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

, an eminent artist, was born at Antwerp in 1585, and was a disciple of Raphael Coxis, the son of that Coxis who had studied under Raphael; but Crayer soon shewed such proofs of genius, that he far surpassed his master, and therefore quitted him. Afterwards he made judicious observations on the particular excellencies of the most renowned masters, and taking nature for his constant guide, formed for himself a manner that was extremely pleasing. The first work which established him in the favour of the court of Brussels, was a portrait of cardinal Ferdinand, brother to the king of Spain, a full length, as large as life, in which he succeeded so happily, that when it was viewed by the court at Madrid it laid the foundation of his fame and fortune. The king sent him a gold chain with a medal; and added, as a farther instance of his favour, a considerable pension. The testimony of Rubens was also highly in his favour, who went to Antwerp to visit Crayer, and after examining attentively a picture of his painting in the refectory of the abbey of Affleghem, he publicly declared that no painter could surpass Crayer. Nor was he less distinguished by Vandyck, who always expressed a friendship for him, and painted his portrait. It has been said that he had somewhat less fire in his compositions than Rubens; but that his design was frequently more correct. Yet, says Mr. Fuseli, let not this high strain of commendation seduce the reader to imagine that Crayer was a painter of the same rank with Rubens. If he was more equal, the reason lay in his inferiority. Rubens had the flights, the falls, and the neglects of genius. Crayer steered a middle course, and preserved dignity by caution. His composition generally consisted of a small number of figures; and he very judiciously avoi ded the encumbering his design with superfluous particulars, or loading his subject with any thing that seemed not to contribute to its elegance. He grouped his figures with skill, and his expressions have all the truth of nature. There is a remarkable variety in his draperies, and an equal degree of simplicity in their folds; and his colouring is admirable. Of all his contemporaries he was reckoned to approach nearest to Vandyck, not only in history, but in portrait. He principally painted religious subjects, and was continually at work; and although he lived to a great age, yet his temperance and regular habits preserved the full use of his faculties; and to the last month of his long life his pencil retained the same force and freedom which it possessed in his most vigorous days. He died in 1669, aged eighty-four. The subject of the picture which was so highly honoured by the approbation of Rubens, is the centurion alighting from his horse to prostrate himself at the feet of Christ. Yet sir Joshua Reynolds says of it, that though it cannot be said to be defective in drawing or colouring, it is far from being a striking picture. There is no union between his figures and the ground; the outline is every where seen, which takes away the softness and richness of effect; the men are insipid characters, and the women want beauty. The composition is something on the plan of the great picture of Rubens in the St. Augustins at Antwerp: that is, the subject is of the same kind, but there is a great difference indeed in their degree of merit.

, an artist, better known by the name of Cerano, where he was born in 1557, descended from a family of painters, studied at Rome and Venice, and with painting united a knowledge of modelling, architecture, and literature. With such talents he occupied the first rank at the court of Milan, in the direction of the academy, and the vast plans of cardinal Federigo: he painted a number of pictures, whose beauties are not seldom balanced by blemishes of equal magnitude, free, spirited, harmonious, but often mannered from affectation of grace or grandeur. The singular talent he possessed of painting birds and quadrupeds in cabinet pictures, is mentioned by Soprani. One of his best pictures is the “Madonna del Rosario,” in the church of St. Lazzaro at Milan. He died in 1633.

, sometimes called La Spagnuolo, from the style in which he affected to dress, was born at Bologna, in 1665, and received his earliest instruction in design from Angelo Toni, a very moderate artist; but in a short time he quitted that school, and successively studied under Domenico Cainuti, Carlo Cignani, and Giovanni Antonio Burrini. From them he applied himself to study the works of Baroccio, and afterwards the principles of colouring at Venice, from the paintings of Titian, Tintoretto, and Paul Veronese. Thus qualified to appear with credit in his profession, his merit was made known to the grand duke Ferdinand, who immediately engaged him in several noble compositions, which he executed with success. In portrait he was particularly excellent; and to those subjects he gave elegant attitudes, with a strong and graceful resemblance.

, an English artist, and famous copier of paintings, flourished in the reigns of Charles I. and Charles II. Being employed by the first of these kings to copy several eminent pieces in Italy, and having leave of the state of Venice to copy the celebrated Madonna of Raphael in St. Mark’s church, he performed the task so admirably well, that he is said to have put a trick upon the Italians, by leaving his copy, and bringing away the original; and that several messengers were sent after him, but that he had got the start of them so far as to carry it clear off. This picture was afterwards, in Oliver Cromwell’s days, bought by the Spanish ambassador, when the king’s collection was exposed to sale. Cross copied likewise Titian’s Europa, and other celebrated pieces, very successfully. He must be distinguished from Lewis Cross, who died 1724, and of whom it is recorded that he re-painted a little picture of Mary queen of Scots, in the possession of the duke of Hamilton, and was ordered to make it as handsome as he could. He made the face a round one. For many years it was believed an original, and innumerable copies have been made from it.

, a very extraordinary person, was a native of Amsterdam, where he was born in 1.522. It appears that early in life he travelled into Spain and Portugal, but the motives of his journey are not ascertained. He was a man of science; and, according to report, a good poet. The sister arts he at first considered as an amusement only; but at length was obliged to have recourse to engraving for his support, and though the different studies in which he employed his time prevented his application to this art from being so close as it ought to have been, yet marks of genius are discoverable in his works. They are slight, and hastily executed with the graver alone, in an open careless style, so as greatly to resemble drawings made with a pen. He was settled at Haerlem; and there pursuing his favourite studies in literature, he learned Latin, and was made secretary to that town, from whence he was several times employed as ambassador to the prince of Orange, to whom he addressed a famous manifesto, which that prince published in 1566. Had he stopped here, it had been well; but, directing his thoughts to matters which he did not understand, he brought forward an argument as dangerous as it was absurd. He maintained, that all religious communications were corrupted; and that without a supernatural mission, accompanied with miracles, no person hat! any right to administer in any religious office: he therefore pronounced that man to be unworthy the name of a Christian who would enter any place of public worship. This he not only advanced in words, but strove to shew the sincerity of his belief in it by practice; and for that reason would not communicate with either protestant or papist. His works were published in three volumes folio, 1630; and though he was several times imprisoned, and at last sentenced to banishment, yet he does not appear to Lave altered his sentiments. He died at Tergout in 1590, aged 68. It is to his honour as an artist, that he was the instructor of the justly-celebrated Henry Goltzius. Cuerenhert worked conjointly with the Galles and other artists, from the designs of Martin Hemskerk. The subjects are from the Old and New Testament, and consist chiefly of middling-sized plates lengthwise. He also engraved several subjects from Frank Floris.

