as far as possible with the wishes of his father, quitted Mechlin, and went to France, where at Bourges, a city in the Orleanois, he studied the civil law under the celebrated Andreas Alciatus, who was particularly endeared to our author by his general acquaintance with polite literature, and especially by his taste in poetry. Having studied a year tinder this eminent civilian, and taken his degrees, he returned to Mechlin, where he remained only a very few months. In 1533 he went into Spain with warm recommendations to the count of Nassau and other persons of high rank; and soon afterwards became secretary to the cardinal archbishop of Toledo, in a department of business which required no other qualifications than what he possessed in a very eminent degree, a facility in writing with elegance the Latin language. It was during his residence with this cardinal that he wrote his “Basia,” a series of amatory poems, of which the fitih, seventh, and ninth carmina of Catullus seem to have given the hint. Secundus was not, however, a servile imitator of Catullus. His expressions seem to be borrowed rather from Tibullus and Propertius; and in the warmth of his descriptions he has the disgrace to exceed all former writers.

, a very eminent English astronomer, was born of reputable parents at Denby in Derbyshire, Aug. 19, 1646. He was educated at the free-school of Derby, where his father lived; and at fourteen was visited with a severe fit of sickness, which being followed by other distempers, operating upon a very delicate constitution, prevented his going to the university, as was designed. He was taken from school in 1662, and within * month or two after had Sacrobosco’s book “De Sphscra,” put into his hand, which he set himself to read without any director. This accident, and the leisure that attended it, laid the groundwork of all that mathematical and astronomical knowledge, for which he became afterwards so justly celebrated. He had already perused a great deal of history, ecclesiastical, as well as civil: but astronomy was entirely new to him, and he found great pleasure in it. Having translated as much from Sacrobosco, as he thought necessary, he proceeded to make dials by the direction of such ordinary books as he could get together; and having changed a volume of astrology, found among his father’s books, for Mr. Street’s Caroline Tables, he undertook to calculate the places of the planets, but found very little help from that concise author.

, a very eminent Scottish lawyer, was born at Culloden, in the county of Inverness, in 1685, and educated in the university of Edinburgh, whence he removed to Utrecht, and afterwards to Paris, where he studied the civil law. He returned, in 1710, to Scotland, and was called to the bar in the court of session. His abilities as an advocate were soon noticed, and he obtained great practice. In 1717, he was appointed solicitor-general of Scotland. In 1722, he was returned member for the county of Inverness; and in 1725, was promoted to the dignity of lord-advocate. He was further advanced in 1742, to be lord-president of the court of session, in which high station he acted with such integrity, that he was esteemed and honoured by his country. During the rebellion in 1745 and 6, he used the utmost of his power to oppose the pretender, and mortgaged his estate to support the government. With great reason he applied to the ministry for a repayment of those expences which he had incurred by his loyalty, and their refusal, undoubtedly a stain on the history of the times, is said to have operated so strongly upon his mind, as to produce a fever, of which he died in 1747, at the age of 62. His writings were chiefly on theological subjects, without any reference to his profession; they are, 1. “Thoughts on Religion.” 2. “A Letter to a Bishop.” 3. “Reflections on Incredulity,” 1750, in 2 vols. 12mo. Father Houbigant translated the two former of these works into French, but they were not greatly admired in that country; the solidity of the Scottish lawyer could not be expected to suit with the vivacity of French reasoners. Duncan Forbes of Culloden, says a recent biographer, was in all respects one of the most eminent men of his time. His learning was extensive and profound, reaching even to the oriental languages; and he had that acuteness and subtlety of parts, which is peculiarly fitted for the nice discriminations of the law; but which was always regulated in him by the prevailing principles of his nature, probity, candour, and a strong sense of the beauty of virtue and moral excellence. In the eloquence of the bar, he outshone all his contemporaries; for he united to great knowledge of jurisprudence, a quickness of comprehension that discovered to him at once the strong ground of argument which he was to press, or the weakness of the doctrine he wished to assail. When raised to the presidency of the court, the vigour of his intellect, his patience in the hearing of causes, his promptitude in the dispatch of business, the dignity, of his deportment, and above all, the known probity and integrity of his mind, gave the highest weight to the decisions of that tribunal over which he presided.

, a very eminent philosopher and mathematician, was born in Milan, April 13, 1727. He was first educated in the schools of the Barnabite fathers in that metropolis; and so uncommon was his progress in the classes, that it was soon predicted by his teachers and schoolfellows, that he would one day excel in polite literature, in poetry, and in pulpit eloquence; nature, however, had more unequivocally designed him to be what he really proved, a philosopher and a mathematician. In 1743, (the sixteenth of his age) he embraced the monastic life among the Barnabites of Lombardy, where he passed so rapidly through all the remainder of his studies, that he had the honour of being appointed, while still in the inferior orders, to the professorship of philosophy in the college of Lodi, and afterwards promoted, in the same capacity, to the royal school of Casale, in Monferrat, as a successor to the late celebrated cardinal Gerdil.,

Galileo wrote a number of treatises, many of which were published in his life-time. Most of them were also collected after his death, and published by Mendessi in 2 vols. 4to, under the title of “L'Opere di Galileo Galilei Lynceo,” in 1656. Some of these, with others of his pieces, were translated into English and published by Thomas Salisbury, in his Mathematical Collections, in 2 vols. folio. A volume also of his letters to several learned men, and solutions of several problems, were printed at Bologna in 4to. His last disciple, Vincenzo Viviani, who proved a very eminent mathematician, methodized a piece of his master’s, and published it under this title, “Quinto libro de gli Elementi d' Euclidi,” &c. at Florence in 1674, 4to. Viviani published some more of Galileo’s things, being extracts from his letters to a learned Frenchman, where he gives an account of the works which he intended to have published, and a passage from a letter of Galileo dated at Arcetri, Oct. 30, 1635, to John Camillo, a mathematician of Naples, concerning the angle of contact. Besides all these, he wrote many other pieces, which were unfortunately lost. Galileo had two daughters and a son by a Greek woman he lived with; the daughters became nuns; one son continued the family, which, Frisi says, is but lately extinct; one turned missionary, and was induced from religious scruples to burn many of his grandfather’s works and the third ran away.

, a very eminent mathematician and philosopher, was born Jan. 22, N. S. 1592, at a village called Chantersier, about three miles from Digne in Provence, in France. His father, Antony Gassendi, a Roman catholic, educated him with great piety, and the first words he learned to pronounce were those of his prayers. This practice made such an impression upon his infant mind, that at four years of age he demonstrated the good effects of it in reproving or exhorting his playfellows, as occasion prompted. In these first years of his youth he likewise took particular delight in gazing at the moon and stars, in clear uncloudy weather, and was so intent on these observations in solitary places, that his parents had him often to seek, not without many anxious fears. At a proper age they put him to school at Digne, to Godfrey Wendeline, an excellent master, under whose care he made a quick and extraordinary progress in learning. In a very short time he learned not only the elements of the Latin language, but was so far advanced in rhetoric as to be superior to all the boys in that school; and some friends who had witnessed his proficiency, recommended to have him removed, in order to study philosophy under Fesay, a very learned Minorite friar, then at Aix. This proposal was not much relished by his father, whose design was to breed up his son in his own way to country business, or farming, as a more profitable employment than that of a scholar, nor would he consent but upon condition that the boy should return home in two years at farthest. Young Gassendi accordingly, at the end of his allotted time, repaired to Chantersier; but he did not stay there long, being invited to be a teacher of rhetoric at Digne, before he was full sixteen years of age; and he had been engaged in this not above three years, when his master Fesay dying, he was made professor of philosophy in his room at Aix.

