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

, advocate to the parliament of Paris, and to the council, and member of the French academy, was born at Paris in 1596. His abilities an 1 probity recommended him to some very honourable employments, and he particularly enjoyed the confidence of cardinal Mazarin. He was author of the following translations “Dialogues des Orateurs,” 4to. “l'Apologie de Socrate” “riiist. Sacree de Sulpice Severe;” “I'Apologetique de Tertullien,” for which he was received into the academy; “la Cite de Dieu, de St. Augustin,” I vol, 4to.; “Epitres Choisies de St. Augustin,” 5 vols. 12mo. He died in 1665, at Paris. His son, Francis, who was provincial of the Minim order, gained great reputation by some devotional works; but deserves little credit for his principal publication, “Les Vies des Saints,” fol. which although esteemed for its piety, is full of fables, and far from accurate as to facts. P. Raft'ron, of the same order, has written his life, 12mo.

Notwithstanding these compliances with the powers then in being, he was much esteemed for his knowledge in the civil law, which obtained him the post of king’s advocate at the restoration: after which, he published several books in his own faculty then in good esteem, as “A View of the Admiral’s Jurisdiction,” 1661, 8vo, in which is printed a translation by him, of Grasias, or Ferrand’s “Extract of the ancient Laws of Oleron;” “The Orphan’s Legacy, &c. treating of last wills and testaments,” 1674, 4to. And “Repertorium Canonicurn,” &c. 1678, 4to. In this last piece he strenuously and learnedly asserts the king’s supremacy, as a power vested in the crown, before the Pope invaded the right and authority, or jurisdiction. He died April 4, 1678, and was interred in St. James’s church, Clerkenwell.

, an ingenious French writer, was born at Paris in 1716, where his father was an advocate, and himself became a counsellor to the parliament. By close study, and by great assiduity in his pursuits, he produced in 1758 a work that obtained a temporary reputation, and was translated into English, entitled c< Origine des Loix, des Arts, des Sciences, et de leur Progres chez les anciens Peuples," 3 vols. 4to; reprinted in 1778, in six volumes 12mo. This work treats of the origin and progress of human knowledge, from the creation to the age of Cyrus, but displays more genius than erudition, and is rather an agreeable than a profound work. He died of the small-pox, May 2, 1758, immediately after the publication of his work; leaving his Mss. and library to his friend, Alexander Conrad Fugere, who died only three days after him, in consequence of being deeply affected by the death of Goguet, who was a man of much personal worth. Goguet had begun another work on the origin and progress of the laws, arts, sciences, &c. in France, from the commencement of the monarchy, the loss of which the admirers of his first production much regretted.

, an eminent modern Italian dramatist, was born at Venice in 1707. In his infancy the drama was his darling amusement, and all his time was devoted to the perusing comic writers, among whom was Cicognini, a Florentine, little known in the dramatic commonwealth. After having well studied these, he ventured to sketch out the plan of a comedy, even before he went to school. When he had finished his grammatical studies at Venice, and his rhetorical studies at the Jesuits’ college in Perugia, he was sent to a boarding-school at Rimini, to study philosophy, but he paid far more attention to the theatres, entered into a familiar acquaintance with the actors, and when they were to remove to Chiozza, made his escape in their company. This was the first fault he committed, which, according to his own confession, drew a great many others after it. His father had intended him to be a physician, like himself: the young man, however, was wholly averse to the study. He proposed afterwards to make him an advocate, and sent him to be a practitioner in Modena; but a horrid ceremony of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, at which he was present, inspired him with a melancholy turn, and he determined to become a Capuchin. Of this, however, he was cured by a visit to Venice, where he indulged in all the fashionable dissipation of the place. He was afterwards prevailed upon by his mother, after the death of his father, to exercise the profession of a lawyer in Venice, but by a sudden reverse of fortune he was compelled to quit at once both the bar and Venice. He then went to Milan, where he was employed by the resident of Venice in the capacity of secretary, and becoming acquainted with the manager of the theatre, he wrote a farce entitled “II Gondoliere Veneziano,” the Venetian Gondolier; which was the first comic production of his that was performed and printed. Some time after, Goldoni quitted the Venetian resident, and removed to Verona, where he got introduced to the manager of the theatre, for which he composed several pieces. Having removed along with the players to Genoa, he was for the first time seized with an ardent passion for a lady, who soon afterwards became his wife. He then returned with the company to Venice, where he displayed, for the first time, the powers of his genius, and executed his plan of reforming the Italian stage. He wrote the “Momolo,” “Courtisan,” the “Squanderer,” and other pieces, which obtained universal admiration. Feeling a strong inclination to reside some time in Tuscany, he repaired to Florence and Pisa, where he wrote “The Footman of two Masters,” and “The Son of Harlequin lost and found again.” He returned to Venice, and set about executing more and more his favourite scheme of reform. He was now attached to the theatre of S. Angelo, and employed himself in writing both for the company, and for his own purposes. The constant toils he underwent in these engagements impaired his health. He wrote, in the course of twelve months, sixteen new comedies, besides forty-two pieces for the theatre; among these many are considered as the best of his productions. The first edition of his works was published in 1753, in 10 vols. 8vo. As he wrote afterwards a great number of new pieces for the theatre of S. Luca, a separate edition of these was published, under the title of “The New Comic Theatre:” among these was the “Terence,” called by the author his favourite, and judged to be the master-piece of his works. He made another journey to Parma, on the invitation of duke Philip, and from thence he passed t Rome. He had composed 59 other pieces so late as 1761, five of which were designed for the particular use of Marque Albergati Capacelli, and consequently adapted to the theatre of a private company. Here ends the literary life of Goldoni in Italy, after which he accepted of an engagement of two years in Paris, where he found a select and numerous company of excellent performers in the Italian theatre. They were, however, chargeable with the same faults which he had corrected in Italy; and the French supported, and even applauded in the Italians, what they would have reprobated on their own stage. Goldoni wished to extend, even to that country, his plan of reformation, without considering the extreme difficulty of the undertaking. His first attempt was the piece called “The Father for Love;” and its bad success was a sufficient warning to him to desist from his undertaking. He continued, during the remainder of his engagement, to produce pieces agreeable to the general taste, and published twenty-four comedies; among which “The Love of Zelinda and Lindor” is reputed the best. The term of two years being expired, Goldoni was preparing to return to Italy, when a lady, reader to the dauphiness, mother to the late king, introduced him at court, in the capacity of Italian master to the princesses, aunts to the king. He did not live in the court, but resorted there, at each summons, in a post-chaise, sent to him for the purpose. These journeys were the cause of a disorder in the eyes, which afflicted him the rest of his life; for being accustomed to read while in the chaise, he lost his sight on a sudden, and in spite of the most potent remedies, could never afterwards recover it entirely. For about six months lodgings were provided him in the chateau of Versailles. The death, however, of the dauphin, changed the face of affairs. Goldoni lost his lodgings, and only, at the end of three years, received a bounty of 100 Louis in a gold box, and the grant of a pension of four thousand livres a year. This settlement would not have been sufficient for him, if he had not gained, by other means, farther sums. He wrote now and then comedies for the theatres of Italy and Portugal; and, during these occupations, was desirous to shew to the French that he merited a high rank among their dramatic writers. For this purpose, he neglected nothing which could be of use to render himself master of the French language. He heard, spoke, and conversed so much in it, that, in his 62d year, he ventured to write a comedy in French, and to have it. represented in the court theatre, on the occasion of the marriage of the king. This piece was the “Bourru Bienfaisant;” and it met with so great success, that the author received a bounty 'of 150 Louis from the king, another gratification from the performers, and considerable sums from the booksellers who published it. He published soon after, another comedy in French, called “L'Avare Fastueux.” After the death of Lewis XV. Goldoni was appointed Italian teacher to the princess Clotilde, and after her marriage, he attended the late unfortunate princess Elizabeth in the same capacity. His last work was the “Volponi,” written after he had retired from court. It was nis misfortune to live to see his pension taken away by the revolution, and, like thousands in a similar situation, he was obliged to pass his old age in poverty and distress. He died in the beginning of 1793. As a comic poet, Goldoni is reckoned among the best of the age in which he flourished. His works were printed at Leghorn in 1788—91, in 31 vols. 8vo. He has been reckoned the Moliere of Italy, and he is styled by Voltaire “The Painter of Nature.” Dr. Burney says that he is, perhaps, the only author of comic operas in Italy who has given them a little common sense, by a natural plot, and natural characters; and his celebrated comic opera of the “Buona Figliuola,” set by Piccini, and first performed in London Dec. 9th, 1766, rendered both the poet and composer, whose names had scarcely penetrated into this country before, dear to every lover of the Italian language and music, in the nation.

, in Latin Gutheriusi, a learned and judicious antiquary, and lawyer, was born at Chaumont in Bassigny, and was admitted advocate to the parliament of Paris. After having attended the bar with honour for forty years, he retired into the country, and devoted himself wholly to study. He died in 1638. His principal works are, 1. “De vetere Jure Pontificio urbis Romae,” 1612, 4to, which gave so much satisfaction at Rome, that the senate conferred the rank of Roman citizen on him and his posterity. 2. “De Officiis domtis Augustae, publicse et privates,” 1628, 4to, and Leipsic, 1672, 8vo, &c. 3. “De jure Manium,” Leipsic, 1671, 8vo. He wrote also two small tracts, one “De Orbitate toleranda” the other, < Laus caecitatis," &c. These works are all esteemed, and some Latin verses which he wrote have been admired for their elegance.

With the warmest sense of those favours, he presently shewed himself not unworthy of the royal bounty, by the many valuable books which he published in England which, from this time, he adopted for his own country and finding the ecclesiastical constitution so much to his mind, he entered into priest’s orders in that church, and became a zealous advocate for it, as coming nearer in his opinion to the primitive pattern than any other. In this spirit he published, in 1698, and the following year, “Spicilegium Ss. Patrum, &c.” or a collection of the lesser works and fragments, rarely to be met with, of the fathers and heretics of the three first centuries; induced to this compilation, as he expressly declared, by the consideration, that there could be no better expedient for healing the divisions of the Christian, church, than to reflect on the practice and opinions of the primitive fathers. Both these volumes were reprinted at Oxford in 1700, 8vo, and some remarks were made upon the first in a piece entitled “A new and full method of settling the Canonical Authority of the New Testament, by Jer. Jones, 1726,” 8vo. From the same motive he printed also Justin Martyr’s “First Apology” in 1700; and the works of Irenaeus in 1702; both which were animadverted upon by Thirlby, the editor of Justin Martyr, and Massuet, the editor of Irenaeus. Upon the accession of queen Anne to the throne this year, besides continuing his pension, her majesty sought an occasion of giving some farther proofs of her special regard for him; and she was not long in rinding one.

, lord Cullen, an eminent lawyer ind judge in Scotland, was descended from a younger >ranch of the ancient family of the Grants, of Grant, in iat kingdom; his ancestor in a direct line, being sir John Grant, of Grant, who married lady Margaret Stuart, daughter of the earl of Athol. He was born about 1660, and received the first part of his education at Aberdeen; but, being intended for the profession of the law, was sent to finish his studies at Leyden, under the celebrated Voet, with whom he became so great a favourite by his singular application, that many years afterwards the professor mentioned him to his pupils, as one that had done honour to the university, and recommended his example to them. On his return to Scotland, he passed through the examination requisite to his being admitted advocate, with such abilities as to attract the particular notice of sir George Mackenzie, then king’s advocate, one of the most ingenious men, as well as one of the ablest and most eminent lawyers, of that age. Being-thus 'qualified for practice, he soon got into full employ, by the distinguishing figure which he made at the Revolution in 1688. He was then only twenty-eight years of age; but, as the measures of the preceding reign had led him to study the constitutional points of law, he discovered a masterly knowledge, when the convention of estates met to debate that important affair concerning the vacancy of the throne, upon the departure of king James to France. Some of the old lawyers, in pursuance of the principles in which they had been bred, argued warmly against those upon which the Revolution, which had taken place in England, was founded; and particularly insisted on the inability of the convention of estates to make any disposition of the crown. Grant opposed these notions with great strength and spirit, and about that time published a treatise, in which he undertook, by the principles of law, to prove that a king might forfeit his crown for himself and his descendants -, and that in such a case the states had a power to dispose of it, and to establish and limit a legal succession, concluding with the warmest recommendations of the prince of Orange to the regal dignity.

In his private character he was as amiable as he was respectable in the public. There were certain circumstances that determined him to part with an estate that was left him by his father; and it being foreseen that he would employ the produce of it, and the money he had acquired by his profession, in a new purchase, there were many decayed families who solicited him to take their lands upon his own terms, relying entirely on that equity which they conceived to be the rule of his actions. It appeared that their opinion of him was perfectly well grounded; for, being at length prevailed upon to lay out his money on the estate of an unfortunate family, who had a debt upon it of more than it was worth, he first put their affairs into order, and by classing the different demands, and compromising a variety of claims, secured some thousand pounds to the heirs, without prejudice to arty, and of which they never could have been possessed but from his interposition and vigilance in their behalf, so far was he either from making any advantage to himself of their necessities, or of his own skill in his profession; a circumstance justly mentioned to his honour, and which is an equal proof of his candour, generosity, and compassion. His piety was sincere and unaffected, and his love for the church of Scotland was shewn in his recommending moderation and charity to the clergy as well as laity, and engaging the former to insist upon moral duties as the clearest and most convincing proofs of men’s acting upon religious principles; and his practice, through his whole life, was the strongest argument of his being thoroughly persuaded of those truths, which, from his love to mankind, he laboured to inculcate. He was charitable without ostentation, disinterested in his friendships, and beneficent to all who had any thing to do with him. He was not only strictly just, but so free from any species of avarice, that his lady, who was a woman of great prudence, finding him more intent on the business committed to him by others than on his own, took the care of placing out his money upon herself; and, to prevent his postponing, as he was apt to do, such kind of affairs, when securities offered, she caused the circumstances of them to be stated in the form of cases, and so procured his opinion upon his own concerns, as if they had been those of a client. These little circumstances are mentioned as more expressive of his temper than actions of another kind could be; because, in matters of importance, men either act from habit, or from motives that the world cannot penetrate; but, in things of a trivial nature, are less upon their guard, shew their true disposition, and stand confessed for what they are. He passed a long life in ease and honour. His sincerity and steady attachment to his principles recommended him to all parties, even to those who differed from him most; and his charity and moderation converted this respect into affection, so that not many of his rank had more friends, and perhaps none could boast of having fewer enemies. He left behind him three sons and five daughters-, his eldest son, Archibald Grant, esq. in his father’s life-time, represented in parliament the shire of Aberdeen; and becoming by his demise sir Archibald Grant, bait, was chosen again for the same county in 1717, His second son, William, followed his father’s profession, was several years lord-advocate for Scotland; and, in 1757, one of the lords of session, by the title of lord Prestongrange. Francis, the third son, was a merchant, and three of the daughters were married to gentlemen of fortune.

, a learned lawyer, was born at Delft in 1600. He wrote various works upon legal and political subjects, by which he acquired a considerable reputation. Among these are “Libertas Veneta, seu Venetorurn in se et suos imperandi Jus.” This was published in 1634, and in 1644 he defended the republic of Venice, in a dispute with the duke of Savoy concerning precedence; for which service, that republic created him a knight of St. Mark. He had also before this, attempted to confute Buchanan’s treatise “De Jure Majestatis,” in a work dedicated to Christina, queen of Sweden, who was known to be a great assertor of regal privileges. Grasswinkel defended the liberty of the seas against Selden, and Burgus, a native of Genoa, in his work “Maris Liberi Vindiciae,” and with so much judgment, in their opinion, that the States of Holland gave him a pension of 500 florins, with the title of Advocate-general of the marine, until an opportunity offered of rewarding his merit with a more honourable employment; which was afterwards that of advocate of the exchequer, and register and secretary of the chambre-mi-partie. He was author, likewise, of a treatise in two volumes, 4to, “On the Sovereignty of the States of Holland.” He died of an apoplexy at Mechlin, Oct. 12, 1666.

, 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 French protestant clergyman, born at Paris in 1647, was educated in the reformed religion, and after applying with success to classical studies, was advised by his father to follow the law. In 1664, accordingly, he was admitted to the title and privilege of a doctor of the civil and canon law, and the year following was received as an advocate at Paris, and was distinguishing himself, when by the persuasion of some friends, he quitted his profession, and began to study divinity at Saumur. In 1675 he was appointed minister of the church of Lisy, and was ordained. In -1677 and 1678 he received pressing invitations from the churches of Gien and Amiens, both which he declined, as it was his intention to spend a few more years in close study. At length, however, in 1682, he accepted an invitation from the church at Rouen, but did not remain long connected with it, a decree of council having separated him from his flock, and forbid him to come nearer the place than seven leagues. He was confined by sickness at the time this decree arrived, and on his recovery went to England in 1685, and connected himself in the exercise of his ministerial functions with Messieurs Allix and Lombard. In 1694 he became minister of the Savoy, which office he held until his death, Sept. 30, 1713. His widow is said to have given his library to the Savoy church, on Condition of its being open to the public certain days in every week. He published “Trait< de Pinspiration des livres sacrt-es,” Amst. 1695, and several sermons and pious tracts. He appears to have been a very active member of the society for propagating the gospel.

In 1603, the glory which the United Provinces had obtained by their illustrious defence against the whole power of Spain, after the peace of Vervins, determined them to transmit to posterity the signal exploits of that memorable war; and for this purpose they sought out a proper historian. Several made great interest for the place, and among others Baudius, the professor of eloquence at Leyden. But the States thought young Grotius, who had taken ao steps to obtain it, deserved the preference; and, what is singular, Baudius himself did not blame their choice, because he looked upon Grotius to be already a very great man. In the execution of this office, he undertook his “Annals,” which were begun in 1614, though not finished long before his death, and not published until twelve years after. All this while his principal employment was that of an advocate, in which he acquired great honour; but, upon the whole, the profession did not please him, though the brilliant figure he made at the bar procured him the place of advocate-general of the fisc for Holland and Zealand, which, becoming vacant, was immediately conferred on him by those provinces. He took possession of this important office in 1607, and filled it with so much reputation, that the States augmented his salary, and promised him a seat in the court of Holland. Upon this promotion, his father began to think of a wife for him, and fixed upon Mary Reigesberg, a lady of great family in Zealand, whose father had been burgomaster of Veer. The marriage was solemnized in July 1608, and celebrated by him in some Latin and French verses, the former of which he translated into Dutch. On this occasion his father likewise wrote an epithalamium, and another was composed by Heinsius. At the time of his marriage he was employed in writing his “Mare liberum,” i. e. “the Freedom of the Ocean, or the Right of the Dutch to trade to the Indies.” The work was printed in 1609, without his knowledge or consent. Indeed he appears not to have been quite satisfied with it: and though there came out seveial answers, particularly that of Selden, entitled “Mare clausum, seti de dominio maris,” yet, being soon after disgusted with his country, he took no farther concern in the controversy. The ensuing year, he published his piece “De antiquitate ReipublieiE Batavae,” designed to shew the original independence of Holland and Friesland against the Spanish claim; and he accordingly dedicated it to those States^ March 16, 1610, who were es-tremely pleased with it, returned thanks to the author, and made him a present. While it was in the press, Grotius and his father, who usually assisted him in his writings, translated it into Dutch.

, an elegant French writer, was born in 1641, at Paris, and admitted advocate to the parliament in that city, and although he seldom pleaded, was much consulted as a chamber counsel, in which rank he met with great success. He died April 22, 1688, at Paris. His principal works are, 1. “Les sept Sages de la Grcce.” 2. “Entretiens sur l'Eloquence de la Chaire et du Barreau.” 3. “Le Parnassus reforme.” 4. “La Guerre des Auteurs.” 5. “Le Journal du Palais,” a well-digested collection of the decrees of parliament, in the compilation of which he was assisted by Claude Blondeau, 1755, 2 vols. folio. 6. La Carte de'la Cour.“7.” La Promenade de St. Cloud, ou Dialogues sur les Auteurs,“a small work, but elegantly written, and full of wit; which the abbe” Joly, chanter of the chapel aux Riches at Dijon, having copied at the abbe L'Avocat’s house from the original ms. published without the abbe’s knowledge in the “Mcnioires historiques de Bruys.” M. Gueret published an edition of “Le Prester,” “Arrets notable du parlement,” with learned notes and additions, 1679, folio, &c. All his works discover an excellent taste, great penetration, and judicious criticism. Messrs. Gueret, doctors of the house and society of the Sorbonne, one curate of St. Paul, who died 1773, the other late grand vicar of lihodez, were sons of this celebrated author, and have supported their father’s reputation with distinction. The latter, named Lewis Gabriel, was author of a “Memoire sur l'Immunite du Clerge*,” 1751, 12mo; “Sur les Refus des Sacremens,” 1752, 12mo; “Sur le Droit qu'ont les Cures de commettre leur Vicaires, et les Confesseurs, dans leur Paroisses,” 1759, 12mo. He died 1759, aged eighty.

, the celebrated historian of Italy, was descended of an ancient and noble family at Florence, where he was born March 6, 1482. His father, Peter Guicciardini, an eminent lawyer, bred up his son in his own profession; in which design he sent him, in 1498, to attend the lectures of M. Jacobo Modesti, of Carmignano, who read upon Justinian’s Institutes at Florence, but his son submitted to this resolution with some reluctance. He had an uncle who was archdeacon of the metropolitan church of Florence, and bishop of Cortona; and the prospect of succeeding to these benefices, which yielded near 1500 ducats a year, had Bred the ambition of the nephew. He had hopes of rising from such a foundation through richer preferments by degrees to the highest, that of a cardinal; and the reversion of the uncle’s places might have been easily obtained. But, though his father had five sons, he could not think of placing any of them in the church, where he thought there was great neglect in the discipline. Francis proceeded therefore with vigour in the study of the law, and took his degrees at Pisa, in 1505; but, looking upon the canon law as of little importance, he chose to be doctor of the civil law only. The same year he was appointed a professor of the institutes at Florence, with a competent salary for those times. He was now no more than twenty-three years of age, yet soon established a reputation superior to all the lawyers his contemporaries, and had more business than any of them. In 1506 he married Maria, daughter of Everardo Salviati, by far the greatest man in Florence; and, in 1507, was chosen standing counsellor to several cities of the republic. Two years after he was appointed advocate of the Florentine chapter, a post of great honour and dignity, which had been always filled with the most learned counsellors in the city; and, in 1509, he was elected advocate of the order of Calmaldoli.

He continued thus employed in the proper business of his profession till 1511; but that year the cKsis of the public affairs gave occasion to call forth his abilities for more important matters. The Florentines were thrown into great difficulties by the league, which the French and Spaniards had entered into against the pope. Perplexed about their choice to remain neuter or engage in the league* they had recourse to our advocate, whom they sent ambassador to Ferdinand, king of Spain, to treat of this matter; and at the same time charged him with other affairs of the highest importance to the state. With this character he left Florence in 1512, and arriving safely afc Bruges, where his Spanish majesty then resided, remained two years at that court. Here he had an opportunity of exerting and improving his talents as a statesman. Many events happened in that time, the consequences whereof came within his province to negociate; such as the taking and plundering Ravenna and Prato by the Spaniards, the deposing of Piero Soderini, and the restoration of the family of Medici. In these and several other occurrences, which happened at that time, he adopted such measures, and with such address, that the republic found no occasion to employ any other minister; and the king testified his satisfaction by a great quantity of fine-wrought plate, which he presented to him at his departure. On his arrival at Florence in 1514, he was received with, uncommon marks of honour; and, in 15 15, constituted advocate of the consistory by Leo X. at Cortona. The pope’s favours did not stop here. Guicciardini’s extraordinary abilities, with a hearty devotion to the interest of the church, were qualifications of necessary use in the ecclesiastical state. Leo, therefore, that he might reap the full advantage of them, sent for him not long after to Rome, resolving to employ him where his talents might be of most service. In 1518, when Modena and Reggio were in great danger of being lost, he was appointed to the government of those cities, and proved himself equal to the charge.

, an ingenious and judicious French historian in the seventeenth century, was a native of Macon, and advocate at Bourg-en-Brasse. He distinguished himself by his works, and was loaded with favours from the duke of Savoy for his excellent “Hist. Genealogique de la Maison Royale de Savoie,” 1660, 2 vols. fol. He died September 8, 1664, aged 57, after having embraced the Catholic religion; and left, besides the work above-mentioned, “Une Suite Chronologique des Eveques de Belley,” 4to. “Hist.de Brasse et de Bugey,” 1650, fol. much esteemed, and “Hist, de la Principaute* de Dombes,” never printed; also a collection of the most remarkable acts and titles of the Province of Brasse and Bugey, entitled “Bibliotheca Sebnsiana,” 1666, 4to.

, a Lutheran divine, and eminent oriental scholar, was born in 1607, at Weimar. Becoming early attached to the study of sacred philology, he endeavoured to acquire a knowledge of the Oriental languages as necessarily connected with it, and therefore, after attending the philosophical and theological schools of Jena for seven years, he went to Altdorf, to profit hy the instructions of Schwenter, who was then esteemed one of the ablest Orientalists. From Altdorf he removed to Helmstadt, where he applied to his theological studies under Calixtus, Horneius, and others, and on his return to Altdorf in 1636 was the first who gave lessons in public on the Oriental languages in that place. In 1654 he became professor of theology, and in both situations evinced great talents and persevering industry. No man in his time was better skilled in the Hebrew, Syriac, Chaldean, and Arabic, and being the first who attempted to teach these languages, he wished to assist his students by proper elementary books, but the German press at that time was so deficient in the requisite types, that he must have abandoned his design if Jodocus Schmidmaier, an advocate at Nuremberg, had not established a printing-office properly supplied with Oriental characters; and at this place Hackspan was enabled to print his valuable works. He died of a decline in 1659. His principal writings are,

, one of the most eminent physicians and philosophers of the eighteenth century, was born at Berne, Oct. 16, 1708. He was the son of Nicholas de Haller, an advocate of considerable distinction in his profession, who had a numerous family. Albert was the youngest of five sons. From the commencement of his education, he discovered a great capacity for literature of every kind; to forward the progress of his studies, his father took into his family a private tutor, named Abraham Billodz; but such was the discipline employed by this pedagogue, that the accidental sight of him at any subsequent period of life, excited in Haller those painful recollections, of which all may have some idea who have been tutored with rigid severity. The progress of Haller’s studies, however, at the earliest periods of life, was rapid almost beyond belief. When other children were beginning only to read, he was studying Bayle and Moreri, and at nine years of age he was able to translate Greek, and was beginning to learn Hebrew. Not long after this, however, the course of his education was somewhat interrupted by the death of his father, which happened when he was in the thirteenth year of his age. After this he was sent to the public school at Berne, where he exhibited many specimens of early and uncommon genius. He was distinguished for his knowledge in the Greek and Latin languages, but principally for his poetical genius; and his essays of this kind, which were published in the German language, were read and admired throughout the whole empire.

, a statesman of some note, was the only son of William Hamilton, esq. an advocate of the court of session in Scotland, who after the union came to London, and was admitted to the English bar. His son was born in Lincoln’s-inn Jan. 28, 1728-9, and was educated at Winchester school, and at Oriel college, Oxford, where he was admitted a gentleman commoner, March 1, 1744-5. During his residence at Oxford, it is supposed he wrote those poems which were printed in 1750, 4to> for private distribution only, but have lately been published by Mr. Malone. On leaving Oxford, he became a member of Lincoln’s-inn, with a view to study the law; but on his father’s death in 1754, he betook hifnself to a political life, and in the same year was chosen, member of parliament for Petersfield in Hampshire. His first effort at parliamentary eloquence was made Nov. 13, 1755, when, to use the words of Waller respecting Denham, “he broke out, like the Irish rebellion, threescore thousand strong-, when nobody was aware, or in the least suspected it.” Certainly no first speech in parliament ever produced such an effect, or acquired such eulogies, both within and without the house of commons. Of this speech, however, no copy remains. For many years it was supposed to have been his only attempt, and hence the familiar name of Single-speech was fixed upon him; but he spoke a second time, Feb. 1756, and such was the admiration which followed this display of his talents, that Mr, P\>jc, then one of the principal secretaries of state, procured him to be appointed, in April of the same year, one of the lords of trade. At this board he sat five years without ever exerting his oratorical talents; and in 1761 accepted the office of principal secretary to George earl of Halifax, then appointed lord-lieutenant of Ireland. In the Irish parliament, as he filled an office of responsibility, it was necessary for him to support the measures of administration; and accordingly in 1761 and 1762, he made five speeches on various occasions, which fully gratified the expectations of his auditors. Mr. Hamilton continued secretary to the succeeding lord lieutenant, Hugh earl of Northumberland, in 1763, but it is believed his exertions in that session were less splendid and less frequent; and before it concluded, on some disgust he resigned his office. On his return to England, and for a long time afterwards, he meditated taking an active part in the political warfare of the house of commons, but he never again addressed the chair, though he was chosen into every new parliament that was summoned from that time till May 1796, a little before his death. In this period, the only office hg filled was that of chancellor of the exchequer in Ireland, which he held from Sept. 1763 to April 1784. During this interval he was one of those on whom common rumour bestowed the authorship of Junius’s letters, and perhaps never was any rumour so completely devoid of a probable foundation. He died at his house in Upper Brook-street, July 16, 1796, and was buried in the chancel vault of the church of St. Martin in the Fields. In 1803, Mr. Malona published his works under the title of “Parliamentary Logic; to which are subjoined two Speeches delivered in the House of Commons in Ireland, and other pieces,” 8vo f with a life of the author prefixed. These speeches give us but a faint idea of the splendid abilities which once so enraptured his hearers, nor does his poetry entitle him to rank above the elegant versifiers of his time. His Parliamentary Logic“is a performance of a more singular cast. It consists of a string of maxims, or rules, for managing a debate in parliament, in which the author appears serious, else we should have supposed parliamentary logic” to imply a ridicule on the language of that house. These maxims, however, seem admirably qualified to make a partizan; although we much doubt whether they have a tendency to make that more valuable character, an honest man.

At the beginning of the revolution he professed himself an advocate for the new order of things; and most likely he continued in the same principles till the downfall of royalty, and till he himself fell a prey to the terrorism of Robespierre. It appears from the report of Gregoire to the national convention, that he was imprisoned from November 1793 to August 1794; and this confinement was the cause of M. La Harpe’s conversion, brought about by the advice of the bishop of St. Brieux, who happened to be his fellow-prisoner La Harpe soon after proved one of the greatest champions of the attempted counter-revolution; and from the latter part of 1794, he devoted almost his whole time to royalist publications, among which were his dissertation on the war declared by the republican tyranny against good sense and morals, his Fanaticism of the Revolutionary Language, his Confutation of Helvetius, and his journal Le Memorial, which he edited conjointly with his friend Fontanes. This Memorial, however, involved La Harpe in the directorial proscription of the 14th September 1797, and he narrowly escaped being transported to Cayenne; it was a twelvemonth before he was restored to his station in Paris. But confinement had injured his health, and he died in Feb. 1803, in the sixty-fifth year of his age. On the evening preceding his death, M. Fontanes called to see him; he was listening to the Prayers for the Sick; and as soon as they were concluded, he stretched his hand to M. Fontanes, and said, “I am grateful to divine mercy for having left me sufficient recollection to feel how consoling these prayers are to the dying.” His funeral was attended by his friends, and most of the distinguished literary characters in France. A deputation from the institute

, a learned English physician, the son of a tradesman at Gloucester, was born there about 1647, and educated at Winchester school. In 1666 he was admitted perpetual fellow of New-college; Oxford, without passing through the year’s probation, in consequence of his being of the founder’s kin. Having, however, embraced the Roman catholic religion, he resigned his fellowship in 1673, and went to France, where, either at Doway or Paris, he took his doctor’s degree. In 1676 he returned to London, and began practice chiefly among the Roman catholics; but when in consequence of Oates’s plot, in 1678, all o.f that persuasion were ordered to leave the metropolis, he renounced the errors of popery, and wrote in 1679 a pamphlet entitled. “A Farewell to Popery,” Lond. 4to, On the revolution, he was appointed physician to king William III. at the recommendation of the celebrated Tillotson. Of his attendance on the king, he himself informs us of this circumstance, that being in his majesty’s chamber, he took the liberty, in the presence of the lords in waiting, to find fault with the custom of binding every morning the king’s feet, which were very much swelled. He said that by this means the humours falling into the feet would be driven back into the viscera. Another anecdote he gives of himself, which perhaps would have come with a better grace from any one else, is, that Dr. Goodall, president of the college of physicians, told him one day that he envied him (Dr. Harris) more than he envied any body else, because he was always easy in his mind, and free from anxious cares. He appears to have had very considerable practice, and was a fellow of the college, and censor in 1689. The time of his death we have not been able to discover, but he was alive in 1725, when he published his “Dissertationes Medicæ et Chirurgicæ, habitæ in amphitheatre collegii regalis,” in the title-­page to which he styles himself “Præses natus, et professor Chirurgiæ.” His other publications were, 1. “Pharmacologia anti-empirica,” Lond. 1683, 8vo. 2. “De morbis acutis infantum,” 1689, 8vo, often reprinted, and translated into English by Cockburn, in 1693, and by IMartyn in 1742, and into French by Devaux. In his “Dissertationes medicæ” are some valuable papers on various medical topics, and he is a strong advocate for inoculation for the small-pox.

, a caustic wit of the Elizabethan period, and the butt of the wits of his time, was born about 1545. His father, although a rope-maker by trade, was of a good family, and nearly related to sir Thomas Smith, the celebrated statesman. He was educated at Christ’s college, Cambridge, and for some time at Pembroke hall, and took both his degrees in arts. He afterwards obtained a fellowship in Trinity-hall, and served the office of proctor in the university. Having studied civil law, he obtained his grace for a degree in that faculty, and in 1585 was admitted doctor of laws at Oxford, which he completed in the following year, and practised as an advocate in the prerogative court of Canterbury at London. As a poet and a scholar, he had great merit. His beautiful poem, signed Hobbinol, prefixed to the “Faerie Queene,” bespeaks an elegant and well-turned mind; and among his works are several productions of great ingenuity and profound research. But he had too much propensity to vulgar abuse; and having once involved himself with his envious and railing contemporaries Nash and Greene, came their equal in this species of literary warfare. He afforded the ai, howe?er, sufficient advantage, by having turned almanack-maker and a prophetic dealer in earthqu ikes and prodigies, things which must not be altogether reierred to the credulity of the times, since they were as aptly ridiculed then by his opponents, as they would be now, did any man of real knowledge and abilities become so absurd as to propagate the belief in them. His highest honour was in having Spenser for his intimate friend; nor was he less esteemed by sir Philip Sidney, as appears by the interesting account Mr. Todd has given of Harvey’s correspondence in his excellent Life of Spenser. For an equally curious account of Harvey’s literary quarrels with Nash, &c. the reader may be referred with confidence to one of the most entertaining chapters in Mr. DTsraeli’s “Calamities of Authors.” He is supposed to have died in 1630, aged about eighty-five. Among his works which provoked, or were written in answer to, the attacks of his contemporaries, we may enumerate, 1. “Three proper and wittie letters touching the Earthquake, and our English reformed versifying,” Lond. 1.080, 4to. 2. “Two other very commendable Letters touching artificial versifying,” ibid. 15SO, 4to. Harvey boasted his being the inventor of English hexameters, which very jnstly exposed him to ridicule. 3. “Foure Letters, and certain Sonnets, touching Robert Greene and others,” ibid. 1592. His uniiKinlv treatment of Greene has been noticed with proper indignation by sir E. Brydges in his reprint of Greene’s *' Groatsworth of Wit,“and by Mr. Haselwood in his life of that poet in the” Censura Literaria.“5.” Pierce’s Supererogation, or a new prayse of the old Asse, with an advertisement for Pap. Hatchet and Martin Marprelate,“ibid. 1593, &c. This war ol scurrility was at length terminated by an order of the archbishop of Canterbury,” that all Nashe’s books and Dr. Harvey’s bookes be taken wheresoever they be found, and that none of the said bookes be ever printed hereafter.“Among his more creditable performances, Tanner has enumerated, 1.” Rhetor, sive dtiorutn dterum oratio de natura, arte et exercitatione rbetorica,“Lond. 1577, 4to. 2.” Ciceronianus, vel oratio post reditum habita Cantabrigise ad suos auditores,“ibid. 1577, <Ko. 3.” Gratulatio Vatdenensium, lib. IV. ad Elizabetham reginam,“ibid. 1578. 4.” Smithus, vel musarum lachrymze pro obitu honoratiss. viri Thorn se Smith," ibid. 1578, 4to.

, a strenuous advocate for Socinianism, was born in 1672, and became assay-master of the mint, and principal tally-writer of the exchequer. In defence of the independence and prerogatives of his office, he printed and privately dispersed a tract entitled “A hriel enquiry relating to the right of his majesty’s Chapel Royal, and the privileges of his servants within the Tower, in a Memorial addressed to the rignt hon. the lord viscount Lonsdale, constable of his majesty’s Tower of London,” 1728, folio. His principal effort in favour of Socicianism was entitled “The Scripture account of the attributes and worship of God, and of the character and offices of Jesus Christ, by a candid Enquirer after Truth.” This he left for the press, and it was accordingly printed by his son, in obedience to his father’s injunctions, but probably against his own inclinations, nor was it generally known as a publication until reprinted in 1790 by the late rev. Theophilus Lindsey. Mr. Haynesdied November 19, 1749. His son Samuel Haynes was educated at King’s college, Cambridge, where he took his degrees of A. B in 1723, A. M. 1727, and D. D. in 1748. He was tutor to the earl of Salisbury, with whom he travelled, and who, in 1737, presented him to the valuable rectory of Hatfield in Hertfordshire. In March 1743, he succeeded to a canonry of Windsor; and in May 1747, he was presented by his noble patron to the rectory of Clothal, which he held by dispensation with Hatfield. He died June 9, 1752. He published “A Collection of State-papers, relating to affairs in the reigns of Henry VIII. Edward VI. Mary and Elizabeth, from 1542 to 1570,” transcribed from the Cecil Mss. in Hatfield-house, 1740, fol.

, at first an advocate, afterwards an ecclesiastic, and abbé of Auhignac and Meimac, was born at Paris in 1604. Cardinal Richelieu, whose nephew he educated, bestowed on him his two abbeys, and the protection of that minister gave him consequence both as a man of the world and as an author. He figured by turns as a grammarian, a classical scholar, a poet, an antiquary, a preacher, and a writer of romances; but he was most known by his book entitled “Pratique du Theatre,” and by the quarrels in which his haughty and presumptuous temper engaged him, with some of the most eminent authors of his time. The great Corneille was one of these, whose disgust first arose from the entire omission of his name in the celebrated book above mentioned. He was also embroiled, on different accounts, with madame Scuderi, Menage, and Richelet. The warmth of his temper exceeded rhat of his imagination, which was considerable; and yet he lived at court a good deal in the style of a philosopher, rising early to his studies, soliciting no favours, and associating chiefly with a few friends, as unambitious as himself, he describes himself as of a slender constitution, not capable of taking much exercise, or even of applying very intensely to study, without suffering from it in his health; yet not attached to any kind of play. “It is,” ays he, “too fatiguing for the feebleness of my body, or too indolent for the activity of my mind.” The abbé d'Aubignac lived to the age of seventy-two, and died at xnours in 1676. His works are, 1. “Pratique du Theatre,” Amsterdam, 1717, two vols. 8vo; also in a 4to edition published at Paris; a book of considerable learning, but little calculated to inspire or form a genius. 2. “Zenobie,” a tragedy, in prose, composed according to the rules laid down in his “Pratique,” and a complete proof of the total inefficacy of rules to produce an interesting drama, being the most dull and fatiguing performance that was ever represented. The prince of Condé said, on the subject of this tragedy, “We give great credit to the abbé d'Aubignac for having so exactly followed the rules of Aristotle, but owe no thanks to the rules of Aristotle for having made the abbé produce so vile a tragedy.” He wrote a few other other tragedies also, which are worse, if possible, than Zenobia. 3. “Macaride; or the Queen of the Fortunate Islands,” a novel, Paris, 1666, 2 vok 8vo. 4. “Conseils d'Ariste à Celimene, 12mo. 5.” Histoire da terns, ou Relation du Royaume de Coqueterie,“12mo, 6.” Terence justifié,“inserted in some editions of his” Pratique.“7.” Apologie de Spectacles," a work of no value. A curious book on satyrs, brutes, and monsters, has been attributed to him; but, though the author’s name was Hedelin, he does not appear to have been the same.