The celebrity which these publications procured for their author, was soon altogether eclipsed by what arose from his botanical labours, which have placed him in the very first rank of English writers in that department of science. In 1777 appeared the first number of his “Flora Londinensis,” containing six folio plates, with a page or more of letter-press, consisting of a description in Latin and English, with synonyms of each plant, and copious remarks on its history, uses, qualities, and the insects it nourishes. Each number was sold at half a crown plain, five shillings coloured; and some copie?, finished with extraordinary care, were sold at seven shillings and six-pence. The first artist employed in making the drawings for this work, was Mr. Kilburn, who used a camera obscura for the purpose; his sketches were shaded with Indian ink, before the colours were laid on. The performances of this artist have not been excelled in any similar work. When from other engagements, Mr. Kilburn was obliged to relinquish his task, Mr. Sowerby was employed, and maintained uridiminished the perfection of the figures. After him, Mr. Sydenham Edwards was engaged by Mr. Curtis, with no less credit, both in this publication and the “Botanical Magazine” hereafter mentioned. Of the plates of the “Flora Londineosis” too much cannot be said; their beauty and botanical accuracy are alike eminent, and it is only to be regretted that the manufactory of paper, as well as the typographical art, were in so degraded a state when this book first appeared. For this its author cannot be responsible, nor are these defects of any moment in the eyes of learned or scientific readers, to whom the work in question, independent of its excellent figures, ranks next to Ray’s Synopsis, in original merit and authority upon English plants. It may be added, that the works of Curtis have tended, more than any other publications of their day, to give that tone of urbanity and liberality to the science, which every subsequent writer of good character has observed. Wherever their author swerved in any degree from this candour, which was very seldom, and not perhaps without provocation, it was always to his own loss; and he was thus led into some of the very few mistakes that he has committed.

As an artist, Mr. Edwards is of opinion that he never acquired any great powers. In one of the early exhibitions was a drawing executed by him; the subject, an Egyptian dancing girl, which was the only specimen he ever exhibited: but he published several works at different periods of his life. The first was the collection of prints after the antique statues, a few of which he etched himself, but they cannot be considered as masterly performances. Some of these are dated 1744; the names of the others may be found in our authorities, with many, and some not very pleasing, traits of personal character.

John Danckilkts, of the same family, a designer and engraver, about 1654 settled at Amsterdam; but being invited into England, he went to London, where he designed for the English Juvenal, the plates engraved by Hollar. This artist also engraved some plates. Hesiiy Danckerts, his brother, was also bred an engraver, but afterwards became a landscape-painter. He was born at the Hague, but at an early age travelled into Italy, from whence he came to England. Here he enjoyed the favour of Charles II. who employed him to draw views of the British sea-ports, and royal palaces. During the disturbances which preceded the abdication of James II. he quitted England for Amsterdam, where he died soon after. The landscapes painted by this artist were numerous, anil are chiefly to be found in England. Amongst them are Views of Windsor, Plymouth, Penzance, &c. He also engraved from Vandyk, Titian, Jacopo Palma, &c. Justus Danckerts, of the same family, was a designer, engraver, and print-seller, and resided in Amsterdam. The following plates bear his name: the Portrait of Casimir, king of Poland; a ditto of William III. prince of Orange; the Harbours of Amsterdam, a set of seven pieces. One other of the name remains to be noticed, Cornelius Danckerts. The circumstance of both Milizia and Heinecken dating the birth of this architect in 1.561, and saying that he was born in Amsterdam (the very time and place of the birth of Cornelius Danckerts mentioned above), leads us to suspect some chronological error, if not, indeed, that these two artists were one and the same person. Cornelius was originally a stonemason, but afterwards applied himself to architecture. He constructed in the city of Amsterdam many public and private buildings, highlycreditable to his talents on account of their beauty and convenience, and, amongst others, three of the principal churches, the exchange, and the gate which leads to Haarlem, the most beautiful of the city. He had a son named Peter, who was born at Amsterdam in 1605, and afterwards became painter to Uladislaus, king of Poland.

, an eminent painter, nephew to the preceding, was born at Florence in 1646, and received his first instruction in the art of painting from Valerio Spada, who excelled in small drawings with a pen. Whilst he was under the tuition of thrt artist he gave such evident proofs of genius, that he was then placed as a disciple with his uncle Vincent. He afterwards travelled through most of the cities of Italy, studying the works of those who were most distinguished; and resided for a long time at Venice, where he copied the paintings of Titian, Tintoretto, and Paolo Veronese. He next visited Parma and Modena, to study the works of Correggio; omitting no opportunity that might contribute to improve his hand or his judgment. When he returned to Florence, the grand duke Cosmo III. the grand duchess Victoria, and the prince Ferdinand, kept him perpetually employed, in fresco painting as well as in oil; his subjects being taken not only from sacred or fabulous history, but from his own invention and fancy, which frequently furnished him with such as were odd and singular, and especially with whimsical caricatures. He died in 1712. — This master had an extraordinary talent for imitating the style of even the most celebrated ancient painters of every school, particularly Titian, Veronese, and Tintoretto; and with a force and elegance, equal to his subjects of history, he painted portraits, landscapes, architecture, flowers, fruit, battles, animals of all kinds, and likewise sea-pieces; proving himself an universal artist, and excellent in even thing he undertook. Mr. Fuseli, however, says that the avidity of gain led him to dispatch and a general mediocrity, compensated by little more than the admirable freedom of his pencil. He exerted his powers according to the price he received for his work: they are seen to advantage in the cupolas of S. Maria Maddalena, in various frescos of the ducal palace and villas, and in the public hall of Pisa, where he represented the taking of Jerusalem. There are likewise altar-pieces which shew his merit: that of St. Francis in S. Maria Maggiore, and another of S. Piccolomini saying mass in the church a'Servi, a pleasing animated performance. He had a son, Octavio, who proved not inferior to him in any branch of his profession, and was an honour to his family and his country.