, a very eminent promoter of the revival of letters in Europe, was born at Thessalonica in Greece in 1398. Some have erroneously called him Theodore de Gaza, as if he had been a native of that village. His country being invaded by the Turks in 1430, he went into Italy, and applied himself, immediately on his arrival there, to learn the Latin tongue, under the tuition of Victorinus de Feltre, who taught it at Mantua. He was, indeed, past the age when languages are usually attained, yet he made himself such a master of Latin, that he spoke and wrote it with the same facility and elegance as if it had been his native tongue: though Erasmus is of opinion, that he could never fairly divest himself of his Greek idiotn. His uncommon parts and learning soon recommended him to public notice; and particularly to the patronage of cardinal Bessarion. Gaza had taken a very fair and exact copy of Homer’s “Iliad,” which the cardinal was extremely desirous to purchase; and he obtained either that, or one like it, which was long extant in his library at Venice. About 1450, Gaza went to Rome, in consequence of an invitation from pope Nicholas V. with many other professors of the Greek language, scattered about Italy, to translate the Greek authors into Latin, but unfortunately jealousies and dissensions arose among them, and in particular a quarrel between Gaza and George Trapezuntius. Panl Jovius assures us, that Gaza not only far surpassed all the Greeks, his fellow-labourers and contemporaries, in learning and solidity of judgment, but also in the knowledge of the Latin: which, says Jovius, he attained to that degree of perfection, that it was not easy to discern, whether he wrote best in that or his native tongue. On account of these extraordinary qualities probably, he was admitted to such a familiarity with cardinal Bessarion, as to be called by him in some of his writings his friend and companion.

In the French revolution which took place in the following year, and which let loose all kinds of principles and opinions except what had stood the test of experience, Miss Woollstonecraft found much that was congenial with her own ways of thinking, and much which it will appear soon she determined to introduce in her conduct. She was therefore among the first who attempted to answer Mr. Burke’s celebrated “Reflections on the French Revolution,” and displayed a share of ability which made her reputation more general than it had yet been. This was followed by her “Vindication of the Rights of Woman,” in which she unfolded many a wild theory on the duties and character of her sex. How well she was qualified to guide them appeared now in the practical use of her own precepts, of which the first specimen was the formation of a violent attachment for a very eminent artist, which is thus embellished by her biographer “She saw Mr. Fuseli frequently; he amused, delighted, and instructed her. As a painter, it was impossible she should not wish to see his works, and consequently to frequent his house. She visited him; her visits were returned. Notwithstanding the inequality of their years, Mary was not of a temper to live upon terms of so much intimacy with a man of merit and genius, without loving him. The delight she enjoyed in his society, she transferred by association to his person. What she experienced in this respect, was no doubt heightened, by the state of celibacy and restraint in which she had hitherto lived, and to which the rules of polished society condemn an unmarried woman. She conceived a personal and ardent affection for him. Mr. Fuseli was a married man, and his wife the acquaintance of Mary. She readily perceived the restrictions which this circumstance seemed to impose upon her, but she made light of any difficulty that might arise out of them.” Notwithstanding this contempt for difficulties, Mr. Fuseli was not to be won, and in order to get rid of a passion which he would not indulge, she went ever to France in 1792. Here within a few months she found a cure in that “species of connection,” says her biographer, “for which her heart secretly panted, and which had the effect of diffusing an immediate tranquillity and cheerfulness over her manners.” This was an illicit connection with a Mr. Imlay, an American, and we are gravely told, that “she was now arrived at the situation, which, for two or three preceding years, her reason had pointed out to her as affording the most substantial prospect of happiness.” Her reason, however, unfortunately pointed wrong in this instance, as she was afterwards most basely and cruelly abandoned by the object of her affections, whose conduct cannot be mentioned in terms of indignation too strong. She now made two attempts at suicide, on which we shall only remark that they were totally inconsistent with the character given of her by her biographer, as possessing “a firmness of mind, an unconquerable greatness of soul, by which, after a short internal struggle-, she was accustomed to rise above difficulties and suffering.” Having overcome two ardent passions, she formed a third, of which her biographer, Mr. William Godwin, was the object. A period only of six months intervened in this case; but, says Mr. Godwin, with a curious felicity of calculation, although “it was only six months since she had resolutely banished every thought of Mr. Imlay (the former lover), it was at least eighteen that he ought to have been banished, and would have been banished, had it not been for her scrupulous pertinacity in determining to leave no measure untried to regain him.” This connection, likewise, was begun without the nuptial ceremonies; but, after some months, the marriage took place; the principal reason was that she was pregnant, and “unwilling to incur that seclusion from the society of many valuable and excellent individuals, which custom awards in cases of this sort.” But it did not produce the desired effect. Some who visited her, or were visited by her, and who regarded her as the injured object of Mr. Imlay' s indifference, were not pleased to bestow their countenance on one who was so eager to run into the arms of another man, and alike informally. Mr. Godwin takes this opportunity of censuring the prudery of these nice people in terms of severity with what justice our readers may determine. The happiness of this connection, however, was transient. In August 1797, she was delivered of a daughter, and died Sept. 10, of the same year. From the account given of her, by her biographer, in which we must condemn the laboured vindication of principles inconsistent with the delicacy of the female sex, and the welfare of society, Mrs. Godwin appears to have been a woman of strong intellect, which might have elevated her to the highest rank of English female writers, had not her genius run wild for want of cultivation. Her passions were consequently ungovernable, and she accustomed herself to yield to them without scruple, treating female honour and delicacy as vulgar prejudices. She was therefore a voluptuary and sensualist, without that refinement for which she seemed to contend on other subjects. Her history indeed forms entirely a warning, and in no part an example. Singular she was, it must be allowed, for it is not easily to be conceived that such another heroine will ever appear, unless in a novel, where a latitude is given to that extravagance of character which she attempted to bring into real life.

, a very eminent French antiquary and lawyer, was born at Nismes in the beginning of 1635, and being educated for the profession of the law, became an advocate of the parliament of Toulouse, and of the presidial court of Nismes, and director and secretary of the academy of that place. During his researches into matters of history and antiquities, he made a very fine collection of medals and manuscripts, among which were the originals of the proceedings of the popish inquisitors against the Albigenses. So highly was Graverol esteemed for learning, that no strangers of distinction visited Nismes without paying their respects to him, and such was his reputation in Italy that, in 1691, he was elected an associate of the Ricovrati of Padua; and when the states of Languedoc formed the plan of collecting their records respecting their fiefs and seignories, they considered Graverol as the only person fit to execute the work, which he was earnestly requested to undertake by the cardinal Bonzi. But his adherence to the protestant religion impeded his advancement in life, and involved him in serious troubles. He retired first to Orange in 1685, where he was very favourably received, but not thinking that a place of safety, left it for Swisserland or Holland. During this journey he was arrested and confined at Montpellier for about two months. After this he must have been released, and permitted to go home, as we find he died at Nismes Sept. 10, 1694. Among the works which contributed most to his reputation, are, 1. “Observations sur les arrets du parlement de Toulouse recueillespar la Rochefiavin,” Toulouse, 1682. 2. “Notice ou abrege historique des vingt-deux villes chefs des dioceses de la province de Languecloc,” 1 posthumous work published in 1696. 3. “Sorberiana, sive excerpta ex ore Samuelis Sorbiere,” Toulouse, 1691, 1714, Paris, 1694, and 1732. His other works were dissertations on medals and antiquities, most of which are printed with the “Sorberiana.” In the Journal des Savans for March 1685, two considerable works are announced by him, which the persecution he afterwards met with probably prevented him from completing; the one was a collection of letters to several crowned heads, written by cardinal Sadolet in the name of Leo X.; the other, a “Bibliotheque du Languedoc,” a kind of literary journal, in. which he was to give the lives of the eminent men of that province, and particulars of its history, &c.