, an ingenious member of the academy at Soissons, and that of ^the Ricovrati at Padua, was born at Soissons of a noble family; and the meetings held at his hoTise gave rise to the academy afterwards established in that place. He was entrusted with some important commissions by the French court, and wrote a history of the academy of Soissons, in Latin, printed at Montauban, 1688, 8vo. He died 1704. M. Lewis de Hericourt, an eminent advocate at Paris, his grandson, who died 1753, was author of “Traite” des Loix Ecclesiastiques, mises dans leur ordre naturel,“1771,fol. an abridgement of pere Thomassins’s” Discipline de PEglise,“with remarks, 4to;” Traite de la Vente des Immeubles," 4to; and some posthumous works, 4 vols. 4to.

Soon after this event, a coolness arose between captain Hervey and his wife, which increased till they both became desirous of a separation. In Jan. 1747, he was appointed to the command of the Princessa, and served in the Mediterranean under admirals Medley and Byng and after the peace, in Jan. 1752, he obtained the Phoenix of 22 guns. In the course of two wars, the courage, zeal, and activity of captain Hervey were distinguished in the Mediterranean, off Brest, at the Havannah, and in other places. During the same period he was gradually advanced to the command of a 74 gun ship; and at the peace in 1763 he was appointed one of the grooms of the bed-­chamber to the king. In 1771 he was created one of the lords of the admiralty; and in 1775, on the death of his brother without issue, he became earl of Bristol, after having represented the borough of Bury St. Edmund’s in four parliaments. He now resigned his places, and was created an admiral. In the beginning of the American war, captain Hervey was a strenuous advocate for the measures of the ministry; but, changing his politics in the year 1778, continued to the end of it as violent an opponent; not without very striking appearances of inconsistency on several occasions. He died in 1779, when his titles, and as much of his estate as he could not leave away, devolved to his brother the bishop of Derry, as he left no legitimate heir. The affair of his marriage, which attracted much public notice at the time, was briefly thus: After nine years of preparation, his wife, who had long lived with the Juke of Kingston, obtained her suit in the commons, in 1768, by which it was decided that their marriage never had been legal, and was void. She then was married to the duke of Kingston in 1769. But, it appearing afterwards that the decision had been fraudulently obtained, she was indicted in 1775 for bigamy, tried in the House of peers, and found guilty, but, as a peeress, was discharged from corporal punishment. She afterwards died abroad in 1788, The following well-drawn character of lord Bristol, written by a contemporary peer in the sea-service, lord Mulgrave, seems to justify the insertion of his name in this place; though it may be in some degree heightened by personal partiality.

It appears, however, that notwithstanding this unjust treatment by the Christians at Constantinople, he afterwards philosophized at Alexandria in his usual manner; and hence we may infer, that the severities with which the Gentile people, and particularly their learned men and philosophers, were treated, were not extremely rigorous. Hierocles wrote a treatise “On Providence,” of which Photius has given large extracts, and in which he appears to be an advocate for the Eclectic philosophy, labouring to reconcile the doctrines of Plato and Aristotle concerning providence, the origin of the world, the immortality of the soul, and other subjects. He pursues the same method of philosophizing in his book “On Fate,” and in his *' Commentary on the Golden Verses of Pythagoras,“which is still extant. Besides these, there are large fragments of other works preserved in Stobaeus, and generally published together with the works above-mentioned. All these' are valuable, tending to recommend and promote virtue; but not with that force which flows from revelation, enjoining every part of moral righteousness by divine authority, and with the assurance of recompences in a future state. The first edition of the” Golden Verses" was published at Paris, Gr. and Lat. 158.3. The best is that of Ashton and Warren, Gr. and Lat. Lond. 1742. From this an English translation was published by the rev. William Rayner, vicar of Calthorpe, Norwich, 1797, 8vo.

, sometimes written Oldsworth, and Oldisworth, a learned and loyal English divine, the youngest son of Richard Holdsworth, a celebrated preacher at Newcastlerupon-Tyne, was born in 1590, and after the death of his father was committed to the care of the rev. William Pearson, a clergyman of the same place, who had married his sister. He was first educated at Newcastle, and in July 1607 admitted of St. John’s college, Cambridge. Jn 1610 he took his bachelor’s degree, in 1613 was chosen fellow of his college, in 1614 was made master of arts, and incorporated at Oxford in the same degree in 1617, and in. 1620 was chosen one of the twelve university preachers at Cambridge. While at college he was tutor, among others, to the famous sir Symond D'Ewes. After this he was for some time chaplain to sir Henry Hobart, lord chief justice of the common pleas, and then, had a living given him in the West Riding of Yorkshire, which he exchanged for the rectory of St. Peter the Poor, Broad-street, London. He settled there a little before the great sickness in 1625, during which he continued to do the duties of his office, became a very popular preacher, and was much followed by the puritans. In 1629 he was chosen professor of divinity at Gresham college, and in his lectures, afterwards published, he discovered an unusual extent and variety of learning. They were frequented by a great concourse of divines and young scholars. About 1631 he was made a prebendary of Lincoln, and in 1633 archdeacon of Huntingdon. In the same year he stood candidate for the mastership of St. John’s college, but neither he nor his competitor, Dr. Lane, being acceptable at court, the king, by mandate, ordered Dr. Beale to be chosen. In 1637, however, Mr. Holdsworth was elected master of Emanuel college, and created doctor of divinity. In the same year he kept the act at Cambridge, and in 1639 was elected president of Sion college by the London clergy. In 1641 he resigned his professorship at Gresham college, and the rebellion having now begun, he was marked out as one of the sacrifices to popular prejudice, although he had before suffered somewhat from the court. While vice-chancellor Dr. Holdsworth had supplied the king with money contributed by the university, a crime not easily to be forgiven. When, however, the assembly of divines was called, Dr. Holdsworth was nominated one of the number, but never sat among them. Soon after in obedience to the king’s mandate, he caused such of his majesty’s declarations to be printed at Cambridge as were formerly published at York, for which, and, as Dr. Fuller says, a sermon preached then by him, he was forced to leave the university before the expiration of his office as vice-chancellor. After some concealment he was apprehended near London, and imprisoned, first in Ely house, and then in the Tower. Such was the regard, however, in which he was held at Cambridge, that while under confinement he was elected Margaret professor of divinity, which he held until his death, although he could Meither attend the duties of it nor receive the profits; but his rectory of St. Peter the Poor, and the mastership of Emanuel, were both taken from him. It seems uncertain when he was released. We find him attending the king at Hampton Court in 1647; and in January following, when the parliament voted that no more addresses should be made to the king, he preached a bold sermon against that resolution, for which he was again imprisoned, but being released, assisted, on the king’s part, at the treaty in the Isle of Wight. The catastrophe that soon after befell his royal master is thought to have shortened his life, which terminated Aug. 29, 1649. He lived unmarried, and left his property to charitable uses, except his books, part of, which went to Emanuel college, and part to the public library at Cambridge. He was buried in the chnrch of St. Peter the Poor, where is a monument to his memory. He was of a comely appearance and venerable aspect; warm in his temper, but soon pacified; a great advocate for the king, and zealous in the cause of episcopacy. He was devout, charitable, and an excellent scholar. In his “Preelectiones” he shows not only an intimate acquaintance with the fathers and schoolmen, but likewise most of the eminent divines of later ages, popish as well as protestant, and his style is good. His works are, 1. “A Sermon preached in St. Mary’s, Cambridge, on his majesty’s inauguration,” 1642, 4to, the only thing he ever published. 2. “The Valley of Vision; or a clear sight of sundry sacred truths; delivered in twenty-one sermons,” Lond. 1651, 4to. These were taken in short hand, and Dr. Pearson says they are very defective. 3. “Praelectiones theologicae,” Lond. 1661, fol. published by his nephew, Dr. William Pearson, with a life of the author.

, a celebrated chemist, was born at Batavia in the island of Java, Jan. 3, 1652, the son of John Homberg, a Saxon gentleman, governor of the arsenal of that place. His father at first put him into the army, but soon after quitting the service of the Dutch, and a military life, brought him to Amsterdam, where he settled. He was now educated, by paternal indulgence, at Jena and Leipsic, for the law, and was received as an advocate in 1674 at Magdebourg, but the sciences seduced him from the law: in his walks he became a botanist, and in his nocturnal rambles an astronomer. An intimacy with Otto de Guericke, who lived at Magdebourg, completed his conversion, and he resolved to abandon his first profession. Otto, though fond of mystery, consented to communicate his knowledge to so promising a pupil; but as his friends continued to press him to be constant to the law, he soon quitted Magdebourg, and went into Italy. At Padua and Bologna he pursued his favourite studies, particularly medicine, anatomy, botany, and chemistry. One of his first efforts in the latter science was the complete discovery of the properties of the Bologna stone, and its phosphoric appearance after calcination, which Casciarolo had first observed. The efforts of Hombergr in several scientific inquiries, were pursued at Rome, in France, in England with the great Boyle, and afterward in Holland and Germany. With Baldwin and Kunckel he here pursued the subject of phosphorus. Not yet satisfied with travelling in search of knowledge, he visited the mines of Saxony, Hungary, Bohemia, and Sweden. Having materially improved himself, and at the same time assisted the progress of chemistry at Stockholm, he returned to Holland, and thence revisited France, where he was quickly noticed by Colbert. By his interposition, he was prevailed upon to quit his intention of returning to Holland to marry, according to the desire of his father, and fixed himself in France. This step also alienated him from his religion. He renounced the Protestant communion in 1682, and thus losing all connexion with his family, became dependent on Louis XIV. and his minister. This, however, after the death of Colbert in 1683, became a miserable dependence; men of learning and science were neglected as much as before they had been patronized; and Homberg, in 1687, left Paris for Rome, and took up the profession of physic. He now pursued and perfected his discoveries on phosphorus, and prosecuted his discoveries in pneumatics, and other branches of natural philosophy. Finding, after some time, that the learned were again patronized at Paris, he returned there in 1690, and entered into the academy of sciences tinder the protection of M. de Bignon. He now resumed the study of chemistry, but found his finances too limited to carry on his experiments as he wished, till he had the good fortune to be appointed chemist to the duke of Orleans, afterwards regent. In this situation he was supplied with the most perfect apparatus, and all materials for scientific investigation. Among other instruments, the large burning mirror of Tschirnaus was given to his care, and he made with it the most interesting experiments, on the combustibility of gold and other substances. In examining the nature of borax he discovered the sedative salt, and traced several remarkable properties of that production. Pleased with the researches of his chemist, the duke of Orleans in 1704 appointed him his first physician. About the same time he was strongly solicited by the elector palatine to settle in his dominions, but he was too much attached to his present patron to quit Paris, and was besides not without an inclination of a more tender kind for mademoiselle Dodart, daughter to the celebrated physician of that name. He married her in 1708, though hitherto much averse to matrimony; but enjoyed the benefit of his change of sentiments only seven years, being attacked in 1715 with a dysentery, of which he died in September of that year.

With no other stock of learning than what he had acquired from this Mr. Wingate, he was, about 1712, bound by indenture to attend the office of a writer of the signet in Edinburgh, as preparatory to the profession of a writer or solicitor before the supreme court; but circumstances inspired him with the ambition of becoming an advocate; and now being sensible of his defective education, he resumed the study of the Greek and Latin languages, to which he added French and Italian, and likewise applied himself to the study of mathematics, natural philosophy, logic, ethics, and metaphysics. These pursuits, which he followed at the same time with the study of the law, afforded, independently of their own value, a most agreeable variety of employment to his active mind. His attention appears to have been much turned to metaphysical investigation, for which he all his life entertained a strong predilection. About 1723, he carried on a correspondence with the celebrated Andrew Baxter, and Dr. Clarke, upon subjects of that kind. In January 1724, he was called to the bar, at a time when bath the bench and bar were filled by men of uncommon eminence. As he did not possess in any great degree the powers of an orator, he engaged for some time but a moderate share of practice as a barrister. In 1728, he published a folio volume of “Remarkable Decisions of the Court of Session,” executed with so much judgment, that he began to be regarded as a young man of talents, who had his profession at heart, and would spare no pains to acquit himself, with honour, in the most intricate causes in which he might be employed. His practice was quickly increased; and after 1732, when he published a small volume, entitled “Essays upon several subjects in Law,” he was justly considered as a profound and scientific lawyer. These essays afford an excellent example of the mode of reasoning which he afterwards pursued in most of his jurisprudential writings, and, in the opinion of his biographer, furnish an useful model for that species of investigation.

, a Scotch lawyer, was the son of Henry Hope, a merchant of Edinburgh, who had many commercial transactions with Holland, where he afterwards resided, and where he married Jacque or Jacqueline de Tott. His son Thomas soon distinguished himself at the bar; and was made king’s advocate in 1627, when he was also created a baronet by Charles I. He however attached himself to the covenanters, and was consulted by them in all difficult points. The king nevertheless, perhaps either to render him suspected to that party, or with a view to win him over, appointed sir Thomas commissioner to the general assembly in August 1643.

In 1784 this Letter was followed by his “Letters on Infidelity;” which abound with instruction and entertainment, and are exceedingly well adapted both to arm the minds of youth against the dangerous tendency of philosophizing infidelity, and to counteract any impression, which its specious garb and licentious easy temper may have already made. The unsoundness of Mr. Hume’s opinions, and the futility of his arguments, are displayed in so happy a strain of ridicule, that none, says one of his biographers, “but an unbeliever can be angry, or even feel displeased.” The latter part of these Letters is employed in attempting to shew the fallacy of some miscellaneous objections against Christianity, brought forward by a more modern advocate for infidelity.

, cardinal, was born at Cracow, in Poland, in 1503, of low parents, but being welleducated, bore such a character after taking his degrees, as to be admitted into the Polish se.nate. He was, here distinguished by the acuteness of his genius, the retentiveness of his memory, and other accomplishments mental and personal and was advanced successively to the places ofsecretary to the king, canon of Crac.ow, bishop of Culm, and bishop of Warmia. He was sentby the. pope Pius IV. to engage the emperor Ferdinand to continue the council of Trent; and the emperor was sq charmed with his eloquence and address, that he granted whatever he asked. Pius then made him a cardinal, and employed him as his legate, to open and preside at the council.Hosius was a zealous advocate for the Rpmish church, and de.? fended it ably, both in speeches and writings the latter of which amounted to two tolio, volumes, and were often printed during his life. He died in 1579, at the age of seventy-six, and was buried in the chmrch of St. Lawrence, from which he took hie title as cardinal. By his will he left his library to the university of Cracow, with an annual sum to provide for its support and increase. Am.ong his works, th^ chief are, 1. “Confessio Catholicae Fidei,” said to have been reprinted in various languages, thirty- four times. 2. “De Communione sub utraque specie.” 3. “De sacerdotum conjugio.” 4, " De Missa vulgari lingua celebrandaV' &c. His works were first collectively published, at Cologne, in 1584.

, chancellor of France, and one of the most liberal-minded men of his time, was the son of a physician, and born at Aigneperse in Auvergne, in 1505. His father sent him to study in the most celebrated universities of France and Italy, where he distinguished himself at once by his genius for literature, and for business. Having diligently studied jurisprudence, he was quickly advanced to very honourable posts; being successively auditor of the congregation called the congregation of Rota at Rome, and counsellor in the parliament of Paris, which he held during twelve years. He has described in one of his poems his habits of life during this time. He rose at a very early hour, and in the autumnal, winter, and spring sessions, was often in the court of justice before day-break, and reluctantly rose from his seat, when the beadle, at ten o'clock (the hour of dinner) announced the breaking up of the court. He says, that he made it a rule to listen to all with patience, to interrupt no one, to express himself as concisely as possible, and to oppose unnecessary delays. He mentions, with evident satisfaction, the joy which he felt when the vacations allowed him to quit Paris, and breathe in the country. The cares of magistracy he then banished wholly from his thoughts, and endeavoured, by harmless relaxation, to enable himself, on his return to the discharge of his functions, to resume them with fresh vigour. “But,” says he, “there is nothing frivolous in my amusements; sometimes Xenophon is the companion of my walks; sometimes the divine Plato regales me with the discourses of Socrates. History and poetry have their turns; but my chief delight is in the sacred writings: what comfort, what holy calm, does the meditation of them confer!” L‘Hospital was then appointed by Henry II. to be his ambassador at the council of Trent, which was sitting at Bologna, By his own desire, he was soon recalled from that honourable employment, and on his return experienced, at first, some coldness from the court, but was soon restored to the royal favour, and appointed master of the requests. In the beginning of If 54- he was made superintendent of the royal finances in France. His merits in this post were of the most singular and exalted kind. By a severe ceconomy, he laboured to restore the royal treasure, exhausted by the prodigality of the king, Henry II. and the dishonest avarice of his favourites; he defied the enmity of those whose profits he destroyed, and was himself so rigidly disinterested, that after five or six years’ continuance in this place, he was unable to give a portion to his^daughter, and the deficiency was supplied by the liberality of the sovereign. On the death of Henry, in 1549, the cardinal of Lorraine,then at the head of affairs, introduced l’Hospital into the council of state. Hence he was removed by Margaret of Valois, who took him into Savoy, as her chancellor. But the confusions of France soon made it necessaryto recal a man of such firmness and undaunted integrity. In the midst of faction and fury, he was advanced to the high office of chancellor of that kingdom, where he maintained his, post, like a philosopher who was superior.‘to fear, or any species of weakness. At the breaking out of the conspiracy of Amboice, in 1560, and on all other occasions, he was the advocate for mercy and reconciliation; and by the edict of Romorantin, prevented the establishment of the inquisition in France. It was perhaps for reasons of this kind, and his general aversion to persecution for religion’s sake, that the violent Romanists ac>­cused him of being a concealed Protestant; forgetting that by such suspicions they paid the highest compliment to the spirit of Protestantism. The queen, Catherine of Medicis, who had contributed to the elevation of l’Hospital, being too violent to approve his pacific measures, ex-, eluded him from the council of war; on which he retired to his country- house at Vignay near Estampes. Some days after, when the seals were demanded of him, he resigned them without regret, saying, that “the affairs of the world were too corrupt for him to meddle with them.” In lettered ease, amusing himself with Latin poetry, and a select society of friends“, he truly enjoyed his retreat, till his happiness was interrupted by the atrocious day of St. Bartholomew, in 1572. Of this disgraceful massacre,- he thought as posterity has thought but, though his friends conceived it probable that he might be included in the proscription, ha disdained to seek his safety by flight. So firm was he, that when a party of horsemen actually advanced to his house, though without orders, for the horrid purpose of murdering him, he refused to close his gates” If the small one,“said he,” will not admit them, throw open the large“and he was preserved only by the arrival of another party, with express orders from the king to declare that he was not among the proscribed. The persons who made the lists, it was added, pardoned him the opposition he had always made to their projects.” I did not know,“said he coldly, without any change of countenance,” that I had done any thing to deserve either death or pardon." His motto is said to have been,

, an English writer of some abilities and learning, born Jan. 1626, was a younger son of Thomas earl of Berkshire, and educated at Magdalen college, Cambridge. During the civil war he suffered with his family, who adhered to Charles I. but at the Restoration was made a knight, and chosen for Stockbridge in Hampshire, to serve in the parliament which began in May 1661. He was afterwards made auditor of the exchequer, and was reckoned a creature of Charles II. whom the monarch advanced on account of his faithful services, in cajoling the parliament for money. In 1679 he was chosen to serve in parliament for Castle Rising in Norfolk; and re-elected for the same place in 1688. He was a strong advocate for the Revolution, and became so passionate an abhorrer of the nonjurors, that he disclaimed all manner of conversation and intercourse with persons of that description. His obstinacy and pride procured him many enemies, and among them the duke of Buckingham; who intended to have exposed him under the name of Bilboa in the “Rehearsal,” but afterwards altered his resolution, and levelled his ridicule at a much greater name, under that of Bayes. He was so extremely positive, and so sure of being in the right upon every subject, that Shadwell the poet, though a man of the same principles, could not help ridiculing him in his comedy of the “Sullen Lovers,” under the character of Sir Positive At-all. Jn the same play there is a lady Vaine, a courtezan which the wits then understood to be the mistress of sir Robert, whom he afterwards married. He died Sept. 3, 1698. He published, 1. “Poems and Plays.” 2. “The History of the Reigns of Edward and Richard II. with reflections and characters of their chief ministers and favourites; also a comparison of these princes with Edward I. and III.” 1690, 8vo. 3. “A letter to Mr. Samuel Johnson, occasioned by a scurrilous pamphlet, entitled Animadversions on Mr. Johnson’s answer to Jovian,” 1692, 8vo. 4. “The History of Religion,” 1694, 8vo. 5. “The fourth book of Virgil translated,” 1660, 8vo. 6. “Statius’s Achilleis translated,” 1660, 8vo.

, a relation of the preceding, was the younger brother of sir Scroop Howe, of Nottinghamshire. In the convention-parliament, which met at Westminster Jan. 22, 1688-9, he served for Cirencester, and was constantly chosen for that borough, or as a knight of the shire for the county of Gloucester, in the three last parliaments of king William, and in the three first of queen Anne. In 1696 he was a strenuous advocate for sir John Fenwick; and his pleading in behalf of that unfortunate gentleman, shews his extensive knowledge of the laws, and aversion to unconstitutional measures. In 1699, when the army was reduced, it was principally in consideration of Mr. Howe’s remonstrances, that the House of Commons agreed to allow half-pay to the disbanded officers; and when the partition-treaty was afterwards under the consideration of that house, he expressed his sentiments of it in guch terms, that king William declared, that if it were not foi the disparity of their rank, he would demand satisfaction with the sword. At the accession of queen Anne, he was sworn of her privy-council April 21, 1702; and, on June 7 following, constituted vice-admiral of the county of Gloucester. Before the end of that year, Jan. 4, 1702-3, he was constituted paymaster-general of her majesty’s guards and garrisons. Macky says of him, “he seemed to be pleased with and joined in the Revolution, and was made vice-chamberlain to queen Mary; but having asked a grant, which was refused him, and given to lord Portland, he fell from the court, and was all that reign the most violent and open antagonist king William had in the house. A great enemy to foreigners settling in England; most clauses in acts against them being brought in by him. He is indefatigable in whatever he undertakes; witness the old East India company, whose cause he maintained till he> fixed it upon as sure a foot as the new, even when they thought themselves past recovery. He lives up” to what his visible estate can afford; yet purchases, instead of running in debt. He is endued with good natural parts, attended with an unaccountable boldness; daring to say what he pleases, and will be heard out; so that he passeth with some for the shrew of the house. On the queen’s accession to the throne he was made a privy-counsellor, and paymaster of the guards and garrisons. He is a tall, thin, pale-faced man, with a very wild look; brave in his person, bold in expressing himself, a violent enemy, a sure friend, and seems to be always in a hurry. Near fifty years old." Such is the character given of this gentleman in 1703. A new privy council being settled May 10, 1708, according to act of parliament, relating to the union of the two kingdoms, he was, among the other great officers, sworn into it. He continued paymaster of the guards and garrisons till after the accession of George I. who appointed Mr. Walpole to succeed him on Sept. 23, 1714: the privy council being also dissolved, and a new one appointed to meet on Oct. 1 following, he was left out of the list. Retiring to his seat at Stowell in Gloucestershire, he died there in 1721, and was buried in the chancel of the church of Stowell.

On the whole, though it cannot be questioned that Huet, on account of his great learning and fertile genius, may justly claim to have his name preserved with honour in the republic of letters, several circumstances must prevent us from ranking him among the first philosophers of the seventeenth century. Better qualified to accumulate testimonies than to investigate truth, and more disposed to raise difficulties than to solve them, he was an injudicious advocate for a good cause. If we are not very much mistaken, Huet did not strictly adhere to the scholastic art of reasoning which he had learned in the schools of the Jesuits; otherwise he must have seen that there can be no room for faith, or for, what he artfully conceals under that name, the authority of the church, if every criterion of truth be rejected, and human reason be pronounced a blind and fallacious guide.

, an advocate in the parliament of Paris, very remarkable for his profound knowledge of languages, is celebrated for having printed a Polyglott at his own expence, and thus purchased glory with the loss of his fortune. The whole edition was offered to sale in England, but too great a price being set upon it, the Polyglott of Walton was undertaken in a more commodious form. Le Jay might still have made great profit by his work if he would have suffered it to appear under the name of cardinal Richelieu, who was very desirous to emulate the fame of Ximenes in this respect. Being now poor, and a widower, Le Jay became an ecclesiastic, was made dean of Vezelai, and obtained a brevet as counsellor of state. He died July 10, 1675. The Polyglott of Le Jay is in ten folumes, large folio, a model of beautiful typography, but too bulky to be used with convenience. It is common in France, but of so little demand, that, according to Brunet, it sells at present for (40 francs, not 61. of our money. It has the Syriac and Arabic versions, which are not in the Polyglott of Ximenes. The publication commenced in 1628, and was concluded in 1645. We cannot suppose the editor to have been less than two or three and thirty, when he had finished a volume of this kind, in which case he "must have been near eighty at the time of his death. It is not improbable that he was still older.

, a native of Burgundy, born in 1540, and bred as an advocate in the parliament of Dijon, rose by his talents and probity to the highest situations in his profession. The states of Burgundy employed him to administer the affairs oi that province, and had every reason to felicitate themselves upon their choice. When the orders for the massacre of St. Bartholomew were received at Dijon, he opposed the execution of them with all his influence; and a few days after arrived a courier to forbid the murders. The appointments of counsellor, president, and finally chief president, in the parliament of Dijon, were the rewards of his merit. Seduced by the pretences of the leaguers to zeal for religion and for the state, Jeanniu for a time united himself with that faction; but he soon perceived their perfidy and wickedness, as well as the completely interested views of the Spaniards, and repented of the step. After the battle of Fontaine Francoise, -in which the final blow was given to the league, Henry IV. called him to his council, and retained him in his court. From this time he became the adviser, and almost the friend of the king^ who admired him equally for his frankness and his sagacity. Jeannin was employed in the negotiation between the Dutch and the court of Spain, the most difficult that could be undertaken. It was concluded in 1609. After the death of Henry IV. the queen-mother confided to him the greatest affairs of the state, and the administration of the finances, and he managed them with Unparalleled fidelity; of which his poverty at his death afforded an undoubted proof. He died in 1622, at the age of eighty-two, having seen seven successive kings on the throne of France. He was the author of a folio collection of negociations and memoirs, printed in 1656, and reprinted in a beautiful edition, 2 vols. 12mo, in the year 1659, which Were long held in the bighest estimation. The regard which Henry IV. felt for him was very great. Complaining one day to his ministers that some among them had revealed a state secret of importance, he took the president by the hand, saying, “As for this good man, I will answer for him.” Yet, though he entertained such sentiments of him, he did little for him; and, being conscious that he had been remiss in this respect, said sometimes, “Many of my subjects I load with wealth, to prevent them from exerting their malice; but for the president Jeannin, I always say much, and do little.”

, son of Dr. John Jebb, dean of Casbell, was born in London, early in 1736. He was a man much celebrated among the violent partizans for unbounded liberty, religious and political; and certainly a man of learning and talents, though they were both so much absorbed in controversy as to leave little among his writings of general use. His education was begun in Ireland, and finished in England. His degrees were taken at Cambridge, where he bore public offices, and obtained the vicarage of St. Andrew’s, and where he married a daughter of Dr. Torkington, of Huntingdonshire, who was grand-daughter to the earl of Harborough. His college was Peter-house. He early took up the plan of giving theological lectures, which were attended by several pupils, till his peculiar opinions became known in 1770, when a prohibition was published in the university. How soon he had begun to deviate from the opinions he held at the time of ordination is uncertain, but in a letter dated Oct. 21, 1775, he says, “I have for seven years past, in my lectures, maintained steadily the proper unity of God, and that he alone should be the object of worship.” He adds, that he warned his hearers that this was not the received opinion, but that his own was settled, and exhorted them to inquire diligently. This confession seems rather inconsistent with the defence he addressed to the archbishop of Canterbury in 1770. He was a strenuous advocate for the establishment of annual examinations in the university, but could not prevail. In. 1775, he came to the resolution of resigning his ecclesiastical preferments, which he did accordingly; and then, by the advice of his friends, took up the study of physic. For this new object he studied indefatigably, and in 1777, obtained his degree by diploma from St. Andrew’s, and was admitted a licentiate in London.

Amidst the cares of his new profession, he did not decline his attention to theological study, nor to what he considered as the cause of true liberty. He was, as he had been for many years, zealous for the abolition of subscription, a warm friend to the cause of America against England, an incessant advocate for annual parliaments and universal suffrage (those pernicious engines for destroying the British constitution), a writer in newspapers, and a speaker in public meetings. So many eager pursuits seem to have exhausted his constitution, and he died, apparently of a decline, in March 1786. Dr. John Jebb was a man of various and extensive learning, master of many languages, among which were Hebrew and Arabic; and during his last illness, he studied the Saxon, with the Anglo-Saxon laws and antiquities. He was twice a candidate for the professorship of Arabic at Cambridge. Besides his theological and medical knowledge, he was not a little versed in the science of law, which he once thought of making his profession, even after he had studied physic. He was also a mathematician and philosopher, and was concerned with two friends in publishing at Cambridge a small quarto, entitled “Excerpta quaedam e Newtonii principiis Philosophise naturalis, cum notis variorum;” which was received as a standard book of education in that university. His other works have been collected into 3 vols. 8vo, published in 17S7 by Dr. Disney, and contain chiefly, (besides the plan of his lectures, and harmony of the gospels, six sermons, and a medical treatise on paralysis,) controversial tracts and letters, on his intended improvements at Cambridge, on subscription, on parliamentary reform, &c. He seems to have been an active, enterprising, and rather turbulent, but a sincere man.

He continued with that patron of distressed cavaliers, enjoying all the opportunities of a well-furnished library, till the restoration, when he returned to Jesus-college, and was chosen one of the fellows. He was created LL. D. in. Feb. 1661, and elected principal in March following, upon the resignation of his patron Dr. Mansell; and sir William Whitmore soon after gave him the commissaryship of the peculiar and exempt jurisdiction of the deanery of Bridgenorth, in Shropshire. In 1662 he was made assessor to the chancellor’s court at Oxford; and the same year Dr. Sweit appointed him his deputy-professor of the civil law there. In 1663 he was made register of the consistory court of Westminster-abbey; and his friend Sheldon, newly translated to the see of Canterbury, soon after appointed him commissary and official for that diocese, and judge of the peculiars. Jenkins was very serviceable to that prelate in settling his theatre at Oxford; of which, as soon as it was finished, he was made one of the curators. He was useful to the archbishop on other occasions also relating to church and state; and it was by his encouragement that Dr. Jenkits removed to Doctors’ commons, and was admitted an advocate in the court of arches in the latter end of 1663. Here he was immediately made deputy-assistant to Dr. Sweit, dean of this court, as he had been to him before in the office of professor; and this situation brought his merit nearer the eye of the court. Upon the breaking out of the first Dutch war in 1664, the lords commissioners of prizes appointed Dr. Jenkins, with other eminent civilians, to review the maritime laws, and compile a body of rules for the adjudication of prizes in the court of admiralty, which afterwards became the standard of those proceedings. Then, by the recommendation of Sheldon, he tvas made judge-assistant in that court, March 21, 1664-5, Dr. Exton, the judge, being then very aged and infirm; and upon his death soon after, our author became principal, and sustained the weight of that important office alone, with great reputation. He had advanced the honour and esteem of that court to a high degree by a three years service; when finding the salary of 300l. per annum, allowed by the king, not a competent maintenance, he petitioned for an additional 200l. per annum, which was granted Jan. 29, 1668. He was now considered as so useful a man by the government, that the king became his patron; and having recommended him to the archbishop as judge of his prerogative court of Canterbury, which appointment he obtained in 1668, employed him the following year in an affair of near concern to himself.

A Popish priest made an offer for 200L to get the whipping part of the sentence remitted: the money was accordingly lodged, by one of Johnson’s friends, in a third hand, for the priest, if he performed what he undertook but to no purpose; the king was deaf to all in treaties the answer was, “That since Mr. Johnson had the spirit of martyrdom, it was fit he should suffer.” Accordingly, Dec. 1, 1686, the sentence was rigorously put in execution; which yet he bore with great firmness, and went through even with alacrity. He observed afterwards to an intimate friend, that this text of Scripture which came suddenly into his mind, “He endured the cross, despising the shame,” so much animated and supported him in his bitter journey, that, had he not thought it would have looked like vain-glory, he could have sung a psalm while the executioner was doing his office, with as much composure and cheerfulness as ever he had done in the church; though at the same time he had a quick sense of every stripe which was given him, to the number of 317, with a whip of nine cords knotted. This was the more remarkable in him, because he had not the least tincture of enthusiasm . The truth is, he was endued with a natural hardiness of temper to a great degree; and being inspirited by an eager desire to suffer for the cause he had espoused, he was enabled to support himself with the firmness of a martyr. After the execution of this sentence, the king gave away his living; and the clergyman who had the grant of it, made application to the three bishops abovementioned for institution; but they, being sensible of his imperfect degradation, would not grant it without a bond of indemnity; after which, when he went to Corringham for induction, the parishioners opposed him, so that he could never obtain entrance, but was obliged to return re iiifectd. Mr. Johnson thus kept his living, and with it, his resolution also to oppose the measures of the court; insomuch that, before he was out of the surgeon’s hands, he reprinted 3000 copies of his “Comparison between Popery and Paganism.” These, however, were not then published; but not long after, about the time of the general toleration, he published “The Trial and Examination of a late Libel,” &c. which was followed by others every year till the Revolution. The parliament afterwards, taking his case into consideration, resolved, June 11, 1689, that the judgement against him in the King’s-bench, upon an information for a misdemeanor, was cruel and illegal; and a committee was at the same time appointed to bring in a bill for reversing that judgement. Being also ordered to inquire how Mr. Johnson came to be degraded, and by what authority it was done, Mr. Christy, the chairman, some days after reported his case, by which it appears, that a libel was then exhibited against him, charging him with great misdemeanors, though none were specified or proved that he demanded a copy of the libel, and an advocate, both which were denied that he protested against the proceedings, as contrary to law and the 132d canon, not being done by his own diocesan but his protestation was refused, as was also his appeal to the king in chancery and that Mrs. Johnson had also an information exhibited against her, for the like matter as that against her husband. The committee came to the following resolutions, which were all agreed to by the house “That the judgement against Mr. Johnson was illegal and cruel: that the ecclesiastical commission was illegal, and consequently, the suspension of the bishop of London, and the authority committed to three bishops, null and illegal: that Mr. Johnson’s not being degraded by his own diocesan, if he had deserved it, was illegal: that a bill be brought in to reverse the judgement, and to declare all the proceedings before the three bishops null and illegal: and that an address be made to his majesty, to recommend Mr. Johnson to some ecclesiastical preferment, suitable to his services and sufferings.” The house presented two addresses to the king, in behalf of Mr. Johnson: and, accordingly, the deanery of Durham was offered him, which however he refused, as an unequal reward for his services,

Jn 1779 the first four volumes of his Lives of the Poets were published, and the remainder in 1781, which he wrote by uis own confession, “dilatorily and hastily, unwilling to work, and working with vigour and haste.” He had, however, performed so much more than was expected, that his employers presented him with an hundred pounds in addition to the stipulated sum. As he never was insensible to the pleasure or value of fame, it is not improbable that he was yet more substantially gratified by the eagerness with which his Lives of the Poets were read and praised. He enjoyed likewise another satisfaction, which it appears he thought not unnecessary to the reputation of a great writer. He was attacked on all sides for his contempt for Milton’s politics, and the sparing praise or direct censure he had bestowed on the poetry of Prior, Hammond, Collins, Gray, and a few others. The errors, indeed, which on any other subject might have passed for errors of judgment, were by the irascible tempers of his adversaries, magnified into high treason against the majesty of poetic genius. During his life, these attacks were not few, nor very respectful, to a veteran whom common consent had placed at the head of the literature of his country; but the courage of his adversaries was observed to rise very considerably after his death, and the name which public opinion had consecrated, was now reviled with the utmost malignity. Even some who during his life were glad to conceal their hostility, now took an opportunity to retract the admiration in which they had joined with apparent cordiality; and to discover faults in a body of criticism which, after all reasonable exceptions are admitted, was never equalled, and perhaps never will be equalled for justice, acuteness, and elegance. Where can we hope to find discussions that can be compared with those introduced in the lives of Cowley, Milton, Dryden, and Pope? His abhorrence, indeed, of Milton’s political conduct, Jed him to details and observations which can, never be acceptable to a certain class of politicians; but when he comes to analyze his poetry, and to fix his reputation on its proper basis, it must surely be confessed that no man, since the first appearance of Paradise Lost, has ever bestowed praise with a more munificent hand. He appears to have collected his whole energy to immortalize the genius of Milton; nor has any advocate for Milton’s democracy appeared, who has not been glad to surrender the guardianship of his poetical fame to Johnson.

, an eminent and learned tutor of the university of Cambridge, was born at Beriew in Montgomeryshire, June 23, 1756. His education, till he entered on his twelfth year, was confined to the instruction of a common country school, first at Beriew, and afterwards in the neighbouring parish of Kerry. During the time that he frequented the latter school, the vicar of the parish, discovering in him those talents which he afterwards so eminently displayed, advised his mother (for he lost his father at an early age) to send him to the grammar-school at Shrewsbury, where he continued nearly seven years, and was inferior to none of his schoolfellows, either in attention to study or in regularity of conduct. In May 1774, he was admitted of St. John’s college, Cambridge, and came to reside there in October following. From that time the excellence of his genius became more particularly conspicuous. He had acquired, indeed, at school, a competent share of classical learning; but his mind was less adapted to Greek and Latin composition than to the investigation of philosophical truths. At the public examinations of St. John’s college he not only was always in the first class, but was without comparison the best mathematician of his year. His first summer vacation was devoted entirely to his favourite pursuit; and at that early period he became acquainted with mathematical works, which are seldom attempted before the third year of academical study. He remained at St. John’s college till after the public examination in June 1776, when, having no prospect of obtaining a fellowship, there being already a fellow of the diocese of St. Asaph in that college, and the statutes limiting the fellowships to one from each diocese, he removed to Trinity college. Here he took his bachelor’s degree in 1779, and his superiority was so decided, that no one ventured to contend with him. The honour of senior wrangler, as it is called in academical phrase, was conceded before the examination began, and the second place became the highest object of competition. If any thing was wanting to shew his superiority, it would be rendered sufficiently conspicuous by the circumstance, that he was tutor to the second wrangler, now the learned Dr. Herbert Marsh, professor of divinity at Cambridge, who acknowledged that for the honour which he then obtained, he was indebted to the instruction of his friend. In the same year in which Mr. Jones took his bachelor’s degree he was appointed assistant tutor at Trinity college. In Oct. 1781 he was elected fellow, and in Oct. 1787, on the resignation of Mr. Cranke, he was appointed to the office of head tutor, which he held to the day of his death. In 1786 and 1787 he presided as moderator in the philosophical schools, where his acuteness and impartiality were equally conspicuous. It was about this time that he introduced a grace, by which fellow-commoners, who used to obtain the degree of bachelor of arts with little or no examination, were subjected to the same academical exercises as other under-graduates. During many years he continued to take an active part in the senate-house examinations; but for some years before his death confined himself to the duties of college- tutor. These, indeed, were sufficiently numerous to engage his whole attention and he displayed in them an ability which was rarely equalled, with an integrity which never was surpassed. Being perfect master of his subjects, he always placed them in the clearest point of view; and by his manner of treating them he made them interesting even to those who had otherwise no relish for mathematical inquiries. His lectures on astronomy attracted more than usual attention, since that branch of philosophy afforded the most ample scope for inculcating (what, indeed, he never neglected in other branches) his favourite doctrine of final causes; for arguing from the contrivance to the contriver, from the structure of the universe to the being and attributes of God. And this doctrine he enforced, not merely by explaining the harmony which results from the established Jaws of nature, but by shewing the confusion which would have arisen from the adoption of other laws. His lectures on the principles of fluxions were delivered with unusual clearness; and there was so much originality in them, that his pupils often expressed a wish that they might be printed. But such was his modesty, that though frequently urged, he never would consent; and when he signed his will a short time before his death, he made the most earnest request to Dr. Marsh, that none of his manuscripts should be printed. But it is a consolation to know, that his lectures in philosophy will not be buried in oblivion: all his writings on those subjects were delivered to his successor in the tuition, and, though less amply than by publication, will continue to benefit mankind. The only things he ever published were “A Sermon on Duelling,” and “An Address to the Volunteers of Montgomeryshire.” The former was published as a warning to the young men of the university, soon after a fatal duel had taken place there. The latter, which he wrote with great animation (for he was a zealous advocate of the volunteer system) was calculated to rouse the volunteers to a vigorous defence of their country.