. See Darcy. D‘Arcon (John Claudius Eleonore Limiceaud), an eminent French engineer, and memorable in history as the contriver of a mode of besieging Gibraltar which proved so fatal to his countrymen, was born at Pontarlier in 1733. His father, an advocate, intended to bring him up for the church, and had provided him with a benefice, but Dar5011 from his infancy had a turn for the military life; and when at school, instead of learning Latin, was copying drawings and sketches of fortifications. On one occasion he took a singular mode of acquainting his parents with the error they had committed, in seeking a profession for him. Having by their desire sat for his portrait, he substituted, with his own hand, the uniform of an engineer, instead of the dress of an abbe, in which the artist had clothed him. His father, struck with this silent hint, no longer opposed his inclinations. In 1754 he was admitted into the school of Mezieres, and the following year was received as an ordinary engineer. He served afterwards with distinguished honour in the seven years’ war, and particularly in 1761, at the defence of Cassel. He atterwar is devoted himself to improvements in the military art, and even in the making of drawings and charts; and having great ambition, with a warmth of imagination that presented every thing as practicable, he at length in 1780 conceived the memorable plan of the siege of Gibraltar. This, say his countrymen, which has made so much noise in Europe, has not been fairly estimated, because everyone has judged from the event. Without entering, however, in this place, on its merits, all our historians have attributed to Darcon’s ideas a grandeur and even sublimity of conception vviiich did him much honour, and it is yet remembered that almost all Europe was so perfectly convinced of the success of the plan as to admit of no doubt or objection. Nothing of the kind, however, was ever attended with a discomfiture more complete, and D’Arcou wrote and printed a species of justification, which at least shows the bitterness of his disappointment. On the commencement of the revolutionary war, he engaged on the popular side; but, except some concern he had in the invasion of Holland, does not appear to have greatly distinguished himself. He was twice denounced by Hnctuating governments; and being treated in the same manner after his Dutch campaign, he retired from the service, and wrote his last work on fortifications. In 179y the first consul introduced him into the senate, but he did not enjoy this honour long, as he died July 1, 1800. He was at that time a member of the Institute. His works, still in high estimation in France, are: 1. “Reflexions d'un ingenieur, en reponse a un tacticien,” Amst. 1773, 12mo. 2. “Correspondanee sur Part de la Guerre entre un colonel de dragons et un capitaine d'infanterie,” Bouillon, 1774, 8vo. 3. “Defense d‘une systeme de Guerre Nationale, ou analyse raisonne d’un ouvrage, intitule * Refutation complete du systeme, 1 &c.” This is a defence of M. Menil Durand’s system, which had been attacked by Guibert and the preceding pamphlet has a respect to the same dispute concerning what the French call the ordre projond and the ordre mince. 4. “Conseil de Guerre prive, sur revenement de Gibraltar en 1782,” 1785, 8vo. 5. “Memoires pour serrir a l‘histoire du siege de Gibraltar, par l’auteur des batteries flottantes,” 1783, 8vo. 6. “Considerations sur l'influence du genie de Vauban dans la balance des forces de Petat,” 1786, 8vo. 7. “Examen detaillté de l'importante question de Putilite des places fortes et retranchments,” Strasburgh, 1789, 8vo. 8. “De la force militaire considered dans ses rapports conservateurs,” Strasburgh, 1789, 8vo, with a continuation, 1790. 9. “Reponse aux Memoires de M. de Montalembert, sur la fortification dite perpendiculaire,” 1790, 8vo. 10. “Considerations militaires et politiques sur les Fortifications,” Paris, 1795, 8vo. This, which is the most important of all his works, and was printed at the expence of the government, contains the essence of all his other productions, and the result of his experience on an art which he had studied during the whole of his life.

, an ingenious French painter, was born at Rouen in Normandy, in 1729. He received the first elements of design from his father, and afterwards practised at Paris, under M. Vermont; but learned from Restout those excellent principles which he afterwards cultivated with so much success, and soon obtained many of the medals which the academy gave as prizes for design. In a journey he took to Rouen (his native place), he obtained several commissions for historical pieces, several of which he executed while under M, Restout. His picture of Potiphar’s wife, which he painted as a candidate for the academy’s prize, procured him the friendship of M. Boucher, at that time principal painter to the king, and Restout consented to yield the young Dehais, as an eleve of that artist. In 1751 he carried the first prize of the academy; and in consequence became a disciple of the king’s school, under the direction of M. Carlo Vanloo; and during three years he profited much by the instructions he received from that great master, extcuting many pieces of great merit. After this, hu vesided some time at Rome; and in spite of very bad health, prosecuted his profession with unremitting diligence, and great success. On his return to Paris, he married the daughter of M. Boucher, and was received into the academy with universal approbation the pictures which he presented on that occasion were of such merit as to give very sanguine hopes that he would one day become one of the greatest of the French artists. Every successive exhibition at the Louvre proved in the clearest manner, that his reputation was fixed on the surest foundation: but he died in the midst of his career, in the beginning of 1765. The principal of his works are, the History of St. Andrew, in four large pictures, at Rouen; the Adventures of Helen, in nine pieces, for the manufactory of Beauvais; the Death of St. Benet, at Orleans; the Deliverance of St. Peter, at Versailles. The Marriage of the Virgin is a subject simple in itself, but is nobly elevated by the painter. The grand priest is standing up, and turned towards the sacred spouse; his arms are extended, and his countenance directed towards the illuminated glory. Scarce any thing can be more expressive than the air of this head. The grandeur and the majestic simplicity of the virgin’s head are also finely conceived; and her whole figure admirable. The picturesque composition of the groupe is very well managed the draperies are in a bold and elegant taste the lights and shades finely imagined, melting into all the happy effects of the clear obscure. — His Resurrection of Lazarus is full of expression: the different emotions of surprise, terror, and admiration are most ingeniously varied, and finely characterised in the three apostles. The two women who behold the miracle, display the invention of the painter; one of them is full of astonishment, mixed with terror, at the idea of the sight before her the other falls prostrate to the ground, adoring the divine worker of the miracle: the whole piece is full of character and expression. His picture of Joseph’s Chastity is one of the finest that ever issued from his happy pencil: Potiphar’s wife is represented darting herself from the bed, and catching Joseph by his garment. The crime, hope, and fear of her passion, are expressed in the most lively manner in her eyes and countenance. The figure of Joseph is well designed; but it was on the woman that the painter, with great justness, bent all the efforts of his imagination, and his art. Among his other works are the Combat of Achilles against the Xanthus and Simo'is; Jupiter and Antiope, in which the figure of the woman is wonderfully delicate and pleasing. A small piece representing Study, very fine. Artemisia at the tomb of her husband, &c.