, a very eminent, pious, and learned English prelate, was born July 1, 1574, in Bristow-park, within the parish of Ashby de la Zouch, in Leicestershire. His father was an officer to Henry earl of Huntingdon, then president of the North, and under him had the government of that town, which was the chief seat of the earldom. His mother was of the family of the Bembridge’s, and according to his own account, a woman of great piety. His parents had twelve children, and therefore, although disposed to bring up Joseph for the church, were inclined from motives of oeconomy to confine his education to the care of a private tutor. But Mr. Gilby, fellow of Emanuel college, hearing of this design, represented its disadvantages in such a manner to Mr. Hall’s eldest son, that the latter importuned his father that Joseph might be sent to the university, and generously offered to sacrifice part of his inheritance, rather than prevent his brother from enjoying the advantages of academical education. His father, struck with this mark of brotherly affection, declared that, whatever it might cost him, Joseph should be sent to the university.

, a very eminent and learned puritan divine, was descended from the royal family of England. He was the son of Thomas Hildersham, a gentleman of an ancient family, by Anne Pole (or Poole), his second wife, daughter to sir JefTery Pole, fourth son of sir Richard Pole, cousin-german to Henry VII. This sir Richard Pole’s wife was Margaret countess of Salisbury, daughter to George duke of Clarence, second brother to king Edward IV. by Isabella, eldest daughter and co-heiress of Richard earl of Warwick and Salisbury. All this will appear from the pedigree of cardinal Pole (who was Mr. Hildersham’s great uncle), as given from* the Heralds office, by the cardinal’s biographer, Mr. Phillips, but we might perhaps have passed it over, unless for a remarkable coincidence of descent which we shall soon have to notice in our account of bishop Hildesley.

, a very eminent painter, is supposed to have been born about 1611, at Antwerp; but the master from whom he received his instruction is not known. He studied entirely after nature, sketching every scene that afforded him pleasure, and his choice was exceedingly picturesque. His grounds are always agreeably broken, and he was particularly fond of describing slopes diversified with shrubs, plants, or trees, which conducted the eye to some building, ruin, grove, or piece of water, and frequently to a delicate remote distance; every object perspectively contributing to delude our observation to that point. The forms of his trees are not unlike Ruysdael and Dekker; and in all his pictures he shews an admirable knowledge of the chiaroscuro. His colouring is extremely good, and his skies evidently shew that he made nature his principal director, by the shape and disposition of his clouds, as also by those peculiar tints, by which he expressed the rising and setting of the sun, the morning and evening. His touch is light, free, and firm; and his paintings have a very striking effect, by the happy distribution of his light and shadow. The figures which he himself designed are but indifferent, which was a defect imputable to Claude Lorraine and Caspar Poussin, as well as to Hobbima; but the latter, conscious of his inability in that respect, admitted but few figures into his designs, and those he usually placed somewhat removed from the immediate view, at a prudent distance from the front line. However, most of his pictures were supplied with figures by Ostade, Teniers, and other very famous masters, which must always give them a great additional value. The works of Hobbima are now exceedingly scarce, and industriously sought for. A very fine landscape of his, the property of the late Edward Coxe, esq. was sold a few years ago for nearly 700l.

, knight, lord chief justice of the court of King’s-bench in the reign of king William, was son of sir Thomas Holt, knight, serjeant at law; and born at Thame in Oxfordshire, 1642. He was educated at Abingdon-school, while his father was recorder of that town; and afterwards became a gentleman -commoner of Orielcollege, Oxford. In 1658 he entered himself of Gray’sinn, before he took a degree; some time after which he was called to the bar, where he attended constantly, and soon became a very eminent barrister. In the reign of James II. he was made recorder of London, which office he discharged with much applause for about a year and a half; but refusing to give his hand towards abolishing the test, and to expound the law according to the king’s design, he was removed from his place. In 1686 he was called to the degree of a serjeant at law, with many others. On the arrival of the prince of Orange, he was chosen a member of the convention parliament; and appointed one of the managers for the commons at the conferences held with the lords, about the abdication and the vacancy of the throne. He had here an opportunity of displaying his abilities; and as soon as the government was settled, he was made lord chief justice of the court of King’s-bench, and admitted into the king’s privy-council.

, bishop of Avranches in France, a very eminent scholar, was born of a good family at Caen in Normandy, Feb. 8, 1630. His parents dying when he was scarcely out of his infancy, Huet fell into the hands of guardians, who neglected him: his own invincible love of letters, however, made him amends for all disadvantages; and he finished his studies in the belles lettres before he was thirteen years of age. In the prosecution of his philosophical studies, he met with an excellent professor, father Mambrun, a Jesuit; who, alter Plato’s example, directed him to begin by learning a little geometry, and Huet contracted such a relish for it, that he went through every branch of mathematics, and maintained public theses at Caen, a thing never before done in that city. Having passed through his classes, it was his business to study the law, and to take his degrees in it; but two books then published, seduced him from this pursuit. These were, “The Principles of Des Cartes,” and “Bochart’s Sacred Geography.” He was a great admirer of Des Cartes, and adhered to his philosophy for many years; but afterwards saw reason to abandon it as a visionary fabrick, and wrote against it. Bochart’s geography made a more lasting impression upon him, as well on account of the immense erudition with which it abounds, as by his acquaintance with its author, who was minister of the Protestant church at Caen. This book, being full of Greek and Hebrew learning, inspired Huet with an ardent desire of being versed in those languages, and, to assist his progress in these studies, he contracted a friendship with Bochart, and put himself under his directions.

Mr. Keate’s life passed without any vicissitudes of fortune; he inherited an ample estate, which he did not attempt to increase otherwise than by those attentions which prudence dictated in the management of it. He was hospitable and beneficent, and possessed the good will of mank.nd in a very eminent degree. For the last year or two, his health visibly declined; but on the day he died, he appeared to be somewhat mended. His death was sudden, on June 27, 1797. He left one daughter, married in 17 y6 to John Henderson, esq. of the Adelphi. His widow died in 1800. At the time of his death, Mr. Keate was a bencher of the Temple, and a very old member of the royal and antiquary societies, of both which he had been frequently elected one of the council.

Notwithstanding those qualifications for this great undertaking just mentioned by his biographer, and for which we are as much disposed to give him credit as the most zealous of his admirers, we have often taken occasion, as our readers may perceive, to differ from him in his estimate of many eminent characters. Whether from timidity, or a false notion of liberality of sentiment, Dr. Kippis was accustomed to yield too much to the influence of connexion and of private friendship; to give the pen out of his own hand, and to suffer the relatives or interested admirers of certain persons to write lives according to their own views, in which opinions were advanced that we are certain could not have his sincere concurrence. Nor do we discern that judgment in the coriduct of this work for which he has been so highly praised, and for want of which, had he lived to so distant a period, it must necessarily have been protracted to an immense extent, if written upon the same plan. Instead of re-writing, or methodizing those lives which were injudiciously or incorrectly given in the first edition of the “Biographia,” his practice was to give the article verbatim as it stood in that edition, and then to make his additions and corrections; thus giving the whole the air of a tedious controversy between himself and the preceding editors. Many of his additions, likewise, were of that redundant nature, that no reasonable prospect could be entertained of the termination of the work. Indexes to volumes of sermons, with the texts, extracts of opinions from magazines and reviews (many of which he had himself written in these journals), and from every author that had incidentally mentioned the object of his narrative, threatened, what in fact took place, that this work, with all the assistance he had, was little more than begun after the lapse of twenty years from his advancing age became more irksome as he proceeded and at last was left in a state which forbids all hope of completion upon his plan. Had it, however, been entrusted to him at an earlier period of life and vigour, we are persuaded that his many qualifications for the undertaking would have been exerted in such a manner as to obviate some, at least, of these objections, which we notice with reluctance in the case of a man whom we knew personally and highly respected. We can cordially, therefore, as far as respects his personal character, acquiesce with his affectionate biographer, who states that “his mild and gentle temper, his polished manners, his easy and graceful address, and a variety of external accomplishments, prepossessed those who first saw him in his favour, and could not fail to conciliate esteem and attachment on a more intimate acquaintance. These qualities contributed very much to recommend him to persons in the higher ranks of life, to several of whom he had occasional access; and qualified him, in a very eminent degree, for the situation in which he exercised his ministerial office. But he was no less condescending, courteous, and affable to his inferiors, than to those who occupied superior stations. Dr. Kippis had nothing of that austerity and reserve, of that haughtiness and superciliousness, of that parade and self-importance, and ostentatious affectation of dignity, which forbid access, and which mar the freedom and the pleasure of all the social intercourses of life.”