, one of the early promoters of the reformation, was a native of the county of Bedford, and educated at Peterhouse, in Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1513, and that of M. A. in 1517, and the same year was admitted a fellow. In 1527, being a strenuous advocate for the doctrines of the reformation, and an intimate friend of the celebrated Tindale, he was accused of heresy, which obliged him to resign his fellowship; and finding himself in danger from the continual persecutions of Wolsey, sir Thomas More, and Fisher, he retired to Germany, where he continued many years. He had a concern in the superintendance of Tindale’s Bible, printed at Antwerp in 1533, and is ranked by Ames as a printer himself; but, not content with corrections of the press, he took liberties with the translation, of which Tindale complained with justice, and Joy published an apology, Of these the reader will find ample information in Lewis. When Joy returned to England is not known, but it is said that he died in 1553, and was buried in his native country. Besides his translations of some parts of the Bible, he published, 1. “On the unity and schism of the ancient church,” Wesal, 1534, 8vo. 2. “The subversion of More V false foundation,” Embden, 1534, 12mo. 3. “Epistle to the prior of Newenham,” Strasburgh, 1527, 8vo. 4. “Commentary on Daniel, from Melancthon,” &c. Geneva, 1545, Lond. 1550, 8vo. 5. “A present consolation for the sufferance of persecution for righteousness,” 1544, 12mo: and other works, enumerated by Tanner.

, one of the reformers, son of John Judah, a German priest, was born in 1482, in Alsace. Some authors have reported that he was a converted Jew, but father Simon has proved that he neither was a Jew, nor of Jewish extraction, but the son of the above John Judah, or de Juda, who, according to the custom of those times, kept a concubine, by whom he had this Leo. He was educated at Slestadt, and thence in 1502, was sent to Basil to pursue his academical studies. Here he had for a fellowstudent, the afterwards much celebrated Zuinglius; and from him, who had at a very early age been shocked at the superstitious practices of the church of Rome, he received such impressions, as disposed him to embrace the reformed religion. Having obtained his degree of M. A. in 1512, he was appointed minister of a Swiss church, to the duties of which he applied himself with indefatigable zeal, preaching boldly in defence of the protestant religion. At length he was appointed by the magistrates and ecclesiastical assembly of Zurich, pastor of the church of St. Peter in that city, and became very celebrated as an advocate, as well from the press as the pulpit, of the reformed religion, for about eighteen years. At the desire of his brethren, he undertook a translation, from the Hebrew into Latin, of the whole Old Testament; but the magnitude of the work, and the closeness with which he applied to it, impaired his health; and before he had completed it, he fell a sacrifice to his labours, June 9, 1542, when he was about sixty years of age. The translation was finished by other hands, and was printed at Zurich in 1543, and two years afterwards it was reprinted at Paris by Robert Stephens, accompanying the Vulgate version, in adjoining columns, but without the name of the author of the new version. Judah was likewise the author of “Annotations upon Genesis and Exodus,” in which he was assisted by Xuinglius, and upon the four gospels, and the greater part of the epistles. He also composed a larger and smaller catechism, and translated some of Zuinglius’s works into Latin. The Spanish divines, notwithstanding the severity of the Inquisition, did not hesitate to reprint the Latin Bible of Leo Judah, with the notes ascribed to Vatabius, though some of them were from the pen of Calvin. Some particulars of Judah and of this translation, not generally known, may be found in a book written by a divine of Zurich, and printed in that city in 1616, entitled “Vindicise pro Bibliorum translatione Tigurina.”

In 1776 he gave the public the first fruits of his long and laborious task, by the publication of the first volume of the Hebrew Bible, with the various readings; and this was followed in 1780 by the second volume, with a general dissertation, which completed the work. He had enjoyed an extraordinary share of good health until near the conclusion of his labours, when the infirmities of age impaired his exertions, and terminated his life Aug. Is, 1783. He was buried in Christ-church cathedral. His last employment was to prepare for the press, “Remarks on select passages in the Old Testament; to which are added, eight sermons;” part was printed in his life-time, and the whole published in 1787. In the introduction he professes himself a zealous advocate for an authorized revisal of the English version of the Old Testament, and the great object of his work seems to be, to demonstrate the necessity and facilitate the execution of this project; but the propriety or necessity of such an interposition of authority has not yet appeared sufficiently obvious, and indeed the objections to it have been generally thought insuperable, Dr. Geddes’s attempt on the Old Testament, and a more recent Socinian translation of the New, are unfortunate examples of what may be done without authority. Referring to the works quoted in the note for further information on the controversies in which Dr. Kennicott’s labours involved him, we shall add, in the words of a judicious biographer, that if in brilliancy of genius, or elegance of taste, he had many superiors; if in the study of Oriental languages in general he was comparatively deficient; and if in critical acumen, and felicity of conjecture, he stood not in the very first rank; yet in a profound knowledge of Hebrew, and in the persevering industry with which he applied it to the illustration of the sacred page, he had few equals. His collation of the Hebrew Mss. was a work which added splendour to a great nation and an enlightened age. To the Hebrew scholar it unlocked the richest stores of sacred philology; while, by establishing the general purity of the Hebrew text, so far as the essentials of religion are concerned, it has confirmed the faith and hopes f every pious Christian.

, lord chief justice of the King’s Bench, was born at Gredington, in Flintshire, 1733 and was the eldest surviving son of Lloyd Kenyon, esq. originally of Bryno in the same county, and one of the younger sons of the ancient family of Kenyon of Peele in Lancashire. He received the elementary part of his education at Ruthen in Denbighshire, whence he was taken, at an early age, and articled to Mr. W. J. Tomlinson, an eminent attorney at Nantwich, in Cheshire. On the expiration of his articles, Mr. Kenyon determined to enter into a line which afforded a more ample scope to his industry and talents, and, accordingly, became a member of the Society of Lincoln’s Inn, in Trinity Term 1754, and after a sedulous application to the requisite studies, was called to the bar in Hilary Term 1761. In the early part of his professional career, his advancement was but slow; he was unassisted by those means which powerful connexion and interest afford. The branch of his profession to which he chiefly applied himself, that of conveyancing, was not calculated to bring him forward into public notice; but the sterling merit of genuine abilities and persevering industry were not to be overlooked. He rose gradually into practice; few opinions at the bar, at the time, carried more weight and authority, and he was frequently recurred to as an advocate. In 1773, he formed a matrimonial connexion with his relative, Mary, the third daughter of George Kenyon, of Peele and, not long after, contracted an intimacy with Mr. afterwards lord Thurlow and chancellor. About this period too, and for some years after, his practice in the Courtof Chancery was very extensive and of the most lucrative kind, by which, as well as in the other branches of his profession, he acquired a very considerable property. In 1780, a circumstance occurred which not a little contributed to establish his reputation as an advocate and a public speaker, his being employed as leading counsel for the defence of the late lord George Gordon, on a charge of high treason; on this interesting occasion his second was Mr. now lord Erskine, who on that day distinguished himself in such a manner as in a great degree laid the foundation of his future fame. In April 1782, soon after the accession of the Rockingham party to ministerial power, Mr. Kenyon was, without serving the intermediate office of solfcitor, appointed to the important situation of attorney-general, and, at the same time, chief justice of Chester; in the former office he succeeded the late James Wallis, esq. The circumstance of his direct promotion to the office of attorney-general was regarded as a singular instance; this however is erroneous, similar promotions have before occurred, and the case of sir Edward Law (the late attorney-general, now lord Ellenborough, his successor as lord chief justice), is a recent instance. In parliament Mr. Kenyon took a decided part in politics, warmly attaching himself to the party of Mr. Pitt; and distinguishing himself not a little by his speeches on the noted affair of the coalition, Mr. Fox’s India-bill, &c. In March 1784 he was appointed master of the rolls, an office of high judicial dignity, and generally leading to still higher legal honours; yet its emoluments fell very short of those which he necessarily relinquished by discontinuing his professional pursuits as a counsel. About this time he was created a baronet. In this situation sir Lloyd Kenyon continued till the latter end of May 1788, when, on the resignation of the venerable earl of Mansfield, who, for the long interval of thirty-two years, had held the honourable and very important office of chief justice of the court of KingVbench, he was appointed to succeed him, and at the same time was elevated to the peerage, by the title of lord Kenyon, baron of Gredington in the county of Flint. He was now fixed in a situation, which, though not nominally the highest, is perhaps the most important office in the administration of the law of this country; and lord Kenyon furnished an instance nearly as striking as that of the illustrious Hardwicke, that the profession of the law is that which, of all others, affords the fairest opportunies for the exertion of genuine talents and persevering industry; whether the object be the gratification of ambition in the attainment of the highest honours in the state, or the possession of abundant wealth. His conduct in those arduous and important situations attracted and fixed the applauses and gratitude of his countrymen. He was distinguished for his laudable, firm, and persevering exertions to keep the channels of the law clear and unpolluted by low and sordid practices, which were particularly exemplified in the vigilant and salutary exercise of his authority over the attorneys of his own court, the utility of which has been experienced in a very considerable degree. Nor was he less distinguished for his zeal in the cause of morality and virtue, which most conspicuously appeared in his conduct with respect to cases of adultery and seduction. On these occasions neither rank, wealth, nor station, could shield deliquency from the well-merited censure and rebuke of offended justice and morality. Though much, unhappily, remains to be done, yet his lordship’s exertions, combined with those of some of the most virtuous and exalted characters of the upper House of Parliament, have contributed greatly, notwithstanding the acknowledged inadequacy and imperfection of the law in these respects, to restrain the fashionable and prevailing vices alluded to. What likewise redounded to the honour of his lordship’s magisterial character, was the strictness, not to say severity, with which he administered the justice of the law against the pernicious tribe of gamblers of every description, who have for some years infested the metropolis. On these occasions, as well as in those above mentioned, the conduct of this truly virtuous judge was such as incontrovertibly shewed that “the law is no respecter of persons;” and his persevering exertions to restrain the destructive vice of gaming have been attended with no inconsiderable degree of success. Nor should we omit to mention the very laudable spirit and firmness, which on all occasions he evinced in maintaining due order and decorum in his court. It was justly said of him, that though he might not equal in talents or eloquence the pre-eminent character whom he succeeded on the bench of justice; nevertheless, he possessed qualities mor*e appropriate to, and knowledge more connected with, the important office which he held. Profound in legal erudition, patient in judicial discrimination, and of the most determined integrity, he added no common lustre to his exalted station. He did not sacrifice his official to his parliamentary character; the sphere of his particular duty was the great scene of his activity, as of his honour; and though, as a lord of parliament, he never lessened his character, it was as a judge that he aggrandized it. In private life, the character of lord Kenyon was amiable and praise- worthy in the highest degree no man could excel him in the relations of husband and father in the former he may be considered as a pattern of conjugal virtue. In his mode of living he was remarkably temperate and regular; while the gratuitous assistance in his professional capacity, which it was well known he had often afforded to necessitous and injured individuals, is a proof that a fondness for money was not a prevailing trait in his character. He died at Bath, April 2, 1802, supposed to be worth 300,000l. all acquired by his own professional exertions, and a rigid spirit of economy. Lord Kenyon had issue by his lady, three sons; Lloyd, born in 1775, whom his father appointed to the office of filazer of the Court of King’s-bench; but who died in 1800. The manner in which his lordship was affected by this melancholy event, is supposed, in some degree, to have accelerated his own dissolution. Secondly, George, the present lord Kenyon, born in 1776. His lordship was appointed by his late father to the very lucrative situation of joint chief clerk of the Court of King’s-bench, on the demise of the late earl of Mansfield, better known as lord viscount Stormont, and joined in the patent with the late John Waye, esq. And, thirdly, the hon. Thomas Kenyon, born in 1780,

In 1690 he translated from the French of Monsieur and Madame Dacier, “The Life of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, the Roman Emperor; together with some select remarks on the said Antoninus’s Meditations concerning himself, treating of a natural man’s happiness, &c. as also upon the Life of Antoninus.” About the same time he wrote “A Dialogue shewing the way to Modern Preferment,” a humourous satire, which contains some solid truths, under the disguise of a conversation between three illustrious personages; the tooth-drawer to cardinal PortoCarero; the corn-cutter to pope Innocent XI.; and the receiver-general to an Ottoman mufti. On July 7, 1692, he took his degree of B. and D. LL. and Nov. 12, that year, by favour of abp. Tillotson, obtained a fat, which, admitting him an advocate at Doctor’s commons, enabled him to plead in the courts of the civil and ecclesiastical law. In 1693 he published a translation of “New Manners and Characters of the two great Brothers, the Duke of Bouillon and MareschalTurenne, written in French by James de Langdale, Baron of Saumieres.” Either in this, or early in the following year, appeared a very extraordinary morçeau, under the title of “An Answer to a Book which will be published next week entitled A Letter to the Rev. Dr. South, upon occasion of a late Book entitled Animadversions on Dr. Sherlock’s Book, entiiled A Vindication of the Holy and Ever-blessed Trinity. Being a Letter to the Author.” In August 1694, Mr. Molesworth publishing his “Account of Denmark as it was in the year 1692,” in which he treata the Danes and their monarch with great contempt, and takes the opportunity of insinuating those wild principles, by which he supposes liberty to be established, and by which his adversaries suspect that all subordination and government is endangered. Dr. King therefore took up his pen once more in his country’s cause, the honour of which was thought to be blemished by that account, Mr. Scheel, the Danish minister, having presented a memorial against it. Animated with this spirit, Dr. King drew up a censure of it, which he printed in 1694, under the title of “Animadversions on the pretended Account of Denmark.” This was so much approved by prince George, consort to the princess Anne, that the doctor was soon after appointed secretary to her royal highness.

It has been generally allowed that Dr. King, though he could not endure his business as an advocate, made an excellent judge in the court of delegates, as often as he was called to that bench. The fatigue, however, of a civilian’s duty was too great for his natural indolence; and he retired to his student’s place at Christ-church, to indulge his predominant attachment at better leisure. From this time, giving way to that fuga negotii so incident to the poetical race, he passed his days in the pursuit of the same ravishing images, which, being aptly moulded, came abroad in manuscript, in the form of pleasant tales and other pieces in verse, at various times, as they happened to be finished. Many of these he afterwards collected, and published, with other pieces, in his “Miscellanies.” In 1700 he published without a name, a severe satire on the credulity of sir Hans Sloane, entitled “The Transactioneer, with some of his philosophical fancies, in two dialogues.” The irony in this tract is admirable; and it must be acknowledged, notwithstanding the deservedly high character of sir Hans as a physician and a naturalist, that our author has in many places discovered the vulnerable heel of Achilles, and that his satirical observations are io general well-founded.

The studies in which Dr. Kippis principally excelled, were those of the classics, the belles-lettres, and history; beside those which were immediately connected with his profession. He had diligently studied the history of his own country, and the principles of the British constitution. To these he was zealously attached, and these he ably defended. Yet, as a protestant dissenter, he did not entirely escape the suspicion, in which almost the whole body of protestant dissenters was involved, of being disaffected to the constitution, although in his case it was unjust. He was, indeed, a warm advocate of civil and religious liberty; and he lamented, in common with some of the best and wisest of men, the existence of certain acknowledged abuses; but he was no friend to that wild theory and indiscriminate innovation, which then threatened the desolation of Europe; and while he wished for a reformation of abuses in a peaceable, legal, and constitutional way, it was still his opinion, that the British constitution, with all its defects (and what contrivance of human wisdom can be perfect?), was admirably calculated to preserve rational liberty, and to continue productive of national 'prosperity. With these sentiments, when he apprehended that certain political societies, with which he had long associated, were going too far, he withdrew his name; but he never abandoned the principles upon which his first connection with them was founded.

, a member of the academy of sciences at Paris, and member of the museum in the same city, was born at Salon, in Provence, in 1752, of an old and respectable family. He was destined for the church, and sent to Paris to complete his theological studies. He rose to the dignity of canon, but by the death of his father and elder brother acquired property, which enabled him to follow the bent of his inclinations, by devoting himself to the physical sciences. He travelled through Provence and Dauphine*, and scaled the Alps and Pyrenees; “at the sight of these vast natural laboratories, the bent of his mind burst forth instantaneously; he climbed to the summit of rocks, and explored the abyss of caverns, weighed the air, analysed specimens, and in this ardent fancy, having attained the secrets of creation, he formed a new system of the world.” Upon his return home, he applied with great ardour to the study of meteorology, natural philosophy, and the other branches of the history of nature. He spent three years at Paris, and gave to the learned societies there many very valuable papers, particularly a memoir on the Cretans, a memoir on the theory of the winds, and a treatise on the alteration in the course of rivers, particularly the Rhone. He, again visited Switzerland and Italy, going first to Turin, where he allied himself to the learned of that country: after his return, laden with the spoils of the countries which he traversed, he employed himself in the arrangement of the interesting fruits of his journey. It was at the time when Lamanon was preparing for the press his great work on the “Theory of the Earth,” that the French government conceived the vast project of completing the discoveries of captain Cook; the Academy of sciences was entrusted with the care of selecting men capable of rectifying the common notions of the southern hemisphere, of improving hydrography, and advancing the progress of natural history; they invited, at the recommendation of the illustrious Condorcet, Lamanon to share the danger, and to partake in the glory of this great enfrerprize. He eagerly caught at the offer, hastened to Paris, refused, in a conference with the minister, the salary offered him, and taking a hasty leave of his friends, departed for Brest. On the 1st of August, 1785, the armament set sail under the orders of La Perouse, an experienced commander: the commencement of the voyage was highly prosperous. After some delays, and having embraced every opportunity of making observations, the vessels arrived at the island of Maouna, one of the southern archipelago. Lamanon, eager to assure himself of the truth of the accounts of that country, debarked with Langlc, the second in command. Having explored the place, and being upon the point of returning, they were attacked by the natives; a combat ensued, and they, with several of the boat’s crew, fell a sacrifice to the fury of these barbarians. Thus perished Lamanon, a young man ardent in the pursuits of science, disinterested in his principles, and a zealous advocate for the interests of freedom. Uis eulogist, M. Ponce, said of him, “that be seemed born to bring about a revolution in science; the depth of his ideas, the energy of his character, the sagacity of his mind, united to that lively curiosity that can draw instruction out of every thing which he saw, and which leaves nothing unexplored, would have led him to the most valuable discoveries/”

After these visits, he returned to Vienna Sept. 28, 1662, and, as it would appear, without any employment or resources. While sitting pensive at his inn, and ignorant which way to turn himself, he received a letter from Miller the Jesuit, mentioned above, and who was confessor to the emperor, requesting him to state in writing in what manner he wished to be employed under his majesty. Lambecius immediately returned for answer, that it had always been his greatest desire to serve the emperor and the august house of Austria, and that if his majesty would be so gracious as to admit him to court, he should endeavour to prove the sincerity of his zeal, by placing the imperial library in a better condition than it had ever been, by writing the history of Germany in general, and of the house of Austria in particular, and by continuing the history of literature, of which he had already dedicated a specimen to, his majesty. In consequence of these offers, the emperor appointed him his under-librarian and historiographer, and the same day (Nov. 27), the emperor spent three hours in shewing Lambecius his collection of medals, and made him a present of some of them. Three months afterwards, on the death of the head librarian, he was appointed to succeed him, and the emperor gave him also the title of counsellor, and bestowed, indeed, every mark of esteem upon him, conversing with him in the most familiar manner, and taking him as part of his suite in some of his travels. During the ten years that he lived at Vienna, he lodged with an advocate, who managed all his domestic concerns, and in return he made him his heir. He died in the month of April 1680. Lambecius was unquestionably one of the most learned men of his time; but his character, in other respects, as may be collected from the preceding narrative, was not without considerable blemishes. With respect to the imperial library, he certainly performed what he undertook, and has laid the learned world under great obligations by his vast catalogue, published in 8 vols. folio, from 1665 to 1679, under the title of “Commentariorum de augustissima Bibliotheca Csesarea Vindobonensi, libri octo.” To thes must be added as a supplement, “Dan. de Nessel Breviarium et supplementum commentariorum Bibl. Caes. Vindobon.” Vienna, 1690, 2 vols. folio. A second edition of this work was published at Vienna in 1766 82, in 8 vols. folio, “opera et studio Ad. Fr. Kollarii,” to which must be added “A. F. Kollarii ad Lambecii commentariorum libros octo, Supplementum liber primus posthumus,” Vienna, 1790, folio. In 1712 Reimann published, at Hanover, an abridgment of this catalogue in one volume, 8vo, under the title “Bibliotheca acromatica.” A new edition of Lambecius’s “Prodromus historic litterariae,” was published by Fabricius, at Leipsic, 1710, folio.

, eldest son of the preceding, was born at Paris in 1644, carefully educated by his father, and at a proper age placed in the Jesuits’ college, under the particular tuition of the celebrated father Rapin, whose favourite disciple he was. Having finished his studies, he travelled through different countries, and in 1666 was admitted a counsellor of parliament. In 1674 he was appointed to the office of advocate general, which he held during the space of twenty ­five years, with the highest and most unblemished reputation, distinguished as much for his eloquence, as by his zeal for justice and the public good. In 1690 the king nominated him to a post of more ease, and better adapted to his health, but his love of employment retained him several years longer at the bar, till at length, being urged as well by his own feelings, as the representations of his family and friends, he sought for an honourable repose, He then indulged in the love of letters, and, in 1704, was admitted a member of the academy of inscriptions, of which he was sooti appointed the president. In this station he displayed as much talent and readiness in discussing a literary question as he had formerly done a point of jurisprudence. He died in 1709. Many of his speeches were published, but the only work which he sent to the press was “A Letter on the Death of father Bourdaloue.” He was father to the chancellor Lamoignon, and grandfather to Lamoignon-Malesherbes, of whom an account will be given hereafter.

, a physician of the last century, of.horn no memorial, except the present scanty one, has been p-eserved, distinguished himself as an advocate for the mechanical theories of physiology and me iicine, and by the numerous experiments with which he supported those doctrines, which a more accurate investigation of the nature of the animal economy has exploded. Dr. Langrish, however, cannot he denied the merit of as-> ceitainmg several interesting facts with respect to the nature of the circulating powers. He died in London, Nov. 29, 1759, and left the following works: “A new essay on Muscular Motion, founded on Experiments, &c.” 1733, 8vo; “Modern Theory of Physic,” 1738, 8vo; “Physical Experiments upon Brutes,” 1745, 8vo; “Croonian Lectures on Muscular Motion,” 1747, and a “Treatise on the Small-pox,” 1758.

, an able French lawyer, was born August 6, 1612, at Angers. He was received advocate at Paris 1638, became eminent afterwards at the bar, and was the first professor of French law at the college of Cambray, that chair being newly founded 1680. He died July 9, 1693, aged 81. His works are, “Commentaries on Anthony Loisel’s Instituts Couturaiers,” 1688, 8vo; “Traite 1 du Droit de Chasse,” 1681, 12mo “Rémarques sur l'Institution du Droit Romain, et du Droit François,” 1686, 4to, and other valuable works.

, a celebrated lawyer, and learned advocate of the parliament of Paris, was born July 31, 1659, and was the son of James de Lauriere, a surgeon. He attended but little to the bar, his life being almost wholly spent in study, in the course of which he explored, with indefatigable pains, every part of the French law, both ancient and modern, formed friendships with men of learning, and was esteemed by all the most able magistrates. He died at Paris, January 9, 1728, aged 69, leaving many valuable works, some of which he wrote ill conjunction with Claude Berroyer, another eminent advocate of Paris. The principal are, 1. “De l‘origine du Droit d’Amortissement,” 1692, 12mo; 2. “Texte des Coutumes de la Prévôté et Vicomté de Paris, avec des Notes,” 12mo; 3. “Bibltotheque des Coutumes,” 4to 4. M. Loisel’s “Instituts Coutumiers,” with notes, Paris, 1710, 2 vols. 12mo, a very valuable edition; 5. “Traite* des Institutions et des Substitutions contractuelles,” 2 vols. 12mo. 6. The first and second volumes of the collection of “Ordinances” of the French kings, which valuable and very interesting work has been continued by M. Secousse, a member of the academy of inscriptions and belles-lettres, and M. de Villeraut, to 11 vols. fol. 7. “Le Glossaire du Droit François,” 1704, 4to, &c.

, a herald and antiquary, son of captain Stephen Martin, mentioned in the preceding article, was born April 5, 1702. He was educated at the school of Mr. Michael Maittaire, and was admitted of the Middle-temple. In 1724 he was appointed a deputylieutenant of the Tower-hamlets; in which station he afterwards distinguished himself by his exertions during the rebellion in 1745. On the revival of the order of the Bath in 1725, he was one of the esquires of the earl of Sussex, deputy earl-marshal. He was elected F. A. S. March 2, 1726-7. In the same year he was created Lancaster herald, in the room of Mr. Hesketh; in 1729 constituted Norroy; in 1741 Clarenceux; and by patent dated December 19, 1754, appointed garter. In all his situations in the college Mr. Leake was a constant advocate for the rights and privileges of the office. He obtained, after much solicitation, a letter in 1731, from the duke of Norfolk to the earl of Sussex, his deputy earl -marshal, requesting him to sign a warrant for Mr. Leake’s obtaining a commission of visitation, which letter, however, was not attended with success. In the same year he promoted a prosecution against one Shiets, a painter, who pretended to keep an om'ce of arms in Dean’s-court. The court of chivalry was opened with great solemnity in the paintedchamber, on March 3, 1731-2, in relation to which he had taken a principal part. In 1733, he appointed Francis Bassano, of Chester, his deputy, as Norroy, for Chester and North Wales; and about the same time asserted his right, as Norroy, to grant arms in North Wales, which right was claimed by Mr. Longville, who had been constituted Gloucester King at Arms partium Walii<t, annexed to that of Bath King at Arms, at the revival of that order. He drew up a petition in January 1737-8, which was presented to the king in council, for a new charter, with the sole power of painting arms, &c. which petition was referred to the attorney and solicitor general; but they making their report favourable to the painters, it did not succeed. He printed, in 1744, “Reasons for granting Commissions to the Provincial Kings at Arms for visiting their Provinces.” Dr. Cromwell Mortimer having, in 1747, proposed to establish a registry for dissenters in the college of arms, he had many meetings with the heads of the several denominations, and also of the Jews, and drew up articles of agreement, which were approved by all parties: proposals were printed and dispersed, a seal made to affix to certificates, and the registry was opened on February 20, 1747-8; but it did not succeed, owing to a misunderstanding between the ministers and the deputies of the congregations. A bill having been brought in by Mr. Potter, in the session of parliament in the year 1763, for taking the number of the people, with their marriages and births, he solicited a claim in favour of the college: but the bill did not pass. In 1755-6, he made an abstract of the register- books belonging to the order of the garter, which being translated into Latin, was deposited in the register’s office of the order.

, an eminent writer in defence of Christianity, was born at Wigan, in Lancashire, Oct. 18, 1691. Soon after, his father, who had lived in good repute for many years, being involved in pecuniary difficulties, gave up his effects to his creditors, and removed to Dublin. Finding here an opportunity for settling in business, he sent over for his wife and family of three sons, and was enabled to support them in a decent manner. John, the subject of this memoir, was his second son, and when in his sixth year, which was before they left England, as our account states, he met with a singular misfortune. He was seized with the small pox, which proved of so malignant a kind that his life was despaired of; and when, contrary to all expectation, he recovered, he was found to be deprived of his understanding and memory, which last retained no traces of what he had been taught. In this state he remained a year, when his faculties returned; but having still no remembrance of the past, he began anew to learn his letters, and in this his second education, made so quick a progress, and gave such proofs of superior memory and understanding, that his parents resolved to breed him up to one of the learned professions. In this, from their situation in life, they probably had not much choice, from the great expenses necessary to law or physic; and this, with their religious principles, induced them to decide in favour of divinity. He was therefore educated for the ministry among the dissenters; and having first exhibited his talents to advantage in a congregation of dissenters in New- row, Dublin, was, in a few months, invited to become joint-pastor with the Rev. Mr. Weld, to which office he was ordained in 1716. As he entered upon this station from the best and purest motives, he discharged the duties of it with the utmost fidelity; and, by indefatigable application to his studies, he made at the same time such improvements in every branch of useful knowledge, that he soon acquired a distinguished reputation in the learned world. In 1730 Tindal published his “Christianity as old as the Creation,” and although several excellent answers appeared to that impious work, Mr. Leland was of opinion that much remained to be said, in order to expose its fallacious reasonings and inconsistencies. Accordingly he first appeared as an author in 1733, by publishing “An Answer to a late book entitled ‘ Christianity as old as the Creation, &c.’” in 2 vols. In 1737 he embarked in a controversy with another of the same class of writers, Dr. Morgan, by publishing “The Divine Authority of the Old and New Testament asserted against the unjust aspersions and false reasonings of a Book entitled * The Moral Philosopher.'” The learning and abilities displayed by Mr. Leland in these publications, and the service which he rendered by them to the Christian cause, procured him many marks of respect and esteem from persons of the highest rank in the established church, as well as from the most eminent of his dissenting brethren; and from the university of Aberdeen he received, in the most honourable manner, the degree of D. D. In 1742 Dr. Leland published an answer to a pamphlet entitled “Christianity not founded on Argument;” and in 1753 he distinguished himself still further as an advocate in behalf of Christianity, by publishing “Reflections on the late lord Bolingbroke’s Letters on the study and use of History; especially so far as they relate to Christianity and the Holy Scriptures.” It is said to have been with some reluctance that he was persuaded to exert himself upon this occasion; for although, as he himself observes, no man needs make an apology for using his best endeavours in defence of Christianity when it is openly attacked, yet he was apprehensive that his engaging again in this cause, after having done so on some former occasions, might have an appearance of too much forwardness. But these apprehensions gave way to the judgment and advice of his friend, the late Dr. Thomas Wilson, rector of St. Stephen’s, Walbrook; and in complying with his recommendation, he performed an acceptable service to the Christian world, and added not a little to the reputation he had already acquired.

, an able lawyer, and celebrated advocate of the parliament of Paris, was born in that city in 1550, of a reputable family. When Henry IV. to whom he had remained faithful during the fury of the League, wanted to support the annuities charged on the H6tel de Ville, Leschassier had influence enough to dissuade him from his design by two very able petitions. He was consulted by the Venetian republic, in 1605, respecting their disputes with pope Paul V. and replied by his “Consultatio Parisini cujusdam,” printed in 1606, 4to, which proves him to have been a learned and judicious canonist. He died April 28, 1625, at Paris, aged seventyfive. The most complete edition of his works is that of Paris, 1652, 4to, which contains several curious and interesting particulars concerning the liberties of the Galilean church, and other affairs of great importance.

, a French advocate and political writer, was born at Rheims, July 14, 1736. His father was one of the professors of the college of Beauvais, at Paris, and had his son educated under him, v who made such proficiency in his studies as to gain the three chief prizes of the college in 1751. This early celebrity was noticed by the duke de Deux-Pont, then at Paris, who took him with him to the country; but Linguet soon left this nobleman for the service of the prince de Beavau, who employed him as his aide-de-camp in the war in Portugal, on account of his skill in mathematics. During his residence in that country, Linguet learned the language so far as to be able to translate some Portuguese dramas into French. Returning to France in 1762, he was admitted to the bar, where his character was very various; but amongst the reports both of enemies and friends, it appears that of an hundred and thirty causes, he lost only nine, and was allowed to shine both in oiatory and compo*­sidon. He had the art, however, of making enemies by the occasional liberties he took with characters; and at one time twenty-four of his brethren at the bar, whether from jealousy or a better reason, determined that they would take no brief in any cause in which he was concerned, and the parliament of Paris approved this so far as to interdict him from pleading. We are not sufficiently acquainted with the circumstances of the case to be able to form an opinion on the justice of this harsh measure. It appears, however, to have thrown Linguet out of his profession, and he then began to employ his pen on his numerous political writings but these, while they added to his reputation as a lively writer, added likewise to the number of his enemies. The most pointed satire levelled at him was the “Theory of Paradox,” generally attributed to the abbe Morellet, who collected all the absurd paradoxes to be found in Linguet’s productions, which it must be allowed are sufficiently numerous, and deserve the castigation he received. Linguet endeavoured to reply, but the laugh was against him, and all the wits of Paris enjoyed his mortification. His “Journal,” likewise, in which most of his effusions appeared, was suppressed by the minister of state, Maurepas; and Linguet, thinking his personal liberty was now in danger, came to London; but the English not receiving him as he expected, he went to Brussels, and in consequence of an application to the count de Vergeunes, was allowed to return to France. He had not been here long, before, fresh complaints having been made of his conduct, he was, Sept. 27, 1780, sent to the Bastille, where he remained twenty months. Of his imprisonment and the causes he published a very interesting account, which was translated into English, and printed here in 1783. He was, after being released, exiled to Rethel, but in a short time returned to England. He had been exiled on two other occasions, once to Chartres, and the other to Nogent-le-Kotrou. At this last place, he seduced a madame But, the wife of a manufacturer, who accompanied him to England. From England he went again to Brussels, and resumed his journal, or “Annales politiques,” in which he endeavoured to pay his court to the emperor Joseph, who was so much pleased with a paper he had written on his favourite project of opening the Scheldt, that he invited him to Vienna, and made him a present of 1000 ducats. Linguet, however, soon forfeited the emperor’s favour, by taking part with Varider Noot and the other insurgents of Brabant. Obliged, therefore, to quit the Netherlands, he came to Paris in 1791, and appeared at the bar of the constituent assembly as advocate for the colonial assembly of St. Domingo and the cause of the blacks. In February 1792, he appeared in the legislative assembly to denounce Bertrand de Moleville, the minister of the marine; but his manner was so absurd, that notwithstanding the unpopularity of that statesman, the assembly treated it with contempt, and Linguet indignantly tore in pieces his memorial, which he had been desired to leave on the table. During the reign of terror, he withdrew into the country, but was discovered and brought before the revolutionary tribunal, and condemned to death June 27, 1794, for having in his works paid court to the despots of Vienna and London. At the age of fifty-seven he went with serenity and courage to meet his fate. It is not very easy to form an opinion of Linguet’s real character. His being interrupted in his profession seems to have thrown him upon the public, whose prejudices he alternately opposed and flattered. His works abound in contradictions, but upon the whole it may be inferred that he was a lover of liberty, and no inconsiderable promoter of those opinions which precipitated the revolution. That he was not one of the ferocious sect, appears from his escape, and his death. His works are very numerous. The principal are, 1. “Voyage au labyrinthe du jardin du roi,” Hague, (Paris,) 1755, 12mo. 2. “Histoire du siecle d'Alexandre,” Paris, 1762, 12mo. 3. “Projet d‘un canal et d’un pont sur les cotes de Picardie,” 1764, 8vo. 4. “Le Fanatisme de Philosophes,” 1764, 8vo. 5. “Necessit6 d‘une reforme dans l’administration de la justice et des lois civiles de France,” Amst. 1764, 8vo. 6. “La Dime royale,” 1764, reprinted in 1787. 7. “Histoire des Revolutions de l'empire Remain,” 1766, 2 vols. 12mo. This is one of his paradoxical works, in which tyranny and slavery are represented in the most favourable light. 8. “Theorie des Lois,” 1767, 2 vols. 8vo, reprinted in 1774. 9. “Histoire impartiale des Jesuites,” 1768, 8vo. 10. “Hardion’s Universal History,” vols. 19th and 20th. 11. “Theatre Espagnole,” 1770, 4 vols. 12mo. 12. “Theorie du Libelle,” Amst. (Paris), 1775, 12mo, an a,nswer to the abbe Morellet. 13. “Du plusheureux gouvernment,” &c. 1774, 2 vols. 12mo. 14. “Essai philosophique sur le Monachisme,” 1777, 8vo. Besides these he wrote several pieces on the revolution in Brabant, and a collection of law cases.

, an able advocate in the seventeenth century, and master of requests to queen Margaret, was born at Reinville, a village two leagues from Beauvais. He died in 1646. His works are, I. “L'Histoire et les Antiqnités de Beauvuis,” vol. I. 1609, and 1631, 8vo vol. II. Rouen, 1614, 8vo. The first treats of the ecclesiastical affairs of Beauvais the second, of the civil affairs. 2. “Nomenclatura et Chronologia rerum Ecclesiasticarum Dioecesis Bellovacensis,” Paris, 1618, 8vo. 3. “Hist, des Antiquity’s du Diocese de Beauvais,” Beauvais, lh.3.5, 8vo. 4. “Anciennes Remarques sur la Noblesse Beaiuoisme, et de plusieurs Families de France,” 1631, and 1640, 8vo. This work is very scarce it is in alphabetical order, but has only been printed from A to M inclusively, with one leaf of N. Father Triboulet, prior of the Dominicans at Beauvais, and afterwards procurator- general of' his order, being authorised to establish a college in the Dominican convent of Beauvais, and to enforce the observance of the rules and statutes of reformation respecting studies there, was imprisoned by his brethren. On this occasion Louvet published, “Abrég6 d: s Constitutions et Reglemens pour les Etu;les et Reformes du Convent des Jacobins de Beauvais,” and addressed it to tht- king, in 1618, by an epistle dedicatory, in which he petitioned that Triboulet might be set at liberty. There was another French historian of the same names, who was born at Beauvais. His father was a native of Amiens, and not related to the preceding. He studied physic at Montpellier also the belles lettres and geography; taught rhetoric with reputation in Provence during a considerable time; and geography at Montpellier; and published several works from 1657 to 1680, respecting the history of Languedoc, Provence, &c. under the following titles: 1. “Remarques sur l'Histoire de Langnedoc,” 4to 2.“Abrégé de l‘Histoire d’Aquitaine, Guienne, et Gascogne, jusqu'à present,” foourdeaux, 1659, 4to. 3 “La France dans sa Splendeur,” 2 vols. 12mo. 4. “Ahrege* de I'Histoire de Provence,” 2 vols. 12mo, with additions to the same history in 2 vols. folio. 5. “Projet de I'Histoire du Pays de beanjolots,” 8vo. 6. “Hist, des Troubles de Provence deputs 1481 jusqu'en 159S,” 2 vols. 12mo. 7. “Le Mercure Hollandois. ou Ifs Conquetes du Roi, lepuisn7J, jusqira la fin de 1679,” 10 vols 12mo. This last may be useful, and is the best of Peter Louvet’s works; but Hoik of the rest are much esteemed.

, a Greek author, was born at Samosata, the capital of Comagene; the time of his birth is uncertain, though generally fixed in the reign of the emperor Trajan; but Mr. Moyle, who has taken some pains to adjust the age of Lucian, fixes the fortieth year of his age to the 164th year of Christ, and the fourth of Marcus Antoninus; and consequently, his birth to the 124th year of Christ, and the eighth of Adrian. His birth was mean; and his father, not being able to give him any learning, resolved to breed him a sculptor, and in that view put him apprentice to his brother-in-law; but, taking a dislike to the business, he applied himself to the study of polite learning and philosophy; being encouraged by a dream, which he relates in the beginning of his works, and which evidently was the product of his inclination to letters. He tells us also himself, that he studied the law, and practised some time as an advocate; but disliking the wrangling oratory of the bar, he threw off his gown, and took up that of a rhetorician. In this character he settled first at Antioch; and passing thence into Ionia in Greece, he travelled into Gaul and Italy, and returned at length into his own country by the way of Macedonia. He lived four and twenty years after the death of Trajan, and even to the time of Marcus Aurelius, who made him register of Alexandria in Egypt. He tells us himself, that when he entered upon this office, he was in extreme old age, and had one leg in Charon’s boat. Suidas asserts that he was torn to pieces by dogs. He died, however, in the year 214, aged 90.