, an eminent painter, was born at the village of Champigneul, in Champagne, in 1661; and being a disciple of Nicasius, a Flemish painter, imitated his manner of painting. The subjects he selected were flowers, insects, animals, and representations of the chace, which he designed and coloured with much truth; his local colours being very good, and the aerial perspective well managed. He was chiefly employed in the service of Lewis XIV.; and accompanied the French ambassader, the duke d'Aumont, to London, where he was much encouraged, particularly by the duke of Richmond and lord Bolingbroke. The hotels of Paris, and the palaces of Versailles, Marli, &c. contain many specimens by this artist, who died at a very advanced age, in 1743. The present Imperial Museum has his portrait, which was engraved by Poullain, and three pictures by him, of great merit.

, a painter of history and portrait, was born at Amsterdam in 1695, and acquired the principles of his art from Albert Spiers, a portrait painter. He afterwards became a disciple of Jaques Van Halen, an historical painter of considerable reputation; under whose instructions he made great improvement, particularly by copying some capital paintings of Rubens and Vandyke. In 1713, he obtained the first prize in the academy, for designing after a living model, and the first prize for painting history; and he became more known by sketching several of the ceilings in the Jesuits’ church at Antwerp, originally painted by Rubens and Vandyke, which had been much injured by lightning. He declined the painting of portraits, though much solicited to engage in this branch of his art, and chiefly restricted himself to the painting of ceilings and grand apartments, in which he excelled by an elegance of taste, and tolerable correctness of design. His most noted work was for the burgo masters of Amsterdam, in their great council-chamber; in which he chose for his subject Moses appointing the 70 elders, and which he executed in a manner highly honourable to him as an artist. Without ever having seen Rome, he acquired the style of the Italian masters, by studying after the finest designs of the best artists of that country, which he collected with great judgment and ex pence. The colouring of Dewit is extremely good, and his compositions are grand and pleasing; his pencil is free, and his touch abounds with spirit and brilliancy; and a better taste of design would have rendered him truly eminent. But his singular excellence consisted in his imitations of bas-relief in stone, wood, or plaster, which he painted both in oil and in fresco, so as to give them the appearance of real carvings. His sketches, though slight, are much admired for their freedom and spirit, and are purchased by persons of the best taste. This artist, who died at Amsterdam in 1754, etched, from his own designs, a set of six small plates, representing “groupes of boys,” which are executed in a very spirited style; and the “Virgin and Child.”

, an eminent French printer, who deserves a more satisfactory article than the French biographers have as yet enabled us to give him, was born at Paris in 1730, and was the son of a printer and bookseller, who provided him with an excellent classical education before he introduced him into business. Full of enthusiasm for the advancement of the art of printing, young Didot determined to rival those celebrated printers, Joachim Ibarra of Spain, and Baskerville of England, and lived to surpass both. He soon brought his press to a state of excellence unattained by any of his contemporaries; and extended his skill to every branch connected with it. Among the number of improvements perfected by his exertions, is the construction of mills for making fine paper, which he assisted not only by his zeal and activity, but by pecuniary contribution. He also invented a press by which the workman is enabled to print, equally and at once the whole extent of a sheet; and he was the inventor of many other machines and instruments now commonly used in printing offices, all which have powerfully contributed to the modern advancement of the typographical art. The elegant editions of the classics published by order of Louis XIV. for the education of the Dauphin, were the production of the Didots 1 press, as well as the collection of romances called the D'Artois, in 64 vols. 18mo; the Theatrical Selections by Corneille, the works of Racine, Telemachus, Tasso’s Jerusalem, two superb Bibles, and a multiplicity of other inestimable works, each of which, on its publication, seemed to make nearer approaches to perfection. Didot sedulously endeavoured to unite in his family every talent auxiliary to the printing art; one of his sons became a celebrated type-founder; and the voice of fame announces the superior rank which they both deservedly hold among the printers of the age. The fond father delighted to observe that he was excelled by his children; while they dutifully ascribed their success to the force of his instruction, and the benefit of his example. The life of JDidot was the life of honour; his abilities were universally known and respected; and the following anecdote will prove the goodness of his heart: in one of his journeys to the paper mills of Anonay, he met an artist who had introduced in France an improvement in the application of cylinders, &c. and believing that his ingenuity merited reward, exerted all his interest with government; but unfortunately, when he was on the point of succeeding, the artist died, leaving two girls in the helpless state of infancy. Didot took the orphans in his arms, proclaimed himself their father, and kept his word. At the age of seventy-three, Didot read over five times, and carefully corrected, before it was sent to the press, every sheet of the stereotype edition of Montague, printed by his sons. At four o'clock in the morning he was pursuing this fatiguing occupation. The correctness of the text will therefore render this work particularly valuable among the productions of the modern press. About eighteen months previous to his death, he projected an alphabetical index of every subject treated upon in Montague’s Essays. He had collected all his materials, at which he laboured unceasingly; and perhaps too strict an application to this favourite study accelerated the death of this eminent artist and benevolent man, which took place July 10, 1804. His business is still successfully carried on by his sons, Peter and Firmia Didot. The reputation of the elder Didot was much assisted by the labours of his brother, Peter Francis, who died in 1795, and to whom we owe the beautiful editions of Thomas a Kempis, fol. of Telemachus, 4to the “Tableau de l'empire Ottoman,” &c.