, a very eminent mathematician and philosopher, was born at Turin, Nov. 25, 1736, where his father, who had been treasurer of war, was in reduced circumstances. In his early days his taste was more inclined to classical than mathematical studies, and his attention to the latter is said to have been first incited by a memoir that the celebrated Halley had composed for the purpose of demonstrating the superiority of analysis. From this time Lagrange devoted himself to his new study with such acknowledged success, that at the age of sixteen he became professor of mathematics in the royal school of artillery at Turin. When he had discovered the talents of his pupils, all of whom were older than himself, he selected some as his more intimate friends, and -from this early association arose an important institution, the academy of Turin, which published in 1759 a first volume under the title of “Actes de la Socie*te* Prive*e.” It is there seen that young 'Lagrange superintended the philosophical researches of Cigna, the physician, and the labours of the chevalier de Saluces. He furnished Foncenex with the analytical part of his memoirs, leaving to him the task of developing the reasoning upon which the formulae depended. In these memoirs, which do not bear his name, may be observed that pure analytical style which characterizes his greatest productions. He discovered a new theory of the lever, which makes the third part of a memoir that had much celebrity. The first two parts are in the same style, and are known to be also by Lagrange, although he did not positively acknowledge them, and they were generally ascribed to Foncenex.

, a very eminent mathematician and philosopher, was born at Leipsic, July 4, 1646. His father, Frederic Leibnitz, was professor of moral philosophy, and secretary to that university; but did not survive the birth of his son above six years. His mother put him under messieurs Homschucius and Bachuchius, to teach him Greek and Latin; and he made so quick a progress as to surpass the expectations of his master; and not content with their tasks, when at home, where there was a well-chosen library left by his father, he read with attention the ancient authors, and “especially Livy. The poets also had a share in his studies, particularly Virgil, many of whose verses he could repeat in his old age, with fluency and accuracy. He had himself also a talent for versifying, and is said to have composed in one day’s time, a poem of three hundred lines, without an elision. This early and assiduous attention to classical learning laid the foundation of that correct and elegant taste which appears in all his writings. At the age of fifteen, he became a student in the university of Leipsic, and to polite literature joining philosophy and the mathematics, he studied the former under James Thomasius, and the latter under John Kuhnius, at Leipsic. He afterwards went to Jena, where he heard the lectures of professor Bohnius upon polite learning and history, and those of Falcknerius in the law. At his return to Leipsic, in 1663, he maintained, under Thomasius, a thesis,” De Principiis Individuationis.“In 1664, he was admitted M. A.; and observing how useful philosophy might be in illustrating the law, he maintained several philosophical questions taken out of the” Corpus Juris." At the same time he applied himself particularly to the study of the Greek philosophers, and engaged in the task of reconciling Plato with Aristotle; as he afterwards attempted a like reconciliation between Aristotle and Des Cartes. He was so intent on these studies, that he spent whole days in meditating upon them, in a forest near Leipsic.

, one of the most eminent physicians and scholars of his age, descended from the Linacres of Li nacre-hall in the parish of Chesterfield, Derbyshire, was born at Canterbury about 1460. Having completed his school-education, under William de Sellingj a very eminent master, in his native city, he entered at Oxford, and was chosen fellow of All Souls’ college in 1484. Being desirous of farther advancement in learning, he accompanied De Selling into Italy, whither the latter was sent on an embassy to the court of Rome by Henry VII. De Selling left him at Bologna, with strong recommendations to Politian, one of the most elegant Latinists in Europe; and removing thence to Florence, Linacre acquired the favour of that munificent patron of literature, Lorenzo de Medicis, who granted him the privilege of attending the same preceptors with his own sons; an opportunity, by which he knew how to profit; and under Demetrius Chalcondylas, who had fled from Constantinople when it was taken by the Turks, he acquired a perfect knowledge of the Greek language. He then went to Rome, and studied medicine and natural philosophy under Hermolaus Barbaras. He applied particularly to the works of Aristotle and Galen, and is said to have been the first Englishman who made himself master of those writers by perusing them in the original Greek. He also translated and published several of Galen’s tracts into most elegant Latin, and along with Grocyn and William Latimer, undertook a translation of Aristotle, which, however, they left imperfect. On his return to England, he was incorporated M. D. at Oxford, which degree he had taken at Padua, gave temporary lectures on physic, and taught the Greek language in that university. His reputation soon became so high, that king Henry VII. called him to court, and entrusted him with the care both of the health and education of his son, prince Arthur. He is said also to have instructed princess Catherine in the Italian language. He was made successively physician to the kings Henry VII., Henry VIII., and Edward VI., and to the princess Mary.

He produced some writings; as, 1. “Observationes in Evangeliorum versiones perantiquas duas, Gothicas scilicet & Anglo-Saxonicas,” &c. Dordrecht, 1665. 2. “The Catechism set forth in the book of Common Prayer, briefly explained by short notes, grounded upon Holy Scripture/' Oxf. 1679. These short notes were drawn up by him at the desire of Dr. John Fell, bishop of Oxford, to be used by the ministers of his diocese in catechising their children. 3.” An Epistle for the English reader, prefixed to Dr. Thomas Hyde’s translation into the Malayan language of the four Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles,“Oxf. 1677. 4. He took a great deal of pains in completing” The Life of Archbishop Usher,“published by Dr. Richard Parr, sometime fellow of Exeter college, Lond. 1686. Wood tells us,” that he was a person very well versed in books, a noted critic, especially in the Gothic and English-Saxon tongues, a painful preacher, a good man and governor, and one every way worthy of his station in the church; and that he Whs always taken to be an honest and conscientious puritan.“Dr. Hickes, in” The Life of Mr. John Kettlewell,“p. 3, styles him” a very eminent person in the learned world; and observes, that what he has published shewed him to be a great man.“Dr. Thomas Smith styles him also a most excellent man,” vir pra’stantissimus," and adds, that he was extremely well skilled in the Saxon, and in the Eastern tongues, especially the Coptic; and eminent for his strict piety, profound learning, and other valuable qualifications.

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

Sir Robert Moray’s general character was excellent in the highest degree. He was beloved and esteemed by men of every party and station. His piety was such, that, in the midst of armies and courts, he spent many hours. of the day in the exercise of devotion. The equality of his temper could not be disturbed by any event: he was in practice a stoic, with a strong tincture of the persuasion of absolute decrees. He had a most diffusive love for. mankind; and whilst he delighted in every occasion of doing good, his benevolence was conducted with a discretion equal to his zeal. In reproving the faults of young people, he had the plainest, and yet the softest method of doing it that can be imagined. His comprehension was superior to that of most men; and in genius he resembled the illustrious Peireskius, as described by Gassendus. Once, when a false and malicious accusation was brought against sir Robert Moray, which was aimed at his life, he practised, upon the occasion, in a very eminent manner, his true Christian philosophy, without shewing so much as a cloud in his whole behaviour.