, a celebrated political writer and historian, was born of a good family, at Florence, in 1469. He first distinguished himself as a dramatic writer, but his comedies are not formed on the purest morals, nor are the verses by which he gained some reputation about the same time, entitled to much praise. Soon after he had entered public life, either from the love of liberty, or a spirit of faction, he displayed a restless and turbulent disposition, which not only diminished the respect due to his abilities, but frequently endangered his personal safety. He involved himself in the conspiracy of Capponi and Boscoli, in consequence of which he was put to the torture, but endured it without uttering any confession, and was set at liberty by Leo X. against whose house that conspiracy had been formed. Immediately after the death of Leo, he entered into another plot to expel the cardinal de Medici from Florence. Afterwards, however, he was raised to hitjh honours in the state, and became secretary to the republic of Florence, the 'duties of which office he performed with great fidelity. He was likewise employed in embassies to king Lewis XII. of France; to the emperor Maximilian; to the college of cardinals; to the pope, Julius II., and to other Italian princes. Notwithstanding the revenues which must have accrued to him in these important situations, it would appear that the love of money had no influence on his mind, as he died in extreme poverty in June 1527. Besides his plays, his chief works are, 1. “The Golden Ass,” in imitation of Lucian and Apuleius 2. “Discourses on the first Decade of Livy” 3. “A History of Florence” 4. “The Life of Castruccio Castracani;” 5. “A Treatise on the Military Art;” 6. “A Treatise on the Emigration of the Northern Nations;” 7. Another entitled “Del Principe,” the Prince. This famous treatise, which was first published in 1515, and intended as a sequel to his discourses on the first decade of Livy, has created very discordant opinions between critics of apparently equal skill and judgment, some having considered him as the friend of truth, liberty, and virtue, and others as the advocate of fraud and tyranny. Most generally “the Prince” has been viewed in the latter light, all its maxims and counsels being directed to the maintenance of power, however acquired, and by any means; and one reason for this opinion is perhaps natural enough, namely, its being dedicated to a nephew of pope Leo X. printed at Rome, re*published in other Italian cities, and long read with attention, and even applause, without censure or reply. On the other hand it has been thought impossible that Machiavel, who was born under a republic, who was employed as one of its secretaries, who performed so many important embassies, and who in his conversation always dwelt on the glorious actions of Brutus and Cassius, should have formed such a system against the liberty and happiness of mankind. Hence it has frequently been urged on his behalf, that it was not his intention to suggest wise and faithlul counsels, but to represent in the darkest colours the schemes of a tyrant, and thereby excite odium against him. Even lord Bacon seems to be of this opinion. The historian of Leo considers his conduct in a different point of view; and indeed all idea of his being ironical in this work is dissipated by the fact, mentioned by Mr. Roscoe, that “many of the most exceptionable doctrines in” The Prince,“are also to be found in his” Discourses,“where it cannot be pretended that he had any indirect purpose in view; and in the latter he has in some instances referred to the former for the further elucidation of his opinions. In popular opinion” The Prince“has affixed to his name a lasting stigma; and Machiavelism has long been a received appellation for perfidious and infamous politics. Of the historical writings of Machiavel, the” Life of Castruccio Castracani“is considered as partaking too much of the character of a romance; but his” History of Florence," comprising the events of that republic, between 1205 and 1494, which was written while the author sustained the office of historiographer of the republic, although not always accurate in point of fact, may upon the whole be read with both pleasure and advantage. It has been of late years discovered tnat the diary of the most important events in Italy from 1492 to 1512, published by the Giunti in 1568, under the name of Biagio Buonaccorsi, is in fact a part of the notes of Machiavel, which he had intended for a continuation of his history; but which, after his death, remained in the hands of his friend Buonaccorsi. - This is a circumstance of which we were not aware when we drew up the account of this author under the name Esperiente.

, an ingenious and learned writer, and eminent lawyer of Scotland, was descended from an ancient and noble family, his father Simon Mackenzie being brother to the earl of Seaforth. He was born at Dundee, in the county of Angus, in 1636, and gave early proofs of an extraorJinary genius, having gone through the usual classic authors, at ten years of age. He was then sent to the universities of Aberdeen and St. Andrew’s, where he finished his studies in logic and philosophy before he had attained his sixteenth year. After this, he turned his thoughts to the civil law, and to increase his knowledge of it, travelled into France, and became a close student in the university of Bourges, for about three years. On his return home, he was called to the bar, became an advocate in 1656, and gained the character of an eminent pleader in a few years.

Soon after Mr. Mackenzie had been employed as counsel for the marquis of Argyle, he was promoted to the office of a judge in the criminal court; which he discharged with so much credit and reputation, that he was made king’s advocate in 1674, and one of the lords of the privycouncil in Scotland. He was also knighted by his majesty. In these offices he met with a great deal of trouble on account of the rebellions which happened in his time; and his office of advocate requiring him to act with severity, he did not escape being censured for having, in the deaths of some particular persons who were executed, stretched the laws too far. This alludes to the noted trials of Baillie of Jerviswood, that of the earl of Argyle, and the prosecutions against Mitchel and Learmonth, events which make a great figure in the history of that unhappy period; but in the opinion of the late lord Woodhcusc lee, “his own defence will fully justify his conduct in the breast of every man whose judgment is not perverted by the same prejudices, hostile to all good government, which led those infatuated offenders to the doom they merited.” (See Mackenzie’s Works, Vindication of the government of Charles II.)

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

, a famous English prelate, born at London, July 27, 1697, of obscure parents, whom he lost while he was young, was taken care of by an aunt, who placed him in a charity-school, and afterwards put him on trial to a pastry-cook; but, before he was bound apprentice, the master told her that the boy was not fit for trade; that he was continually reading books of learning above his (the master’s) comprehension, and therefore advised that she should take him away, and send him back to school, to follow the bent of his inclination. He was on this sent, by an exhibition of some dissenting friends, to one of the universities of Scotland, Cole says, that of Aberdeen; but, not caring to take orders in that church, was afterwards, through the patronage of bishop Gibson, admitted to Queen’s-college, Cambridge, and was favoured with a doctor’s degree at Lambeth. After entering into orders, he first was curate of St. Bride’s, then domestic chaplain to Dr. Waddington, bishop of Chichester, whose niece he married, and was afterwards promoted to the rectory of St. Vedast, in Foster-lane, London. In 1729, he was appointed clerk of the closet to queen Caroline. In 1733, he became dean of Wells, and was consecrated bishop of St. Asaph, in 1736. He was translated to the see of Worcester, in 1743. In 1733 he published the first part of the “Review of Neal’s History of the Puritans,” under the title of, “A Vindication of the Government, Doctrine, and Worship of the Church of England, established in the reign of queen Elizabeth:” of which the late bishop Hallifax said, “a better vindication of the reformed church of England, I never read.” He was a great benefactor to the London hospitals, and the first promoter of the Worcester Infirmary in 1745, which has proved of singular benefit to the poor, and a great advantage to medical and surgical knowledge in that neighbourhood. He was also a great encourager of trade, engaging in the British fishery, by which he lost some money. He likewise was a strong advocate for the act against vending spirituous liquors. He married Elizabeth daughter of Richard Price, esq. of Hayes in Middlesex, in 1731; and had two daughters and a son, of whom only one daughter survived him, and was afterwards married to the hon. James Yorke, bishop of Gloucester, and late bishop of Ely. He died Sept. 27, 1739. Bishop Madox published fourteen occasional sermons preached between the years 1734 and 1752. Among other instances of his benevolence, we may mention his assigning 200l.perann. during his life, for the augmentation of the smaller benefices of his diocese. He corresponded with Dr. Doddridge with affectionate familiarity, and visited him when at Bristol, offering in the most obliging manner to convey him to the Wells in his chariot, at the stated times of drinking. He used to anticipate any hints respecting his origin by a joke which he was fond of repeating. When tarts wera on his table, he pressed the company to partake, saying “that he believed they were very good, but that they were not of his own making” This he varied, when John Whiston dined with him, into, “some people reckon me a good judge of that article!” Upon the whole he appears to have been an amiable and benevolent man, and to have employed his wealth as well as his talents to the best purposes. His widow survived him thirty years, dying Feb. 19, 1789.

, a French poet of the seventeenth century, was bred up as an advocate, and for some time followed that profession at Lyons. He then became a dramatic writer, and produced several pieces, of which the least bad is a tragedy called Artaxerxes; this has some plot, good sentiments, and characters tolerably supported. He then conceived the extraordinary project of writing an encyclopaedia in verse, which was to consist of ten volumes, each containing twenty thousand verses. Being asked, after some time, when this work would be finished “Very soon,” said he, “I have now only a hundred thousand verses to write.” His project, however, was cut off, notwithstanding this near approach to its conclusion, as he was murdered by thieves at Paris, in 1662. His verses were bad enough to account for his facility in producing them, yet he was a friend of Moliere. A part of his great work appeared in folio in 1663, with the magnificent title of “Science Universelle.” The preface was still more pompous: “Libraries,” says he, “will hereafter be for ornament only, not use.” Yet how few contain this wonderful work!

In 1771, when the government had dissolved the whole legal constitution, and banished the parliaments, Malesherbes was banished to his country-seat by a “lettre de cachet,” and the duke de Richelieu, at the head of an armed force, abolished the court of aids. During his retirement, Malesherbes’s time was occupied with his family and his books, and the cultivation of his grounds. His expenditure in public objects was large: he drained marshes, cut canals, constructed roads, built bridges, planted walks, and carried his attention to the comfort of the lower classes so far as to raise sheds on the sides of the river for the shelter of the women at their domestic labours. He was thus benevolently and usefully employed when the accession of Lewis XVI. recalled him to a public station, and in 1774 Malesherbes received an order to resume the presidentship of the court of aids, on which occasion he pronounced a very affecting and patriotic harangue, and afterwards addressed the king in an eloquent speech of thanks. His majesty was so well pleased with him, and with the freedom of his sentiments, that he appointed him minister of state in June 1775, an office which gave Malesherbes an opportunity of extending his sphere of usefulness. One of his first concerns was to visit the prisons, and restore to liberty the innocent victims of former tyranny, and his praises were carried throughout France by persons of all descriptions returning to the bosoms of their families from the gloom of dungeons. Although he failed in his attempt to abolish the arbitrary power of issuing lettres de cachet, he procured the appointment of a commission, composed of upright and enlightened magistrates, to which every application for such letters should be submitted, and whose unanimous decision should be requisite for their validity. Malesherbes was also a great encourager of commerce and agriculture, in which he bad the cordial co-operation of the illustrious Turgot, at that period the comptroller of the revenue; but, owing to the rejection of some important measures which his zeal for the public good led him to propose, Malesberbes resigned in the month of May 1776. To obtain an accurate view of the manners and policy of other countries and foreign states, he set out on his travels, and visited Switzerland and Holland, and in the course of his journey he noted down every occurrence worthy of observation, and that might, hereafter, possibly be useful to himself, and promote the melioration of his country. On his return, at the end of a few years, he found his native country so much advanced in what he thought philosophical principles, that he was encouraged to present to the king two elaborate memoirs, one on the condition of the protestants, the other in favour of the principles of civil liberty, an4 toleration in general. Difficulties, however, were now accumulating in the management of the government, and the king, in 1786, called Malesherbes to his councils, but without appointing him to any particular post in the administration. He soon found it impossible to act with the men already possessed of the powers of government, and expressed his opinion in two energetic memoirs “On the Calamities of France, and the means of repairing them;” but it does not appear that these ever reached his majesty, nor could Malesherbes obtain a private interview; he therefore took his final leave of the court, and retreated to his country residence, determined to consult the best means of serving his country by agricultural pursuits, in 1790 he published “An Essay on the means of accelerating the progress of Rural Economy in France,” in which he proposed an establishment to facilitate the national improvement in this important point. In this tranquil state he was passing the evening of his days when the horrors of the revolution brought him again to Paris. During the whole of its progress, he had his eyes constantly fixed on his unhappy sovereign; and, subduing his natural fondness for retirement, went regularly to court every Sunday, to give him proofs of his respect and attachment. He imposed it as a duty on himself to give the ministers regular information of the designs of the regicide faction; and when it was determined to bring the king to trial, he voluntarily offered to be the defender of his master, in his memorable letter of Dec. 11, 1792, that eternal monument of his loyalty and affection. Three counsel had already been appointed, but one having from prudential motives, declined the office, the king, who wept at this proof of attachment from his old servant, immediately nominated Malesherbes in his stead. Their interview was extremely affecting, and his majesty, during the short interval before his death, shewed every mark of affection for, and confidence in, his generous advocate. Malesherbes was the person who announced to him his cruel doom, and was one of the last who took leave of him previously to his execution. After that catastrophe he again withdrew to his retreat, and with a deeply-wounded heart, refused to hear any thing of what was acting among the blood-thirsty Parisians. As he was one morning working in his garden, he observed four savage-looking wretches directing their course to his house, and hastening home, he found them to be officers from the revolutionary tribunal come to arrest his daughter and her husband, who had formerly been president of the parliament of Paris. The separation of these persons from his family was deeply afflicting to his heart, and it is probable that his own arrest shortly after was a relief to his feelings. He had long been esteemed as father of the village in which he lived, and the rustic inhabitants crowded round to take leave of their ancient benefactor with tears and benedictions. Four of the municipality accompanied him to Paris, that he might not be escorted by soldiers like a criminal. He was shut tip in prison with his unfortunate family and in a lew days the guillotine separated his son-in-law Lepelletier from his wife and the accusation of Malesherbes with his daughter and grand-daughter, “for a conspiracy against the liberties of the people,” was followed, as a matter of course, by a sentence of death. The real crime, as it was basely denominated, of this excellent man and worthy patriot, and which the convention never pardoned, was his defence of the king, an act in which he gloried to the latest hour of his existence. He probably thought it an honour to die by the same ruffian hands that had spilt the blood of his master. The condemnation of the females almost overcame the manly fortitude which he displayed in every personal suffering; his courage, however, returned at the prison, and they prepared for the death which was the last and only important event that they had to encounter. His daughter had exhibited the noble spirit with which she was inspired, for upon taking leave of mademoiselle Sombreuil, who had saved her father’s life on the second of September, she said to her, “You have had the happiness to preserve your father, I shall have the consolation of dying with mine” On the fatal day Malesherbes left the prison with a serene countenance, and happening to stumble against a stone, he said with much pleasantry, “a Roman would have thought this an unlucky omen, and walked back again.” Thus perished the venerable Malesherbes in April 1794, when he had attained to the age of seventy-two years four months and fifteen days. His character may be in part deduced from the preceding narrative, but is more fully displayed in his life translated by Mr. Mangin. The subsequent government has since made some reparation for the injustice done him, by ordering his bust to be placed among those of the great men who have reflected honour upon their country.

After making the usual tour of Europe with the duke’s sows, he returned with them to London, and by the influence of the family, in which he resided, easily gained admission to many persons of the highest rank, to wits, nobles, and statesmen. “By degrees,” says Dr. Johnson, “having cleared his tongue from his native pronunciation, so as to be no longer distinguished as a Scot, he seems inclined to disencumber himself from all adherences of his original, and took upon him to change his name from Scotch Malloch to English Mallet, without any imaginable reason of preference which the eye or ear can discover. What other proofs he gave of disrespect to his native country, I know not; bur it was remarked of him that he was the only Scot whom Scotchmen did not commend.” It seems unreasonable, however, to impute this change of name to disrespect for his country; with his countrymen many of his most intimate connections were formed, and his friendship for Thomson is one of the most agreeable parts of his history; and almost the last character he sustained was that of an intrepid advocate for lord Bute, and what were then called the Scotch junto who ruled the king and kingdom. As to Scotchmen not commending him, he had at least one adherent in Smollet, who engaged him to write in the Critical Review, where all Mallet’s works are highly praised, particularly his “Elvira.” The late commentator, George Steevens, esq. hit upon the truth more exactly, when he wrote in a copy of Gascoigne’s Works, purchased in 1766, at Mallet’s sale, “that he was the only Scotchman who died, in his memory, unlamented by an individual of fyis own nation.” Steevens probably mad this remark to Johnson, who forgot the precise terms. The first time we meet with the name of David Mallet is in 1726, in a list of the subscribers to Savage’s Miscellanies.

, one of the greatest ornaments of the Gallican church, but a man of great inconsistency of character, was born in 1594, at Gant, in Bearn, of a very ancient family in that principality. He went through his course of philosophy among the Jesuits, and then studied the law for three years; after which he was received a counsellor in 1615, in the supreme council at Pau. In 1621 he was made president of the parliament of Bearn; and going to Paris in 1639, about the affairs of his province, was made a counsellor of state. In 1640 he published “The History of Bearn,” which confirmed the good opinion that was conceived of his knowledge and parts. He was thought, therefore, a very proper person to undertake a delicate and important subject, which offered itself about that time. The court of France was then at variance with the court of Rome, and the book which Peter de Puy published, concerning the liberties of the Gallican church, greatly alarmed the partisans of the court of Rome; some of whom endeavoured to persuade the world that they were the preliminaries of a schism contrived by cardinal Richelieu; as if his eminency had it in his head to erect a patriarchate in that kingdom, in order to render the Gallican church independent of the pope. A French divine, M. Hersent (see Hersent), who took the name of Optatus Gallus, addressed a book to the clergy upon the subject; and insinuated that the cardinal had brought over to his party a great personage, who was ready to defend this conduct of the cardinal; and this great personage was Peter de Marca. But an insinuation of this nature tending to make the cardinal odious, as it occasioned a rumour that he aspired to the patriarchate, the king laid his commands on de Marca to refute Hersent’s work, and at the same time to preserve the liberties of the Gallican church on the one hand, and to make it appear on the other that those liberties did not in the least diminish the reverence due to the holy see. He accepted of this commission, and executed it by his book “De Concordia sacerdotii & imperii, sive, de libertatibus ecclesisæ Gallicæ,” which he published in 1641. He declared in his preface, that he did not enter upon the discussion of right, but confined himself to the settling of facts: that is, he only attempted to shew what deference the Western churches had always paid to the bishop of Rome on the one side; and on the other, what rights and privileges the Gallican churclh had always possessed. But though he had collected an infinite number of testimonies in favour of the pope’s power, the work was of too liberal a cast not to give offence: perhaps even the very attempt to throw the subject open to discussion was not very agreeable and accordingly, the court of Rome made a great many difficulties in dispatching the bulls which were demanded in favour of de Marca, who had, in the end of 1641, been presented to the bishopric of Conserans. That court gave him to understand that it was necessary he should soften some things he had advanced; and caused his book to pass a very strict examination. After the death of Urban VIII. cardinal Bichi warmly solicited Innocent X. to grant the bulls in favour of the bishop of Conserans; but the assessor of the holy office recalled the remembrance of the complaints which had been made against his book “De Concordia,” which occasioned this pope to order the examination of it anew. De Marca, despairing of success unless he gave satisfaction to the court of Rome, published a book in 1646, in which he explained the design of his “De Coocordia,” &c. submitted himself to the censure of the apostolic see, and shewed that kings were not the authors, but the guardians of the canon laws. “I own,” says he, “that I favoured the side of my prince too much, and acted the part of a president rather than that of a bishop. I renounce my errors, and promise for the future to be a strenuous advocate for the authority of the holy see.” Accordingly, in 1647, he wrote a book entitled “De singulari primatu Petri,” in which he proved that St. Peter was the only head of the church; and this he sent to the pope, who was so pleased with it, that he immediately granted his bulls, and he was made bishop of Conserans in 1648. This conduct of de Marca has been noticed by lord Bolingbroke, in his posthumous works, with becoming indignation. He calls him “a time-­serving priest, interested, and a great flatterer, if ever there was one;” and adds, that, “when he could not get his bulls dispatched, be made no scruple to explain away all that he had said in favour of the state, and to limit the papal power.”

, a celebrated French writer of the drama and of romance, was born at Paris in 1688. His father was of a good family in Normandy; his fortune was considerable, and he spared nothing in the education of his son, who discovered uncommon talents, and a most amiable disposition. His first object was the theatre, where he met with the highest success in comic productions; and these, with the merit of his other works, procured him a place in the French academy. The great object of both his comedies and romances was, to convey an useful moral under the veil of wit and sentiment: “my only object,” says he, “is to make men more just and more humane;” and he was as amiable in his life and conversation as in his writings. He was compassionate and humane, and a strenuous advocate for morality and religion. To relieve the indigent, to console the unfortunate, and to succour the oppressed, were duties which he not only recommended by his writings, but by his own practice and example. He would frequently ridicule the excessive credulity of infidels in matters of trivial importance; and once said to lord Bolingbroke, who was of that character, “If you cannot believe, it is not for want of faith.”

, a French grammarian of high reputation, was born at Marseilles, July 17, 1676, and entered into the congregation of die oratory, but disgusted at the too great confinement of that institution, soon quitted it, and went to Paris. There he married in 1704, and practised for a time with some success as an advocate. Ere long, however, we find him quitting that profession, as not continuing to be advantageous, and separated from his wife, on finding her temper intolerable. He then undertook the care of educating pupils in several great families; among others, that of the president des Maisons, of the Scottish adventurer Law, and the marquis de Beaufremont. Some of these pupils did great honour to his care of their principles and learning. Still he was not fortunate enough to obtain any permanent provision; and undertook a kind of academy, which did not succeed; and he was for a considerable time reduced to go about giving lessons at private houses, and subsisting in a very straitened and precarious manner. At length, the persons who conducted the Encyclopedia, engaged him to bear a part in that great work, to which the articles on the subject of grammar, furnished by him, proved a most important aecession. They are distinguished by a sound and luminous philosophy, an extent of learning by no means common, great precision in the rules, and no less accuracy in the application of them. He had now struggled for the chief part of his life with adverse circumstances; when the count de Lauragais, struck with his merit, and affected by his situation, settled upon him an annuity of a thousand livres. He died June 11, 1756, at the age of eighty. Du Marsais had been considered during his life as sceptical, but is said to have returned to a sense of religion before his death. Several anecdotes were circulated respecting his indifference to religion, which materially injured his fortune. It was even said, that being called upon to educate three brothers in a great family, he asked the parents in what religion they would have them brought up? A story of little probability, but which passed sufficiently current to injure him in the minds of many respectable persons. His disposition was mild and equal, his understanding clear and precise; and his manners had a kind of simplicity which occasioned him to be called the Fontaine of philosophers. Fontenelle said of him, “C‘est le nigaud le plus spirituel, & l’homme d'esprit le plus nigaud que je connoisse,” that is, “He is for a simpleton the most ingenious, and for a man of genius the most of a simpleton of any one I know.” As his own character was so natural, so also was he an ardent admirer of nature, and an enemy to all affectation; and his precepts are said to have had great effect in teaching the celebrated actress le Couvreur, that simple and natural style of declamation which made her performance so pathetic, and raised her reputation to so great a height.

, an eminent French preacher, the son of a celebrated advocate to the parliament of Aix, was born, 1634, at Marseilles. He entered early among the priests of the oratory, was employed at the age of twentytwo to teach rhetoric at Mans, and preached afterwards with such applause at Saumur and Paris, that the court engaged him for Advent 1666, and Lent 1667. Mascaroa was so much admired there, that his sermons were said to be formed for a court; and when some envious persons would have made a crime of the freedom with which he announced the truths of Christianity to the king, Louis XIV. defended him, saying, “He has done his duty, it remains for us to do our’s.” P. Mascaron was appointed to the bishopric of Tulles, 1671, and translated to that of Agen in 1678. He returned to preach before the king in Advent 1694, and Louis XIV. was so much pleased, that he said to him, “Your eloquence alone, neither wears out nor grows old.” On going back to Agen, he founded an hospital, and died in that city, December 16, 1703, aged sixty-nine. None of his compositions have been printed, but “A collection of his Funeral Orations,” among which, those on M. de Turenne and the chancellor Seguier, are particularly admired. It may be proper to mention, that M. Mascaron having been ordained priest by M. de Lavardin, bishop of Mans, who declared on his death-bed, that he never intended to ordain any priest, the Sorbonne was consulted whether this prelate’s ordinations were valid. They decided “That it was sufficient if he had the exterior intention to do what the church does, and that he certainly b.ad it, because he did so: therefore it was not needful to ordain those priests again, which this bishop had ordained.” But notwithstanding this decision, M. Mascaron chose to be ordained again; which proves, says L'Avocat, that he was a better preacher than casuist, and that his conscience was more scrupulous than enlightened on this point.

The marriage of Charles IX. of France with Elizabeth, daughter of the emperor Maximilian, being celebrated in 1570 at Mezieres, Masson, who was present, wrote an elegant description of it, which was published the same year in 8vo, and was the first thing from which he derived literary reputation. He then resolved to apply to the law, and with this vie<v went to Angers to study under the celebrated Baudouin, or Balduinus. After two years he returned to Paris, and became librarian to the chancellor de Cheverney, a lover of literature, in which place he continued ten years. In 1576 he was made an advocate of parliament; yet never pleaded more than one cause, which however he gained with universal applause. The rest of his life appears to have been devoted to study, and when the troubles of France were at an end, he married the sister of a counsellor in parliament, with whom he lived thirty-four years, but had no children. The infirmities of age attacked him some time before his death, which happened Jan. 9, 1611. Rewrote, 1. “Annals of France,” a good work, the best edition of which is, 1598, 4to. 2. “Eulogies on illustrious Men,” 1656, 8vo. 3. “A Description of France by its Rivers,” 1685, 8vo. 4. “An Account of the French Bishoprics,” 8vo. “De Episcopis Urbis,” 4to, a history of the popes; and several other works, which discover great genius and learning. “Vita Joannis Calvini,” 4to, a well-written work, is also ascribed to him by some, and, by others, to James Gillot. The above-mentioned are all in Latin. His friend, M. de Thou, has written his life, which is prefixed to his Eulogies.

, a French historian, was born at Porentrui, in the diocese of Basle, Dec. 10, 1583, and was first principal of the college of Verceil, and afterwards an advocate at Lyons. He was a zealous partizan of the league, and much attached to the Guises. When he went to Paris, he quitted poetry, which he had followed hitherto, for history, to which he attached himself from that time. He acquired the esteem of Henry IV. who manifested it by giving him the title of historiographer of France, and furnishing him with all the memoirs necessary to make him so effectually. He attended Louis Xiji. to the siege of Montauhan; but, falling sick, was removed to Toulouse, where he died October 12, 1621, at the age of fifty-eight. Matthieu was only a moderate author: he wrote easily, but in an undignified style. He produced, l.“A History of the memorable Events which happened in the reign of Henry the Great,” 1624, 8vo. This contains some curious anecdotes communicated to the author by Henry himself; but the flatness of the style destroys, in a great measure, the interest of the work. 2. “The History of the deplorable Death of Henry the Great,” 1611 folio; 1612, 8vo. 3, “The History of St. Louis,” 1618, 8vo. 4. “The History of Louis XI.” in folio. This work is esteemed. 5, “The History of France,” from Francis I. to Louis XIII. inclusive, Paris, 1631, 2 vols, folio, published by his son, who added the reign of Louis XIII. 6. “Quatrains on Life and Death;” very languid and fatiguing, but often printed after those of Pibrac. 7. “La Guisiade,” the Guisiad, a tragedy, was published at Lyons, 1589, in 8vo. He was also the writer of some other tragedies, published in the same year in 2 vols. 12mo and of some other historical pieees of less note than what we have mentioned.

He was an early and active advocate for inoculation; and when there was a doubt entertained that one might have the small-pox after inoculation a second time, tried it upon himself, unknown to his family. He was a member of the medical club (with the doctors Parsons, Templeman, Fothergill, Watson, and others), which met every fortnight in St. Paul’s church-yard. He was twice married, viz. the first time to Mrs. Elizabeth Boisragon; and the second to Mrs. Mary Deners. He left a son and three daughters. A portrait of Dr. Maty, by his own order, was engraved after his death by Bartolozzi, to be given to his friends; of which no more than 100 copies were taken off, and the plate destroyed. He had nearly finished the “Memoirs of the Earl of Chesterfield” which were completed by his son-in-law Mr. Justamond, and prefixed to that nobleman’s Miscellaneous Works, 1777, 2 vols. 4 to.

, a French translator, and in some degree a poet, was born at Noyon, in 1619, and for a time followed the profession of an advocate but being disgusted with the lavi r went into the church, where he became an abbe, and canon of the cathedral of Rheims. In that city he died in 1708, at the age of ninety. His works consist chiefly of translations, which are written in a pure, but not an animated style. The principal of them are these: 1. “The Philippics of Demosthenes.” 2. “The Euthydemus, and the greater Hippias of Plato.” 3. Some Orations of Cicero. 4. “The Rationarium Temporum of father Petau,” 1683, 3 vols. 12mo. 5. “Sanderus’s History of the English Schism,” 1678, 2 vols. 12mo. 6. “The Lives of cardinal Pole and Campeggio.” 7. “The Homilies of St. Chrysostom, addressed to the people of Antioch.” Maucroix was intimately connected with Boileau, Racine, and particularly with La Fontaine; in conjunction with whom, he published in 1685, a collection of their miscellaneous works, in 2 vols. 12mo. In 1726 were published, “Les nouvelles Oeuvres de Maucroix,” among which are some poems, more remarkable for a certain natural style, than for brilliancy of imagination.

Serjeant Maynard was esteemed a very able advocate, and has been called the best old book lawyer of his time. All parties, says Mr. Lysons, seem to have been willing to employ him, and he seems to have been equally willing to be employed by all. Some of his reports and speeches have been printed. There is also a report of his of a very singular case of murder, in “The Works of the Learned,” for August 1739, communicated by Dr. Rawlinson. Bishop Warburton has not inaptly characterised serjeant Maynard by a comparison with Whitlocke. They were both lawyers of family, and in the long parliament; both of the presbyterian faction; both learned and eminent in their profession; moderate, sage, and steady. So far they agreed. In this they differed: Maynard had strong parts with a serious modesty; Whitlocke was weak and vain: and by these defects only, more self-interested. A sense of honour made Maynard stick to the presbyterian faction, and to fall with them; but, as he had much phlegm and caution, not, like Hollis and Stapleton, to fall for them. So that he was never marked out by the independents for their first sacrifices. On the contrary, Whitlocke forsook his party in distress but as he had the other’s moderation, it was by slow and gentle degrees and so, as it happened, decently. Maynard, by adhering steadily, but not violently, to the party he set out with, was reverenced by all and had he not been more intent on the affairs of his profession, than on public business, might have become considerable by station. “He went,” adds Warburton, “through the whole reign of Charles and James II. with the same steady pace, and the same adherence to his party; but by his party, 1 rather mean presbytery for the sake of civil liberty, than to civil liberty for the sake of presbytery.”

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

, called, from his great learning, the Varro of his times, was born at Angers, Aug. 15, 1613. He was the son of William Menace, the king’s advocate at Angers; and discovered so early an inclination to letters, that his father was determined to spare no cost or pains in his education. He was accordingly taught the belles lettres and philosophy, in which his progress fully answered the expectations of his father, who, however, thought it necessary to divert him from too severe application, by giving him instructions in music and dancing; but these were in a great measure thrown away, and he had so littie genius for music, that he never could learn a tune. He had more success in his first profession, which was that of a barrister at law, and pleaded various causes, with considerable eclat, both in the country, and in the parliament of Paris. His father had always designed him for his profession, the law, and now resigned his place of king’s advocate in his favour, which Menage, as soon as he became tired of the law, returned to him. Considering the law as a drudgery, he adopted the vulgar opinion that it was incompatible with an attention to polite literature. He now declared his design of entering into the church, as the best plan he could pursue for the gratification of his love of general literature, and of the company of literary men; and soon after he had interest to procure some benefices, and among the rest the deanery of St. Peter at Angers. In the mean time his father, displeased at him for deserting his profession, would not supply him with the money which, in addition to what his livings produced, was necessary to support him at Paris. This obliged him to look out for some means of subsistence there, independent of his family; and at the recommendation of Chapelain, a member of the French academy, he was taken into the family of cardinal de Retz, who was then only coadjutor to the archbishop of Paris. In this situation he enjoyed the repose necessary to his studies, and had every day new opportunities of displaying his abilities and learning. He lived several years with the cardinal; but having received an affront from some of his dependants, he desired of the cardinal, either that reparation might be made him, or that he might be suffered to depart. He obtained the latter, and then hired an apartment in the cloister of Notre Dame, where he held every Wednesday an assembly, which he called his “Mercuriale.” Here he had the satisfaction of seeing a number of learned men, French and foreigners; and upon other days he frequented the study of Messieurs du Puy, and after their death that of Thuanus. By his father’s death, which happened Jan. 18, 1648, he succeeded to an estate, which he converted into an annuity, for the sake of being entirely at leisure to pursue his studies. Soon after, he obtained, by a decree of the grand council, the priory of Montdidier; which he resigned also to the abbe de la Vieuville, afterwards bishop of Rennes, who procured far him, by way of amends, a pension of 4000 livres upon two abbeys. The king’s consent, which was necessary for the creation of this pension, was not obtained for Menage, till he had given assurances to cardinal Mazarin, that he had no share in the libels which had been dispersed against that minister and the court, during the troubles at Paris. This considerable addition to his circumstances enabled him to prosecute his studies with more success, and to publish la great many works, which he generally did at his own expence. The excessive freedom of his conversation, however, and his total inability to suppress a witty thought, whatever hiight be the consequence of uttering it, created him many enemies; and he had contests with several men of eminence, who attacked him at different times, as the abbe d'Aubignac, Boileau, Cotin, Salo, Bohours, and Baillet. But all these were not nearly so formidable to him, as the danger which he incurred in 1660, by a Latin elegy addressed to Mazarin; in which, among his compliments to his eminence, it was pretended, that he had satirized a deputation which the parliament had sent to that minister. It was carried to the grand chamber by the counsellors, who proposed to debate upon it; but the first president, Lamoignon, to whom Menage had protested that the piece had been written three months before the deputation, and that he could not intend the parliament in it, prevented any ill consequences from the affair. Besides the reputation his works gained him, they procured him a place in the academy della Crusca at Florence; and he might have been a member of the French academy at its first institution, if it had not been for his “Requete des dictionnaires.” When the memory of that piece, however, was effaced by time, and most of the academicians, who were named in it, were dead, he was proposed, in 1684, to fill a vacant place in that academy, and was excluded only by the superior interest of his competitor, M. Bergeret: there not being one member, of all those who gave their votes against Menage, who did not own that he deserved the place. After this he would not suffer his friends to propose him again, nor indeed was he any longer able to attend the academy, if he had been chosen, on account of a fall, which had put his thigh out of joint; after which he scarcely ever went out of his chamber, but held daily a kind of an academy there. In July 1692, he began to, be troubled with a rheum, which was followed by a defluxion on the stomach, of which he died on the 23d, aged seventy- nine.

, the celebrated comic writer of France, whose original name was Pocquelin, was born at Paris about 1620. He was both son and grandson to valets de chambres on one side, and tapissiers on the other, to Louis XIII. and was designed for the latter business, that of a domestic upholsterer, whose duty was to take care of the furniture of the royal apartments. But the grandfather being very fond of the boy, and at the same time a great lover of plays, used to take him often with him to the hotel de Bourgogne; which presently roused up Moliere’s natural genius and taste for dramatic representations, and created in him such a disgust to his intended employment, that at last his father consented to let him study under the Jesuits, at the college of Clermont. During the five years that he resided here, he made a rapid progress in the study of philosophy and polite literature, and, if we mistake not, acquired even now much insight into the varieties of human character. He had here also an opportunity of contracting an intimate friendship with Chapelle, Bernier, and Cyrano. Chapelle, with whom Bernier was an associate in his studies, had the famous Gassendi for his tutor, who willingly admitted Moliere to his lectures, as he afterwards also admitted Cyrano. When Louis XIII. went to Narbonne, in 1641, his studies were interrupted: for his infirm father, not being able to attend the court, Moliere was obliged to go there to supply his place. This, however, he quitted on his fathers death; and his passion for the stage, which had induced him first to study, revived more strongly than ever. Some have said, that he for a time studied the law, and was admitted an advocate. This seems doubtful, but, if true, he soon yielded to those more lively pursuits which made him the restorer of comedy in France, and the coadjutor of Corneille, who had rescued the tragic Muse from barbarism. The taste, indeed, for the drama, was much improved in France, after cardinal de Richelieu granted a peculiar protection to dramatic poets. Many little societies now made it a diversion to act plays in their own houses; in one of which, known by the name of “The illustrious Theatre,” Moliere entered himself; and it was then, in conformity to the example of the actors of that time, that he changed his name of Pocquelin for that of Moliere, which he retained ever after. What became of him from 1648 to 1652 we know not, this interval being the time of the civil wars, which caused disturbances in Paris; but it is probable, that he was employed in composing some of those pieces which were afterwards exhibited to the public. La Bejart, an actress of Champagne, waiting, as well as he, for a favourable time to display her talents, Moliere was particularly kind to her; and as their interests became mutual, they formed a company together, and went to Lyons in 1653, where Moliere produced his first play, called “L'Etourdi,” or the Blunderer, and appeared in the double character of author and actor. I his drew almo_st all the spectators from the other company of comedians, which was settled in that town; some of which company joined with Moliere, and followed him to Beziers in Languedoc, where he offered his services to the prince of Co'nti, who gladly accepted them, as he had known him at college, and was among the first to predict his brilliant career on the stage. He now received him as a friend; and not satisfied with confiding to him the management of the entertainments which he gave, he offered to make him his secretary, which the latter declined, saying, “I am a tolerable author, but I should make a very bad secretary.” About the latter end of 1657, Moliere departed with his company for Grenoble, and continued there during the carnival of 1658. After this he went and settled at Rouen, where he staid all the summer; and having made some journeys to Paris privately, he had the good fortune to please the king’s brother, who, granting him his protection, and making his company his own, introduced him in that quality to the king and queen-mother. That company began to appear before their majesties and the whole court, in Oct. 1658, upon a stage erected on purpose, in the hall of the guards of the Old Louvre; and “were so well approved, that his majesty gave orders for their settlement at Paris. The hall of the Petit Bourbon was granted them, to act by turns with the Italian players. In 1663, Moliere obtained a pension of a thousand livres: and, in 1665, his company was altogether in his majesty’s service. He continued all the remaining part of his life to give new plays, which were very much and very justly applauded: and if we consider the number of works which he composed in about the space of twenty years, while he was himself all the while an actor, and interrupted, as he must be, by perpetual avocations of one kind or other, we cannot fail to admire the quickness, as well as fertility of his genius; and we shall rather be apt to think with Boileau,” that rhime came to him,“than give credit to some others, who say he” wrote very slowly."

In 1751, a literary dispute arose concerning the translation of the Bible into French: the question was, whether the second person singular, which is dismissed in all polite conversation, should be preserved Fontenelle was on the affirmative side, as well as Montesquieu. Remarks were written on this determination, in which the writer, among other things, observes, “That the author of the Persian Letters with his eastern taste, could not fail being an advocate for thou.”

, a celebrated mathematician, was born at Lyons in the year 1725, and giving early indications of a love of learning, was placed under the instructions of the Jesuits, with whom he acquired an intimate acquaintance with the ancient and modern languages, and some knowledge of the mathematics. At the age of sixteen he went to Toulouse to study the law, and was admitted an advocate, though without much intention of practising at the bar. Having completed his studies, he went to Paris, cultivated an acquaintance with the most distinguished literary characters, and it was owing to his intercourse with them, that he was induced to undertake his “History of the Mathematical Sciences.” But in the interim he published new editions, with additions and improvements, of several mathematical treatises which were already held in the highest estimation. The first of these was “Mathematical Recreations,” by M. Ozanam, which has been since translated into English, and published in London, in 4 vols. 8vo. To all the works which he edited, after Ozanam’s, he gave the initials of his name. He also contributed his assistance for some years to “The French Gazette;” and in 1755 he was elected a member of the Royal Academy of Sciences at Berlin. In the following year, when the experiment of inoculation was about to be tried on the first prince of the blood, Montucla translated from the English an account of all the recent cases of that practice, which had been sent from Constantinople, by lady Mary Wortley Montague. This translation he added to the memoir of De la Condamine on the subject. Previously to this publication, he had given to the world his “History of Inquiries relative to the Quadrature of the Circle.” The encouragement which this met with from very able judges of its merit, afforded him great encouragement to apply with ardour to his grand design, “The History of the Mathematics;” and in 1758 he published this “History,” in two volumes, 4to, which terminates with the close of the 17th century. It answered the expectations of all his friends, and of men of science in all countries, and the author was instantly elevated to a high rank in the learned world. His fame was widely diffused, and he was pressed from all quarters to proceed with the mathematical history of the 18th century, which he had announced for the subject of a third volume, and for which he had made considerable preparations; but he was diverted from his design, by receiving the appointment of secretary to the Intendance at Grenoble. Here he spent his leisure hours chiefly in retirement, and in scientific pursuits. In 1764, Turgot, being appointed to establish a colony at Cayenne, took Montucla with him as his “secretary,” to which was added the title of “astronomer to the king,” and although he returned without attaining any particular object with regard to the astronomical observations, for which he went out, he had an opportunity of collecting some valuable tropical plants, with which he enriched the king’s hothouses at Versailles. Soon after his return, he was appointed chief clerk in an official department, similar to that known in this country by the name of the “Board of Works,” which he retained till the place was abolished in 1792, when he was reduced to considerable pecuniary embarrassments. Under the pressure of these circumstances, he began to prepare a new and much enlarged edition of his “History,” which he presented to the world in 1799, in two volumes, quarto. In this edition are many important improvements; and many facts, which were barely announced in the former impression, are largely detailed and illustrated in this. After the publication of these two volumes, the author proceeded with the printing of the third; but death terminated his labours, when he had arrived at the 336th page. The remainder of the volume, and the whole of the fourth, were printed under the inspection of Lalande. Montucla had been a member of the National Institute from its original establishment. He had obtained various employments under the revolutionary government, though he was but meanly paid for his labour, and had to struggle with many difficulties to furnish his family with the bare necessaries of life. At length he was reduced to seek the scanty means of support by keeping a lottery-office, till the death of Saussure put him in the possession of a pension of about one hundred pounds per annum, which he enjoyed only four months. He died in December 1799, in the 75th year of his age. He was a man of great modesty, and distinguished by acts of generosity and liberality, when it was in his power. He was also friendly, cheerful, and of very amiable manners.