, an artist, was born at Bois-le-Duc, in 1607, and was at first a painter on glass, in which he was accounted excellent, and even superior to any of his time; yet he discontinued it, on account of a variety of discouraging accidents that happened to him, in his preparations for that kind of work. He studied for some time in Italy, and found there good employment as a glass painter; but he turned his thoughts entirely to painting in oil; and, to obtain the best knowledge of colouring, entered himself in the school of Rubens, where he improved exceedingly, and was considered as one of the good disciples of that great master; yet, notwithstanding the opportunity he had of refining his national taste, during his residence in Italy, he never altered his original style of design; for all his subsequent compositions were too much loaded, and not very correct. His invention was fertile, and shewed genius, and his execution was full of spirit; but it was no inconsiderable prejudice to him, to have been engaged in such a number of designs as were perpetually thrown in his way, and which he was obliged to strike out in a hurry, without competent time allowed for judgment to revise, digest, and correct them. Designs for title-pages, for theses, and devotional subjects, engrossed the greatest part of his time and his labour; or designs for the decoration of books; of which kind, that called the “Temple of the Muses,” 1662, afforded him great employment, and added much honour to the artist, merely as a designer. His designs, indeed, of the Bellerophon, the Orpheus, the Dioscuri, the Leander, the Ixion, Tantalus, and Sisyphus, have never been excelled by the conception of the best masters of the best schools. He was one of the few scholars of Rubens that came to England, where he was much employed by William Cavendish, duke of Newcastle, whose managed horses he drew from the life; from whence were engraved the cuts that adorn that nobleman’s book of horsemanship. Several of the original pictures are, or very lately were, in the hall at Welbeck. Diepenbeck drew views of the duke’s seats in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, and portraits of the duke, duchess, and his children, and gave designs for several plates prefixed to the works of both their graces. At Cassiobery is the story of Dido and Æneas by him.

, another artist, known in this country, was born at the Hague, in 1655; but spent the greatest part of his life in England, to which he came in his seventeenth year, and where he gradually rose into considerable credit, having been well instructed by his father, who was a skilful painter of sea-pieces. His taste of landscape was formed almost entirely (as he often declared) by designing the lovely views in the western parts of England, and along the coasts. Some of his pictures have great clearness and transparence in the colouring, and a peculiar tenderness in the distances; they are truly fine in the skies, have an uncommon freedom in the clouds, and an agreeable harmony through the whole. But, as he was often obliged to paint for low prices, there is a great disproportion in his works. The narrowness of his circumstances depressed his talent, and rendered him inattentive to fame, being solely anxious to provide for his family. Had he been so happy as to receive a proper degree of encouragement, it is not improbable that he might have approached near to those of the first rank in his profession. The figures in his landscapes were frequently inserted by the younger Adrian Coloni, his brother-in-law. He began to engrave a set of prints, after views from his own designs, but the gout put an end to his life in 170-1, in the forty- ninth year of his age. Lord Orford, who has a portrait of him, thinks he was not much encouraged in England, except by Granville earl of Bath, for whom he drew several views and ruins in the West of England.

index. Faulkner’s Hist, of Fulham. Park’s Royal and Noble Authors. Cumberland’s Life. Some account of his uncle, Knight’s Life ofColet. Hawkins’s Life of Johnson. Dodsley’s, Pcareh’s, and NiclioU's Poems. Bowles’s edition of Pope’s Works, Louoj^r’s Common-place li^ok, vol. 1. Cose’s Life of purity of his own character in the following terms: “It is no more fit for a judge to decline to give an account of his doings than for a Christian of his faith. God knoweth I have endeavoured always to keep a good conscience; for a troubled one who can bear? I have now sat in this court fifteen years, and I should know something. Surely, if I had gone in a mill so long, dust would cleave to my clothes. I am old, and have one foot in the grave; therefore I will look to the better part as near as 1 can. But omnia haberc in memoria, et in nullo errarc, divinum potius est quain human um.” He died Sept. 13, 1628, in the seventy-third year of his age, and was buried in the ambulatory before the door of the library, formerly called Lady Mary’s Chapel, in the cathedral church of Exeter. Within that library is a very sumptuous monument erected to his memory, containing his figure and that of his wife, cut in alabaster, under a stately arch supported by marble pillars. This learned judge, by his happy education, accompanied with excellent natural parts and unremitted industry, became so general a scholar, that it was said of him, that it was difficult to determine whether he were the better artist, divine, civil or common lawyer. Among his other studies, he was a great lover of antiquities, and attained to such an eminence of knowledge and skill in that department of literature, that he was regarded as one of the ablest members of the famous society of antiquaries, which may be said to have begun in 1571, but which more particularly flourished from 1590 to 1614. Rewrote, I. “The Lawyer’s Light; or, due direction for the study of the Law,” London, 1629, 4to. 2. “A complete Parson, or a description of advowsons and church livings, delivered in several readings, in an inn of chancery called the New Inn,” printed 1602, 1603, 1630, 4to. 3. “The History of the ancient and modern estate of the principality of Wales, duchy of Cornwall, and earldom of Chester,” 1630, 4to. 4. “The English Lawyer, a treatise describing a method for the managing of the Laws of this Land, and expressing the best qualities requisite in the student, practiser, judges, &c.” London, 1631, 4to. 5. “Opinion touching the antiquity, power, order, state, manner, persons, and proceedings, of the High Courts of Parliament in England,” London, 1658, 8vo. 6. “A Treatise of particular Estates,” London, 1677, duodecimo, printed at the end of the fourth edition of William Noy’s Works, entitled, “The Ground and Maxims of the Law.” 7. “A true representation of forepassed Parliaments to the view of the present times and posterity.” This still remains in manuscript. Sir John Doddridge also enlarged a book called “The Magazine of Honour,” London, 1642. 7'he same book was afterwards published under his name by the title of “The Law of Nobility and Peerage,” Lond. 16S7, 1658, 8vo. In the Collection of curious Discourses, written by eminent antiquaries, are two dissertations by our judge; one of which is on the dimensions of the land of England, and the other on the office and duty of heralds in this country. Mr. Bridgman, in his “Legal Bibliography,” informs us that many valuable works have been attributed to sir John Doddridge, which in their title-pages have borne the names of others. He mentions particularly Sheppard’s “Law of Common Assurances touching Deeds in general,” and “Wentworth’s office and dutie of Executors;” both which are said to have been written by Doddridge.

, brother to the preceding, was born at Amsterdam in 16.53. Having learned the art of painting from his father, and pursuing the same style and manner in the choice of the same subjects, he travelled to Friesland and to England, and afterwards settled at the Hague. Notwithstanding the difficulties in which the extravagance of a dissolute wife involved him, and the depression of circumstances and spirits which they occasioned, he persevered in the exercise of his profession. On some occasions he painted portraits, resembling in their touch and colouring those of the old Netscher; but though his works were much admired and sought after, he fell into great poverty, and died in 1717 at the age of 64 years. The works of this artist are peculiarly pleasing; and though his figures want elegance, and his colouring inclines to the yellow and light brown, yet his cattle are so correct, his touch so free and easy, his distances and the forms of his trees so agreeable, his colouring so transparent and delicate, and his pastoral subjects distinguished by so much nature and simplicity of rural life, that his works have been very highly esteemed, and have been sold for very large prices. This artist has etched some few small landscapes, with animals, from his own compositions.