, a very eminent contributor to the restoration of literature, and founder of the library of St. Mark at Florence, was the son of Bartholomew Nicolas, a merchant of Florence, and was born in 1363. He was intended, and as some say, for a time engaged, in mercantile pursuits, but preferring the cultivation of the liberal arts, he placed himself, on the death of his father, under Marsigli, or Marsilius, a scholar of considerable fame. So ardent was his love of learning, that when he had attained a competent knowledge of the Latin language, he went to Padua, for the express purpose of transcribing the compositions of Petrarch. To this laborious task he was compelled, according to Tiraboschi, by the mediocrity of his fortune, which prevented his purchasing manuscripts of any great value. His fortune, however, such as it was, and his whole time, he devoted to the collection of manuscripts or making transcripts, and accumulated about eight hundred volumes of Greek, Roman, and oriental authors. What he copied, was executed with great accuracy, and he was one of the first who corrected the defects and arranged the text of the manuscripts which he had an opportunity of studying. His house was the constant resort of scholars and students, who had free access to his library, and to many of whom he was a liberal patron. Poggio Bracciolini valued him highly in this character, and on Niccoli’s death, Jan. 23, 1437, published a funeral oration, in which he celebrated his prudence, benevolence, fortitude, &c. He was not, however, without his faults, and had disgusted some eminent scholars of his time by his sarcastic wit and irritability of temper. By his will he directed that his library should be devoted to the use of the public, and appointed sixteen curators, among whom was Cosmo de Medici; but as he died in a state of insolvency, this legacy would have been lost, had not Cosmo offered to pay his debts on condition of obtaining a right to dispose of the books. This being agreed to, he deposjted them in the Dominican monastery of St. Mark at Florence. This collection was the foundation of another celebrated library in Florence, known by the name of the Bibliotheca Marciana, or library of St. Mark, which is yet open to the inspection of the learned, at the distance of three centuries. It does not appear that he was the author of any literary work, except a short treatise on the orthography of the Latin language, in which he attempted to settle various disputed points on this subject, by the authority of ancient inscriptions.

, a very eminent Portuguese mathematician and physician, was born in 1497, at Alcazar in Portugal, anciently a remarkable city, known by the name of Salacia, from whence he was surnamed Salaciensis. He was professor of mathematics in the university of Cojmbra, where he published some pieces which procured him great reputation. He was mathematical preceptor to Don Henry, son to king Emanuel of Portugal, and principal cosmographer to the king. Nonius was very serviceable to the designs which this court entertained of carrying on their maritime expeditions into the East, by the publication of his book “Of the Art of Navigation,” and various other works. He died in 1577, at eighty years of age.

, a very eminent Greek of Alexandria, flourished, according to Suidas, under the emperor Theodosius the Great, from the year 379 to* 395, and acquired deserved fame as a consummate mathematician. Many of his works are lost, or at least have not yet been discovered. Suidas and Vossius mention as the principal of them, his “Mathematical Collections,” in 8 books, of which the first and part of the second are lost; a “Commentary upon Ptolomy’s Almagest;” an “Universal Chorography;” “A Description of the Rivers of Libya;” a treatise or' “Military Engines;” “Commentaries upon Aristarchus of Samos, concerning the Magnitude and Distance of the Sun and Moon,” &c. Of these, there have been published, “The Mathematical Collections,” in a Latin translation, with a large commentary, by Commandine, in 1588, folio; reprinted in 1660. In 1644, Mersenne exhibited an abridgment of them in his <c Synopsis JVIathematica,“in 4to, containing only such propositions as could be understood without figure*. In 1655, Meibomius gave some of the Lemmata of the seventh book, in his” Dialogue upon Proportions.“In 1688, Dr. Wallis printed the last twelve propositions of the second book, at the end of his” Aristarchus Samius.“In 1703, Dr. David Gregory gave part of the preface of the seventh book, in the Prolegomena to his Euclid. And in 1706, Dr. Halley exhibited that preface entire, in the beginning of his” Apollonius." Dr. Ilutton, in his Dictionary, has given an excellent analysis of the “Mathematical Collections.”

From school, where he became acquainted with the poets ancient and modern, and fixed his attention particularly on Milton, he was, in 1694, removed to Christ church, Oxford, where he performed all his university exercises with applause. Following, however, the natural bent of his genius to poetry, he continued the study of his favourite Milton, so intensely, that it is said there was not an allusion in “Paradise Lost,” drawn from any hint in either Homer or Virgii, to which he could not immediately refer. Yet he was not so much in love with poetry, as to neglect other branches of learning, and, having some intention to apply to physic as a profession, he took much delight in natural history, particularly botany; but he appears to have relinquished these pursuits when he had begun to acquire poetical fame. While he was at Oxford, he was honoured with the acquaintance of the best and politest men in it; and had a particular intimacy with Mr. Edmund Smith, author of the tragedy of Phaedra and Hippolitus. The first poem which distinguished him, in 1703, was his “Splendid Shilling;” his next, entitled “Blenheim,' 1 he wrote, as a rival to Addison’s on the same subject, at the request of the earl of Oxford, and Mr. Henry St. John, afterwards lord Bolingbroke, on occasion of the victory obtained at that place by the duke of Marlborough in 1704. It was published in 1705; and the year after he finished a third poem, upon” Cyder,“the first book of which had been written at Oxford. It is founded upon the model of Virgil’s” Georgics.“All that we have more by Philips is, a Latin” Ode to Henry St. John, esq.;“which is also esteemed a master-piece. He was meditating a poem on the” Last Day," when illness obliged him to relinquish all pursuits, except the care of his health. His disorder, however, became a lingering consumption, attended with an asthma, of which he died at Hereford, Feb. 15, 1708, when he ha'd not reached his thirty-third year. He was interred in the cathedral there, with an inscription over his grave; and had a monument erected to his memory, in Westminster- abbey, by sir Simon Harcourt, afterwards lord chancellor, with an epiuipli upon it, written by Dr. Atterbury, though commonly ascribed to Dr. Freind. Philips was one of those few poets, whose Muse and manners were equally excellent and amiable; and both were so in a very eminent degree.

, called more frequently Julio Romano, a very eminent painter, was born in 1492, and was the principal disciple of Raphael, his heir, the cominuator of his works, and himself at the head of a school. Whilst a pupil, he imbibed all his master’s energy of character, and chiefly signalized himself in subjects of war and battles, which he represented with equal spirit and erudition. As a designer, he commands the whole mechanism of the human body; and, without fear of error, turns and winds it about to serve his purposes; but sometimes oversteps the modesty of nature. Vasari prefers his drawings to his pictures, as the original fire which distinguishes his conception was apt to evaporate, in the longer process of finish: and some have, with more reason, objected to' the character of his physiognomies, as less simple than vulgar; and often dismal and horrid, without being terrible. In colour, whether fresco or oil, his hand was as expeditious, a.nd his touch, especially in the former, as decided, as his eye and choice were ungenial: bricky lights, violet demitints, black shades, compose, in general, the raw opaque tone of his oil-pictures. The style of his draperies is classic, but the management of the folds generally arbitrary and mannered; the hair and head-dresses of his women are always fanciful and luxurious, but not always arranged by taste, whilst those of the men frequently border on the grotesque.

, a very eminent mathematician and astronomer, was born at Purbach, a town upon the confines of Bavaria and Austria, in 1423, and educated at Vienna. He afterwards visited the most celebrated universities in Germany, France, and Italy; and found a particular friend and patron in cardinal Cusa, at Rome. Returning to Vienna, he was appointed mathematical professor, in which office he continued till his death, which happened in 1461, in the 39th year of his age only, to the great loss of the learned world.