, a French advocate, counsellor of the aides of Provence, historiographer of France, and librarian to the queen, was born at St. Florentine, Dec. 20, 1717. Of his early life we have little account, but it appears that he quitted his professional engagements in the country when young, and came to Paris to indulge his taste for study and speculation. Having acquired considerable fame by his writings, he was appointed historiographer of France, and was long employed in collecting and arranging all the charters, historical documents, and edicts and declarations of the French legislature from the time of Charlemagne to the present day. This vast collection being reduced to order was put under his especial care, under the title of “Depot des chartres et de legislation:” whether it was dispersed at the revolution does not appear. He also employed his pen on a variety of subjects, some arising from temporary circumstances, and others suggested probably in the course of his researches. Among these are: 1. “Observateur Holiandais,” a kind of political journal, consisting of forty-five papers, written against the measures of the English court, at what period we know not, as our authority does not specify its date. 2. “Memoire pour servir a l'histoire des Cacouac,” 1757, 12mo, a satire, which was probably of a beneficial tendency, as it created him enemies among the irreligious writers of France. 3. “Memoires pour servir a Phistoire de riotre temps,” 1757, 2 vols. 12mo. 4. “Devoirs d'un prince,” 1775, 8vo, reprinted 1782. In this he is said to have exposed the dangers of a corrupt court, and to have predicted its ruin from that torrent of corruption which would one day overwhelm both the flatterers and the flattered. 5. “Principes de morale politique et du droit public, ou Discours sur l'histoire de France,” 1777 1789, 21 vols. 8vo. This, which is his principal work, attracted much attention by the boldness and freedom of some of his opinions, but these he did not carry so far as to enable us to class him among the revolutionary writers; for while some critics in France consider him as never separating the cause of the people from that of the prince, others condemn him for writing under ministerial influence, and inclining to the support of arbitrary power. It was his maxim that every thing should be done for the people, but nothing by them, and that the best state of France would be that in which the people received their laws from the absolute will of a chief. Upon account of these sentiments he is said to have been refused a place in the French academy; yet he was not guillotined, as has been reported, but survived all the horrors of the revolution, and died quietly at Chambouci, near St. Germain-en-Laye, in 1799. His personal character is represented as very amiable. He was a good father, a good husband, and a friend to religion and peace.

The first edition of his “Dictionary” was comprized in one vol. folio, which he soon found very defective, and therefore applied himself with great vigour to enlarge it; which he did in two volumes, and the year after his death it was printed at Paris in 1681. The third edition, in 1683, is likewise in two volumes, and was copied from the second. The two following editions, of which the fourth was printed in 1687, and the fifth in 1683, were published at Lyons in two volumes, and were the same with that of 1683, except that some articles were added. It was afterwards thought proper to give a “Supplement or third Volume of the Historical Dictionary,” which was printed in 1689 in folio. The sixth edition, in which is inserted the Supplement in the same alphabetical order, corrected in a great number of places, and enlarged by many important articles and Remarks, was printed at Amsterdam in 1691 in four volumes in folio. Le Clerc had the care of this edition, in which the articles of the Supplement are incorporated, and made the additions, consisting either of new articles, or improvements of other articles. Three more editions followed, almost the same, in 1694, 1698, and 1699, all in 4 vols. folio. The tenth was printed from the edition revised by Le Clerc, at Amsterdam, 1702, in 4 vols. folio. The eleventh was published by Mons. Vaultier with new additions, at Paris, 1704, 4 vols. folio. It was preceded by a piece entitled “Projet pour la Correction du Dictionnaire Historique de M. Moreri, deja revu, corrigé, & angmenté dans le derniere Edition de Paris par M. Vaultier,” Paris, 1701, 4to. It was followed by a piece entitled “Remarques Critiques sur ia Nouvelle Edition du Dictionnaire Historique de Moreri, donneé en 1704.” The second edition of this piece, printed at Rotterdam in 1706, 12mo, is enlarged with a preface and a great many notes by another author, viz. Bayle, who published this edition. The twelfth edition of Moreri was printed at Paris in 1707, 4 vols. folio, and the thirteenth in 1712, in 5 vols. folio. Dupin had a considerable share in it, as also in the following editions. In 1714, there was printed separately in that city a large Supplement, composed, as is said in the advertisements, of new articles, corrected in the last edition of 1712, to serve as a supplement to the preceding editions. This supplement was reprinted with great additions by Bernard at Amsterdam in 1716 in two volumes, folio. The fourteenth edition of Moreri was printed at Amsterdam in 1717, in six volumes, folio, with the Supplement, which is not incorporated in the body of the work. The fifteenth edition was printed at Parisj 1718, 5 vols. fol. The articles of the Supplement published in Holland are inserted in their proper places, with some additions. This edition has been greatly criticised. The authors of the “Europe Sçavante” have inserted in their fourth volume, p. 230, a memoir, in which is shewn, that in the single letter Z, which is one of the shortest, there are a great many faults, and several articles omitted. The abbé Le Clerc also published “Remarks upon different Articles,” in the three first volumes, printed in three volumes 8vo; the first in 1719, the second in 1720, and the third in 1721. Father Francis Meri, a Benedictine Monk, published likewise upon this subject a pamphlet, entitled “Discussion Critique & Theologique des Remarques de M. sur le Dictionnaire de Moreri de 1718,” 1720, 8vo. It is a defence of some passages of the Dictionary against the criticism of the abbé Le Clerc. The sixteenth edition of Moreri was printed at Paris in 1724, in 6 vols. folio. Monsieur de la Barre had the care of it. What relates to genealogy was revised by Monsieur Vailly, an advocate; and the abbé Le Clerc furnished five or six thousand corrections, as he informs us in his “Bibliotheque de Richelet.” The seventeenth edition was printed at Basil in 1731; and the eighteenth at Paris, in 1732, 6 vols. folio, to which supplementary volumes were added. The last and best edition, in which all these were incorporated, is that of 1759, 10 vols. folio. This is still a work of great value and utility, particularly the biographical part, but much of the historical and geographical part has become almost obsolete, owing to the more correct information and improvements introduced in those branches.

In 1473 he was appointed master of the rolls, and in 1474 archdeacon of Winchester; in both which offices he was succeeded by his nephew Robert Morton, afterwards bishop of Worcester. In May of the same year, 1474, he was collated to the archdeaconry of Chester, and not to that of Chichester, as Browne Willis has inadvertently said. In March 1475 he was installed by proxy archdeacon of Huntingdon; and the same year collated to the prebend of St. Decuman in the cathedral of Weils. In April 1476 he was installed prebendary of South Newbald in the metropolitan church of York, which he resigned the same year, in which he was also further promoted to the archdeaconry of Berkshire; and in January 1477 to that of Leicester. This list of promotions, in various quarters of the kingdom, and from various patrons, may serve to shevr the high esteem in which he was held. His eminent abilities, as a civilian, during his practice as an advocate in the Court of Arches, recommended him to the notice of cardinal Bourchier, who, besides conferring many of the above preferments on him, introduced him to Henry VI. who made him one of his privy council. To this unfortunate prince he adhered with so much fidelity, while others deserted him, that even his successor Edward IV. could not but admire and reward his attachment; took him into his council, and was much guided by his advice. He also, ' in the same year, 1478, made him both bishop of Ely and lord chancellor of England; and at his death appointed him one of his executors.

, in Latin Molinæus, a celebrated lawyer, was born at Paris in 1500. His family was noble, and Papyrius mentions “that those of the family of Moulin were related to Elizabeth queen of England;” which she acknowledged herself in 1572, when conversing with Francis duke of Montmorency, marshal of France and ambassador to England. This relation probably came by Thomas Bullen, or Boleyn, viscount of Rochefort, the queen’s grandfather by the mother’s side; for Sanderus and others say, “that this Rochefort being ambassador to France, gave his daughter Anne of Bulloigne to a gentleman of Brie, a friend and relation of his, to take care of her education; and this gentleman is supposed to be the lord of Fontenay in Brie, of the family of du Moulin.” This branch came from Denys du Moulin, lord of Fontenay in Brie, archbishop of Thoulouse, patriarch of Antioch, and bishop of Paris, where he died in 1447. The subject of our memoir was at first educated at the university of Paris, and afterwards studied law at Poitiers and Orleans, at the latter of which cities he gave lectures on the subject in 1521. In the following year he was received as an advocate of parliament; but, owing to a defect in his speech, was obliged to give up pleading, and confine himself to chamber practice, and the composition of those works which gained him so much reputation. He was an indefatigable student, and set such a value on time, that, contrary to the custom of his age, he had his beard close shaven, that he might not lose any precious moments in dressing it; but in his latter days he permitted it again to grow. From the same love of study, he refused some valuable employments, and even took the resolution never to marry; and that he might be equally free from every other incumbrance, he gave the whole of his property to <rn elder brother, reserving only for his maintenance the profits of his studies. It was not long, however, before he had cause to repent of this uncommon liberality, as his brother behaved to him in a brutal and unnatural way. To revenge himself, he had recourse to an expedient suggested by his professional knowledge. He married, and having children, he resumed, according to the law, the possession of that property with which he had parted so freely when a bachelor. It was in 1538 that he married Louise de Beldon, daughter of the king’s secretary, a lady of a most amiable and affectionate temper, who, instead of being an incumbrance, as he once foolishly thought, proved the great comfort of his life, and in some respect, the promoter of his studies, by her prudent care of those domestic affairs of which literary men are generally very bad managers. She was also his consolation in the many difficulties in which he soon became embroiled. He was a man of an ardent mind and warm temper, totally incapable of concealing his sentiments, particularly in the cause of truth and justice, or regard to his country. Like many other eminent men of that age, he embraced the principles of the reformed religion, first according to the system of Calvin, but afterwards he adopted that of Luther, as contained in the Augsburgh confession. On this account it is said that the Calvinists endeavoured to make him feel their resentment, and even suspended their animosity against the Roman catholics, that they might join with the latter in attacking Du Moulin.

We find him employed, so early as 1736, as an advocate against th bill of pains and penalties, which afterwards passed into a law, against the lord-provost and city of Edinburgh, for the riotous murder of captain Porteus. On Nov. 20, 1738, he married lady Elizabeth Finch, daughter of the earl of Winchelsea and, in November 1742, he was appointed solicitor- general in the room of sir John Strange, who resigned. He was also chosen representative of the town of Boroughbridge; and was afterwards returned for the same place in 1747 and 1754. In March 1746, he? was appointed one of the managers for the impeachment of lord Lovat by the House of Commons. It was his part to observe upon the evidence in reply to the prisoner; in this he displayed so much candour, as well as so much ability, that he was complimented by the prisoner no less than by the lord-chancellor Talbot, who presided at the trial.

, father of the celebrated Peter Nicole, was descended of a reputable family, and born at Chartres, in Get, 1600. He applied himself to the law, and made a good proficiency in it; so that he became an advocate in parliament, and judge official to the bishop of Chartres. As a pleader, however, he is said to have been more flowery than solid, and he injured his reputation by interspersing his pleadings with verses and scraps of romances, which his son took care afterwards to burn. It does not appear that he published much, unless part if not the whole of a French translation of Quintilian, printed at Paris, in 1642, and dedicated to Mr. Seof, bishop of Chartres. The abbé de Marolles says that he had several times received verses in Latin and French from our advocate, who died at Chartres in 1678.

, one of the most learned authors of ancient Rome after Varro, flourished in the time of Cicero, was his fellow-student in philosophy and the counsellor with whom he advised in affairs of state; and, being praetor and senator, he assisted the orator in defeating the conspiracy of Catiline, and did him many services in the time of his adversity. Cicero acknowledged, that it was in concert with Nigidius, that he took those important measures which saved the commonwealth under his consulship: and, when Cicero went to his government of Cilicia, Nigidius, who was returning to Rome, after having exercised a public employment in Greece, waited for him at Ephesus; where these two friends had long philosophical conferences with Cratippus the Peripatetic. Nigidius was a professed advocate for the doctrine of Pythagoras. Cicero speaks of him as an accurate and penetrating inquirer into nature, and ascribes to him the revival of that philosophy, which formerly, for several ages, flourished in the Pythagorean schools, both in Italy and Sicily. He was a considerable proficient in mathematical and astronomical learning, and, after the example of his master, applied his knowledge of nature to the purposes of imposture. In civil affairs, he attached himself to the party of Pompey; and, upon Caesar’s accession to the supreme power, he was banished from Rome. After his time, the Pythagorean doctrine was much neglected; few persons being then able to decypher, with accuracy, the obscure dogmas of this mysterious sect. Of the impostures practised by Nigidius, there are some anecdotes told, but scarcely worth repeating. It has been thought, that these deceptions were the cause of his banishment; but this appears not to have been the case, nor did he dare to return to Rome after Julius Caesar had possessed himself of that city. He died 45 B. C. His works were entitled, “De Augurio private,” “De Animalibus,” “De Extis,” “De Vento;” and “De Diis.” He also wrote “Commentaries upon Grammar.” Fragments of these only remain, which were collected and published by James Rutgersius, who has also inserted among them the Greek translation of A Treatise of Nigidius," by John Laurentius of Philadelphia.

, one of the most indefatigable writers of his time, was born in 1643, at Troyes, of a good family. He soon made himself known in the literary world by ingenious pasquinades, and other jeux d'esprit. He was once attorney-general to the parliament of Metz but his bad conduct having involved him in difficulties, he was accused of drawing up false acts for his own advantage, confined at the Chatelet, and there sentenced to make amende honorable, and to be banished nine years. From this sentence he appealed, and being removed to the Conciergerie, became there the lover and advocate of Gabrielle Perreau, commonly called la belle Epiciere (the handsome grocer’s wife), whom her husband had shut up in that prison for her irregular conduct, and wrote several memoirs and other pieces in her favour, which were much read. Le Noble finding means to get out of the Conciergerie, 1695, lived a long time concealed with this woman, who had escaped from a convent to which she had been transferred, and had three children by her; but, being retaken, was condemned, notwithstanding his eloquent speech to his judges, while at the bar, March 24, 1698. The sentence passed upon him was for forgery, and condemned him to make an amende seche, privately, in the hall of the Chatelet, and to be banished for nine years. He left his prison four days after, and obtained a repeal of the sentence of banishment the next year, on condition that he should exercise no judicial office. His mistress was tried in May following, and le Noble was charged, by her sentence, with the three children, who were declared bastards. He died at Paris, January 31, 1711, aged 68, so poor, that the alms-house, in the parish of St. Severin, was obliged to bury him. His works have been printed at Paris, 19 vols. 12mo. The principal are, “Dialogues sur les affaires du Terns.” “Le Bouclier de la France, ou les Sentimens de Gerson et des Canonistes touchant les diflerends des Rois de France avec les Papes.” A prose “Translation of the Psalms.” “Relation de PEtat de Gnes.” Hist, de PEstablissement de la Republique d'Hollande.“This is little more than an extract from Grotius. He wrote also tales and fables; and romances, or historiettes, founded on facts;” L'Ecole du Monde,“4 vols. 12mo, consisting of twenty-four dialogues; and published a translation of the” Travels of Gemelli Carreri," Paris, 1727, 6 vols. 12mo.

, a celebrated civilian, was born Sept. 4, 1647, at Nimeguen, where his father, Peter Noodt, held a law office in the corporation. He was first educated at the school at Nimeguen; and, having gone through the usual classes, removed, in 1663, to the university which then subsisted, although in a decayed state, in that city . Here he began his studies with history and polite literature under John Schulting, professor of eloquence and history. Besides these, he applied himself to philosophy and the mathematics, which he would have made his principal study, had he not been diverted by Mr. Arnauld Coerman, German counsellor of the duchy of Guelderland, &c. who prevailed upon him to apply himself to law, as likely to be of more advantage to himself and to the public. Complying with this advice he studied law three years under Peter de Greve; during which time he maintained two public theses with uncommon reputation. The second of these, “De acquirenda, et retinenda, et amittenda possessione,” which was of his own composition, he defended with such masterly knowledge, that the professor had not occasion to say a word throughout the whole disputation. As soon as he had completed his course of study here, he visited the other universities of Leyden, Utrecht, and shortly after Franeker, where he was created LL. D. in June 1669. He then returned to his own country, and entered upon the practice of his profession, in which he soon had an opportunity of acquiring fame by his defence of two criminals, who were accused of murder in 1671. Noodt appeared advocate for them, by the special appointment of the magistrates of Nimeguen; and he exerted himself so well in their behalf, that one of them was entirely acquitted, and the other only sentenced to banishment for two years. This cause established his reputation, and, the same year, he was elected professor of law in ordinary in the university of Nimeguen, although only in his twenty-fourth year.

, a bibliographer of great industry and accuracy, was born July 14, 1696. He was the natural son of Dr. William Oldys, chancellor of Lincoln, commissary of St. Catharine’s, official of St. Alban’s, and advocate of the Admiralty, by a woman who was maintained by her keeper in a very penurious and private manner, and whose son, it is probable, had but little assistance in his education from parents so circumstanced.

This Dr. Oldys, who was connected with Dryden and others in a translation of Plutarch’s lives, to which he contributed the life of Pompey, was advocate of the Admiralty to James II. and served king William in the same department, though he was not fully convinced of the validity of that prince’s claim to the crown. When^ he was ordered, in 1693, to prosecute those seamen as pirates who had attacked the English ships by virtue of a commission from James, he refused to obey; alleging, when he was examined by a committee of the privy council, that they were not traitors or pirates, that they had only acted animo hostili, not anitno furandi; that, though James was supposed in England to have abdicated the throne', his authority was still believed to be legitimate by those who had followed him in his exile, as well as by the people of that country from which the commissions had issued; and that, even if his pretensions were false, a reputed power was equivalent to a real one, according to an established maxim communis error facitjus. Sir John Trenchard, the secretary of state, declared, that these reasons amounted to high treason; but Dr. Oldys would not retract his opinion, in which sir Thomas fynfold readily concurred. The doctors Littleton and Tindal, on the contrary, maintained that James had no right to grant such commissions, and that all who acted under them were pirates. Oldys was now deprived of his office, which was given to Littleton, and some of the prisoners were condemned and executed. Though not a favourite at court, Dr. Oldys continued to practice as an advocate with great reputation and success, until his death in 1708. As a scholar, he was respectable; as a civilian, he was learned; as a pleader, eloquent and judicious.

In the mean time, this illustrious and excellent father, far from being universally condemned, has received the highest eloges from the best and greatest men among both ancients and moderns. JEusebius is upon all occasions his advocate, and therefore need not be particularly quoted. There was a time when Jerom himself spoke highly of him, and declared him to be persecuted, not for his errors, but his enviable superiority of talents; but Jerom afterwards changed his party, and abused him as heartily as he had here commended him; although even then he was obliged to acknowledge, that he had been a most extraordinary person from his infancy; “magnus vir ab infantia.” Erasmus had the profounclest veneration for Origen; and declares, that he learned more from one page of him than from ten of Augustin. Erasmus affirms also, that “in the Exposition of the Scriptures, allowing for some particular points of faith, he would prefer one Origen to ten Orthodox.” Mr. Daille“, in his” Treatise on the Fathers,“says, that” Origen alone, had we but his writings entire, would be able perhaps to give us more light and satisfaction in the business we are now upon, than all the rest. We have but very little of him left us, and the greatest part of that too, most miserably abused and corrupted; the most learned and almost innumerable writings of this great and incomparable person not being able to withstand the violence of time, nor the envy and malice of men, who have dealt much worse with him than so many ages and centuries of years that have passed from his time down to us." This corruption of his writings is a point, which his apologists have always insisted on strongly: Ruffinus particularly, in his defence against Jerom. Nay, Origen himself heavily complained of this usage in his life-time; uncertain, as it should seem, whether he was so served by the orthodox, with a view of being made more odious, or by the heretics, who were desirous to vent their heterodoxies under the great authority of his name.

, a French Protestant divine, was born in 1626, and studied, with great success and approbation, at Saumur; after which he became minister of a place called Marchenoir in the province of Dunois. He was an able advocate against the popish party, as appears by his best work, against father Nicole, entitled “Examen du Livre qui porte pour titre, Prejugez legitimes centre les Calvinistes,” 2 vols. 1673, 12mo. Mosheim therefore very improperly places him in the class of those who explained the doctrines of Christianity in such a manner as to diminish the difference between the doctrines of the reformed and papal churches; since this work shews that few men. wrote at that time with more learning, zeal, and judgment against popery. Pajon, however, created some disturbance in the church, and became very unpopular, by explaining certain doctrines, concerning the influence of the Holy Spirit, in the Arminian way, and had a controversy with Jurieu on this subject. The consequence was, that Pajon, who had been elected professor of divinity at Saumur, found it necessary to resign that office after which he resided at Orleans, as pastor, and died there Sept. 27, 1685, in the sixtieth year of his age. He left a great many works in manuscript; none of which have been printed, owing partly to his unpopularity, but, perhaps, principally to his two sons becoming Roman Catholics. A full account of his opinions may be seen in Mosheim, or in the first of our authorities.

But his career was disturbed by a quarrel he had with one of his colleagues, who was enraged to see his own reputation eclipsed by the superior lustre of Palearius. We are not told the particular point upon which the contest commenced; but it is certain that our professor was defended by Peter Aretin, who, perhaps more to revenge his own cause, or gratify a detracting humour, than from any respect for Palearius, composed, against his envious rival, an Italian comedy or farce, which was acted upon the stage at Venice; and so poignant was the ridicule, that the subject of it thought proper to quit Sienna, and retire to Lucca. Hither he was followed some time after, though with much reluctance, by Palearius, concerning which we have the following account: Anthony Bellantes, a nobleman of Sienna, being impeached of several misdemeanors, employed Palearius to plead his cause, who made so excellent a speech before the senate of that city in his defence, that he was acquitted and dismissed; but, the same nobleman having some time after accused certain monks of robbing his grandmother, employed his advocate again to support the charge. The monks accused, making oath of their innocence, were cleared by the court, but were incensed at the prosecution, and aspersed Palearius both in their sermons, and on all other occasions, as an impious wretch, unfit to be harboured in a Christian country. They also declared him a heretic, because he disapproved several superstitious practices; neither did they approve of the book he had written on the “Death of Christ.” Palearius, however, defended himself with so much strength of reason and eloquence, that the accusations were dropped. Yet finding himself still exposed to vexatious persecutions, he thought proper to accept of an invitation to teach polite literature at Lucca.

, a learned canon of la Chapelle-au Riche, at Dijon, in which city he was born, May 1, 1666, was the son of Philip Papillon, advocate to the parliament. He was a man of literature, and an able critic, and furnished Le Long of the Oratory, Desmolets, Niceron, and several others among the learned, with a number of important memoirs and anecdotes. He died February 23, 1738, at Dijon, aged seventy-two. His principal work is, “La Bibliotheqtie des Auteurs de Bourgogne,” Dijon, 1742, 2 vols. folio, printed under the inspection of his friend M. Joly, canon of la Chapelle-auRiche.

, a celebrated Roman lawyer, born in the year 175, was advocate of the treasury or exchequer, and afterwards pretorian prefect under the emperor Severus, about the year 194. This emperor had so high an opinion of his worth, that at his death he recommended his sons Caracalla and Geta to his care: but the first, having murdered his brother, enjoined Papinian to compose a discourse, to excuse that barbarity to the senate and people. Papinian could not be prevailed on to comply with this: but on the contrary answered boldly, that it was easier to commit a parricide than to excuse it; and to accuse an innocent person, after taking away his life, was a second parricide. Caracalla was so much enraged at this answer, that he ordered Papinian to be beheaded, which sentence was executed in the year 212, when he was in his thirtyseventh year, and his body was dragged through the streets of Rome. He had a great number of disciples, and composed several works among those, twenty-seven books of “Questions in the Law” nineteen books of “Responses or Opinions” two of “Definitions” two others upon “Adultery” and a single book upon the “Laws of Ediles.” His reputation was so great, that he is called “the honour of jurisprudence, and the treasure of the laws.”

, a learned Frenchman, was born in 1528 at Paris; of which city he was an advocate in parliament, afterwards a counsellor, and at last advocate-general in the chamber of accounts. He pleaded many years with very great success before the parliament, where he was almost constantly retained in the most difficult causes, and every day consulted as an oracle. He did not, however, confine his studies to the law; but was esteemed a general scholar. Henry III. gave him the, post of advocate of the chamber of accounts, which he filled with his usual reputation, and resigned it some time after to Theodore Paquier, his eldest son. He was naturally beneficent and generous; agreeable and easy in conversation his manner sweet, and his temper pleasant. He died at Paris, at the advanced age of eighty -seven, Aug. 31, 1615, and was interred in the church of St, Severin.

His works show considerable knowledge of ancient history, especially that of France; and he raised no little reputation by his attacks on the Jesuits in his “Les Recherches,” which was answered by father Garasse. His animosity to that order laid him in some measure open to this antagonist, for he very readily adopted any story, ever so improbable, which he heard of them from their bitterest enemies. All his works, however, are written with elegance and humour, and he appears to have been formed by nature equally for a poet and a lawyer. His works were first printed together at Trevoux, and passed through many editions, the last in 1665. They were afterwards printed along with those of his son Nicholas, at Amsterdam, in 1723, 2 vols. fol. Of his “Letters,” the best edition is that at Paris, in 1619, in 5 vols. 8vo. His “Poe.ns” consist of one book “Of Portraits;” six books of “Epigrams;” and a book of “Epitaphs.” But in this collection is wanting his “Catechism of the Jesuits” instead of which are inserted the letters of his son Nicolas. Among his pieces in verse, “La Pure” had at one time a fashidnable reputation. It is entitled “La, Puce des grands touii de and contains several poems upon a flea which Paquier spied on the breast of the learned Catharine de Roches, in a visit to her on the extraordinary sessions at Poitiers in 1569. Such are the trifles by which a. nation is sometimes amused. He left three sons, of whom the eldest, Theodore, was advocate-general in the chamber of accounts; Nicolas, master of requests, whose” Letters" were printed in 1623, at Paris, containing several discourses upon the occurrences in France in the time of Henry IV. and Louis XIII. and Guy, who was auditor of the accounts.

, son of the preceding, and an able physician and antiquary, was born at Paris, Feb. 2.i, 1633. He was educated with great care by his father, and made such surprizing progress in his studies, that at the age of fourteen he defended Greek and Latin theses in philosophy, with the greatest applause in an assembly composed of thirty-four prelates, the pope’s nuncio, and many other persons of distinction. Being intended for the bar, he completed his law studies, and became an advocate in the parliament of Paris, but he soon relinquished this career for the study of medicine, which in his opinion promised greater advantages. He became afterwards a considerable practitioner, and a teacher of reputation in the medical school of Paris, where he took his doctor’s degree in 1656; but was about this time obliged to leave France for fear of imprisonment. The cause of this is variously related, but the most probable account is, that he had been in some way accessary to the circulation of certain libels which drew upon him the resentment of the court.

, a polite scholar, and memorable for being one of the first polishers and refiners of the French language, was born in 1604 at Paris, where his father was procurator to the parliament. After studying the law, and being received an advocate, he went into Italy; and, on his return to Paris, frequented the bar. “He was the first,” says Voltaire, “who introduced correctness and purity of language in pleadings.” He obtained the reputation of a most exact speaker and excellent writer, and was esteemed so perfectly knowing in grammar and in his own language, that all his decisions were submitted to as oracles. Vaugelas, the famous grammarian, to whom the French language was greatly indebted, for much of its perfection, confesses that he learned much from Patru and Boileau applied to him to review his works, and used to protit by his opinion. Patru was an extremely rigid censor, though just; and when Racine made some observations upon the works of Boileau a little too subtle and refined, Boileau, instead of the Latin proverb, “Ne sis mihi patruus,” “Do not treat me with the severity of an uncle,” replied, “Ne sis mihi Patru,” “Do not treat me with the severity of Patru.”

Patru was in his personal character honest, generous, sincere; and preserved a gaiety of temper which no adversity could affect: for this famous advocate, in spite of all his talents, lived almost in a state of indigence. The love of the belles lettres made him neglect the law; and the barren glory of being an oracle to the best French writers had more charms for him, than all the profits of the bar. Hence he became so poor, as to be reduced to the necessity of selling his books, which seemed dearer to him than his life; and would actually have sold them for an underprice, if Bqileau had not generously advanced him a larger sum, with this further privilege, that he should have the use of them as long as he lived. His death was preceded by a tedious illness, during which he received a present of five hundred crowns from the statesman Colbert, as a mark of the esteem which the king had for him. He died Jan. 16, 1681. He had been elected a member of the French academy in 1640, by the interest of cardinal Richelieu, and made a speech of thanks on his reception, with which the academicians were so much pleased, as to order that every new member should in future make one of a similar kind on being admitted; and this rule has been observed ever since. When M. Conrart, a member of the French academy died, one of the first noblemen at court, but whose mind was very moderately cultivated, having offered for the vacant place, Patru opened the meeting with the following apologue: “Gentlemen, a.:mcien Grecian had an admirable Lyre; a string broke, but instead of replacing it with one of catgut, he would have a silver one, and the Lyre with its silver string was no longer harmonious.” The fastidious care with which he retouched and finished every thing he wrote, did not permit him to publish much. His miscellaneous works were printed at Paris in 1670, 4to; the third edition of which, in 1714, was augmented with several pieces. They consist of <f Pleadings,“” Orations,“” Letters,“” Lives of some of his Friends,“” Remarks upon the French Language,“&c. A very ingenious tract by him was published at Paris in 1651, 4to, with this title,” Reponse du Cure a la Lettre du Mar^uillier sur la conduite de M. le Coadjuteur."

been that he was the dupe, either of the been the boast of him and his secy king, or of his own vanity and interest. after which came out the king’s proclamation for a general pardon; which was followed, the next year, by his suspension of the penal laws. Penn presented an address of the Quakers on this occasion. He also wrote a book ort occasion of the objections raised against the repeal of penal laws and test; and, the clamour against him continuing, he was urged to vindicate himself from it, by one of his friends, Mr. Popple, secretary to the Plantation -office, which he did in a long reply, dated 1688. But he had now to cope with more powerful opponents than rumour. The revolution took place, and an intimate of James was of course a suspected person. As he was walking in Whitehail, he was summoned before the council then sitting; and, though nothing was proved against him, he was bound to appear the first day of the following term; but, being continued to the next on the same bail, he was then discharged in open court: nothing being laid to his charge. In the beginning of 1690, he was again brought before the council, and accused of corresponding with James. They required bail of him as before; but he appealed to the king himself, who, after a long conference, inclined to acquit him; nevertheless, at the instance of some of the council, he was a second time held a while to bail, but at length discharged. Soon after this, in the same year, he was charged with adhering to the enemies of the kingdom, but proof failing, he was again cleared by the court of King’s-bench. Being now, as he thought, at liberty, he prepared to go again to Pennsylvania, and published proposals for another settlement there; but his voyage was prevented by another accusation, supported by the oath of one William Fuller (a man whom the parliament afterwards declared to be a cheat and impostor); upon which a warrant was granted, for arresting him, and he narrowly escaped it, at his return from the burial of George Fox. Hitherto he had successfully defended himself; but now, not choosing to expose his character to the oaths of a profligate man, he withdrew from public notice, till the latter part of 1693; when, through the mediation of his friends at court, he was once more admitted to plead his own cause before the king and council; and he so evinced his innocence, that he uas a fourth time acquitted. He employed himself in his retirements in writing. The most generally known production of his seclusion, bears the title of '“Fruits of Solitude, in Reflections and Maxims relating to the conduct of human life;” and another not less valued by his sect is his “Key, &c. to discern the difference between the religion professed by the people called Quakers, and the perversions, &c. of their adversaries, c.” which has gone through twelve editions at least. Not long after his restoration to society, he lost his wife, which affected him so much, that he said all his other troubles were nothing in comparison of this; and he published a short account of her character, dyr?g expressions, and pious end. The following year, he appeared as the eulogist of Geor.ge Fox, in a long preface to Fox’s Journal, then published. The preface, giving a summary account of the people whom Fox had been so much the means of uniting, has been several times printed separately, under the title of “A brief Account of the rise and progress of the people called Quakers.” It has passed through many editions in English, two in French, and has been translated into German by A. F. Wenderborn. The same year he travelled as a minister in some of the western counties; and in the next, we find him the public advocate of the Quakers to parliament, before whom a bill was then depending /for their ease in the case of oaths. In the early part of 1696, he married a second Wife, and soon after lost his eldest son, Springett Penn, who appears, from the character given to him by his father, to have been a hopeful and pious young man, just coming of age. The same year he added one more to his short tracts descriptive of Quakerism, under the title of “Primitive Christianity revived,” &c. and now began his paper cpntroversy with the noted George Keith, who from a champion of Quakerism, and the intimate of Barclay, had become one of its violent opponents. Keith’s severest tract accuses Penn and his brethren of deism. In 1697, a bill depending in parliament against blasphemy, he presented to the House of Peers, “A Caution requisite in the consideration of that Bill” wherein he advised that the term might be so defined, as to prevent malicious prosecutions under that pretence. But the bill was dropped. In 1698, he travelled as a preacher in Ireland, and the following winter resided at Bristol. In 1699, he again sailed for his province, with his wife and family, intending to make it his future residence; but, during his absence, an attempt was made to undermine proprietary governments, under colour of advancing the king’s prerogative. A bill for the purpose was brought into parliament, but the measure was postponed until his return, at the intercession of* his frienrls; who also gave him early information of the hostile preparations, and he arrived in England the latter part of 1701. After his arrival, the measure was laid aside, and Penn once more became welcome at court, by the death of king William, and the consequent acce>sion of queen Anne. On this occasion, he resided once more at Kensington, and afterwards at Knightsbridge, till, in 1706, he removed to a convenient house about a mile from Brentford. Next year he was involved in a law-suit with the executors of a person who had been his steward; and, though many thought him aggrieved, his cause was attended with such circumstances, as prevented his obtaining relief, and he was driven to change his abode to the rules of the Fleet, until the business was accommodated; which did not happen until the ensuing year. It was probably at this time, that he raised 6,600l. by the mortgage of his province.

, an eminent French architect, was the son of an advocate of parliament, and born at Paris, in 1613. He was bred a physician, but practised only among his relations, his friends, and the poor. He discovered early a correct taste for the sciences and fine arts; of which he acquired a consummate knowledge, without the assistance of a master, and was particularly skilled in architecture, painting, sculpture, and mechanics. He still continues to be reckoned one of the greatest architects France ever produced. Louis XIV. who had a good taste for architecture, sent for Bernini from Rome, and other architects; but Perrault was preferred to them all; and what he did at the Louvre justified this preference. The facade of that palace, which was designed by him, “is,” says Voltaire, “one of the most august monuments of architecture in the world. We sometimes,” adds he, “go a great way in search of what we have at home. There is not one of the palaces at Rome, whose entrance is comparable to this of the Louvre; for which we are obliged to Perrault, whom Boileau has attempted to turn into ridicule.” Boileau indeed went so far as to deny that Perrault was the real author of those great designs in architecture that passed for his. Perrault was involved in the quarrel his brother Charles had with Boileau, who, however, when they became reconciled, acknowledged Claude’s merit.

, younger brother to the preceding, was born at Paris, Jan. 12, 1628, and at the age of eight was placed in the college of Beauvais, where he distinguished himself in the belles-lettres, and had a considerable turn to that kind of philosophy which consisted mostly in the disputatious jargon of the schools. He also wrote verses, aud indulged himself in burlesque, which was then much in vogue; on one occasion he amused himself in turning the sixth book of the flLiieid into burlesque verse. He had, however, too much sense when his ideas became matured by reflection, to attach the least value to such effusions. When his studies were completed, he was admitted an advocate, and pleaded two causes with a success sufficient to induce the magistrates to wish to see him au tached to the bar. But Colbert, the French minister, wh was acquainted with his merit, soon deprived the law of his services. He chose him for secretary to a small academy of four or five men of letters, who assembled at his house twice a week. This was the cradle of that learned society afterwards called “Academy of Inscriptions and Belles Lettres.” The little academy employed itself on the medals and devices required from it by Colbert, in the king’s name; and those proposed by Charles Perrault were almost always preferred. He had a singular talent for compositions of this kind, which require more intellectual qualities than is generally supposed. In the number of his happy devices may be ranked that of the medal struck on account of the apartments given by the king to the French academy in the Louvre itself. This was Apollo Palatinus; an ingenious allusion to the temple of Apollo, erected within the precincts of the palace of Augustus. Perrault not only was the author of this device, but likewise procured the academy the apartments it obtained from the monarch, who at the same time was pleased to declare himself its protector. Colbert, enlightened by the wise counsels of Perrault, inculcated upon the king, that the protection due to genius i s one of the noblest prerogatives of supreme authority. He also procured the establishment of the academy of sciences, which at first had the same form with the French academy, that of perfect equality among its members. His brother Claude had also a considerable share in this useful establishment.

, sieur d'Ablancourt, a scholar of considerable parts, and once admired for his translations from ancient authors, was born at Chalons, April 5, 1606. He sprung from a family which had been illustrious in the law, and the greatest care was bestowed on his education. His father, Paul Perrot de la Sailer, who was a protestant, and also a man learning, sent him to pursue his studies in the college of Sedan; where he made so rapid a progress, that, at thirteen, he had gone through the classics. He was then taken home, and placed for some time under a private tutor, after which he was sent to Paris, where he studied the law five or six months, and was, when only in his eighteenth year, admitted advocate of parliament but did not adhere longto the bar. Another change he made about this time of great importance, was that of his religion, for popery, of which he embraced the tenets at the persuasion of his uncle Cyprian Perrot, who, in hopes of procuring him some valuable benefices, took great pains to recommend the church as a profession, but in vain. Nor did he succeed better in retaining him as a convert, for fte had scarcely distinguished himself in the republic of letters, by writing a preface to the “HonneXe Femme,” for his friend, father Du Bosc, than he felt a desire to return to the religion he had quitted. He was now, however, in his twenty-seventh year, and had sense enough to guard against precipitation in a matter of so much consequence. He studied, therefore, the differences betwixt the Romish and reformed church, and after three years’ investigation, during which he did not disclose his intention to any one, he set out from Paris to Champagne, where he abjured popery; and very soon after went to Holland, till the clamour which followed this step was over. He was near a year in Leyden, where he learned Hebrew, and contracted a friendship with Salmasius. From Holland he went to England; then returned to Paris; and, after passing some weeks with M. Patru, took an apartment near the Luxembourg. He passed his days very agreeably; and though he devoted the greatest part of his leisure to books, mixed occasionally in society, and was the respected associate of all the learned in Paris. In 1637 he was admitted a member of the French academy, but was soon after forced to leave Paris, on account of the wars; and therefore retired to his estate, called Ablancourt, where he lived till his death. He died Nov. 17, 1664, of the gravel, with which he had been afflicted the greater part of his life.

, member of the academies of Nancy, of Amiens, of Kouen, and Angers, was born at Paris on the 9th of July, 1712, of a reputable family. In his early youth his progress in his studies was rapid. His assiduous application, 'his lively genius, and mild demeanour, conciliated the esteem of his master, and gained the friendship of his juvenile companions. His taste for poetry was apparent at a very earl) period; but the designs of his parents for the advancement of his fortune would not permit him to resign himself entirely to his favourite pursuits, and he sacrificed in some degree his propensity to their wishes. He was placed tinder M. Holland, an advocate, and constantly attended to the regular discharge of business. His leisure hours were devoted to the Muse; and J.e gave up that time to poetry, which by many, at his age, is sacrificed to pleasure. In 1738 his “Ecole du Temps,” a comedy in verse, was represented with applause on the Italian theatre. Encouraged by this success, and with the approbation of M. Rolland, he produced, in the following year, at the French theatre, his “Esope au Parnasse,” a comedy in verse. The reputation of the young poet, and his character for probity, recommended him to M. Lailemand of Bety, a farmer-general, who was at that time forming a system of finance, and who felicitated himself in procuring such an assistant, and in attaching him to his interest. The occupations incident to this new department were probably the causes which prevented Pesselier from producing any other pieces for the stage. Poetry was, however, still the amusement of the time that could be spared from business. In 1748, he published his fables, and among his dramatic works appears a comedy, “La Mascarade du Parnasse,” in verse, and in one act, which was never performed.

, a learned jurist, son of a professor of law of the same name, was born at Bourges in 1612. He was admitted an advocate in the parliament of Paris in 1633, and rose to various honours in his profession; and was, at his death, sub-dean of the company of advocates. He owed his success in life to his great knowledge of the law of benefices, in which he was regarded as the oracle, and which he illustrated by several learned works. Of these were, “Traité des Benefices;” “La Pragmatique Sanction de St. Louis, et celle de Charles VII. avec Commentaires” “Notes sommaires sur les Indults, accorded a Louis XIV. &c.” “Trait^s des Regales,” 2 vols. 4to, which is said to be a very learned and useful performance. This industrious writer died at Paris, Oct. 10, 1691.