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

In the beginning of 1761, Mr. Dollond was elected F. R. S. and appointed optician to his majesty, but did not live to enjoy these honours long; for on Nov. 30, in the same year, as he was reading a new publication of M. Clairaut, on the theory of the moon, and on which he had been intently engaged for several hours, he was seized with apoplexy, which rendered him immediately speechless, and occasioned his death in a few hours afterwards. His family, at his death, consisted of three daughters and two sons, Peter and John, who, possessing their father’s abilities, carried on the optical business in partnership, until the death of John, when it was continued, and still flourishes, under the management of Mr. Peter Dollond, well known as an able philosopher and artist, and Mr. George Huggins, his nephew, who, upon the king’s permission, has taken the name of Dollond.

, or Domenico Zampieri,a very much admired artist, was born at Bologna in 1581, and received his first instruction in the art of painting, from Denis Calvart; but afterwards he became a disciple of the Caracci, and continued in that school for a long time. The great talents of Domenichino did not unfold themselves as early in him, as talents much inferior to his have disclosed themselves in other painters; he was studious, thoughtful, and circumspect; which by some writers, as well as by his companions, was misunderstood, and miscalled dullness. But the intelligent Annibal Caracci, who observed his faculties with more attention, and knew his abilities better, testified of Domenichino, that his apparent slowness of parts at present, would in time produce what would be an honour to the art of painting. He persevered in the study of his art with incredible application and attention, and daily made rapid advances. Some writers contend that his thoughts were judicious from the beginning, and they were afterwards elevated, wanting but little of reaching the sublime; and that whoever will consider the composition, the design, and the expression, in his Adam and Eve, his Communion of St. Jerom, and in that admirable picture of the Death of St. Agnes at Bologna, will readily perceive that they must have been the result of genius, as well as of just reflections; but Mr. De Piles says he is in doubt whether Domenichino had any genius or not. That ingenious writer seems willing to attribute every degree of excellence in Domenichino’s performances, to labour, or fatigue, or good sense, or any thing but genius; yet, says Pilkington, how any artist could (according to his own estimate in the balance of painters) be on an equality with the Caracci, Nicolo Poussin, and Lionardo da Vinci, in composition and design, and superior to them all by several degrees in expression, and also approach near to the sublime, without having a genius, or even without having an extraordinary good one, seems to me not easily reconcileable. If the productions of an artist must always be the best evidence of his having or wanting a genius, the compositions of Domenichino must ever afford sufficient proofs in his favour. The same biographer says, that as to correctness of design, expression of the passions, and also the simplicity and variety, in the airs of his heads, he is allowed to be little inferior to Raphael; yet his attitudes are but moderate, his draperies rather stiff, and his pencil heavy. However, as he advanced in years and experience, he advanced proportionably in, merit, and the latest of his compositions are his best. There is undoubtedly in the works of this eminent master, what will always claim attention and applause, what will for ever maintain his reputation, and place him among the number of the most excellent in the art of painting. One of the chief excellences of Domenichino consisted in his painting landscapes; and in that style, the beauty arising from the natural and simple elegance of his scenery, his trees, his well- broken grounds, and in particular the character and expression of his figures, gained him as much public admiration as any of his other performances.

The Communion of St. Jerom, and the Adam and Eve, are too well known to need a description; and they are universally allowed to be capital works, especially in the expression. In the Palazzo della Torre, at Naples, there is a picture of Domenichino, representing a dead Christ, on the Knees of the Virgin, attended by Mary Magdalen and others. The composition of this picture is very good, and the design simple and true; the head of the Magdalen is full of expression, the character excellent, and the colouring tolerable; but in other respects, the penciling is dry, and there is more of coldness than of harmony in the tints. But in the church of St. Agnes, at Bologna, is an altar piece which is considered as one of the most accomplished performances of this master, and shews the taste, judgment, and genius of this great artist in a true light. The subject is, the Martyrdom of St. Agnes; and the design is extremely correct, without any thing of manner. The head of the saint hath an expression of grief, mixed with hope, that is wonderfully noble and he hath given her a beautiful character. There are three female figures grouped on the right, which are lovely, with an uncommon elegance in their forms, admirably designed, and with a tone of colour that is beautiful. Their dress, and particularly the attire of their heads, is ingenious and simple; one of this master’s excellences consisting in that part of contrivance: in short, it is finely composed, and unusually well penciled; though the general tone of the colouring partakes a little of the greenish cast, and the shadows are rather too dark, yet that darkness may probably have been occasioned or increased by time. Such is the opinion of Pilkington, but it is time now to attend to that of more authorized criticism. “Expression,” says Mr. Fuseli, " which hud languished after the demise of RafTaello, seemed to revive in Domenidiino; but his sensibility was not supported by equal comprehension, elevation of mind, or dignity of motive. His sentiments want propriety, he is a mannerist in feeling, and tacks the imagery of Theocritus to the subjects of Homer. A detail of petty, though amiable conceptions is rather calculated to diminish than inforce the energy of a pathetic whole. A lovely child taking refuge in the lip or bosom of a lovely mother, is an idea of nature, and pleasing in a lowly, pastoral, or domestic subject; but perpetually recurring, becomes common-place, and amid the terrors of martyrdom, is a shred sewed to a purple robe. In touching the characteristic circle that surrounds the Ananias of Raffaello, you touch the electric chain, a genuine spark insensibly darts from the last as from the first, penetrates mul subdues. At the martyrdom of St. Agnes, by Domenichino, you saunter amid the adventitious mob of a lane, where the silly chat of neighbour gossips announces a topic as silly, till you find with indignation, that instead of a broken pot, or a petty theft, you are witness to a scene for which heaven opens and angels descend.