, an eminent English divine in the seventeenth century, was second son of sir Carew Ralegh (elder brother of the celebrated sir Walter Ralegh.) His mother was relict of sir John Thynne, of Longleate, in Wiltshire, and daughter of sir William Wroughton, viceadmiral under sir John Dudley (afterwards duke of Northumberland) in the expedition against the Scots in 1544. He was born at Downton, in Wiltshire, in 1586, and educated in Winchester-school, whence he was sent to Magdalen college, Oxford, of which he became a commoner in Michaelmas term, 1602. In June 1605, he took the degree of B. A. and in June 1608, that of master and being a noted disputant, was made junior of the public act the same year, in which he distinguished himself to great advantage. About that time he entered into holy orders, and became chaplain to William earl of Pembroke, in whose family he spent about two years, when he was collated by his lordship to the rectory of Chedzoy, near Bridgewater, in Somersetshire, in the latter end of 1620. Being settled here, he married Mary, the daughter of sir Richard Gibbs, and sister of Dr. Charles Gibbs, prebendary of Westminster. He was afterwards collated to a minor prebend in the church of Wells, and to the rectory of Streat, with the chapel of Walton in Wiltshire. About the time of the death of his patron, the earl of Pembroke, which happened in 1630, he became chaplain in ordinary to king Charles I, and by that title was created D. D. in 1636. January the 13th, 1641, he was admitted dean of Wells on the death of Dr. George Warburton. During the rebellion he was sequestered on account of his loyalty, and afterwards treated with the utmost barbarity. It being his month to wait on the king as his chaplain, the committee of Somersetshire raised the rabble, and commissioned the soldiers to plunder his parsonage-house at Chedzoy and in his absence they seized upon all his estate spiritual and temporal, drove away his cattle and horses, which they found upon his ground, and turned his family out of doors. His lady was forced to lie two nights in the corn-fields, it being a capital crime for any of the parishioners to afford them lodging. After this she went to Downton, in Wiltshire, the seat of sir Carew Ralegh, where her husband met her. The king’s party having had some success in the West, Dr. Ralegh had an opportunity to return to his family, and resettle at Chedzoy but the parliament party soon gained the ascendant by the defeat of the lord Goring, and he was obliged to take refuge at Bridgewater, then garrisoned by the king. Here he continued till that town was surrendered to Fairfax and Cromwell, when he was taken prisoner, and after much severe usage set upon a poor horse, with his legs tied under the belly of it, and so carried to his house at Chedzoy, which was then the head -quarters of Fairfax and Cromwell and being extremely sick through his former ill treatment, obtained the favour of continuing prisoner in his own house. But as soon as the generals marched, Henry Jeanes, who was solicitous for his rectory of Chedzoy, and afterwards succeeded him in it, entered violently into the house, took the doctor out of his bed, and carried him away prisoner with all his goods. His wife and children were exposed to such necessities, that they must have perished if colonel Ash. had not procured them the income of some small tenements, which the doctor had purchased at Chedzoy, After this Dr. Ralegh wa& sent prisoner to Ilchester, the county-gaol; thence to Banwell-house, and thence to the house belonging to the deanery in Wells, which was turned into a gaol and here, while endeavouring to secrete a letter which he had written to his wife, from impertinent curiosity, he was stabbed by David Barrett, a shoe-maker of that city, who was his keeper, and died of the wound October 10, 1646, and was interred on the 13th of the same month before the dean’s stall, in the choir of the cathedral of Wells. His papers, after his death, such as could be preserved, continued for above thirty years in obscurity, till at last coming into the hands of Dr. Simon Patrick (afterwards bishop of Ely) he published them at London, 1679, in 4to, under this title: “Reliquiae Raleghanae, being Discourses and Sermons on several subjects, by the reverend Dr. Walter Ralegh, dean of Wells, and chaplain in ordinary to his late majesty king Charles the First.” This editor tells us, that “besides the quickness of his wit and ready elocution, he was master of a very strong reason which won him the familiarity and friendship of those great men -who were the envy of the last age, and the wonder of this, the lord Falkland, Dr. Hammond, and Mr. Chillingvvorth the last of which was wont to say (and no man was a better judge of it than himself) that Dr. Ralegh was the best disputant that ever he met withal; and indeed there is a very great acuteness easily to be observed in his writings, which would have appeared more if he had not been led, by the common vice of those times, to imitate too far a very eminent man (meaning, perhaps, bishop Andrews) rather than follow his own excellent genius.” He is said to have been a believer in the millenium, or reign of Christ on earth for a thousand years, and to have written a book on that subject, which is lost. In 1719 the rev. Lawrence Howell published at Lond. 8vo, “Certain Queries proposed by Roman catholics, and answered by Dr. Walter Ralegh,” &c. which appears to be authentic.

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

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

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

, a very eminent sculptor, was born in 1694, at Antwerp. His father was a landscape-painter, and had been in England, but quitted it with Largilliere, and went to Paris, where he married, and returning to Brussels and Antwerp, died in the latter in 1726, at the age of eighty. Michael, his son, arrived here in 1720, and after modelling some small figures in clay, to show his skill, succeeded so well in a bust of the earl of Nottingham, that he began to be employed on large works, particularly monuments, in which his art and industry gave general satisfaction. His models were thoroughly studied, and ably executed; and as a sculptor capable of furnishing statues was now found, our taste in monuments improved, which till Rysbrach’s time had depended more on masonry and marbles than statuary, on which he taught the age to depend for its best ornaments; and although he is too fond of pyramids for back-grounds, his figures are well disposed, simple and great.

, son of John Ryves of Damery Court, or, as Fuller says, of Little Langton, in Dorsetshire, was born in the latter end of the XVIth century, ' and was educated at Winchester-school, whence he was admitted of New college, Oxford, in 1596, became fellow in 1598, and applying himself to the study of the civil law, commenced doctor in that faculty in 1610. He was a celebrated, civilian in doctors’ commons and the court of admiralty, and when he had established his fame in England, was, in 1618, preferred to be one of the masters in chancery, and judge of the faculties and prerogative court in Ireland, where he was held in equal esteem for his knowledge in the laws. Upon king Charles I. coming to the crown, he was made his advocate, and knighted: and, when the rebellion broke out, he was very firm to the royal cause, and although advanced in life, engaged in several battles, and received several wounds in his majesty’s service. He was one of the assistants to the king at the treaty of peace in the Isle of Wight. Sir Thomas Ryves was not only a very eminent civilian, and a good common lawyer, but likewise very accomplished in polite learning; and, particularly, wrote in Latin with unusual delicacy and correctness. He died in 1651, and was buried in St. Clement Danes, near Temple Bar, London. His works are, 1. “The Vicar’s Plea; or, a competency of Means due to Vicars out of the several parishes, notwithstanding their impropriations.” This book is written with a great deal of learning and strength of argument. 2. “iiegiminis Anglicani in Hibernia Defensio, adversus Analecien, lib. 3,” London, 1624, 4to. This was the answer to a book called “Analecta Sacra,” supposed to be written by David Roth, titular bishop of Ossory, a good antiquary, according to Usher, but a bigoted Roman catholic, if the author of this work. Sir Thomas Ryves’s object is, to vindicate the conduct of the Irish government as far as respects the Roman catholics, and his book includes much curious information respecting the state of opinions at that time. 3. “Jmperatoris Justiniani defensio adversus Alemannum,” Lond. 1626, 12mo. Alemanni had taken great liberties with the character of Justinian in his edition of Procopius, which our civilian thought it his duty to censure. 4. “Historia Navalis,” Lond. 162!), 12mo, enlarged afterwards into two publications, “Historiae Navalis antiquae libri quatuor,” ibid. 1633, 8vo, and “Historian Navalis mediae libri tres,” ibid. 1640, 8vo.

, a very eminent French surgeon, was born at Paris in October 1732, and after studying there, acquired the first rank in his profession, and in every situation which he filled, his knowledge, skill, and success, were equally conspicuous. He became censor-royal of the academy of sciences, professor and demonstrator of the surgical schools, secretary of correspondence, surgeon-major of the hospital of invalids, and a member of the institute. His education had been more liberal and comprehensive than usual. He not only was an excellent Greek and Latin scholar, but was well acquainted with the English, Italian, and German languages. Besides his public courses of lectures on anatomy and surgery, he instructed many private pupils, not only of his own country, but those of foreign nations who were attracted to Paris by his fame as a teacher, and were delighted with his unaffected politeness and candour. In his latter days Bonaparte appointed him one of his consulting surgeons, and he was one of the first on whom he bestowed the cross of the legion of honour. Sabatier died at Paris July 21, 1811. He retained his faculties to the last, but we are told became ashamed of his bodily weakness. “Hide me,” he said to his wife and son, “from the world, that you may be the only witnesses of this decay to which I must submit.” A little before his death he said to his son, “Contemplate the state into which I am fallen, and learn to die.” His humane attention to his patients was a distinguished feature in his character. During any painful operation he used to say, “Weep! weep! the more you express a sense of your sufferings, the more anxious I shall be to shorten them.”