, advocate to the parliament of Paris, brother of the preceding, and also a very learned man, was born in 1544, at Troyes. He was well acquainted with the belles lettres, and law, and discovered, as we have just observed, the ms. of the fables of Phaedrus, which he sent to his brother, and which was published in 1596, in 12mo. Francis, with the assistance of his brother, applied himself particularly to revise and explain the “Body of Canon Law,” which was printed according to their corrections, 1687, 2 vols. folio; an edition which is reckoned the best. His other works are, “Codex Canonum,” 1687, folio. An edition of the “Salic Law,” with notes. The “Roman Laws,” compared with those of Moses, 1673, 12mo. “Observationes ad Codicem,” 1689, folio. “Antiqui Rhetores Latini, Rutilius Lupus, Aquila Romanus, Julius Rufinianus, Curius Fortunatianus, MariusVictorinus,” &c. Paris, 1599, 4to. republished by M. Caperonier, Strasburg, 4to. &c. He died February 7, 1621, aged seventy-eight.

, in Latin Plateanus, a learned French writer, was born at Angoulême in 1526. He applied with success to the study of jurisprudence, and in 1548 published a Latin paraphrase on the titles of the Imperial institutes, “De Actionibus, Exceptionibus et Interdictis,” in 4to. After this he was called to the bar of the parliament of Paris, and acquired the character of a learned, eloquent, and virtuous counsellor. Francis I. appointed him advocate of his court of aids at Paris, and he discharged the duties of that office with so much talent and integrity, that Henry II. nominated him his first president in the same court. He became, in consequence of hearing Calvin, a convert to the protestant religion in 1554, and made an open profession of it on the death of Francis II. On the breaking out of the civil war he retired to one of his houses in Picardy; but at the peace in 1562 vindicated himself before the king from the several charges which had been preferred against him. He was now appointed by the prince of Condé superintendant of the household, and accompanied his highness to the castle of Vè in the Valois, where he continued till Charles IX. granted the protestants advantageous terms of peace in 1569, that he might the more easily extirpate them. La Place, deceived by this treachery, returned to Paris, and was executing the office of president to the court of aids, when he was put to death in the most treacherous as well as barbarous manner in the general massacre of the protestants on St. Bartholomew’s day, in 1572, at the age of forty-six. His clear judgment and discrimination admirably qualified him for the office of magistrate. His chief works are, “Commentaries on the state of Religion, and of the Commonwealth, from 1556 to 1561;” “A Treatise on the right use of Moral Philosophy in connection with the Christian Doctrine;” and “A Treatise on the excellence of the Christian Man.”

Plempius left the following works “A Treatise on the Muscles,” in Dutch. “Ophthalmographia, sive de Oculi Fabrica, Actione, et Usu,” Amst. 1632; Lovaen. 1648. A translation of the Anatomy of Gabrolius into Dutch, with notes, Amst. 1633. “Fundamenta, seu Institutiones Medicinae,” Lov. 1638, 1644, &c. In the first edition of this work, Plempius doubted the circulation of the blood but in the second, he was a strenuous advocate for that doctrine. “Animadversiones in veram Praxim curandos Tertianse propositam a Doctore Petro Barba” ibid. 1642. “Antimus Coningius Peruviani pulveris defensor, repulsus a Melippo Protymo” ibid. 1655. Coningius is the assumed name of Honoratus Fabri Protymus was that assumed by Plempius, in order to decry the use of cinchona. “Avicennae Canonis Liber primus et secundus ex Arabica Lingua in Latinam translatus,” ibid. 1658. “Tractatus de Affectuum Pilorum et Unguium,” ibid. 1662. “De Togatorum Valetudine tuenda Commentarius,” Brux. 1670. The two following are generally ascribed to this author, though Mangetus and Lipenius (probably misinterpreting the initial) ascribe them to Francis Plempius, viz. “Munitio Fundamentorum Medicinae V. F. Plempii adversus Jacobum Primerosium,” Amst. 1659. “Loimographia, sive, Tractatus de Peste,” ibid. 1664.

To the works of this author may be added a vast quantity of manuscripts, which he left to his nephew, and for which he had been offered by Largius Licinius 400,000 sesterces, that is, about 3200l. of our money. “You will wonder,” says his nephew, “how a man, so engaged as he was, could find time to compose such a number of books; and some of them too upon abstruse subjects. Your surprise will rise still higher, when you hear, that for some time he engaged in the profession of an advocate, that he died in his 56th year, that from the time of his quitting the bar to his death he was employed in the highest posts, and in the service of his prince: but he had a quick apprehension, joined to an unwearied application.” Ep. iii. 5. Hence he became not only a master in polite literature, in grammar, eloquence, and history, but possessed a knowledge of the various arts and sciences, geography, mathematics, philosophy, astronomy, medicine, botany, sculpture, painting, architecture, &c. for of all these things has he treated in the very important work that he has left us. The first edition of Pliny’s “Naturalis Historia” canlfc from the press of Spira at Venice in 1469, and is reckoned one of the most beautiful, rare, and valuable publications of the fifteenth century. Mr. Dibdin describes the copy in lord Spencer’s library as the finest extant. Five other editions were published from 1470 to 1476, such was the demand for this store-house of natural history. Of the modern editions, the preference is usually given to that by the celebrated father Hardouin, of which there are two, the first “in usum Delphini,” Paris, 5 vols. 4to; the second, 1723, 3 vols. folio, which is a more copious, splendid, and critical performance. Since that, we have an excellent edition by Franzius, Leipsic, 1778 9J, 10 vols, 8vo. Another by Brotier, Paris, 1779, 6 vols. 8vo. And a third, Bipont, 1783, 6 vols, 8vo. There are translations of it, or of parts, in all languages. That endless translator Philemon Holland exerted his own and his readers’ patience on a version into English, published in 1601, folio.

Pole continued at Viterbo till 1542, when the general council for the reformation of the church, which had been long promised and long delayed, was called at Trent, and is known in ecclesiastical history as the famous “Council of Trent.” It did not, however, proceed to business until 1545, when Pole went thither, with the necessary escort of a troop of horse. For the proceedings of this extraordinary assembly, we must refer the reader to father Paul’s history. The principal circumstance worthy of notice respecting the cardinal was his writing a treatise on the nature and end of general councils, just before he left Rome, in which he proves himself the determined advocate for the boundless prerogative of the pope. He Continued at Trent until a rheumatic disorder, which fell into one of his arms, obliged him to go to Padua for medical advice; and afterwards, the council being prorogued, he went to Rome at the request of the pope, who wished to avail himself of his pen in drawing up memorials and vindications of the proceedings of the see of Rome; and Pole, a man of superior talents to most of the Italian prelates, knew how to render these very persuasive, at a time when freedom of discussion was not allowed.

, a modern Aristotelian, was born at Mantua in 1462. He delivered lectures on the philosophy of Aristotle and Averroes at Padua and Bologna, where his eloquence and talents procured him many auditors. He was at Bologna when he composed his celebrated little treatise “De immortalitate Animae,” in which he was supposed to call in question the immortality of the soul, at least he maintained that all natural reason was against it, but revelation for it, and upon the latter account ie believed it. It is probable, however, that the impression it made on the public mind was not very favourable to the received opinions, as pope Leo X. thought it necessary to suppress the work by a bull; and it was at his request that Augustine Niphus wrote a treatise with the same title, “De immortalitate Animae,” in which he undertook to prove that this doctrine is not contrary to the principles of the Aristotelian philosophy. Some time after, Pomponatius’s opinions were referred to the arbitration of Bembus, who endeavoured to justify him, and succeeded so far as to obtain permission for him to issue a second edition of the work, as well as to save the author from the vengeance of the church. Brucker is of opinion that notwithstanding Pomponatius’s pretences, he had more respect for the authority of Aristotle, than for that of Jesus Christ. He adds, that though much addicted to superstition and fanaticism, and a zealous advocate for judicial astrology, as appears from his book “De Incantationibus,” “On Enchantments,” he had an understanding capable of penetrating into the depths of the Peripatetic system, in the

He left behind him the character of a prelate of distinguished piety and learning, strictly orthodox in respect to the established doctrines of the church of England, and a zealous and vigilant guardian of her interests. He was a great advocate for regularity, order, and oeconomy, but he supported the dignity of his high office of archbishop, in a manner which was by some attributed to a haughtiness of temper. Whiston is his principal accuser, in this respect, but allowances must be made for that writer’s prejudices, especially when we find that among the heaviest charges he brings against the archbishop is his having the Athanasian Creed read in his chapel. He had a numerous family of children, of whom three daughters and two sons survived him. One of his daughters, Mrs. Sayer, died in 1771.

He was apprenticed to a shoemaker, who, like the master of George Fox, mentioned in this work, employed his apprentice in keeping sheep. This gave our young student leisure for reading; and he occupied it in the indis-. criminate perusal of such books as came into his hands but the Scriptures had the preference in his mind. Among other books which came'in his way, was one written by Samuel Fisher, a Quaker, entitled “Rusticus ad Academicos,” in which some inaccuracies in the translation of the Bible being pointed out, Purver determined to examine for himself; and, with the assistance of a Jew, soon acquired a knowledge of the Hebrew language. About the 20th year of his age he kept a school in his native country; but afterwards, for the sake of more easily acquiring the means of prosecuting his studies, he came to London, where he probably resided when he published, in 1727, a book called “The Youth’s Delight.” The same year he returned to his native place, and a second time opened a school there; but previous to this, in London, he had embraced the principles, and adopted the profession of the Quakers. He is said to have been convinced of the truth of their tenets at a meeting held at the Bull and Mouth in Aldersgate-street; whether by means of the preaching of any of their ministers, we are not informed; but on the day month ensuing, he himself appeared as a minister among them, at the same meeting*house. On his second settling at Husborn, he began to translate the books of the Old Testament and applied himself also to the study of medicine and botany but, believing it his duty to travel in his ministerial function, he again quitted his school and his native place; not, however, probably, until after he had resided there some years; for his course was to London, Essex, and through several counties to Bristol; near which city, at Hambrook, he was in the latter part of 1738. At this place he took up his abode, at the house of one Josiah Butcher, a maltster, whose son he instructed in the classics, and there he translated some of the minor prophets, having before completed the book of Esther, and Solomon’s Song. Here he became acquainted with Rachael Cotterel, who, with a sister, kept a boardingschool for girls, at Frenchay, Gloucestershire; and whom, in 1738, he married, and soon after himself opened a boarding-school for boys at Frenchay. During his residence in Gloucestershire, (which was not at Frenchay all the time) he attempted to publish his translation of the Old Testament in numbers at Bristol; but he did not meet with sufficient encouragement; and only two or three numbers were published. In 1758, he removed to Andover, in Hampshire; and here, in 1764, he completed his translation of all the books of the Old and New Testament, a work which has not often been accomplished before by -the labour of a single individual. It consists of two volumes, folio, published in 1764, at the price of four guineas. It appears, that this work was originally intended to be printed in occasional numbers; for, in 1746, the late Dr. Fothergill wrote a letter to the Gentleman’s Magazine, in which he strongly recommended the author of a work then under publication, which was to be continued in numbers if it should meet with encouragement. This was a translation of the Scriptures, under the title of “Opus in sacra Biblia elaboratum.” Purver is not named, but that he was intended is known by private testimony. After speaking in high terms of his learning, Dr. Fothergill says, “As to his personal character, he is a man of great simplicity of manners, regular conduct, and a modest reserve; he is steadily attentive to truth, hates falsehood, and has an unconquerable aversion to vice; and to crown the portrait, he is not only greatly benevolent to mankind, but has a lively sense of the divine attributes, and a profound reverence of, and submission to the Supreme Being.” The mode of publication in numbers was probably unsuccessful, and soon dropped; yet he went on with his translation, which he completed, after the labour of thirty years. He was still unable to publish it, nor could he find a bookseller who would run the hazard of assisting him. At length his friend Dr. Fothergill generously interfered gave him a thousand pounds for the copy, and published it at his own expence. Purver afterwards revised the whole, and made considerable alterations and corrections for a second edition, which has not yet appeared but the ms. remains in the hands of his grandson. Purver appears, in this great work, a strenuous advocate for the antiquity, and even the divine authority, of the Hebrew vowel points. He is also a warm assertor of the purity and integrity of the Hebrew text, and treats those who hold the contrary opinion with great contempt; particularly Dr. Kennicott, of whom, and his publication on the state of the Hebrew text, he never speaks but with the greatest asperity. He has taken very considerable pains with the scriptural chronology, and furnishes his reader with a variety of chronological tables. He prefers the Hebrew chronology in all cases, to the Samaritan and Greek, and has throughout endeavoured to connect sacred and profane history. His version is very literal, but does not always prove the judgment or good taste of the author. Thus, he says, that “The Spirit of God hovered a top of the waters” and instead of the majestic simplicity and unaffected grandeur of “Let there be light, and there was light,” he gives us, “Let there be light, which, there was accordingly” Thus his translation, though a prodigious work for an individual, will rather be used for occasional consultation than regular perusal; and though it may afford many useful hints, will not supply the place of the established translation.

“The town often wished to see these great actors fairly matched in two characters of almost equal importance. The Fair Penitent presented an opportunity to display their several merits, though it must be owned that the balance was as much in favour of Quin, as the advocate of virtue is superior in argument to the defender of profligacy. The shouts of applause when Horatio and Lothario met on the stage together (14th Nov. 1746), in the second act, were so loud, and so often repeated, before the audience permitted them to speak, that the combatants seemed to be disconcerted. It was observed, that Quin changed colour, and Garrick seemed to be embarrassed and it must be owned, that these actors were never less masters of themselves than on the first night of the contest for pre-eminence. Quin was too proud to own his feelings on the occasion; but Mr. Garrick was heard to say,” I believe Quin was as much frightened as myself.“The play was repeatedly acted, and with constant applause, to very brilliant audiences; nor is it to be wondered at; for, besides the novelty of seeing the two rival actors in the same tragedy, the Fair Penitent was admirably played by Mrs. Gibber.”

, a famous French gardener, was born at Poietiers in 1626. After a course of philosophy, he applied himself to the law, and went to Paris in order to be admitted an advocate. He had much natural eloquence, improved by learning; and acquitted himself so well at the bar as to gain the admiration and esteem of the chief magistrates. Tamboneau, president of the chamber of accounts, being informed of his merit, engaged him to undertake the preceptorship of his only son, which Quiutinie executed entirely to his satisfaction applying his leisure hours in the mean time to the study of agriculture, towards which he always had a strong inclination. He read Columella, Varro, Virgil, and all authors ancient or modern, who had written on the subject and gained new lights by a journey which he made with his pupil into Italy. All the gardens in Rome and about it were open to him; and he never failed to make the most useful observations, constantly joining practice with theory. On his return to Paris, Tamboneau entirely gave up to him his garden, to manage as he pleased; and Quintinie applied himself to so intense a study of the operations of nature in this way, that he soon became famous all over France. He made many curious and useful experiments. He was the first who proved it useless to join fibres to the roots of trees when transplanted, and discovered a sure and infallible method of pruning trees, so as to make them not only bear fruit, but bear it in whatever part the owner chuses, and even produce it equally throughout all the branches; which had never before been tried, nor even believed to be possible. The prince of Condé, who is said to have joined the pacific love of agriculture to a restless spirit for war, took great pleasure in conversing with Quintinie. He came to England about 1673; and, during his stay here paid a visit to Mr.Evelyn, who prevailed on him to communicate some directions concerning melons, for the cultivation of which Quintinie was remarkably famous. They were transmitted to Mr. Evelyn from Pans; and afterwards, in 1693, published by him in the Philosophical Transactions. Charles II. or, as his biographers say, James II. made Quintinie an offer of a considerable pension if he would stay and take upon him the direction of his gardens; but Quintinie chose to serve his own king, Louis XIV. who erected for him a new office of director-general of all his majesty’s fruit and kitchen gardens. The royal gardens, while Quintinie lived, were the admiration of the curious; and when he died, the king himself was much affected, and could not forbear saying to his widow, that “he had as great a loss as she had, and never expected to have it repaired.” Quintinie died veryold, but we know not in what year. He greatly improved the art of gardening, and transplanting trees and his book, entitled " Directions for the Management of Fruit and Kitchen Gardens, 7 ' 1725, 2 vols. 4to, contains precepts which have been followed by all Europe.

Offended at the bad reception of “Athaliah,” he was more disgusted than' ever with poetry, and now renounced it totally. He spent the latter years of his life in composing a History of the house of Port Royal, the place of his education which is well drawn up, in an elegant style, and was published in 1767, in two vols. 12mo. Too great sensibility, say his friends, but more properly an impotence of spirit, shortened the days of this poet. Though he had conversed much with the court, he had not learned to disguise his real sentiments. Having drawn up a well-reasoned and well-written memorial upon the miseries of the people, and the means of relieving them, he one day lent it to Madam de Maintenon to read when the king coming in, and demanding what and whose it was, commended the zeal of Racine, but disapproved of his meddling with things that did not concern him; and said, with an angry tone, “Because he knows how to make good verses, does he think he knows every thing and would he be a minister of state, because he is a great poet” These words hurt Racine greatly he conceived dreadful ideas of the king’s displeasure, and this brought on a fever, which surpassed the power of medicine; for he died of it, after being grievously afflicted with pains, in 1699. The king, who was sensible of his great merit, and always loved him, sent often to him in his illness; an-d finding, after his death, that he had died poor, settled a handsome pension upon his family. He was interred at Port Royal, according to his will and, upon the destruction of that monastery in 1708, his remains were carried to St. Stephen du Mont, at Paris. He was middle-sized, and of an agreeable and open countenance; was a great jester, but was restrained by piety, in the latter years of his life, from indulging this talent; and, when warmed in conversation, had so lively and persuasive an eloquence, that he himself often lamented his not having been an advocate in parliament. Of his works his countrymen have reason to be proud no modern stage has been honoured, in such quick succession, by two such writers as Corneille and Racine. Fonteneiie’s parallel between them we have already given (see Corneille, vol. X. p. 269.), but it is thought too partial to Corneille. We shall content ourselves with saying, after Perrault, that “If Corneille surpassed Racine in heroic sentiments and the grand character of his personages, he was inferior to him in moving the passions, and in purity of language.”

Although caressed by both the admirals under whom he served, and having such influence with lord Rodney as to be able to render essential services to the Jews and other persons whom he thought harshly treated at the capture of St. Eustatius, Mr. Ramsay once more quitted the sea-service, and retired to his pastoral charge in the island of St. Christopher’s. There, however, though the former animosities against him had entirely subsided, and his friendship was now solicited by every person of consequence in the island, he remained but a little while. Sick of the life of a planter, and of the prospect of the slavery around him, he resigned his livings, bade adieu to the island, and returned to England with his wife and family in the end of 1781. Immediately on his arrival, he was, through the interest of his steady friend sir Charles Middleton, presented to the livings of Teston and Nettlestead in the county of Kent. Here he was soon determined, by the advice of those whom he most respected, to publish what had been written many years before, an “Essay on the Treatment and Conversion of African Slaves in the British Sugar Colonies.” The controversy in which this publication involved him, is probably recent in the memory of many of our readers. He defended himself with great ability; but they who could not answer his arguments, could at least invent calumnies: and sorry we are to add, that they were not unsuccessful in removing one powerful advocate for the abolition of that abominable traffic, of which all Europe seems now ashamed. The agitation given to his mind by these calumnies, and the fatigues he underwent in his endeavours to rescue from misery the most helpless portion of the human race, contributed to shorten a life in no common degree useful. He had been for some time afflicted with a pain in his stomach, for which he was prevailed upon, though with great reluctance, to try the effects of air and exercise, by attempting a journey ef 100 miles. But in London, being seized with a violent vomiting of blood, he was unable either to proceed or to be removed home; and in the house of sir Charles Middleton he ended his days, July 20, 1789. He may be justly accounted one of the first and most active of those benevolent men who roused the attention of the nation to the degradation of its character in continuing the slave-trade, although he did not live to witness the completion of his wishes. Hif works, besides those to which we have alluded, consist of a volume of “Sea-Sermons,” preached on board his majesty’s ship the Prince of Wales; a “Treatise on Signals,” and various pamphlets in answer to his opponents on the subject of the slave-trade.

Ramus was a man of eloquence, and of universal learning. He was free from avarice, sober, temperate, and chaste. His temperance was very exemplary. He contented himself with only boiled meat, and ate but little at dinner: he drank no wine for twenty years, nor then until his physicians prescribed it. He lay upon straw; used to rise very early, and to study all day; and led a single life with the utmost purity. He was zealous for the protestant religion, but was at the same time an advocate for introducing a democratical government in the church; which design was defeated in a national synod.

, a native of Perigueux, or, according to Menage, of Bourdeaux, was the son of an advocate in the last mentioned city. He was well skilled in the Roman law, philosophy, mathematics, and antiquities; and was appointed president of the parliament of Paris, after having been counsellor to that of Bourdeaux. His mode of life was singular. He seldom read in the daytime; but used to take a light supper, go to rest early, and rise, after his first sleep, about the time that the monks say matins; then, covering his head like a capuchin, he spent four hours in study, and, going to bed again, finished, after a quiet sleep, what he had meditated upon during the night. By this plan, he used to say that the most rapid progress might be made in learning. He was an excellent Greek and Latin scholar; and, if we may believe M. Pithou, it was be who composed the Dictionary which goes under the name of Charles Stephens. Pithou adds, that, when cardinal de Lorraine assembled the parliament of Paris to take their advice as to the punishment of heretics, Ranconet was so imprudent as to read that passage in which Sulpitius Severus touches upon the execution of Priscillian; and the cardinal being displeased, sent him to the Bastille, where he died of grief, 1558, aged above 60. Others say that Ranconet’s confinement proceeded from his having been falsely accused of a capital crime. He left in ms. “Le Tresor de la Langue Franchise, taut ancienne que nioderne;” which was the foundation of the Dictionaries of Nicot and Monet.

, an eminent historian, was born at Castresin Languedoc, March 25, 1661. His family was originally from Savoy, and is supposed to have removed into France upon embracing the Protestant religion. Philibert de Rapin, his great-grandfather, who was of that persuasion, exposed himself so much to the indignation of the Roman catholics, and particularly to that of the parliament of Toulouse, that his head was struck off in 1563 by a sentence of theirs, at the very time that he came, by the king’s order, to have the treaty of peace registered there. Daniel the historian passes over this fact in silence; and his reason is supposed to have been, that he might exaggerate the disturbances raised by the Huguenots afterwards in the country about Toulouse. What then happened appears to have been the popular revenge for Philibert’s death, as the soldiers wrote on the ruins of the houses they had burned, “Vengeance for Rapin’s death.” James de Rapin, lord of Thoyras, was our author’s father. He applied himself to the study of the law, and was an advocate in the chamber of the edict of Nantes above fifty years. These chambers were courts of judicature erected in several towns of France, in behalf of the Huguenots, or Protestants; the judges of which were half of the Reformed, and half of the Roman catholic religion. Jane de Pelisson, his wife, was daughter to a counsellor of the chamber of Castres, and sister to George and Paul Pelisson; which lady, after having been Confined for some time in a convent, was at last sent, by the king’s order, to Geneva, where she died in 1705.

Rapin was their youngest son. He was educated at first under a tutor in his father’s house, and afterwards sent to Puylaurens, and thence to Saumur. In 1679, he returned to his father, with a design to apply himself closely to the law; but, before he had made any great progress, he was obliged, with other young gentlemen, to commence advocate, upon report of an edict soon after published, in which it was ordered, that no man should have a doctor’s degree without having studied five years in some university. The same year, the chamber of the edict of Nantes was suppressed, which obliged Rapin’s family to remove to Toulouse: and the state of the Reformed growing every day worse, with his father’s leave he quitted the profession of advocate for that of arms. He had before given what his biographer calls proofs of a military disposition; for he had fought a duel or two, in. which he had acquitted himself very gallantly. His father at first did not grant his request, but gave him such an answer, as served to prolong the time. Rapin, however, advanced so far in his legal progress as to plead one cause, and one only; and then applied himself diligently to mathematics and music, in both which he became a good proficient.

, a native of Avignon, and exJesuit, was an advocate, but compelled to quit his profession for want of health. He died in 1752. Reboulet wrote the “Mernoires de Forbin,” 2 vols. 12mo, and the “Hist, de l'Enfance,” 2 vols. compiled from memoirs with which the Jesuits furnished him, of whom he was too servile a flatterer to express any doubt concerning what they related. This work, however, was burnt as calumnious and defamatory, by a sentence of the parliament of Toulouse. His other works are, “A History of Pope Clement XI.” in 2 small volumes, 4to, which the king of Sardinia suppressed; as his father did not love the Jesuits, and could not therefore be a great man in the opinion of Reboulet. A “History of Louis XIV.” 3 vols. 4to, or 9 vols. 12mo, his best work, is tolerably accurate as to facts, but the narration is dry.

There is perhaps no branch of collectorship that exhibits more caprice than that of prints in general, or of Rembrandt’s prints in particular, which appears by the different estimation in which the same subject is held, merely on account of a slight alteration in some unimportant part. Mr. Daulby instances this in the Juno without the crown, the Coppenol with the white back-ground, the Joseph with the face unshaded, and the good Samaritan with the horse’s tail white, which are regarded as inestimable; whilst the same subjects, without these distinctions, are considered as of little comparative value. Strutt mentions that, in consequence of a commission from an eminent coin lector, he gave forty-six guineas for the Coppenol with the white back-ground, i. e. before it was finished; when, the same evening, at the same sale, he bought a most beautiful impression of the same print finished, distinguished by having a black back-ground, &c. which had an address to Rembrandt at the bottom, written by Coppenol himself (for he was a writing-master of Amsterdam, and this print is his portrait), for fourteen guineas and a half. In the second instance, he adds, that he exceeded his commission by the half guinea; but in the first did not reach it by nearly twenty guineas. Mr. Daulby seems to be of opinion that Rembrandt, who loved money, availed himself of this humour in collectors. The facility with which he could change the effect of his etchings, by altering, obliterating, or working on them again, enabled him to provide sufficient amusement for his admirers; and hence varieties frequently occur which are not easily explicable. He is even said to have frequently suffered himself to be solicited before he would consent to dispose of them; and it is a well-attested fact, that the print of “Christ healing the sick,” usually denominated the “Hundred Guelder,” was so called because he refused to sell an impression of it under that price. Of this print we may remark that it is generally esteemed the chef d'aeuvre of Rembrandt, being highly finished, the characters full of expression, and the effect of the chiaroscuro very fine. Gilpin mentions twenty guineas, as the price of a good impression of this print; Mr. Daulby thirty, to which twenty more, we are assured, must now be added. Captain Baillie purchased the plate in Holland, and retouched it for publication, in 1776, at four guineas to subscribers, and five to non-subscribers. It has since been cut up, but there are impressions of the two groups from the left extremity, one above the other. Rembrandt’s rarest and most expensive portraits are those of Wtenbogardus, called in Holland, “the Goldweigher,” and in France “the Banker;” Van Tol, the advocate, sold as high as fifty-guineas; and the burgomaster Six, of equal value. This burgomaster was Rembrandt’s particular friend and patron, and had the largest collection of his prints that ever was formed in his life-time. Strutt gives 340 as the number of Rembrandt’s prints; but the largest collection known, that of M. De Burgy, at the Hague, collected between the years 1728 and 1755, consisted in the whole, including the varieties, of 655 prints. This great artist died at Amsterdam in 1688, or, according to some, in 1674. The little known of his personal character is not favourable. He was extremely fond of money, and not very scrupulous in his mode of procuring it. He is also represented as being fond of low company; a degrading taste, which seldom fails to affect a man’s profession, whatever it may be.

, a learned divine, descended collaterally from the preceding bishop Ridley, was born at sea, in 1702, on-board the Gloucester East Indiaman, to which circumstance he was indebted for his Christian name. He received his education at Winchester-school, and thence was elected to a fellowship at New college, Oxford, where he proceeded B. C. L. April 29, 1729. In those two seminaries he cultivated an early acquaintance with the Muses, and laid the foundation of those elegant and solid acquirements for which he was afterwards so eminently distinguished as a poet, an historian, and a divine. During a vacancy in 1728, he joined with four friends, viz. Mr. Thomas Fletcher (afterwards bishop of Kildare), Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Eyre, Mr. Morrison, and Mr. Jennens, in writing a tragedy, called “The Fruitless Redress,” each Undertaking an act, on a plan previously concerted. When they delivered in their several proportions, at their meeting in the winter, few readers, it is said, would have known that the whole was not the production of a single hand. This tragedy, which was offered to Mr. Wilks, but never acted, is still in ms. with another called “Jugurtha.” - Dr. Ridley in his youth was much addicted to theatrical performances. Midhurst, in Sussex, was the place where they were exhibited; and the company of gentlemen actors to which he belonged, consisted chiefly of his coadjutors in the tragedy already mentioned. He is said to have performed the characters of Marc Antony, Jaffier, Horatio, and Moneses, with distinguished applause. Young Gibber, being likewise a Wykehamist, called on Dr. Ridley soon after he had been appointed chaplain to the East India Company at Poplar, and would have persuaded him to quit the church for the stage, observing that “it usually paid the larger salaries of the two,” an advice which he had too much sense to follow. For great part of his life, he had no other preferment than the small college living of Weston, in Norfolk, and the donative of Poplar, in Middlesex, where he resided. To these his college added, some years after, the donative of Romfbrd, in Essex. “Between these two places the curricle of his life had,” as he expressed it, “rolled for some time almost perpetually upon post-chaise wheels, and left him not time for even the proper studies of ceconomy, or the necessary ones of his profession.” Yet in this obscure situation he remained in possession of, and content with, domestic happiness; and was honoured with the intimate friendship of some who were not less distinguished for learning than for worth: among these, it maybe sufficient to mention Dr. Lowth, Mr. Christopher Pitt, Mr. Spence, and Dr. Berriman. To the last of these he was curate and executor, and preached his funeral sermon. In 1740 and 1741, he preached “Eight Sermons at Lady Moyer’s lecture,” which were published in 1742, 8vo, and at different times, several occasional sermons. In 1756, he declined an offer of going to Ireland as first chaplain to the duke of Bedford; in return for which he was to have had the choice of promotion, either at Christ-church, Canterbury, Westminster, or Windsor. His modesty inducing him to leave the choice of these to hispatron, the consequence was, that he obtained none of them. In 1761 he published, in 4to, “De Syriacarum novi fcederis versionum indole atque usu, dissertatio,” occasioned by a Syriac version, which, with two others, were sent to him nearly thirty years before, by one Mr. Samuel Palmer from Amida, in Mesopotamia. His age and growing infirmities, the great expence of printing, and the want of a patron, prevented him from availing himself of these Mss.; yet at intervals he employed himself on a transcript, which being put into the hands of professor White, was published a few years ago, with a literal Latin translation, in 2 vols. 4to, at the expence of the delegates of the Clarendon press. In 1763 he published the “Life of bishop Ridley,” in quarto, by subscription, and cleared by it as much as brought him 800l. in the public funds. In this, which is the most useful of all his works, he proved himself worthy of the name he bore, a thorough master of the popish controversy, and an able advocate for the reformation. In 1765 he published his “Review of Philips’ s Life of Cardinal Pole” (see Philips); and in 17 6S, in reward for his labours in this controversy, and in another which “The Confessional” produced, he was presented by archbishop Seeker to a golden prebend in the cathedral church of Salisbury (an option), but it is probably a mistake that Seeker honoured him with the degree of D. D. that honour having been conferred upon him by the university of Oxford in 1767, by diploma, the highest mark of distinction they can confer. At length, worn out with infirmities, he departed this life in Nov. 1774, leaving a widow and four daughters. An elegant epitaph, written by Dr. Lowth, bishop of London, is inscribed upon his monument. Two poems by Dr. Ridley, one styled “Jovi Eleutherio, or an Offering to Liberty,” the other called “Psyche,” are in the third volume of Dodsley’s Collection. The sequel of the latter poem, entitled, “Melampus,” with “Psyche,” its natural introduction, was printed in 1782, by subscription, for the benefit of his widow. Many others are in the 8th volume of Nichols’s “Collection.” The Mss. Codex Heraclensis, Codex Barsalibaei, &c. (of which a particular account may be seen in his Dissertation “De Syriacarum Novi Fcederis versionum indole atque usu, 1761,”) were bequeathed by Dr. Ridley to the library of New college, Oxford. Of these ancient Mss. a fac-simile specimen was published in his Dissertation above mentioned. A copy of “The Confessional,” with ms notes by Dr. Ridley," was in the library of the- late Dr. Winchester.

, a very ingenious and learned man, was the son of a physician, and born at Paris in 1577. He was brought up among the Jesuits, and afterwards admitted advocate; but, not being able to conquer the disgust he had conceived to the profession of the law, he devoted himself entirely to the pursuit of polite literature The public received the first fruits of his labours in his “Funus Parasiticum,” printed in 1596; the ingenuity and learning of which so charmed Thuanus, thathe immediately took him into his friendship, and made him the companion of his studies. This excellent person conceived a particular esteem for him; as appeared, when he died in 1617, from naming him in his will, to superintend the education of his children. He was chosen, with Isaac Casaubon, to put the king’s library into order; and in 1610, when that learned man went over to spend some time in England with James [. succeeded him in the office of librarian to the king. His majesty conferred on him other marks of distinction made him procurator- general of the supreme court of Nancy, counsellor of the parliament of Metz, and then intendant of that province. He died in 1654, after having given numerous proofs of uncommon erudition in editions of “Minutius Foelix,” “Phaedrus,” “Martial,” “Rei accipitrarii scriptores,” “Rei agrarige scriptores,” the works of “Cyprian” and “Tertullian,” &c. His notes upon these last two are learned and critical; but the matter of some of them shews him to have been not a rigid catholic. He takes occasion to observe, from a passage in Tertullian’s “Exhortation to Chastity,” that Jaymen have a right and power to consecrate the eucharist, when there is no opportunity of recurring to the regular ministers; and this, with other opinions of a similar kind, not only gave offence to those of his own communion, but even to some- of“ours.” Rigaltius,“says Mr. Dodwell,” though an ingenious and learned critic, is by no means exact upon the subjects he treats of: for, though of the Roman communion, he is often fou/)d on the side of the Calvinists; and, when he meets with anything in the authors he publishes that appears contrary to the customs, not oflly of his own, but of the universal church, he remarks it with great care; perhaps to render his notes more agreeable to the reader, by presenting him with something new and unexpected." It is probable, that many persons may not think the worse of Rigakius, as an editor, for the censure here passed on him by Mr. Dodtvell. Rigaltius was also concerned in the edition of Thuanus, published at Geneva in 1620.

, an able French physician, a native of Amiens, and distinguished by his attainments both in literature and science, is said not only to have written and spoken the learned languages with facility, but to have been thoroughly intimate with the contents of almost all the writings of the ancients. We have, however, very few particulars of his life, unless that he gave lessons in natural philosophy at the college of Boncour, at Paris, where he took his degree in 1574, and held the office of dean of the faculty in 1586 and 1587. He died Oct. 18, 1606. He was a strenuous advocate for the doctrine of Hippocrates and the ancients, whom he defended with great ardour against the chemists. His works, which are indicative of genius, were collected and published, together with some posthumous tracts, at Paris, in 1610, under the title of “Opera Omnia,” and some were separately published, particularly one against the ignorance of the practitioners of surgery in his time, entitled “Ad Impudentiam quorundam Chirurgorum, qui Medicis suquari et Chirurgiam publice profiteri volunt; proveteri dignitate Medicinal Apologia philosophica,” Paris, 1567. This was followed by several pieces on both sides.

, an American philosopher and mathematician, was born in Pennsylvania in 1732. By the dint of genius and application, he was enabled to mingle the pursuits of science with the active employments of a farmer and watch-maker. The latter of these occupations he filled with unrivalled eminence among his countrymen. In 17t9 he was with others invited by the American Philosophical Society to observe the transit of Venus, when he particularly distinguished himself by his observations and calculations. He afterwards constructed an observatory, where he made such valuable discoveries, as tended to the general diffusion of science. After the American war, as he was a strenuous advocate for independence, he successively filled the offices of treasurer of the state of Pennsylvania, and director of the national mint; in the first of which he manifested incorruptible integrity, and in the last, the rare talent of combining theories in such a way as to produce correct practical effects. He succeeded Dr. Franklin in the office of president of the American Philosophical Society; but towards the close of his days he withdrew from public life, and spent his time in retirement. After a very severe illness, but of no long continuance, he died July 10, 1796, about the age of 64. He had the degree of LL. D. conferred upon him. To the “Transactions” of the American Philosophical Society he contributed several excellent papers, chiefly on astronomical subjects.

, the most ferocious of those tyrants which the French revolution produced, was born at Arras in 1759, where his father was a lawyer, a man of character and knowledge in his profession, but so improvident as to die insolvent, and leave his two sons, of whom Maximilian was the eldest, in poverty. They soon, however, found a generous patron in De Conzie, bishop of Arras, who in a manner adopted them, but honoured Maximilian with his particular care, and after providing him with school education, sent him to Paris, and procured him an exhibition in the college of Louis Le Grand. The manner in which Robespierre conducted himself here, answered the expectation of his protector. He was assiduous and successful in his studies, and obtained many of the yearly prizes. There was nothing, however, about him, which indicated his future destiny. Being an apt scholar, it might be thought that he would make a figure in the world; but we are told that even this was not the case, and that his instructors discovered neither in his conversation nor his actions any trace of that propensity, which could lead them to conjecture that his glory would exceed the bounds of the college. When he had, however, attained the age of sixteen or seventeen, he was advised to study the law; and this he pursued, under the auspices of a Mons. Ferrieres, but displayed no extraordinary enthusiasm for the profession. He had neither perseverance, address, nor eloquence, and, according to one of his biographers, his consciousness of inferiority to those who were making a great figure at the bar, gave him an air of gloominess and dissatisfaction. It was at first determined, that he should practise before the parliament of Paris, but this scheme was never carried into execution, for he returned to his native province, and was admitted an advocate in the supreme council of Artois. About this time he is said to have published, in 1783, a treatise on electricity, in order to remove the vulgar prejudices against conductors. In this piece he introduced a laboured eloge on the character of Louis XVI.; but the subject of his next literary performance was yet more remarkable; it was against death as a punishment, and in this he reproaches all modern governments for permitting such a punishment to remain on their codes, and even doubts the right claimed by society to cut off the life of an individual!

, a French writer of very great abilities, was the second son of a master-cutler at Paris and born there Jan. 30, 1661. He was intended, as well as his elder brother, for his father’s profession; when a Benedictine, perceiving in him a peculiar turn for letters, communicated this to his mother, and pressed her to give him a liberal education. The proposal was flattering, but as she had been left a widow, and had nothing to depend upon but the continuation of her late husband’s business, and was incapable of providing for his education, she was reluctant to lose the advantages of her son’s skill. The good Benedictine, however, removed part of her fears, by procuring the youth a pension in the college of Du Plessis, and Roliin was now suffered to pursue the natural bent of his inclination. He distinguished himself immediately by parts and application, and easily obtained the first rank among his felloe-students. Many stories are told to his advantage in this respect, and how he became known and esteemed by the minister Pelletier, whose two eldest sons were of Rollin’s class. He studied rhetoric in the college of Du Plessis under Mr. Hersan, whose custom it was to create emulation among his scholars, by bestowing on them epithets, each according to his merit; and is said to have declared in public, that he knew not sufficiently to distinguish the young Roliin otherwise than by giving hirn. the title of “Divine:” and when Hersan was asked for any piece in verse or prose, he used to refer them to Roliin, “who,” he said, “would do it better than he could.” Hersan intended Roliin for his successor, therefore first took him as an assistant in 1683, and afterwards, in. 1687, gave up the chair to him. The year after, Hersan, with the king’s leave and approbation, declined the professorship of eloquence in the royal college in favour of his beloved disciple Roliin, who was admitted into it. No man ever exercised the functions of it with greater eclat: he often made Latin orations, to celebrate the memorable events of the times; and frequently accompanied them with poems, which wer^ generally read and esteemed. In 1694, he was chosen rector of the university, and continued in that office two years, which was then a great mark of distinction. By virtue of his office, he spoke the annual panegyric upon Louis XIV. He made many useful regulations in the university, and particularly revived the study of the Greek language, which was then growing into neglect. He was a man of indefatigable attention, and trained innumerable persons, who did honour to the church, the state, and the army. The first president Portail was pleased one day to reproach Roilin in a jocular strain, as if he exceeded even himself in doing business: to whom Roilin replied, with that plainness and sincerity which was natural to him, “It becomes you well, Sir, to reproach me with this: it is this habit of labour in me, which has distinguished you in the place of advocate general, which has raised you to that of first president: you owe the greatness of your fortune to me,” Upon the expiration of the rectorship, cardinal Noailles engaged him to superintend the studies of his nephews, who were in the college of Laon; and in this office he was agreeably employed, when, in 1699, he was with great reluctance made coadjutor to the principal of the college of Beauvais. This college was then a kind of a desert, inhabited by very few students, and without any manner of discipline: but Rollings great reputation and industry soon made it a most flourishing society. In this situation he remained till 1712; when, the contests between the Jesuits and the Jansenists drawing towards a crisis, he fell a sacrifice to the prevalence of the former. F. Le Tellier, the king’s confessor, and bigoted agent of the Jesuits, infused into his master prejudices against Rollin, whose connections with cardinal de Noailles would alone have sufficed to have made him a Jansenist; and on this account he lost his share in the principality of Beauvais. No man, however, could have lost less in this than Rollin, who had every thing left him that was necessary to make him happy; retirement, books, and a decent competence. He now began to employ himself upon Quintilian; an author he justly valued, and not without uneasiness saw neglected. He retrenched in him whatever he thought rather curious than useful for the instruction of youth: he placed summaries or contents at the head of each chapter; and he accompanied the text with short select notes. His edition appeared in 1715, in 2 vols. 12mo, with an elegant preface, setting forth his method and views.