, an artist and author, was born at Edinburgh in 1737; his father was a glover in rather low circumstances, but of a speculative turn of mind, and much addicted to metaphysical reveries, of which his son unfortunately inherited a double portion, and without his father’s prudence, who never suffered his abstractions to interfere with his business. While a child, young Donaldson was constantly occupied in copying every object before him with chalk on his father’s cutting-board, which, was often covered with his infant delineations. This natural determination of the mind was encouraged by the father, and at the age of twelve or thirteen, his son had acquired some reputation as a drawer of miniature portraits in Indian ink, and was by these efforts enabled to contribute to the support of his parents. At the same time he was much admired for his skilfil imitations of the ancient engravers, which he executed with a pen so correctly, as sometimes to deceive the eye of a connoisseur. After passing several years in Edinburgh, he came to London, and for some time painted portraits in miniature with much success; but unfortunately he now began to fancy that the taste, policy, morals, and religion of mankind were all wrong, and that he was born to set them right. From this time his profession became a secondary object, and whether from jealousy or insanity, he used repeatedly to declare that sir Joshua Reynolds must be a very dull fellow to devote his life to the study of lines and tints. The consequence of all this was that contemptuous neglect of business which soon left him no business to mind. In the mean time he employed his pen in various lucubrations, and published a volume of poems, and an “Essay on the Elements of Beauty,” in both which merit was discoverable. Before he took a disgust at his profession, he made an historical drawing, the “Tent of Darius,” which was honoured with the prize given by the Society of Arts and also painted two subjects in enamel, the “Death of Dido,” and “Hero and Leander,” both which obtained prizes from the same society, yet no encouragement could induce him to prosecute his art. Among his various pursuits he cultivated chemistry, and discovered a method of preserving not only vegetables of every kind, but the lean of meat, so as to remain uncorrupted during the longest voyages. For this discovery he obtained a patent; but want of money, and perhaps his native indolence, and a total ignorance of the affairs of life, prevented him from deriving any advantage from it. The last twenty years of his life were years of suffering. His eyes and business failing, he was not seldom in want of the most common necessaries. His last illness was occasioned by sleeping in a room which had been lately painted. He was seized with a total debility; and being removed by the care of some friends to a lodging at Islington, where he received every attention that his case required, he expired Oct. 11, 1801, regretted by all who knew him as a man of singular and various endowments, addicted to no vice, and of the utmost moderation, approaching to abstemiousness; but unhappy in a turn of mind too irregular for the business of life, and above the considerations of prudence. Mr. Edwards attributes to him an anonymous pamphlet entitled “Critical Observations and Remarks upon the public buildings of London.”

, or Donato, one of the principal revivers of sculpture in Italy, of an obscure family at Florence, was born in 1383. He learned design under Lorenzo de Bicci, and abandoning the old dry manner, he was the first who gave his works the grace and freedom of the productions of ancient Greece and Rome; and Cosmo de Medicis employed him on a tomb for pope John XXIII. and in other works, both public and private. Cosmo also availed himself of his taste and judgment in forming those grand collections, which gave celebrity to Florence as the parent of modern art. Amongst his performances in that city are his Judith and Holofernes in bronze, his Annunciation, his St. George and St. Mark, and his Zuccone, in one of the niches of the Campanile at Florence; all of which are as perfect as the narrow principles upon which the art was then conducted would allow. To these we may add another excellent performance, his equestrian statue of bronze at Padua, to the honour of their general Gallamalata. Conscious of the value of his performances, he exclaimed to a Genoese merchant, who had bespoke a head, and estimated it by the number of days which it had employed the artist, “this man better knows how to bargain for beans than for statues he shall not have my head” and then dashed it to pieces yet no man less regarded money than Donatello. Cosmo at his death having recommended him to his son, the latter gave him an estate; but in a little while Donatello, who began to be plagued with his farmers and agents, begged his benefactor to take it again, as he did not like the trouble of it. The gift was resumed, and a weekly pension of the same value assigned to the artist. He had no notion of hoarding; but it is said that he deposited what he received in a basket, suspended from a ceiling, from which his friends and workpeople might supply themselves at their pleasure. He died in 1466, at the age of 83, and was buried in the church of St. Lorenzo, near his friend Cosmo, that, as he expressed himself, “his soul having been with him when living, their bodies might be near each other when dead.” He left a son, named “Simon,” who adopted his manner, and acquired reputation.

, a Bolognese artist, born in 1575, was called II Mastelletta, from his father’s trade, that of a pail-maker; and seems to have been born a painter. He was a pupil of the Caracci, but did not attend to their suggestions on the necessity of acquiring a competent foundation for drawing, and contrived to catch the eye by a more compendious method; surrounding a splendid centre by impenetrable darkness, which absorbed every trace of outline. It is probable that his success greatly contributed to encourage that set of painters distinguished by the name of Tenebrosi, shade-hunters, so numerous afterwards in the Venetian and Lombard schools. Donducci was distinguished, though not by correctness, by a great spirit of design, a sufficient imitation of Parmigiano, whom he exclusively admired, and a certain native facility which enabled him to colour the largest dimensions of canvas in a little time. He failed in his attempts at changing this manner, as he grew older and more impatient of the praise bestowed on an open style. Light, no longer supported by obscurity, served only to expose his weakness and the two miracles of S. Domenico, in the church of that saint, which had been considered as his master-pieces, became by alteration the meanest of his works. The same diversity of manner is observable in his smaller pictures; those of the first, such as the Miracle of the Manna, in the Spada palace, are as highly valuable as his landscapes, which in many galleries would be taken for works of the Caracci, were they not discriminated by that original shade that stamps the genuine style of Mastelletta. The time of his death is not ascertained.

, a painter and engraver, was born at St. Quentin, in France, in 1617, and manifesting an early inclination for the arts, was placed under Simon Vonet, a painter at that time of great reputation, whose daughter he married, and whose manner as a painter he copied, but is better known as an engraver. He performed his plates chiefly with the point, in a bold, powerful style: the lights are broad and massy, especially upon the figures. But the marking of the folds of the draperies, and the shadows upon the outlines of the flesh, are frequently so extravagantly dark, as to produce a harsh, disagreeable effect, and sometimes to destroy the harmony of the engraving entirely. Although he understood the human figure, and in some instances it was correctly drawn; yet by following the manner of Vouet, instead of the simple forms of nature, his outlines were affected, and the extremities of his figures too much neglected. This artist was made professor of the royal academy of painting at Paris, where he died in 1665, aged forty- eight. His works are said by abbe Marolles to have consisted of 105 prints. Amongst these were, “the Adoration of the Magi,” the “Nativity of Christ,” “Venus at her toilet,” “Venus, Hope, and Love, plucking the feathers from the wings of Time,” “Mercury and ther Graces,” and “the Rape of Europa,” all from pictures of Vouet. He also engraved from Le Seur, Sarasin, and other masters.