, a very eminent English prelate, the third son of William Sandys, esq. and Margaret his wife, descended from the ancient barons of Kendal, was born near Hawkshead, in Furness Fells, Lancashire, in 1519. The same neighbourhood, and almost the same year, gave birth to two other luminaries of the reformation, Edmund Grindal and Bernard Gilpin. Mr. Sandys’s late biographer conjectures, that he was educated at the school of Furness Abbey, whence he was removed to St. John’s-college, Cambridge, in 1532 or 1533, where he had for his contemporaries Redmayn and Lever, both great lights of the reformation, beside others of inferior name, who continued in the hour of trial so true to their principles, that, according to Mr. Baker, the learned historian of that house, “probably more fellows were, in queen Mary’s reign, ejected from St. John’s than from any other society in either university.” Several years now elapsed of Sandys’s life, during which in matters of religion men knew not how to act or what to believe; but, though the nation was at this time under severe restraints with respect to external conduct, inquiry was still at work jin secret: the corruptions of the old religion became better understood, the Scriptures were universally studied, and every impediment being removed with the capricious tyranny of Henry VIII., protestantism, with little variation from its present establishment in England, became the religion of the state.

, lord chief justice of the King’s Bench towards the close of the seventeenth century, seems entitled to some notice on account of his “Reports,” although his character in other respects may as well be consigned to oblivion. He was originally a strolling beggar about the streets, without known parents or relations. He came often to beg scraps at Clement’s Inn, where his sprightliness and diligence made the society desirous to extricate him from his miserable situation. As he appeared desirous to learn to write, one of the attornies fixed a board up at a window on the top of a stair-case, which served him as a desk, and there he sat and wrote after copies of court and other hands, in which at length he acquired such expertness, as in some measure to set up for himself, and earn a pittance by hackney- writing. He also took all opportunities of improving himself by reading such books as he borrowed of his friends, and in the course of a few years, became an able attorney and a very eminent counsel, his practice in the King’s-bench being exceeded by none. All this would have redounded to his honour, had his progress in integrity kept pace with other accomplishments, but he appears to have brought into his profession the low habits of his early life, and became as much a disgrace as an ornament to the bar. His art and cunning were equal to his knowledge, and he carried many a cause by sinister means, and when detected, he never was out of countenance, but evaded the matter with a jest, which he had always at hand. He was much employed by the king against the city of London, in the business of the quo warranto, and was a very fit tool in the hands of the court, and prompted the attorney- general Sawyer, to overthrow the city charter. It was when this affair was to be brought to a decision, that Saunders was knighted and made lord chief justice Jan. 23, 1682-3. But just as sentence was about to be given, he was seized with an apoplexy and died. In our authority, a disgusting description is given of his person, which seems to have corresponded with his mind.

, son of sir Thomas Shirley, ofWiston in Sussex, and related to the Shirleys the travellers, was born in St. Margaret’s parish, Westminster, in 1638. He lived with his father in Magdalen-college, Oxford, while the city was garrisoned by the king’s forces, and was educated at the school adjoining the college. Afterwards he studied physic abroad, and took his degrees in that faculty. On his return he became a very eminent practitioner, and was made physician in ordinary to Charles II. He was immediate heir to his ancestors’ estate of near 3000l. a year at Wiston, which was seized during the rebellion; but although he applied to parliament, never was able to recover it. This disappointment is thought to have hastened his death, which took place April 5, 1678. Besides “Medicinal counsels,” and “A Treatise of the Gout,” from the French of Mayerne, he published “A philosophical essay of the productions of Stones in the earth, with relation to the causes and cure of stones in the bladder, &c.” Lond. 1672; and “Cochlearia curiosa, or the curiosity of Scurvygrass,” from the Latin of Molinbrochius of Leipsic. Both these are noticed in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 81, and No. 125.

, a very eminent German chemist, was born in Franconia in 1660, and educated in the science of medicine, of which he was made professor in 1694, when the university of Hall was founded. His reputation, by means of his lectures, his publications, and the success of his practice, was soon very highly advanced: and in 1716 he was invited to Berlin, where he became physician to the king, and even a counsellor of state. He lived in great celebrity to the age of seventy-five, when he died, in 1734. As a chemist, Stahl was unrivalled in his day, and was the inventor of the doctrine of phlogiston, which, though it may yield to the newer theory of Lavoisier and the French chemists, was admitted by the best philosophers for nearly half a century. As a physician he bad some fancies, and was particularly remarkable for his doctrine of the absolute power of the soul over the body. He maintained that every muscular action, whether attended with consciousness or not, proceeds from a voluntary act of the mind. This theory he, as well as his folJowers, carried too far; but from it he derived many cautions of real importance to physicians, for attending to the state of the mind in every patient. His works are very numerous, but the principal of them are these, 1. “Experimenta et observationes Chemicae et Physicoe,” Berlin, 1731, 8vo. 2. “Dissertationes Medica,” Hall, 2 vols. 4to. 3. Theoria medica vera,“Hall, 1703, 4to. 4.” Opusculum chemico-physico-medicum,“Hall, 1715, 8vo. 5.” Thoughts on Sulphur,“Hall, 1718, 8vo, written in German. 6.” Negotium otiosum, seu skiamachia adversus positiones aliquas fundamentales Theorise verae Medicina?, a viro quodam celeberrimo intenta, sed enervata,“Hall, 1720, 4to. Here he chiefly defends his theory of the soul’s action on the body. 7.” Fundamenta chymiae,“Norimb. 1723, 4to. 8. A treatise in German,” On Salts,“Hall, 1723, 8vo. He was also deeply skilled in metallurgy, and wrote, 9.” Commentarium in Metallurgiam Beccheri,“1723, and 10.” Instructions on Metallurgy," in German, Leipsic, 1720, 8vo.

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

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

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

In April 1751, Dr Taylor succeeded the rev. Christopher Anstey, D. D. in the rectory of Lawford in Essex, a living belonging to St. John’s college, and the only parochial cure he ever enjoyed; and in Jan. 1753, he became archdeacon of Buckingham. After he took orders he was esteemed a very eminent and successful preacher; but he has only two occasional sermons in print. When the late marquis of Bath and his brother were sent to St. John’s, they were placed under the care of our author by his patron lord Granville, maternal grandfather of these two young noblemen. This charge led to his work on the “Elements of Civil Law,” 1755, in 4to, and which was formed from the papers drawn up by him to instruct his noble pupils in the origin of natural law, the rudiments of civil life, and of social duties. If the work, as published, partakes somewhat too much of the desultory character of such loose papers; if its reasoning is occasionally confused, and its digressions sometimes irrelevant, it is impossible to deny it the prgise of vast reading and extensive information on various subjects or polite learning and recondite antiquity. It quickly came to a second edition, and has also been published in an abridged form. It did not however escape without some severe animadversions.

, a very eminent statesman and writer, was the son of sir William Temple, of Sheen, in Surrey, master of the rolls and privy-counsellor in Ireland, 1 in the reign of Charles II. by a sister of the learned Dr.' Henry Hammond. His grandfather, sir William Temple, the founder of the family, was the younger son of the Temples, of Temple-hall, in Leicestershire. He was fellow of King’s college, in Cambridge, afterwards master of the free-school at Lincoln, then secretary successively to sir Philip Sidney, to William Davison, esq. one of queen Elizabeth’s secretaries, and to the celebrated earl of Essex, whom he served while he was lord-deputy of Ireland. In 1609, upon the importunate solicitation of Dr. James Usher, he accepted the provostship of Trinity college, in Dublin; after which he was knighted, and made one of the masters in chancery of Ireland. He died about 1626, aged sevetity-two, after having given proof of his abilities and learning, by several publications in Latin.