These were collected soon after his death, in uniform edition, with some additional pieces and a life, in which a very full account is given of his religious principles and ministerial labours. He appears to have been in some respects an extraordinary character. Although usually reproached with being a methodist, a word which is not always very clearly understood by those who employ it in the service of controversial animosity, he was one of the most zealous advocates for the church of England that has appeared in modern times. His attachment to her doctrines and discipline, indeed, was such as left him but a moderate share of respect for the dissenters, by whom he was often accused of intolerance and bigotry. Towards the close of life, however, it is said, he entertained more candour towards the Calvinist dissenters, although he was to the last a strenuous advocate for the service and forms of the church; and it is certain that many dissenters of the stricter sort contributed to increase his audiences, which were in general the fullest ever known in London. Nor ought it to be forgotten in the catalogue of his virtues that he evinced, in money matters, a great share of independent spirit. He refused large offers from the booksellers for the use of his name to religious compilations, and on one occasion no less than 500l. when his annual income did not amount to half the sum. His funeral, besides being attended by a very numerous concourse of friends, and a long train of carriages of persons of considerable rank, was honoured with the presence of the city marshals and other officers, and funeral sermons were preached on the occasion in various churches, some of which were afterwards published. Mr. Romaine married in 1755, a Miss Price, who survived him about six years, by whom he had a daughter who died young, and two sons, the eldest, Dr. Romaine of Reading, now living, the second, capt. Romaine, who died in 1782, at Trincomale, in the island of Ceylon.

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

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

, 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.

, an ingenious and laborious writer, was born at the Hague in 1694. His father was receiver-general of Walloon Flanders, and of an ancient and considerable family. He was educated with great care, and sent at a proper age to Leyden; where he studied history under Perizonius, philosophy under Bernard, and law under Voetius and Noodt. Having finished his academical studies with honour, he returned to his parents at the Hague, and was admitted an advocate in the court of Holland. After the peace of Utrecht in 1713 r he went to France; and spent some time at Paris in visiting libraries, and in cultivating friendships with learned men. In 1716, he was made counsellor to the princess of Nassau; and, the year after, commissary of the finances of the States General. He went again to France in 1717; and two years after to England, where he was elected fellow of the Royal Society, in the list of which he is called “Auditor-Surveyor of the Bank of Holland.” He was author of several publications, which shewed parts, learning, and industry; and without doubt would, if he had lived, have been of great use and ornament to the republic of letters; but, catching the small-pox, he died in 1723, in his thirtieth year.

, an eminent Roman historian, was born at Amiternum in 86 B. C. The rank of his ancestors is uncertain, but from some circumstances. in his writings, it is not improbable that his family was plebeian. Having passed his more early years at his native town, he was removed to Rome, where he had the advantage of profiting by the lessons of Atticus Praetextatus, surnarned Philologus, a grammarian and rhetorician of great celebrity. Under this teacher he applied -to learning with diligence, and made uncommon progress. It appears, that he had turned his thoughts in his younger days to the writing of history, for which he had unquestionably great talents; but, as he himself intimates in his preface to the history of Catiline’s conspiracy, he was diverted from this pursuit by the workings of ambition. His early lift; too, appears to have been stained by vice, which the gross enormities of his more advanced years render highly probable. In this respect he has found an able advocate in his late learned translator and commentator; but although Dr. Steuart’s researches have removed some part of the reproaches of ancient authors, enough remains to shew that Sallust partook largely of the corruption of the age in which he lived, and added to it by his own example. The story of his having been detected in an adulterous intercourse with the wife of Milo, who, after a severe whipping, made him pay a handsome sum of money, may rest upon little authority, or may be altogether discarded as a fiction, but the general conduct of Sallust shows that the noble sentiments in his works had no influence on his conduct.

Of Sallust there are many excellent editions. His works were first printed at Venice, in 1470, and reprinted thirty times before the conclusion of that century, but these editions are of great rarity. The best of the more modern are the Aldus of 1521, 8vo, the Variorum of 1690, 8vo, Wasse’s excellent edition, printed at Cambridge in 1710, 4to; Cortius’s edition, 1724, 4to; Havercamp’s, 1742, 2 vols. 4to; the prize edition of Edinburgh, 1755, 12mo; the Bipont, 1779, 8vo that very accurate one by Mr. Homer, Lond. 1789, 8vo and one by Harles, 1799, 8vo. The late Dr. Rose of Chiswick, published a very correct translation of Sallust in 1751, 8vo, with Cicero’s Four Orations against Catiline; and more recently Sallust has found a translator, and an acute and learned commentator and advocate, in Heury Steuart, LL.D. F.R. S. and S. A.E. who published in 1806, in 2 vols. 4to, “The Works of Sallust. To which are prefixed, two Essays on the Life, literary character, and writings of the historian with notes historical, biographical, and critical.”

With an insatiable thirst for knowledge, Salmasius had an early and stro'ng passion for fame. He commenced author when between sixteen and seventeen years of age, by publishing an edition of “Nili, archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis, de primatu papae llomani, libri duo, item Barlaam monachus, cum interpretatione Latina: Cl. Salmasii opera et studio, cum ejusdemin utrumque notis,” Hanover, 1608, and Heidelberg, 1608 and 1612, 8vo. By this publication against the authority of the pope, he seemed determined to make a more publit avowal of his sentiments than he had yet done, and to shew his zeal for the protestants, by consecrating his first labours as an author to their service. In 1609 appeared his edition of “Florus,” printed at Paris, 8vo, and dedicated to Gruter, whose notes are given along with those of Sahnasius. This was reprinted in 1636, and in 1638, to which last he added “Lucii Ampelii libellus inemorialis ad Macrinum,” which had never before appeared. In 1610, he returned home and was admitted an advocate, but had no intention to follow that profession, and preferred literature an 1 criticism as the sole employment of his life, and derived the highest reputation that erudition can confer. Such was his reputation, that he began to be courted by foreign princes and universities. The Venetians thought his residence among them would be such an honour, that they offered him a prodigious stipend; and with this condition, that he should not be obliged to read lectures above three times a year. We are told, that our university of Oxford made some attempts to get him over into England; and it is certain, that the pope made similar overtures, though Salmasius had not only deserted his religion, and renounced his authority, but had actually written against the papacy itself. He withstood, however, all these solicitations; but at last, in 1632, complied with an invitation from Holland, 'and went with his wife, whom he had married in 1621, to Leyden. He did not go there to be professor, or honorary professor; but, as Vorstius in his “Funeral Oration” expresses it, tc to honour the university by his name, his writings, and his presence."

But his most considerable work was, “Discourses historical, critical, and moral, on the most memorable Events of the Old and New Testament.” His first intention was to have published a set of prints, with titles and explanations; but, as that had been before executed by Fontaine amongst the Roman catholics, and by Basnage amongst the protestants, it became necessary to adopt a newer plan. This gave rise to the work above mentioned, which the author left imperfect. Two volumes made their appearance in folio, and the work was afterwards reprinted in four in 8vo. Six other discourses form a part of a fifth volume in 8vo, published by Mr. Roques, who undertook a continuation of the work. It is replete with learning. The Christian and the heathen authors, philosophers, poets, historians, and critics, are cited with the utmost profusion, and it forms a compilation of all their sentiments on every subject discussed throughout the work. The author shews himself to be a warm advocate for toleration; and, though the catholics are more frequently censured than commended, yet his principles are very moderate. “A Dissertation on the Expediency of sometimes disguising the Truth” raised a clamour against the author, the fury of which he had riot power to appease. As an historian, he believed that he was permitted to produce the chief arguments of those that maintain, that in certain cases truth may be disguised; and the reasons which they gave who have asserted the contrary. Without deciding the question, it is easy to perceive that he is a favourer of the former. His principal antagonist was Arrnand de la Chapelle; to whom Francis Michael Ganicon replied with great spirit, in a work, entitled “Lettres serieuses & jocoses.” The three first of the lettres, in the second volume, are in favour of Saurin. He was answered by La Chapelle with great violence. Saurin imagined, that he should be able to terminate this dispute by reprinting the dissertation separately, with a preface in defence of his assertions: but he was deceived; for La Chapelle published a very long and scurrilous reply. It was Saurin’s intention entirely to have neglected this production; but he found a new champion in Francis Bruys. This dispute was at length brought before the synod of Campen; who, in May 1730, ordered the churches of Utrecht, Leyden, and Amsterdam, to make their examinations, and report the result of them to the synod of the Hague, which was to sit in the September following. Commissaries were appointed for this purpose. The synod of Campen gave its opinion, and that of the Hague confirmed it: but, having made no mention of the instructions sent to the Walloon church at Utrecht, that assembly complained, and ordered Mr. Bonvoust, one of its ministers, to justify his proceedings and his doctrine. This he did in a large octavo volume, printed at Utrecht in 1731, after the death of Saurin, entitled “The Triumph of the Truth and Peace; or, Reflections on the most important Events attending the last Synod assembled to determine in the case of Messieurs Saurin and Maty.” Saurin had contributed to this peace, by giving such a declaration of his sentiments as satisfied the protestant churches; and he repeated that declaration, when he foresaw that the new lights, which Mr. Bruys had thrown upon this subject, were going to raise a storm that might perhaps have been severer than the last. Saurin’s sermons are now well known in this country by the selections translated into English, and published in 1775 1784, by the rev, Robert Robinson, 5 vols. 8vo, to which Dr. Henry Hunter added a sixth volume in 1796.

, an eminent jurist, was born at Pegaw in Misnia, Aug. 29, 1632, and studied at Leipsic and Naumberg, where in 1651, he removed for two years to Jena, and then completed his course at Leipsic. In 1655 he took the degree of doctor in philosophy, as he did the same in the faculty of law at Strasburgh some years after. He practised for gome time as an advocate at Naumberg, where prince Maurice of Saxe made him keeper of his archives, and intendant or director of the territory of Sul in the county of Henneberg. About 1686 he accepted an invitation to Strasburgh, where he was appointed counsellor and advocate of the state, and honorary professor of the academy. He died there, May 14, 1705, in the seventythird year of his age. He wrote a great many volumes on subjects connected with antiquities and with his profession, the principal of which are, 1. “Codex juris Alemannici feudalis,” 1696, 3 vols. 4to. 2. “Thesaurus antiquitatum Teutonicarum,” 1728, 3 vols. fol. a posthumous publication, eJited by Scherzius at Uhn. 3. “Institutiones Canonici,” 1721, 8vo, in which he endeavours to reconcile the canon law to that in use among the protestant churches. 4. “Institutiones juris publici,” 1696, 2 vols. 8vo, one of his first, and a very learned work.

, a learned member of the royal society, and of the board of longitude, was the eldest son of Mr. Scott, of Bristow, in Scotland, who married Miss Stewart, daughter of sir James Stewart, lord advocate of Scotland in the reigns of William III. and queen Anne. That lady was also his cousin-german, their mothers being sisters, and both daughters of Mr. Robert Trail, one of the ministers of Edinburgh, of the same family as the rev. Dr. William Trail, the learned author of the “Life of Dr. Robert Simson, professor of mathematics at Glasgow.”

, a French historian, was born January 8, 1691, at Paris. He began to study the law in obedience to his father’s desire, who was an able advocate; but losing both his parents shortly after, he quitted the bar, for which he had not the least taste, and devoted himself wholly to the belles lettres, and French history. His unwearied application to books, which no other passion interrupted, soon made him known among the learned; and he was admitted into the academy of inscriptions in 1723, and chosen by chancellor d'Aguesseau five years after, to continue the great collection of statutes, made by the French kings, which M. de Laurier had begun. As Secousse possessed every talent necessary for such an important undertaking, the voiumes which he published were received with universal approbation. He died at Paris, March 15, 1754, aged sixty-three, leaving a library, the largest and most curious, in French history, that any private person had hitherto possessed. His works are, the continuation of the collection of statutes before mentioned, to the ninth volume inclusively, which was printed under the inspection of M. de Villevault, counsellor to the court of aids, who succeeded M. Secousse, and published a table, forming a tenth volume, and since, an eleventh and twelfth. Secousse also wrote many dissertations in the memoirs of the academy of inscriptions editions of several works, and of several curious pieces “Memoirs for the History of Charles the Bad,” 2 vols. 4to,

, a Spanish writer of no good fame, was born at Cordova in 1491, and became historiographer to the Emperor Charles V. He is memorable for writing a “Vindication of the Cruelties of the Spaniards against the Incliana,” in opposition to the benevolent pen of Barthelemi de la Casas. Sepulveda affirmed, that such cruelties were justifiable both by human and divine laws, as well as by the rights of war. It is an act of justice to Charles V. to mention that he suppressed the publication of Sepulveda’s book in his dominions; but it was published at Rome. This advocate for the greatest barbarities that ever disgraced human nature, died at Salamanca in 1572. He was author of various works besides that above mentioned; in particular, of some Latin letters, a translation from Aristotle, with notes, a life of Charles V. &c. printed together at Madrid in 1780, 4 vols. 4to. under the care of the royal academy of history, a proof that he still holds his rank among Spanish authors.

Servetus, however, was inflexible in his opinions, and determined to publish a third work in favour of them. This came out in 1553, at Vienne, with this title, “Christianismi Restuutio,” &c. without his name, but being discovered to be the author, he was imprisoned at Vienne, and would certainly have been burnt alive if he had not made his escape; however, sentence was passed on him, and his effigies was carried to the place of execution, fastened to a gibbet, and afterwards burned, with five bales of his books. Servetus in the mean time was retiring to Naples, where he hoped to practise physic with the same high reputation as he had practised at Vienne; yet was so imprudent as to take his way through Geneva, where he was seized and cast into prison; and a prosecution was presently commenced against him for heresy and blasphemy. The articles of his accusation were numerous, and extracted from his various writings; some of them are decidedly on the point of his anti-trinitarianism, others are more trivial. The magistrates, however, being sensible that the trial of Servetus was a thing of the highest consequence, did not think fit to give sentence, without consulting the magistrates of the Protestant cantons of Switzerland: to whom, therefore, they sent Servetus’s book, printed at Vienne, and also the writings of Calvin, with Servetus’s answers; and at the same time desired to have the opinion of their divines about that affair. They all gave vote against him, as Beza himself relates; in consequence of which he was condemned and burnt alive, Oct. 27, 1553. His death has been made the occasion of numerous attacks on the character and memory of Calvin, who, however, has a very able advocate in the life of Servetus by Chaufepie, translated by the Rev. James Yair, minister of the Scots church in Campvere, 1771, 8vo. Servetus’s death may more properly be referred to the spirit of the times, and may justly form a reflection on the reformers in general, who were adopting the intolerant practices of the church which they had left.

, a celebrated lawyer in France, who flourished at the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth centuries, was descended of a good family in the Vendomois. In 1589 he was appointed advocate -general to the parliament of Paris, and distinguished himself in that station by his zealous support of the liberties of the Galiican church, and his opposition to the pretensions of the court of Rome. In 1590 he published a work in favour of Henry IV. who had succeeded to the crown, entitled “Vindicire secundum Libertatem Ecclesiue Gallicanse, et Defensio Regii Status Gallj-Francorum sub Henrico IV. Rege.” In 1598, being joined in a commission for the reformation of the university of Paris, he delivered “a remonstrance” on the subject, which was printed. To him also is attributed a work in favour of the republic of Venice in the affairs of the interdict. In the reign of Lewis XIII. at a bed of justice holden in 1620, he made strong and animated remonstrances in favour of the right of parliament to register royal edicts. On another similar occasion, in 1626, for the purpose of compelling the registry of some financial edicts, as he was firmly but respectfully making fresh remonstrances to his majesty, he suddenly fell and expired at the king’s feet.

, eminent as a Christian, a scholar, and a gentleman, one of the sons of Dr. Thomas Sharp, and grandson to the archbishop, was born in 1734. He was educated for the bar, but did not practise at it. When he quitted the legal profession, he obtained a place in the ordnance office, which he resigned at the commencement of the American war; of the principles of which he did not approve. He now took chambers in the Temple, and devoted himself to a life of study; at the same time, laying himself out for public utility. He first became known to the public in the case of a poor and friendless negro, of the name of Somerset. This person had been brought from the West Indies to England, and falling into bad health, was abandoned by his master, and turned into the streets, either to die, or to gain a miserable support by precarious charity. In this destitute state, almost, it is said, on the point of expiring on the pavement of one of the public streets of London, Mr. Sharp chanced to see him. He instantly had him removed to St. Bartholomew’s hospital, attended personally to his wants, and in a short time had the happiness to see him restored to health. Mr. Sharp now clothed him, and procured him comfortable employment in the service of a lady. Two years had elapsed, and the circumstance almost, and the name of the poor negro, had escaped the memory of his benefactor, when Mr. Sharp received a letter from a person, signing himself Somerset, confined in the Poultry Compter, stating no cause for his commitment, but intreating his interference to save him from a greater calamity even than the death from which he had before rescued him. Mr. Sharp instantly went to the prison, and found the negro, who in sickness and misery had been discarded by his master, sent to prison as a runaway slave. Mr. Siiarp went immediately to the lord major, William Nash, esq. who caused the parties to be brought before him; when, after a long hearing, the upright magistrate decided that the master had no property in the person of the negro, in this country, and gave the negro his liberty. The master instantly collared him, in the presence of Mr. Sharp and the lord mayor, and insisted on his right to keep him as his property. Mr. Sharp now claimed the protection of the English law, caused the master to be taken into custody, and exhibited articles of peace against him for an assault and battery. After various legal proceedings, supported by him with most undaunted spirit, the twelve judges unanimously concurred in an opinion that the master had acted criminally. Thus did Mr. Sharp emancipate for ever the race of blacks from a state of slavery, while on British ground, and in fact banished slavery from Great Britain. Such an incident could not fail deeply to impress a benevolent mind; and slavery, in every shape and country, became the object of his unceasing hostility. In 17G9, he published a work, entitled “A Representation of the injustice and dangerous tendency of toleratinaSlavery, or of admitting the least claim of private property in the persons of men in England. 7 ' Having succeeded in the case of an individual negro, he interested himself in the condition of the many others who were seen wandering about the streets of London, and at his own expence collected a number of them, whom he sent back to Africa, where they termed a colony on the river Sierra Leone. He performed a still more essential service to humanity, by becoming the institutor of the” Society for the abolition of the Slave trade;“which, after contending against a vast mass of opposition, at length succeeded, as far as this country was concerned, and it is hoped will soon be universal. Similar principles led Mr. Sharp to use his endeavours to restrain the practice of marine impressment; and a citizen of London having been carried off by a press-warrant, Mr. Sharp obtained a habeas corpus from the court of king’s bench, to bring him back from a vessel at the Nore; and by his arguments obliged the court to liberate him. His political principles led him to become the warm advocate of” parliamentary reform,“and he published” A Declaration of the people’s natural right to a share in the legislature, which is the fundamental principle of the British constitution of state." In this he proposed to restore the ancient tithing$, hundreds, &c. and the whole body of the people were to form a national militia, each thousand to constitute a regiment, the alderman or magistrate to be the colonel; and each hundred to constitute a company, the constable of each fo.r the time being to be their captain. So many of the thousands to be summoned once in every year, by their magistrate, as would have a right to vote in their respective hundreds, before the constable, in the choice of their part of the representative legislature. After stating that the division of this kingdom into tithings and hundreds was instituted by the immortal Alfred, he endeavours to prove that such a division is consistent with the most perfect state of liberty that man is capable of enioying, and yet fully competent to answer all the purposes of mutual defence, to secure the due execution of the laws, and maintain public peace. Mr. Sharp was educated in the principles of the established church, and through life shewed a warm attachment to them. This led him to recommend an episcopal church in America; and he introduced the first bishops from that country to the archbishop of Canterbury for consecration.

, an eminent physician, naturalist, and antiquary, was a descendant of the Sibbalds of Balgonie, an ancient family in Fifeshire, Scotland. He received his education in philosophy and the languages at the university of Edinburgh, and afterwards studied medicine at Leyden, where, on taking his doctor’s degree in 1661, he published his inaugural dissertation “De variis tabis speciebus.” Soon after he returned home, and fixed his residence at Edinburgh; but for the benefit of study, often retired to a rural retreat in the neighbourhood, and cultivated, with much attention, many rare and exotic plants. His reputation obtained for him the appointment of natural historian, geographer, and physician, to Charles II. and he received the royal command to compose a general description of the whole kingdom, and a particular history of the different counties of Scotland. The “History of Fife,” however, is the only part of this plan which he executed. This was at first sold separately, but became very scarce; a new edition was published at Cupar-Fife in 1803, In 1681, when the royal college of physicians was incorporated, he was one of the original fellows. In 1684 he published his principal work, “Scotia Illustrata, sive Prodromus historian naturalis, &c.” folio, reprinted in 1696. In this volume, which, he tells us, was the work of twenty years, one part is appropriated to 'the indigenous plants of Scotland, and contains observations on the medicinal and (Economical uses. A few rare species make their first appearance in this book, particularly that which Linnreus named Sibbaldia, after the author. Having thrown out some strictures on the mathematical principles of physic, for which the learned Dr. Pitcairn was a strenuous advocate, the latter wrote a severe satire on this work, entitled “De legibus historian naturalis,” Edit). 1696; but it contains no-, thing solid, and was thought by some to have been the result of party dislike, as Dr. Sibbald had embraced the Roman catholic religion under James II. in 1686, and afterwards recanted, and Pitcairn was a zealous adherent of the exiled family, although he cared little about religion of any kind. Sir Robert Sibbald is supposed to have died about the year 1712.

, a Roman poet, and author of a poetical history of the second Punic war, which decided the empire of the world in favour of the Romans, was born in the reign of Tiberius, about A. D. 15, and is supposed to have derived the name of Italicus from the place of his birth; but whether he was born at Italica in Spain, or atCorsinium in Italy, which, according to Strabo, had the name of Italica given it during the social war, is a point which cannot be known: though, if his birth had happened at either of these places, the grammarians tell us, that he should have been called Italicensis, and not Italicus. When he came to Rome, he applied himself to the bar; and, by a close imitation of Cicero, succeeded so well, that he became a celebrated advocate and most accomplished orator. His merit and character recommended him to the highest offices in the republic, even to the consulship, of which he was possessed when Nero difed. He is said to have been aiding in the accusation of persons of high rank and fortune, whom that tyrant had devoted to destruction: but he retrieved his character afterwards by a long and uniform course of virtuous behaviour, and held a principal office under the emperor Vitellius, which he executed so well as to preserve his credit with the public. Vespasian sent him as proconsul into Asia, where he behaved with integrity and unblemished reputation. After having thus spent the best part of his life in the service of his country, he bade adieu to public affairs, resolving to consecrate the remainder of his days to retirement and the Muses. He had several fine villas in the country one at Tusculum, celebrated for having been Cicero’s and a farm near Naples, said to have been Virgil’s, and at which was his tomb, which Silius often visited. Martial compliments him on both these accounts. In his retirement he applied himself to poetry, not so much from the impulse of genius, which would have appeared earlier, but from his enthusiastic regard for Virgil, to whose memory he paid the highest veneration, and whose birth-day he is said to have celebrated annually with more solemnity than his own. He has endeavoured to imitate him in his poem; and, though he falls greatly short, yet there are some splendid passages and strains of imagination which enliven a historical detail that otherwise may be read with more pleasure in Livy’s prose. After spending a considerable time in this retirement, and reaching his seventy- fifth year, he was seized with an incurable ulcer, which afflicted him with unsupportable pains, and drove him to put an end to his life by refraining from sustenance. The best and almost the only account we have of Silius Italicus is in one of Pliny’s letters, from which most of the above particulars are taken.

About this time he and Cheke introduced a new mode of reading Greek, being dissatisfied with the corrupt and vicious pronunciation which then prevailed. As this was accounted an innovation of the most important, and even dangerous tendency, and exhibits a curious instance of the manners and sentiments of the times, we shall give a more particular account of it in the plain language of honest Strype. According to this biographer, it appears that “custom had established a very faulty manner of sounding several of the vowels and diphthongs; for, i, n 9 v, ei, 01, w, were all pronounced as lura;” nihil fere aliud,“says Smith,” haberet ad loquendum, nisi lugubrss sonos et illud flebile /wra.“He conferred therefore with Cheke upon this point, and they perceived that the vulgar method of pronouncing Greek was false; since it was absurd, that so many different letters and diphthongs should all have but one sound. They proceeded to search authors for the determination of this point: but the modern writers little availed them; they had not seen Erasmus’s book, in which he excepted against the common way of reading Greek. But though both of them saw these palpable errors, they could not agree among themselves, especially concerning the letters vna and i/4-jXov. Soon after, having procured Erasmus’s book, andTerentianus” de literis et syllabis,“they began to reform their pronunciation of Greek privately, and only communicated it to their most intimate friends. When they had sufficiently habituated themselves to this new method of pronunciation, with which they were highly pleased, on account of the fullness and sweetness of it, they resolved to make trial of it publicly; and it was agreed that Smith should begin. He read lectures at that time upon Aristotle” de Republic^,“in Greek, as he had done some years before: and, that the novelty of his pronunciation might give the less offence, he used this artifice, that in reading he would let fall a word only now and then, uttered in the new correct sound. At first no notice was taken of this; but, when he did it oftener, his auditors began to observe and listen more attentively; and, when he had often pronounced n and 01, as e and w, they, who three years before had heard him sound them after the old way, could not think it a slip of the tongue, but suspected something else, and laughed at the unusual souncks. He again, as though his tongue had slipped, would sometimes correct himself, and repeat the word after the old manner. But, when he did this daily, some of his friends came to him, and told him what they had remarked in his lectures: upon which he owned that he had been thinking of something privately, but that it was not yet sufficiently digested and prepared for the public. They, on the other hand, prayed him not to conceal it from them, but to acquaint them with it frankly; and accordingly he promised them that he would. Upon this rumour many resorted to him, whom he desired only to hear his reasons, and to have patience with him three or four days at most; until the sounds by use were made more familiar to their ears, and the prejudice against their novelty worn off. At this time he read lectures upon Homer’s” Odyssey,“in his own college; and there began more openly to shew and determine the difference of the sounds: Cheke likewise did the same in his college. After this, many came to them, in order to learn of them how to pronounce after the new method; and it is not to be expressed with what greediness and affection this was received among the youth. The following winter there was acted in St. John’s college, Aristophanes’ s” Plutus," in Greek, and one or two more of his comedies, without the least dislike or opposition from any who were esteemed learned men and masters of the Greek language. Ponet, a pupil of Smith, and afterwards bishop of Winchester, read Greek lectures publicly in the new pronunciation; as likewise did Roger Ascham, who read Isocrates, and at first was averse to this pronunciation, though he soon became a zealous advocate for it. Thus, in a few years, this new way of reading Greek, introduced by Smith, prevailed every where in the university; and was followed even by Redman, the professor of divinity.

Many years having passed from the first disagreement between Socrates and Anytus, at length Anytus, observing a fit conjuncture, procured Melitus to prefer a bill against him to the senate in these terms: “Melitus, son of Melitus, a Pythean, accuses Socrates, son oi Sophroniscus, an Alopecian. Socrates violates the law, not believing the deities which this city believes, but introducing other new gods He violates the Ihw likewise in corrupting youth: the punishment death.” This bill being preferred upon oath, Crito became bound to the judges for his appearance at the day of trial; till which Socrates employed himself in his usual philosophical exercises, taking no care to provide any defence. On the day appointed, Anytus, Lyco, and Metitus, accused him, and Socrates made his own defence, witu.tut procuring an advocate, as the cu*t>m was, to plead for him. He did not defen-i himself with the tone and language of a suppliant or guilty person, but with the freedom, frrmnfiSS, and spirit, of conscious innocence and superior merit. Many of his friends spoke also inus betialf; and, lastly, Plato, then a young iuan, en Jeavoured to plead, but while attempting to apologize for his youth, was ordered by the court to sit down. The court then proceeding to vote, they found Socrates guilty by two hundred and eighty-one voices. It uas the custom of Athens, as Cicero informs us, when any one was cast, if the fault were not capital, to impose a pecuniary mulct, and the guilty person was asked the highest ratf at which he estimated his offence. This was proposed to Socrates, who told the judges, that to pay a penalty was to own an offence; and that, instead of being condemned for what he stood accused, he deserved to be maintained at the public charge out of the Prytanacum. This being the greatest honour the Athenians could confer, the answer so exasperated the judges, that they condemned him to dea h by eighty votes more.

If these opinions concerning the Supreme Being, and the subordinate divinities, be compared, there will be no difficulty in perceiving the grounds upon which Socrates, though an advocate for the existence of one sovereign power, admitted the worship of inferior divinities. Hence he declared it to be the duty of every one, in the performance of religious rites, to follow the customs of his country. At the same time, he taught, that the merit of all religious offerings depends upon the character of the worshipper, and that the gods take pleasure in the sacrifices of none but the truly pious. “The man,” says he, “who honours the gods according to his ability, ought to be cheerful, and hope for the greatest blessings: for, from whom may we reasonably entertain higher expectations, than from those who are most able to serve us? or how can we secure their kindness, but by pleasing them? or, how please them better, than by obedience?”

During the greatest part of queen Annie’s reign, South was in a state of inactivity; and, the infirmities of old age growing fast upon him, he performed very little of the duty of his ministerial function, otherwise than by attending divine service at Westminster abbey. Yet when there was any alarm about the church’s danger, none shewed greater activity; nor had Sacheverell in 1710 a more strenuous advocate. He had from time to time given his sermons to the public; and, in 1715, he published a fourth volume, which he dedicated to the right hon. William Bromley, esq. “some time speaker to the Hon. House of Commons, and after that principal Secretary of State to her Majesty Queen Anne, of ever blessed memory.” He died aged eightythree, July 8, 1716 and was interred with great solemnity, in Westminster abbey, where a monument is erected to him, with an inscription upon it. He was a man of very uncommon abilities and attainments; of judgment, wit, and learning equally great. There is as much wit in his sermons, as there is good sense and learning, well combined and strongly set forth: and there is yet more ill humour, spleen, and batire. His wit indeed was his bane, for he never could repress it on the most solemn occasions, and preaching may surely be reckoned one of those. Of this he seems to have been sensible himself; for when Sherlock accused him of employing wit in a controversy on the Trinity, South, in his reply, observed that, " had it pleased God to have made him (Dr. Sherlock) a wit, he wished to know what he would have done? However admirable, there was certainly nothing amiable in his nature: for it is doing him no injustice to say, that he was sour, morose, peevish, quarrelsome, intolerant, and unforgiving; and, had not his zeal for religion served for the time to cover a multitude of moral imperfections, all his parts and learning could not have screened him from the imputation of being but an indifferent kind of man.

We shall now briefly mention the remaining branches of this justly celebrated family. Henry Stephens, the third of that name, and son to Robert, the second, was treasurer of the royal palaces. Prosper March and thinks he was a printer in 1615, but no work is known to have issued from his press. He had two sons, Henry and Robert, and a daughter married to Fougerole, a notary. His son Henry, sieur des Fossés, was the author of “L' Art de faire les devices, avec un Traité des rencontres ou mots plaisants,” Paris, 1645, 8vo. His “Art of making devices” was translated into English by our countryman Thomas Blount (See vol. V. p. 430) and published in 1646, 4to. Henry assumed the title of interpreter of the Greek and Latin languages, and was reckoned a good poet. We also are indebted to him for a character of Louis XIII. and eloges of the princes and generals who served under that monarch, which he published in a work entitled “Les Triomphes de Louis-le-Juste,” Paris, 1649, fol. Robert, his brother, was an advocate of parliament, and completed the translation of Aristotle’s Rhetoric begun by his uncle, Robert the third of the name, and published at Paris in 1630, 8vo. He left off printing about 1640, and was bailli of St. Marcel.

, an eminent political writer, was born at Edinburgh, Oct. 10, 1713. His father was sir James Stewart of Goostrees, bart. solicitorgeneral for Scotland, and his mother was Anne, daughter of sir Hugh Dalrymple of North Berwick, bart. president of the college of justice in Scotland. After some classical education at the school of North Berwick, in East Lothian, he was removed to the university of Edinburgh, where, in addition to the other sciences usually taught there, he made himself well acquainted with the Roman law and history, and the municipal law of Scotland. He then went to the bar as an advocate, and published an acute and ingenious thesis on that occasion, having before submitted himself, as is usual, to a public examination by the fac'ilty of advocates.

, an eminent advocate to the parliament of Paris, was born August 13, 1669, and was related to the same family as the preceding. He was admitted advocate at Paris in 16^1, where his merit and abilities soon procured him many clients, and having made the written law his peculiar study, he became, as it were, the oracle of the Lyonnois, and all the provinces where the law is followed. He assisted in the “Journal de Savans” during five years, and was several years censorroyal of books of law and literature. He died September 30, 1734, at Paris, aged sixty-six. He left a collection of his own discourses, pleadings, memoirs, and consultations, under the title of “CEuvres de Matthieu Terrasson,” &c. 4to. This collection, which was much valued, was published by his only son, Anthony Terrasson, advocate to the parliament of Paris, and author of *‘ L’Histoire de la Jurisprudence Romalne," printed at Paris, 1750, fol. There is an edition of the works of Henrys in 4 vols. fol. with notes by Matthew Terrasson, printed by Bretonnier in 1772.

Balzac thus expresses his sentiments of Tertullian in a letter to his editor, Rigaltius: “I expect,” says he, “the Tertullian you are publishing, that he may learn me that patience, for which he gives such admirable instructions. He is an author to whom your preface would have reconciled me, if I bad an aversion for him; and if the harshness of his expressions, and the vices of his age, had dissuaded me from reading him: but I have had an esteem for him a long time; and as hard and crabbed as he is, yet he is not at all unpleasant to me. I have found in his writings that black light, which is mentioned in one of the ancient poets; and I look upon his obscurity with the same pleasure as that of ebony which is very bright and neatly wrought. This has always been my opinion; for as the beauties of Africa are no less amiable, though they are not like ours, and as Sophonisba has eclipsed several Italian ladies, so the wits of that country are not less pleasing with this foreign sort of eloquence; and I shall prefer him to a great many affected imitators of Cicero. And though we should grant to nice critics that his style is of iron, yet they must likewise own to us, that out of this iron he has forged most excellent weapons: that he has defended the honour and innocence of Christianity; that he has quite routed the Valentinians, and s truck Man-ion to the very heart.” Our learned counryman, Dr. Cave, has likewise shewn himself, still more than Balzac, an advocate for Tertullian’s style; and, with submission to Lactuntius, who (as we have seen above) censured it as harsh, inelegant, and obscure, affirms, that “it has a certain majesty peculiar to itself, a sublime and noble eloquence seasoned abundantly with wit and satire, which, at the same time that it exercises the sagacity or.” a reader, highly entertains and pleases him.“The style, however, of Tertullian, is a matter of less consequence than those other merits which give him a rank among the fathers: but in this respect it seems difficult which of the two were predominant, his virtues or his defects. He was endued with a great genius, but seemed deficient in point of judgment. His piety was warm and vigorous, but at the same time melancholy and austere, and his credulity and superstition, learned as he was, were such as could only have been expected from the darkest ignorance. He placed religion too much in austere observances; and in this respect, the littleness of his views appears conspicuous in the very first tract in the volume of his works,” De Pailio," the purport of which is to recommend a vulgar and rustic kind of garment for Christians in the place of the Roman toga; hut a more remarkable instance is given of his absurd scrupulosity about such trifles, in which he warmly approves the conduct of a Christian soldier who refused to wear a crown of laurel which his commander had given him with the rest of the regiment, and was punished for his disobedience. Upon the whole, although his works throw some light on the state of Christianity in his time, they contain very little matter of useful instruction.

, a celebrated French poet, surnamed Viaud, was born about 1590, at Clerac in the diocese of Agen, and was the son of an advocate of Bousseres SainteRadegonde, a village near Aquillon. Having come early to Paris, he was admired for his genius and fancy, and was the first who published French works with verse and prose intermixed. But his impiety and debaucheries obliged him to go into England in 1619, whence his friends procured his recall, and he turned Catholic. This change, however, did not make him more regular in his conduct, and he was at last burnt in effigy for having published in 1622, “Le Parnasse Satyrique.” Being arrested at the Chatelet, he was placed in the same dungeon of the Coneiergerie where Ravaillae had been confined; but, on his protestations of having had no share in the above mentioned publication, received only a sentence of banishment. He died September 25, 1626, in the Hotel de Montmorenci at Paris, leaving a collection of “Poems” in French, containing “Elegies, Odes, Sonnets, &c.;” a treatise “on the Immortality of the Soul,” inverse and prose; “Pyrame et Thisbe,' 4 a tragedy; three” Apologies;“some” Letters,“Paris, 1662, 12mo; his” New Works,“Paris, 1642, 8vo;” Pasiphae," a tragedy, 1628, &c.

In 1780, he published an invective against the war, called “Facts,” in which Dr. Price supplied two chapters on finance; but the war was soon over, and Mr. Tooke became a farmer in Huntingdonshire; but making no figure in this employment, he returned to London at a time when the contests between the administrations of Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox promised a wide field for his exertions. This produced “A Letter on Parliamentary Reform,” in which he is the advocate for universal suffrage; and he sided with Mr. Pitt against Mr. Fox, whom he considered as disgraced by the coalition. It may be here mentioned, although out of chronological order, that in 1788 he published “Two Pair of Portraits;” the figures in which were the two Pitts and the two Foxes, of the past and present generation, the preference being given to the Pitts; but praise was not much in Mr. Tooke' s way; and in a few years both Pitt and Fox shared his aversion alike.

Daniel, the subject of this article, after some education in his native place, was sent to Basil in 1555, where he studied for two years, and was admitted to the first academic degree, probably that of bachelor of arts. He then went to Tubingen, where he continued his studies for two more years, under the patronage and at the expence of Christopher duke of Wirtemberg, who thus wished to reward his father’s services to the infant-church of Montbeillard. Here he applied himself to belles lettres and philosophy, and took the degree of master of arts. He had also gone through a course of divinity; for we find that when his father recalled him to his native place, he preached there, both in French and German; but finding himself indifferently acquainted with the former of those languages, he went in 1559 to Paris, where he might acquire a greater facility in speaking and writing, and at the same time carry on his other studies. The following year he left Paris for Orleans, where he taught Hebrew for some time, and being admitted into the ministry, officiated in the church there, which was one of the most numerous and flourishing of the protestant congregations in France. There in 1565 he married the daughter of an advocate of parliament, who had been counsellor to queen Catherine de Medici before the troubles.

, a French writer, and one of the Encyclopedists, was born at Paris in 1715, and was bred an advocate, but forsook the bar to cultivate general literature. In his youth he is thought to have been somewhat fanatical, as he wrote Latin hymns in praise of the abb Paris, at whose tomb extraordinary miracles were performed. (See Paris). An enthusiasm of a very opposite kind connected him with the philosophers who were exerting their powers against revealed religion, and in 1748 he contributed his first share by his book called “Moeurs,” or “Manners,” in which, although tolerably disguised, are some of those bold attacks, both on Christianity and morals, which afterwards appeared more plainly in the writings of his associates D'Alembert, Diderot, &c. This work procured him, however, a name in the world, although some have endeavoured to deprive him of it, by asserting that the work was written by an impious priest, and that Toussaint consented to bear the praise or blame. For this, however, there seems little foundation, if, according to the abbe Barruel, he afterwards publicly recanted his errors. In the mean time he published “Eciaircissemens sur les Mceurs,” 1764, which he meant as an apology for the former, but it was condemned by the parliament of Paris, and the author made his escape to Brussels, where he became editor of a French paper, devoted to the inte^ rests of the house of Austria. In this, of course, he treated the king of Prussia with little respect, even using the epithet, the “highwayman of the North,” and the philosopherking was not ignorant of this, but had been so much pleased with his book on “Manners,' 7 that he bestowed on him the professorship of logic and rhetoric at Berlin, where Tous* saint died in 1772. While there he published an excellent translation of Gellert’s Fables; and while in France had contributed some articles on jurisprudence to the Encyclopaedia, and assisted in a Dictionary of Medicine, published in 6 vols. folio. His” Mceurs" were translated into English about 1750.