, a very eminent poet, was the son of a minister in Scotland, and born at Ednam in the shire of Roxburgh, Sept. the llth, 1700. His mothers name was Beatrix Trotter, and not Hume, as Dr. Johnson says, Hume being the name of his grandmother. His father was minister of Ednam, with a family of nine children. A neighbouring clergyman, Mr. Riccarton, discovering in James uncommon promises of future excellence, undertook to give him instructions, and provide him with books; and, after the usual course of school education at Jedburgh, he was sent to the university of Edinburgh. In the second year of his admission, his studies were for some time interrupted by the death of his lather; but his mother soon after repaired with her family, which was very numerous, to Edinburgh, where she lived in a decent and frugal manner, till her favourite son had not only finished his academical course, but was even distinguished and patronized as a man of genius. Though the study of poetry was about this time become general in Scotland, the best English authors being universally read, and imitations of them attempted, yet taste had made little progress; the major part criticized according to rules and forms, and thus were very able to discern the inaccuracies of a poet, while all his fire and enthusiasm escaped their notice. Thomson believed that he deserved better judges than these, and therefore began to turn his views towards London, to which an accident soon after entirely determined him.

From the school at Redcastle near Londonderry, he went in 1687 to the college of Glasgow in Scotland; and, after three years stay there, visited the university of Edinburgh, where he was created master of arts in June 1690, and received the usual diploma or certificate from the professors. He then went back to Glasgow, where he made but a short ttay, and intended to have returned to Ireland; but he altered his mind, and came into England, “where, he tells us, he lived in as good Protestant families as any in the kingdom, till he went to the famous university of Leyden in Holland, to perfect his studies.” There he was generously supported by some eminent Dissenters in England, who had conceived great hopes from his uncommon parts, and might flatter themselves that in time he would be serviceable to them in the quality of a minister; for he had lived in their communion ever since he forsook Popery, as he himself owns in effect in his “Apology.” In 1692, Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Daniel Williams, a very eminent Dissenting minister, having published a book entitled “Gospel truth stated and vindicated,” Mr. Toland sent it to the author of the “Bibliotheque universelle,” and desired him to give an abstract of it in that journal: at the same time he related to him the history of that book, and of the controversy it referred to. The journalist complied with his request (vol. XXIII); and to the abstract of Mr. Williams’ s book he prefixed the letter he received from Mr. Toland, whom he styles “student in divinity.”

, a very eminent critic, was descended from a family formerly settled in Dorsetshire. His grandfather, Onesiphorus Toup, had been a man of good property, and patron, as well as incumbent, of Bridport in that county; but he appears to have been embarrassed in his circumstances before his death, as he parted with the advowson, and left a numerous family very slenderly provided for. His second son, Jonathan, was bred to the church, and was curate and lecturer of St. Ives, Cornwall. He married Prudence, daughter of John Busvargus, esq. of Busvargus in Cornwall, and by her had issue Jonathan, the subject of this memoir, and one daughter.

Mr. Tuckney took his first degree in arts before he was seventeen years old, and was chosen fellow of his college three years after. In 1620 he proceeded M. A. and was some time in the earl of Lincoln’s family, before he resided on his fellowship. When he returned he became a very eminent tutor, and had many persons of rank admitted under him. In 1627 he took his degree of B. D.; after which he accepted the invitation of his countrymen, and went to Boston, as assistant to the famous vicar of that town, John Cotton, for whom, though a very zealous nonconformist, his diocesan bishop Williams, when lord keeper, procured a toleration under the great seal, for the free exercise of his ministry, notwithstanding his dissenting in ceremonies, so long as done without disturbance to the church. But this was probably not very long: for Mr. Cotton quitted his native country, before the rebellion, and withdrew to New England. On his departure the corporation of Boston chose Mr. Tuckney, who was now married, into this vicarage, and he kept it, at their request, till the restoration; or rather his title to it, for he took no part of the profit after he ceased to reside. Calamy mentions a Mr. Anderson as having been ejected at the restoration; he probably officiated there, but never was vicar, and Dr. How succeeded Mr. Tuckney in 1660.

, a very eminent naturalist and divine, was born at Morpeth, in Northumberland, and was educated under the patronage of sir Thomas Wentworth, at the university of Cambridge, where he was chosen a fellow of Pembroke Hall, about 1531. He acquired great reputation for his learning, and about 1536 was admitted to deacon’s orders, at which time he was master of arts. He applied himself also to philosophy and physic, and early discovered an inclination to the study of plants, and a wish to be well acquainted with the materia medico, of the ancients. He complains of the little assistance he could receive in these pursuits. “Being yet a student of Pembroke Hall, where I could learn never one Greke, neither Latin, nor English name, even amongst the physicians, of any herhe or tree such was the ignorance of that time; and as yet there was no English herbal, but one all full of unlearned cacographies and falsely naming of herbes.”

, 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.

, 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 very eminent Protestant divine, was born October 3, 1573, at Ghent, of an ancient family, which has produced many distinguished magistrates. He officiated as pastor at several different places; declared in favour of the Counter-remonstrants, enjoyed the friendship and confidence of prince Maurice, and was one of those who drew up the canons of the famous synod of Dort. Walæus became afterwards professor of divinity at Leyden, and died July 9, 1639, leaving “Compendium EthicaeAristotelicae,” Leyden, 1636, 12mo. The greatest part of the Flemish translation of the Bible, made by order of the States, and which first appeared in 1637, was executed by him, and almost the whole of the New Testament. John Walæus his son, was professor of medicine at Leyden, where he died in 1649. He made some discoveries on the circulation of the blood, and taught Harvey’s system, although not without some attempt to deprive him of the honour of being the original inventor. His principal publication was “Epistolas de motu chyli et sanguinis,” Leyd. 1641.

, a French painter, was born at Valenciennes in 1684, of mean parents, who were ill al^le to cultivate his genius as it v deserved. He was placed at first under an ordinary master in the country; but his ambition led him to Paris, where he was employed in the theatre by a scene painter. Here his genius began to distinguish itself, and aspired to a prize in the academy, which he gained. He found means afterwards to obtain the king’s pension, which enabled him to see Rome, on which his heart had long been set. Here he was much taken notice of; as he was afterwards in England, where he spent a full year. His health declining, he returned into his own country with a view to establish it; but the experiment failed, and he died in the flower of his age in 1721, a martyr, as is commonly supposed, to industry, Watteau was a painter of great merit, considering his age and disadvantages. Every thing he gained was from himself. He had not only his own talents to form; but he had bad habits, contracted from bad masters, to overcome. In spite of all his difficulties, he became a very eminent painter; and his works are thought worthy of a place in the most curious cabinets. Vandyck and Rubens were the masters he copied after his studies became liberal. He painted chiefly conversation-pieces, in which the airs of his heads are much admired. It is thought he would have excelled in history if he had studied it. He left behind him a great number of drawings; some of which are done in red, others in black, chalk; and many there are in which both are mixed.

John was born at Great Grimsby in 1530, according to his biographers Strype and Panle, but according to Mr. Francis Thynne, quoted by Strype, in 1533: the former, however, is most probably the right date. He was sent early for education to St. Antony’s school, London, then a very eminent one, and was lodged in St. Paul’s churchyard, at his aunt’s, the daughter of Michael Thaller, ar verger of that church. Imbibing very young a relish of the doctrine of the reformation, he had of course no liking to the mass; so that though his aunt had often urged him togo with her to mass, and procured also some of the canons of St. Paul’s to persuade him to it, he still refused. By this she was so much exasperated, that she resolved to entertain him no longer under her roof, imputing all her losses and domestic misfortu-nes to her harbouring of such an heretic within her doors; and at parting told him, “that she thought at first she had received a saint into her house, but now she perceived he was a Devil.”