Mr. Townley was a zealous advocate for the mythological system of D'Ancarvilef; who compiled the greater part of his curious work in Park-street, and derived some of his best illustrations from specimens in that collection. Of this system, which has not been generally received in England, it must be allowed that, amidst the silence of the earlier writers of antiquity, it is powerfully supported by the later Platonists, and the remains of ancient art. The symbols employed by sculptors and engravers to adumbrate the creative, destroying, and restoring powers of the universe, appear to have been connected with the mysteries. By the vulgar they were considered as the attributes of common Polytheism by the initiated they were referred to the Απορητα of their own system.

In 1670 he married a daughter, of sir Charles Cotterell, and the same year his father settled upon him the yearly sum of 350l. which, he adds, sharpened his industry in his profession. In 1672, some deaths and promotions contributed to increase his practice, now worth 500l. per ann.; and about the same time he got the reversion of the place of clerk of the signet on sir Philip Warwick’s death, which happened in 1682. In the following year, began his career of public employment, by his accompanying lord Dartmouth to Tangiers. In this expedition he was appointed judge advocate of the fleet, and commissioner for settling the properties of the leases of houses, &c. at Tan* giers, between the king and the inhabitants. For this service we should suppose he was not very amply remunerated, as he makes here a remark on “the great difference between the value of assistance when wanted, and after it is given and done with.” In November he returned, and resumed his profession in Doctors Commons; and about the same time, refused the place of secretary of war in Ireland.

At the age of twenty-three he entered into holy orders, and served a curacy for some time in Gloucestershire. About 1737 he became curate of St. Stephen’s church, Bristol, and was appointed minor canon in the cathedral of that city. Here he attracted the notice of Dr. Joseph Butler, then bishop of Bristol, and afterwards of Durham, who appointed Mr. Tucker his domestic chaplain. By the interest of this prelate Mr. Tucker obtained a prebendal stall in the cathedral of Bristol; and on the death of Mr. Catcott, well known by his treatise on the deluge, he became rector of St. Stephen. The inhabitants of that parish consist chiefly of merchants and tradesmen, a circumstance which greatly aided his natural inclination for commercial and political studies. When the famous bill was brought into the House of Commons for the naturalization of the Jews, Mr. Tucker took a decided part in favour of the measure, and was, indeed, its most able advocate; but for this he was severely attacked in pamphlets, newspapers, and magazines; and the people of Bristol burnt his effigy dressed in canonicals, together with his letters on. behalf of naturalization . In 1753 he published an able pamphlet on the “Turkey Trade,” in which he demonstrates the evils that result to trade in general from chartered companies. At this period lord Clare (afterwards Ccirl Nugent) was returned to parliament for Bristol, which honour he obtained chiefly through the strerruous exertions of Mr. Tucker, whose influence in his large and wealthy parish was almost decisive on such an occasion. In return for this favour the earl procured for him the deanery of Gloucester, in 1758, at which time he took his degree of D. D. So great was his reputation for commercial knowledge, that Dr. Thomas Hayter, afterwards bishop of London, who was then tutor to his present majesty, applied to Dr. Tucker to draw up a dissertation on this subject for the perusal of his royal pupil. It was accordingly done, and gave great satisfaction. This work, under the title of “The Elements of Commerce,” was printed in quarto, but never published. Dr. Warburton, however, who, after having been member of the same chapter with the dean, at Bristol, became bishop of Gloucester, thought very differently from the rest of mankind, in respect to his talents and favourite pursuits; and said once, in his coarse manner, that “his Dean’s trade was religion, and religion his trade.” The dean on being once asked concerning the coolness which subsisted between him and ^Varburton, his answer was to the following purpose: “The bishop affects to consider me with contempt; to which I say nothing. He has sometimes spoken coarsely of me; to which I replied nothing. He has said that religion is my trade, and trade is my religion. Commerce, and its connections have, it is true, been favourite objects of my attention, and where is jthe crime? And as for religion, I have attended carefully to the duties of my parish: nor have I neglected my cathedral. The world knows something of me as a writer on religious subjects; and I will add, which the world does not know, that I have written near three hundred sermons, preached them all, again and again. My heart is at ease on that score, and my conscience, thank God, does not accuse me.” The fact is, that although there is no possible connection between the business of commerce and the duties of a clergyman, he had studied theology in all its branches scientifically, and his various publications on moral and religious subjects show him to be deeply versed in theology.

In 1771, when a strong attempt was made to procure an abolition of subscription to the thirty-nine articles, Dr. Tucker came forward as an able advocate of the church of England, yet admitted that some reformation of the liturgy was wanted, and instanced particularly the Athanasian creed, which he considered as too scholastic and refined for a popular confession of faith. About this time he published “Directions for Travellers,” in which he lays down excellent rules, by which gentlemen who visit foreign countries may not only improve their own minds, but turn their observations to the benefit of their native country. This has become extremely scarce, but there is a part of it reprinted in Berohtold’s “Essay to direct the inquiries of Travellers,” an excellent work, published in 178i>, 2 vols.

In 1527, we find bishop Tunsiall employed in prosecuting several persons in his diocese for heresy; for he was strongly attached to the principles of the Romish church, but he never carried his zeal so far as to put any person to death for their opinions. On the contrary he was always an advocate for milder methods of reclaiming them from what he thought erroneous. Still his principles, the example of his contemporaries, and the spirit of the age in which he lived, were ajl too powerful for the natural mildness of his disposition; and although he shed no blood, he took many unjustifiable steps to obstruct the progress of the reformation, and that being at present but partial, he probably thought he might succeed without proceeding to the last extremities.

In 1699 he embraced a favourable opportunity to make the tour of Swisserland, in the course of which he added considerably to the number of his friends and admirers. After his return, the commencement of a new century directed his attention to the secular games of the ancients, and produced from his pen a treatise entitled “De ludis ssECularibus Academicae Questiones,” Gen. 1701, 4to.In the same year he was chosen rector of the academy, in which office he remained until 1711, and delivered ten orations on the academic anniversary of each year. In 1702, he wrote a panegyric on William III, which was reprinted in England, and much admired. On the death of Tronchin, in 1705, he was appointed to succeed him in the divinity professorship, which he held with that of ecclesiastical history, but did not deliver a regular, systematic course of divinity lectures, for which he was blamed. In 1706 he joined those Geneva divines who sought to be excused from subscribing the form called the consensus, which had been introduced about thirty or forty years before. It appears from this that his notions were rather more latitudinarian than those of his ancestors; and it was remarked as rather singular that the son should be so zealous to abolish, what the father had been equally zealous to establish. We are assured, however, that friendly as he was to toleration, and somewhat inclined to Arminianism, he was a constant advocate for uniformity in all essential doctrines. In 1707, when the re-union of the protestant churches was agitated, the king of Prussia made Turretin a present of a gold medal, and he was chosen a member of the royal society of Berlin, as he had before of that of London. On the subject of any junction with the church of Rome, Turretin held that to be wholly impracticable, and his opinion had great weight. Such was indeed his reputation, that no strangers, of whatever rank, ever visited Geneva without a desire to be introduced to him, and to consult him on matters of importance.

, or Henry de Valois, a French critic of great abilities and learning, was born at Paris in 1603, of parents, whose circumstances supported them without any profession. He began his studies at Verdun in 1613, under the Jesuits, and the greatest hopes were formed of him from his childhood. He was recalled to Paris five years after, and continued there in the college of Clermont; where he learned rhetoric under Petavius, who, as well as father Sirmond, conceived a great esteem for him. After having maintained his theses in philosophy with much applause, he went to Bourges in 1622, to study the civil law; and at the end of two years returned to Paris, where he was received advocate. He frequented the bar for seven years, but more to oblige his father than out of any fondness for the law, which he at length quitted, and devoted himself entirely to literary pursuits. Greek and Latin authors were all his study, and all his pleasure. Sunday he consecrated to devotion, Saturday afternoon he allotted to his friends; but all the rest of the week was spent in reading and labour. His own library not sufficing, he borrowed books of every body; and he used to say, that he learned more from other people’s books than his own, because, not having the same opportunity of reviewing them, he read them over with more care. He acquired a great reputation by his learning and publications, when a misfortune befel him, which interrupted the course of his studies. He had always a weak sight; but continual application had hurt him so, in this respect, that he lost his right eye, and saw very indifferently with the left. This put him under the necessity of having a reader; for, though his father was of too sparing a humour to make him an allowance for this purpose, yet the defect was supplied by the generosity of his friends. His father, however, died in 1650; and then his circumstances were better suited to his necessities. The same year he composed an oration in praise of Christina queen of Sweden, who had just ascended the throne; and her majesty, by way of acknowledging the favour, promised to send him a gold chain, and gave him at the same time an invitation to accompany the learned Bochart to Sweden. But the chain never came, and the invitation ended in nothing, for which Valesius himself is said to have been to blame, having been so imprudent, while he was meditating this journey, as to make use of some satirical expressions on the learned in those parts; which, being related to the queen, occasioned her majesty’s neglect of him.

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

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

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

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

, the greatest literary character which France produced in the last century, was born at Paris, February 20, 1694. His father, Francis Arouet, was “ancien notaire du Chatelet,” and treasurer of the chamber of accounts; his mother, MaryMargaret Daumart. At the birth of this extraordinary man, who lived to the age of eighty-five years and some months, there was little probability of his being ‘reared, and for a considerable time he continued remarkably feeble. In his earliest years he displayed a ready wit and a sprightly imagination: and, as he said of himself, made verses before he was out of his cradle. He was educated under Father Por6, in the college of Louis the Great; and such was his proficiency, that many of his essays are now existing, which, though written when he was between twelve and fourteen, shew no marks of infancy. The famous Ninon de l’Enclos, to whom this ingenious boy was introduced, left him a legacy of 2000 livres to buy him a library. Having been sent to the equity-schools on his quitting college, he was so disgusted with the dryness of the law, that he devoted himself entirely to the Muses. He was admitted into the company of the abb< Chaulieu, the marquis de la Fare, the duke de Sully, the grand prior of Vendo;ne, marshal Villars, and the chevalier du Bouillon; and caught from them that easy taste and delicate humour which distinguished the court of Louis XIV. Voltaire had early imbibed a turn for satire; and, for some philippics against the government, was imprisoned almost a year in the Bastile. He had before this period produced the tragedy of “Oedipus,” which was represented in 1718 with great success; and the duke of Orleans, happening to see it performed, was so delighted, that he obtained his release from prison. The poet waiting on the duke to return thanks: “Be wise,” said the duke, “and I will take care of you.” “I am infinitely obliged,” replied the young man; “but I intreat your royal highness not to trouble yourself any farther about my lodging or board.” His father, whose ardent wish it was that the son should have been an advocate, was present at one of the representations of the new tragedy: he was affected, even to tears, embraced his son amidst the felicitations of the ladies of the court, and never more, from that time, expressed a wish that he should become a lawyer. About 1720, he went to Brussels with Madam de Rupelmonde. The celebrated Rousseau being then in that city, the two poets met, and soon conceived an unconquerable aversion for each other. Voltaire said one day to Rousseau, who was shewing him “An Ode to Posterity,” “This is a letter which will never reach the place of its address.” Another time, Voltaire, having read a satire which Rousseau thought very indifferent, was advised to suppress it, lest it should be imagined that he “had lost his abilities, and preserved only his virulence.” Such mutual reproaches soon inflamed two hearts already sufficiently estranged. Voltaire, on his return to Paris, produced, in 1722, his tragedy of “Mariamne,” without success. His “Artemira” had experienced the same fate in 1720, though it had charmed the discerning by the excellence of the poetry. These mortifications, joined to those which were occasioned by his principles of imprudence, his sentiments on religion, and the warmth of his temper, induced him to visit England, where he printed his “Henriade.” King George I. and particularly the princess of Wales (afterwards queen Caroline) distinguished him by their protection, and obtained for him a great number of subscriptions. This laid the foundation of a fortune, which was afterwards considerably increased by the sale of his writings, by the munificence of princes, by commerce, by a habit of regularity, and by an ceconomy bordering on avarice, which he did not shake off till near the end of his life. On his return to France, in 1728, he placed the money he carried with him from England into a lottery established by M. Desforts, comptroller-general of the finances; he engaged deeply, and was successful. The speculations of finance, however, did not check his attachment to the belles lettres, his darling passion. In 1730, he published “Brutus,” the most nervous of all his tragedies, which was more applauded by the judges of good writing than by the spectators. The first wits of the time, Fontenelle, La Motte, and others, advised him to give up the drama, as not being his proper forte. He answered them by publishing “Zara,” the most affecting, perhaps, of all his tragedies. His “Lettres Philosophiques,” abounding in bold expressions and indecent witticisms against religion, having been burnt by a decree of the parliament of Paris, and a warrant being issued for apprehending the author in 1733, Voltaire very prudently withdrew; and was sheltered by the marchioness du Chatelet, in her castle of Cirey, on the borders of Champagne and Lorraine, who entered with him on the study of the “System” of Leibnitz, and the “Principia” of Newton. A gallery was built, in which Voltaire formed a good collection of natural history, and made a great many experiments on light and electricity. He laboured in the mean time on his “Elements of the Newtonian Philosophy,” then totally unknown in France, and which the numerous admirers of Des Cartes were very little desirous should be known. In the midst of these philosophic pursuits, he produced the tragedy of “Alzira.” He was now in the meridian of his age and genius, as was evident from the tragedy of “Mahomet,” first acted in, 174-1 but it was represented to the “procureur general” as a performance offensive to religion and the author, by order of cardinal Fleury, withdrew it from the stage. “Merope,” played two years after, 1743, gave an idea of a species of tragedy, of which few models have existed. It was at the representation of this tragedy that the pit and boxes were clamorous for a sight of the author; yet it was severely criticised when it came from the press. He now became a favourite at court, through the interest of madam d'Etoile, afterwards marchioness of Pompadour. Being employed in preparing the festivities that were celebrated on the marriage of the dauphin, he attained additional honours by composing “The Princess of Navarre.” He was appointed a gentleman of the bed-chamber in ordinary, and historiographer of France. The latter office had, till his time, been almost a sinecure; but Voltaire, who had written, under the direction of the count d'Argenson, the “History of the War of 1741,” was employed by that minister in many important negociations from 1745 to 1747; the project of invading England in 1746 was attributed to him and he drew up the king ofFrance’s manifesto in favour of the pretender. He had frequently attempted to gain admittance into the academy of sciences, but could not obtain his wish till 1746 , when he was the first who broke through the absurd custom of filling an inaugural speech with the fulsome adulation of Richelieu; an example soon followed by other academicians. From, the satires occasioned by this innovation he felt so much uneasiness, that he was glad to retire with the marchioness du Chateletto Luneville, in the neighbourhood of king Stanislaus. The marchioness dying in 1749, Voltaire returned to Paris, where his stay was but short* Though he had many admirers, he was perpetually complaining of a cabal combined to filch from him that glory of which he was insatiable. “The jealousy and manoeuvres of a court,” he would say, “are the subject of conversation; there is more of them among the literati.” His friends and relations endeavoured in vain to relieve his anxiety, by lavishing commendations on him, and by exaggerating his success. He imagined he should find in a foreign country a greater degree of applause, tranquillity, and reward, and augment at the same time both his fortune and reputation, which were already very considerable. The king of Prussia, who had repeatedly invited him to his court, and who would have given any thing to have got him away from Silesia, attached him at last to his person by a pension of 22,000 livres, and the hope of farther favour . From the particular respect that was paid to him, his time was now spent in the most agreeable manner; his apartments were under those of the king, whom he was allowed to visit at stated hours, to read with him the best works of either ancient or modern authors, and to assist his majesty in the literary productions by which he relieved the cares of government. But this happiness was soon at an end; and Voltaire saw, to his mortification, when it was too late, that, where a man is sufficiently rich to be master of himself, neither his liberty, his family, nor his country, should be sacrificed for a pension. A dispute which our poet had with Manpertuis, the president of the academy at Berlin, was followed by disgrace . It has been said that the king of Prussia dismissed him with this reproof: “I do not drive you away, because I called you hither; I do not take away your pension, because I have given it to you; I only forbid you my presence.” Not a word of this is true; the fact is, that he sent to the king the key of his office as chamberlain, and the cross of the order of merit, with these verses:

In his “Essay on Criticism,” he had given him more splendid praise, and, in the opinion of his learned commentator, sacrificed a little of his judgment to his gratitude. He died in 1708, aged forty-six years. He is known more by his familiarity with greater men than by anything done or written by himself. His works are not numerous, nor of great merit. In 1691, he published, with a preface written by his friend and advocate Dryden, “A Diaipgue concerning Women, being a Defence of the Sex,” in 8vo and, the year after, “Letters and Poems, amorous and gallant,” published in what is called “Dryden’s Miscellany.” These were republished among the “Works of the Minor Poets,” printed in 1749, with other performanceSj consisting chiefly of elegies, epitaphs, odes, and songs, in which he discovers more elegance than vigour, and seldom rises higher than to be pretty.

the Christian Religion; Dr. Johnson’s character of this literary phenomenon is too remarkable to be omitted. “About this time (1738), Warburton began to make his appearance in the first ranks of learning. He was a man of vigorous faculties, a mind fervid and vehement, supplied by incessant and unlimited inquiry, with wonderful extent and variety of knowledge, which yet had not oppressed his imagination nor clouded his perspicacity. To every work he brought a memory full fraught, together with a fancy fertile of original combinations; and at once exerted the powers of the scholar, the reasoner, and the wit. But his knowledge was too multifarious to be always exact, and his pursuits were too eager to be always cautious. His abilities gave him a haughty consequence, which he disdained to conceal or mollify; and his impatience of opposition disposed him to treat his adversaries with such contemptuous superiority as made his readers commonly his enemies, and excited against the advocate the wishes of some who favoured the cause. He seems to have adopted the Roman emperor’s determination, ‘oderint dum metuant;’ he used no allurements of gentle language, but wished to compel rather than persuade. His style is copious without selection, and forcible without neatness; he took the words that presented themselves: his diction is coarse and impure, and his sentences are unmeasured.” To this character, which has been often copied, we shall subjoin some remarks from the able critic of whom we have already borrowed, and whose opinions seem entitled to great attention.

, an eminent English prelate, archbishop of Canterbury, and lord high chancellor, the son of Robert Warham, was born of a genteel family at Okely, in Hampshire. He was educated at Winchester school, whence he was admitted a fellow of New college, Oxford, in 1475. There he took the degree of doctor of laws, and, according to Wood, left the college in 1488. In the same year he appears to have been collated to a rectorship by the bishop of Ely, and soon afterwards became an advocate in the court of arches, and principal or moderator of the civil law school in St. Edward’s parish, Oxford. In 1493 he was sent by Henry VII. with sir Edward Poynings, on an embassy to Philip duke of Burgundy, to persuade him to deliver up Perkin Warbeck, who had assumed the title of Richard duke of York, second son of king Edward IV. representing that he had escaped the cruelty of his uncle king Richard III. and was supported in this imposture by Margaret, duchess dowager of Burgundy, sister of Edward IV. as she had before given encouragement to Lambert Simuel, the pretended earl of Warwick, out of the implacable hatred which she had conceived against Henry VII. Upon this remonstrance the ambassadors were assured by the duke’s council (himself being then in his minority) that “the archduke, for the love of king Henry, would in no sort aid or assist the pretended duke, but in all things preserve the amity he had with the king; but for the duchess dowager, she was absolute in the lands of her dowry, and that he could not hinder her from disposing of her own.” This answer, being founded on an assertion not true, namely, that the duchess dowager was absolute in the lands of her dowry, produced a very sharp reply from the English ambassadors; and when they returned home Henry VII. was by no means pleased with their success. They, however, told him plainly that the duchess dowager had a great party in the archduke’s council, and that the archduke did covertly support Perkin. The king for some time resented this, but the matter appears to have been accommodated in a treaty of commerce concluded in February 1496, by certain commissioners, one of whom, on the part of England, was Dr. Warham.

From the very i commencement of the discussions on the slave trade, his lordship always stood forward as a strenuous advocate “for its abolition; and though in the earlier years of the eventful contest with France which speedily succeeded, he in general recommended pacific measures, yet before its conclusion he became convinced of the necessity of prosecuting the war with vigour. His lordship’s” Address to the People of Great Britain,“1798, 8vo, is evidently the address of a man, who amidst all the differences in matters of less moment, feels honestly for his country in the hour of danger, and wishes to unite all hands and hearts in her defence. Such a tract from so distinguished a character was not likely to pass unnoticed: several replies appeared, among which the most intemperate was that of Gilbert Wakefield. His” Charge delivered to the Clergy of Landaff, is a suitable supplement to the “Address;” and in 1802 appeared another very excellent “Cnarge to the Clergy of Landaff.” hi 1803, the bishop published “A Sermon, preached in the Chapel of the London Hospital, on the 8th of April;” a powerful antidote to the mischief produced among the people at large by his old antagonist Paine; of whom he takes occasion thus to speak, contrasting him, as an unbeliever, with sir Isaac Newton as a believer: “I think myseli justified in saying, that a thousand such men are, in understanding, but as the dust of the balance, when weighed against Newton;” an indubitable truth, most usefully presented to the contemplation of the multitude. In the same year appeared his “Thoughts on the intended Invasion,” 8vo. In “The Substance of a Speech intended to have been delivered in the House of Lords, Nov. 22, 1803,” which was printed in 1804, bishop Watson warmly entreats the nation, to coincide with the measures proposed for the emancipation of the catholics, and also states some proposals for freeing the nation of its public burthens by one patriotic effort.

He appears to have soon acquired a name at the bar, and to have formed valuable connections, particularly with lord Bute and lord Mansfield, for in 1763 he was made king’s counsel, and at the same time became a bencher of Lincoin’s Inn. He also obtained a seat in parliament, and soon had an opportunity of greatly improving his finances as well as his fame, by being the successful advocate for lord Clive. During his first years of sitting in parliament, he supported some of the measures of what were then termed the popular party; but had either seen his error, or his interest in another point of view, for in January 1771 he accepted the office of solicitor general, and from that time became a strenuous advocate for the administration who conducted the American war. In July 1778 he was appointed attorney-general, art office which even his enemies allow that he held with great mildness and moderation. It often happened to this distinguished lawyer, that his single advice had great influence with the party to which he belonged, and it is said that his opinion only was the means of saving the metropolis from total destruction by the mob of 1780. When his majesty held a privycouncil to determine on the means of putting a stop to these outrages, Mr. Wedderburn was ordered by the king to deliver his official opinion. He stated in the. most precise terms, that any such assemblage of depredators might be dispersed by military force, without waiting for forms, or reading the riot act. tf Is that yCur declaration of the Jaw, as attorney-general?“said the king; Mr. Wedderburn answering distinctly in the affirmative;” Then let it so be done," rejoined the king; and the attorney-general drew up the order immediately, by which the riots were suppressed in a few hours, and the metropolis saved.

In this parliament Wentworth condemned the arbitrary measures that had been adopted since they last met, and maintained that they were alike pernicious to the sovereign and the subject. He also was a strenuous advocate for that memorable declaration which was called a petition of right, and prevailed on the House to resolve, “that grievances and supply should go hand in hand, and the latter, in no case, precede the former.” When some proposed to rest satisfied with the king’s assurances of future adherence to law, without pressing the petition of right, he strenuously opposed this dangerous remission. “There hath been,” said he, “a public violation of the laws bj his majesty’s ministers; and nothing shall satisfy me but a public amends. Our desire to vindicate the subject’s rights exceeds not what is laid down in former laws, with some modest provision for instruction and performances.” When the lords proposed to add to the petition a saving clause, importing that all their pretensions for liberty still left entire the claims of royal authority, and using the new term “sovereign power,” instead of “prerogative,” Wentworth exclaimed against the evasion. “If we do admit of this addition,” said he, “we shall leave the subject in a worse state than we found him. Let us leave all power to his majesty to bring malefactors to legal punishment; but our laws are not acquainted with e sovereign power. We desire no new thing, nor do we offer to trench on his majesty’s prerogative; but we may not recede from this petition, either in whole or in part.”

Mr. Whately died May 10, 1639, aged fifty-six, and was interred in Banbury church-yard, where is a monument to his memory, with a Latin and English inscription. His works consist of a considerable number of sermons, printed separately, one of which, “The BrideBush, or Wedding-Sermon,” 1617, 4to, brought upon him some censure: in this he maintained, that adultery, or desertion, on the side of either of the married persons, dissolved and annihilated the marriage. For a doctrine so contrary to the laws, and pernicious in itself, he was summoned before the high commission-court, where he acknowledged his error, and was dismissed. Among his. other publications, are, 1. “A pithy, short, and methodical way of opening the Ten Commandments,” Lond. 1622, 8vo, 2. “The Oil of Gladness,” 1637, 8vo. 3. “The poor man’s Advocate,” 1637, 8vo. 4. which seems his greatest work, “Prototypes, or the primarie Precedent out of the book of Genesis,” 1640, fol. with a fine portrait, published by Edward Leigh, esq. To this is prefixed a life of him by the Rev. Henry Scudder.

, an eminent physician, born at Edinburgh Sept. 6, 1714, was the son of Robert Whytt, esq, of Beunochy, advocate. This gentleman died six months before the birth of our author, who was also deprived of his mother before he had attained the seventh year of his age. After receiving the first rudiments of school-education, he was sent to the university of St. Andrew’s; and after the usual course of instruction there, in classical, philosophical, and mathematical learning, he came to Edinburgh, where he entered upon the study of medicine, under those eminent teachers, Monro, Rutherford, Sinclair, Plummer, Alston, and Innes. After learning what was to be acquired in this university, he visited other countries in the prosecution of his studies, and after attending the most eminent teachers at London, Paris, and Leyden, he had the degree of M. D. conferred upon him by the university of Rheims in 1736, being then in the twenty-second year of 'his age. Upon his return to his own country, he had the same honour conferred upon him by the university of St. Andrews, where he had before obtained, with applause, the degree of M. A. In 1737, he was admitted a licentiate of medicine in the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, and the year following he was raised to the rank of a fellow of the college. From the time of his admission as a licentiate, he practised physic at Edinburgh; and the reputation which he acquired for medical learning, pointed him out as a fit successor for the first vacant chair in the university. Accordingly, when Dr. Sinclair, whose eminent medical abU lities, and persuasive powers of oratory, had contributed not a little to the rapid advancement of the medical school of Edinburgh, found that the talents which he possessed, could no longer be exerted consistently with his advanced age, he resigned his academical appointments in favour of Dr. Whytt

With these acquisitions, he did not hastily obtrude the novel opinions to which they had given rise. He was thirty-six years of age before his talents appeared to the world, and even then they were called forth rather by necessity than choice. In 1360 he became the advocate for the university against the incroachments made by the mendicant friars, who had been very troublesome from their first establishment in Oxford in 1230, and had occasioned great inquietude to the chancellor and scholars, by infringing their statutes and privileges, and setting up an exempt jurisdiction. Their misconduct had decreased the number of students from thirty thousand to six thousand, parents being afraid to send their children to the university, where they were in danger of being enticed by these friars from the colleges into convents; and no regard was paid to the determination of parliament in 1366, that the friars should receive no scholar under the age of eighteen. But Wickliffe now distinguished himself against these usurpations, and, with Thoresby, Bolton, Hereford, and other colleagues, openly opposed the justification which the friars had advanced in favour of their begging trade from the example of Christ and his apostles. Wickliffe also wrote several tracts against them, particularly “Of Clerks Possessioners,” “Of the Poverty of Christ, against able Beggary,” and “Of Idleness in Beggary.” These were written, with an elegance uncommon in that age, in the English language, of which he may be considered as one of the first refiners, while his writings afford many curious specimens of old English orthography. His controversies gave him such reputation in the university, that, in 1361 he was advanced to be master of Baliol college; and four years after he was made warden of Canterbury-hall, founded by Simon de Islip, archbishop of Canterbury, in 1361, and now included in Christ-church. The letters of institution, by which the archbishop appointed him to this wardenship, were dated 14 Dec. 1365, and in them he is styled, “a person in whose fidelity, circumspection, and industry, his grace very much confided; and one on whom he had fixed his eyes for that place, on account of the honesty of his life, his laudable conversation, and knowledge of letters.” Wickliffe amply fulfilled these expectations, till the death of the archbishop in 1366, who was succeeded in che archiepiscopal dignity by Simon Langham. This prelate had been a monk, and being inclined to favour the religious against the seculars, was easily persuaded by the morrks of Canterbury to eject Wickliffe in 1367 from his wardenship, and the other seculars from their fellowships. He also issued out his mandate, requiring WicklifFe and all the scholars to yield obedience to Wodehall as their warden. This Wodehall had actually been appointed warden by the founder, but he was at such variance with the secular scholars, that the archbishop was compelled to turn him and three other monks out of his new-founded hall, at which time he appointed Wickliffe to be warden, and three other seculars to be scholars. The scholars now, however, refused to yield obedience to Wodehall, as being contrary to the oath they had taken to the founder, and Langham, irritated at their obstinacy, sequestered the revenue, and took away the books, &c. belonging to the balL Wickliffe, and his expelled fellows, appealed to the pope, who issued a bull, dated at Viterbo 28 May, 1370, restoring Wodehall and the monks, and imposing perpetual silence on Wickliffe and his associates. As this bull was illegal, and interfered with the form of the licence of mortmain, the monks in 1372 screened themselves by procuring the royal pardon, and a confirmation of the papal sentence, for which they paid 200 marks, nearly 800l. of our money.

, an eminent lawyer, and speaker of the House of Commons, during the usurpation, was of an ancient family in Northumberland, and was educated partly at Oxford and partly at Cambridge. He afterwards entered pf Qray’s-inn, to study the law, in which he advanced with considerable rapidity, and was chosen recorder, first of Berwick-upon-Tweed, and secondly of York. He was knighted by Charles I. in 1639 at York, and, as recorder, congratulated his majesty both at York and Berwick, when he was on his way to be crowned king of Scotland. Both his addresses on this occasion are said to have been perfectly courtly and even fulsome, but he was soon to change his style as well as his opinions. Being returned member of parliament for Berwick, he became a warm advocate for the liberty then contested; avowed himself in religion, one of the independent sect, and took the covenant. In June 1647, he was so much a favourite with the parliament that they appointed him one of the commissioners of the great seal, which office he was to retain for one year, but held it till the king’s death. The parliament also named him, in Oct. 1648, one in their call of Serjeants, and soon after declared him king’s s’erjeant. But far as he had gone with the usurping powers, he was by no means pleased with the commonwealth form of government, and immediately after the king’s death, surrendered his office of keeper of the great seal, first upon the plea of bad health, and when that was not allowed, he set up some scruples of conscience. The parliament, however, as he continued to allow their authority, in requital of his former services, ordered that he should practice within the bar, and gave him a quarter’s salary more than was due. His merit also recommended him to Cromwell, who heaped honours and great employments upon him. In April 1654, he was appointed a commissioner of the great seal and a commissioner of the treasury, for which he received a saJary of 100Q/.; and all his conscientious scruples seemed now at an end. In August of the same year, he was elected member of parliament for the city of York; and in the following year, became a committee-man for ejecting scandalous ministers in the north riding of that county.

As to his religious sentiments, although he was an advocate for toleration, he invariably asserted the principle of conformity to the sound and apostolic establishments of the land. His practice, even when very infirm, was to attend divine service in his parish church, to read or pro-? cure some friend to read a sermon and prayers to his family and domestics every Sunday evening. He never spoke an unkind word to his servants, and there was hardly an instance known of any one quitting his service for that of another master. He never complained, nor uttered a peevish expression under the greatest privations and the most severe pain. His funeral was, by his own desire,' as his life had been, without parade or ostentation, and the monumental stone declares no more than the name and age of him whose mortal reliques lie near it.

* It does not appear very clearly Clarke, to persuade him to go with me whether this was at the intercession of to lord Townsend (th‘e secretary of Wbiston. Winston informs us of his state) but he refused, alledging that having applied sto theattorney-gene- the report would then go abroad, that ral, sir Philip Yorke, who said that he the kmij supported blasphemy. Howwould not’ proceed unless the secretary ever, no farther progress was made i of state sent himan order so to do. Mr. Woolston’s trial. “1 then,” addsWhiston, “went to Dr. foundation of the letter, to raise spiritual meanings, and to allegorize by way of moral application; and they did this,­not only upon the miracles of Christ, but upon almost all the historical facts of the Old and New Testament: but they never denied the miracles or the facts. This strange and enthusiastic scheme of Woolston was offensive enough of itself, but infinitely more so from his manner of conducting it; for he not 'only argues against the miracles of Christ, but treats them in a most ludicrous and outrageous way: expressing himself in terms of astonishing insolence and scurrility. Such conduct raised a general disgust: and many books and. pamphlets, berth from bishops and inferior clergy, appeared against his discourses; and a second prosecution was commenced and carried on with vigour, against which there seemed to be now little or no opposition, he having by his disingenuity of argument and scurrility of manner, excluded himself from all the privileges of a fair reasoner. At his trial in Guildhall before the lord chief-justice Raymond, he spoke several times himself; and among other things urged, that” he thought it very bard to be tried by a set of men, who, though otherwise very learned and worthy persons, were yet no morejudges of the subjects on which he wrote than he himself was a judge of the most crabbed points of law.“He was sentenced to a year’s imprisonment, and to pay a fine of Iool He purchased the liberty of the rules of the King’s Bench, where he continued after the expiration of the year, being unable to pay the fine. Dr. Samuel Clarke had begun his solicitations at court for the releasement of Woolston, declaring that he did not undertake it as an approver of his doctrines, but as an advocate for that liberty which he himself had always contended for; but he was hindered from effecting it by his death, which happened soon after Woolston’s commitment. The greatest obstruction to his deliverance from confinement was the obligation of giving security not to offend by any future writings, he being resolved to write again as freely as before. While some supposed this author not in earnest, but meaning to subvert Christianity under a pretence of defending it; others believed him disordered, and not perfectly in his right mind; and many circumstances concurred to persuade to the latter of these opinions; but how, in either case, a prosecu-r tion for blasphemy comes to* be considered as persecution for religion, remains yet to be explained. Such a construction, however, appears to have been put upon it by the Clarkes and Lardners of those days, and by their successors in our own. As the sale of Woolston’s books was very great (for such blasphemies will find readers as well as advocates for the publication of them), his gains arising from them must have been proportionable; but he defrayed all the expences, and those not inconsiderable, to which his publishers were subjected by selling. He died January 27, 1732-3, after an illness of four days; and, a few minutes before his death, uttered these words:” This is a struggle which all men must go through, and which I bear not only patiently, but with willingness." His body was interred in St. George’s church-yard, Southwark.

As Mr. Wotton was a zealous advocate for the reformation, he published several books in defence of it, which exposed him to the resentmeni of a different party. He entered particularly into the controversy with Dr. Montague, afterwards bishop of Chichester, whose work entitled “Appello Csesarem” met with a host of opponents, on account of its leaning towards Arminianism and popery. Wotton did not long survive this performance. Though a man acknowledged by all parties to be learned and able, it does not appear he had any other preferment than the lectureship of Allhallows, where, according to the register, he was buried Dec. 11, 1626.

, an eminent lawyer, was the son of Philip Yorke, an attorney, and was born at Dover, in Kent, December 1, 1690; and educated under Mr. Samuel Morland, of Bethnal Green, in classical and general learning, which he ever cultivated amidst his highest employments. He studied the law in the Middle Temple under the instruction of an eminent conveyancer of the name of Salkeld; and, being called to the bar in 1714, he soon became very eminent in his profession. In 1718 he sat in parliament as member for Lewes, in Sussex; and, in the two successive parliaments, for Seaford. In March 1719-20, he was promoted to the office of solicitorgeneral by the recommendation of the lord-chancellor Parker; an obligation he never forgot, returning it by every possible mark of personal regard and affection. He received also about the same time the honour of knighthood. The trial of Mr. Layer at the king’s bench for high. treason, gave him, in Nov. 1722, an opportunity of shewiug his abilities; his reply, in which he summed up late at night the evidence against the prisoner, and answered all the topics of defence, being justly admired as one of the ablest performances of that kind extant. About the same time, he gained much reputation in parliament by opening the bill against Kelly, who had been principally concerned in bishop Atterbury’s plot, as his secretary. la February 1723-4, he was appointed attorney-general, in the execution of which important office he was remarkable for his candour and lenity. As an advocate for the crown, he spoke with the veracity of a witness and a judge; and, though his zeal for justice and the due course of law was strong, yet his tenderness to the subject,- in the court of exchequer, was so distinguished, that upon a particular occasion in 1733, the House of Commons assented to it with a general applause. He was unmoved by fear or favour in what he thought right and legal; and often debated and voted against the court in matters relating to the South-Sea company, when he was solicitor; and,‘ in the affair of lord Derwentwater’s estate, when he was attorneygeneral. Upon the resignation of the great seal by Peter lord King, in October 1733, sir Philip Yorke was appointed lord chief-justice of the king^s bench. He was soon after raised to the dignity of a baron of this kingdom, with the title of lord Hardwicke, baron of Hardwicke, in the county of Gloucester, and called to the cabinet council. The salary of chief-justice of the king’s bench being thought not adequate to the weight and dignity of that high office, was raised on the advancement of lord Hardwicke to it, from 2000l. to 4000l. per ann. to the chiefjustice and his successors; but his lordship refused to accept the augmentation of it; and the adjustment of the two vacancies of the chancery and king’s bench (which happened at the same time) between his lordship and lord Talbot, upon terms honourable and satisfactory to both, was thought to do as much credit to the wisdom of the crown in those days, as the harmony and friendship, with which they co-operated in’the public service, did honour to themselves. In the midst of the general approbation with which he discharged his office there, he was called to that of lord high chancellor, on the decease of lord Talbot, February 17, 1736-7.

, an ancient historian, who lived at the end of the fourth, and the beginning of the fifth, century, was a man of quality and place, having the title of count, and being advocate of the treasury. There are extant six books of history, in the first of which he runs over the Roman affairs in a very succinct and general manner, from Augustus to Dioclesian: the other five books are written more largely, especially when he comes to the time of Theodosius the Great, and of his children Arcadius and Honorius, with whom he was contemporary. Of the sixth book we have only the beginning, the rest being lost. Zosimus drew his narrative from historians now lost, viz. Dexippus, Eunapius, and Olympiodorus. His style is far superior to that of the writers of the age in which he lived, and he is an historian of authority for his account of the changes introduced by Constantine and Theodosius in the empire. He contains, however, many superstitious accounts, and being a zealous pagan, he must be read with caution as to what relates to the Christian princes. Photius says, “that he barks like a dog at those of the Christian religion:” and few Christian authors till Leunclavius, who translated his history into Latin, made any apology for him. “To say the truth,” says La Mothe le Vayer, “although this learned German defends him very pertinently in many things, shewing how wrong it would be to expect from a Pagan historian, like Zosimus, other sentiments than those he professed; or that he should refrain from discovering the vices of the first Christian emperors, since he has not concealed their virtues; yet it cannot be denied, that in very many places he has shewn more animosity than the laws of history permit. 7 ' Some have said that his history is a perpetual lampoon on the plausible appearances of great actions. The six books of his” History" have been published, with the Latin version of Leunclavius, at Frankfort, 1590, with other minor historians of Rome, in folio; at Oxford, 1679, in 8vo, and at Ciza the same year, under the care of Cellarius, in 8vo. This was dedicated to Graevius, and reprinted at Jena, 1714, in 8vo. But the best edition is that of Jo. Frid. Reitemeier, Gr. and Lat. with Heyne’s notes, published at Leipsic in 1784, 8vo. The prolegomena are particularly valuable.

, an eminent civilian, descended from an ancient and noble family of that name, was born at Ansley in Wiltshire about 15^0. He was educated, on the foundation, at Winchester school, whence in 1607 he was elected to New college, Oxford, and chosen fellow in 1609. Having studied the civil law, he took his bachelor’s degree in that faculty, in June 1614, and in Jan. 1618 was admitted at Doctors’ Commons, where he became an eminent advocate. In April 1619, he commenced LL. D. and upon the death of Dr. John Budden in June 1620, was appointed regius professor of law at Oxford. At the latter end of king James’s reign, he was chosen more than once member of parliament for Hythe in Kent by the interest of Edward lord Zouche, warden of the cinque ports, to whom he was nearly related. In 1625 he was appointed principal of St. Alban’s hall, being then chancellor of the diocese of Oxford, and afterwards made judge of the high court of admiralty by king Charles I. He had a considerable hand in drawing up the reasons of the university of Oxford against the solemn league and covenant and negative oath in 1647, having contributed the law part. Yet he chose to submit to the parliamentary visitors the following year, and therefore held his principal and professorship during the usurpation. In 1653, he was appointed by Cromwell to be one of the delegates in the famous cause of Don Pantaleon Sa, brother to the Portuguese ambassador, who in November of that year, had killed a gentleman in the New Exchange within the liberties of Westminster, for which he was afterwards executed. On this occasion Dr. Zouche wrote his celebrated piece, entitled “Solutio quaestionis de legati delinquents judice competente,” 1657, 8vo. In this he maintained, with Grotius, the general impunity of ambassadors, but denied the application of that rule to the case of Don Pantaleon.