, an artist, was a native of Dosso in the Ferrarese territory, and from the school of Costa went to Rome, where he studied six years, and five at Venice; and formed a style which is sometimes compared to that of Raphael, sometimes to that of Titian, and sometimes is said to resemble Coreggio. His name, with that of Gio. Batista his brother, has been ranked with the first names of Italy by Ariosto, their countryman; and the pictures of Dosso prove that he did not owe the high rank in which he is placed by the poet, to partiality. The head of his St. John at Patmos, in the church a' Lateran at Ferrara, is a prodigy of expression. Of his most celebrated picture in the church of the Dominicans at Faenza, there remains now only a copy: time destroyed the original. It represents Christ among the Doctors, and even in the copy the simplicity of the composition, the variety of the characters, and the breadth and propriety of the drapery, deserve admiration. Seven of his pictures, and perhaps of his best time, are at Dresden, and the best of these is that much praised one of the Four Doctors of the Church. Dosso, in partnership with his brother, was much employed in works for the court of Alphonso and Ercole II. dukes of Ferrara; and to that connection with him, a character so much inferior to himself, we may probably ascribe the aspersions and illiberal criticism of Vasari. The style of Dosso retains something more obsolete than the style of the great masters with whom he is compared; but he has a novelty of invention and drapery all his own; and withal a colour which with variety and boldness unites a general harmony. This excellent artist died about 1560, but his age has not been ascertained.

, an eminent artist, was born at Leyden in 1613, and after receiving some instructions from Dolendo, an engraver, and Kouwhoorn, a glasspainter, at the age of fifteen became a disciple of Rembrandt, with whom he continued three years. Rembrandt taught him the principles of colouring, and the chiaroscuro, to which knowledge Douw added a delicacy of pencil, and a patience in working up his colours to the highest degree of neatness, superior to any other master. His pictures are usually of a small size, with figures exquisitely touched, transparent and delicate. Every object is a minute copy of nature, and appears perfectly natural in colour, freshness, and force. In painting portraits he used a concave mirror, and sometimes looked at his original through a frame with many exact squares of fine silk; practices now disused, except by some miniature painters who still use the mirror.

Douw’s pictures have always been high-priced in his own country, and in every part of Europe; in finishing them he was curious and patient beyond example. Of this Sandrart gives a singular instance. Having once, in company with Bamboccio, visited Gerhard Douw, they admired a picture which he was then painting, and particularly the excessive neatness of a broom, when Douw told them, he should spend three days more in working on that broom, before he should account it entirely complete. In a family picture of Mrs. Spiering, the same author says, that the lady had sat five days for the finishing of one of her hands that leaned on an arm-chair. For that reason, not many would sit to him for their portraits and he therefore indulged himself mostly in works of fancy, in which he could introduce objects of still life, and employ as much time on them as suited his own inclination. Houbraken testifies, that his great patron Mr. Spiering allowed him a thousand guilders a year, and paid beside whatever he demanded for his pictures, and purchased some of them for their weight in silver; but Sandrart, with more probability, assures us, that the thousand guilders a year were paid to Gerhard, on no other consideration than that the artist should give his benefactor the option of every picture he painted, for which he was immediately to receive the utmost of his demand.

, was an artist who flourished in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, but in what school he was educated is uncertain. Sigismondo Tizio, of Castiglione, who lived at Siena from 1482 to 1528, in his histories, speaks of him as the first artist of his time, (1311), and makes him a pupil of Segna, a name as celebrated once as now obscure. The works of Duccio are from 1275, the year in which he received a commission for S. Maria Novella at Florence, to 1311, the period at which he was employed in the cathedral of Siena, to paint the principal altar-piece, a work that still exists, which marks probably an epoch of art, at which he laboured three years, and for which he was paid upward of 3000 scudi d'oro, the expence of gilding and ultramarine included. That part of it which faced the audience, represented in large figures the Madonna and various saints; that which fronted the choir, divided into many compartments, exhibited numerous compositions of gospel subjects in figures of small proportions: it cannot be denied, that with all its copiousness, the whole savours strongly of the Greek manner. Duccio is celebrated as the restorer of that inlaid kind of Mosaic, called “lavoro di commesso,” which composes the floor of the dome of Siena.

The particular account which we find in Vasari of his engravings is curious; and it is no small compliment to him to have this Italian author own, that the prints of Durer, being brought to Italy, excited the painters there to perfect that part of the art, and served them for an excellent model. Vasari is profuse in his praises of Duivr’s delicacy, and the fertility of his imagination. As Durer could not hope to execute all his designs while he worked on copper, he bethought himself of working on wood. One of his best pieces in this style is a Saint Eustachius kneeling before a stag, which has a crucifix between its horns which cut, says Vasari, is wonderful, and particularly for the beauty of the dogs represented in various attitudes. John Valentine Andreas, a doctor in divinity in the duchy of Wirtemberg, sent this piece to a prince of the house of Brunswick; to whom the prince replied by letter, “You have extremely obliged me by your new present; a cut which merits a nobler metal than brass, done by the celebrated painter of Nuremberg, and which, I think, wants nothing, unless Zeuxis or Parrhasius, or some person equally favoured by Minerva, should add colours and the native form.” The praises which this same divine gave to Durer in his answer to the prince’s letter, are remarkable, and worth transcribing: “I could easily guess,” says he, “that the Eustachius of Durer would not prove an unacceptable present to you, from whatever hand a performance of that admirable artist came. It is very surprising in regard to that man, that, in a rude and barbarous age, he was the first of the Germans who not only arrived to an exact imitation of nature by the perfection of his art, but likewise left no second; being so absolute a master of it in all its parts, in etching, engraving, statuary, architecture, optics, symmetry, and the rest, that he had no equal, except Michel Angelo Buonaroti, his contemporary and rival; and left behind him such works as were too much for the life of one man. He lived always in a frugal manner, and with the appearance of poverty. The Italians highly esteem him, and reproach us for not setting a due value on the ornaments of our own country.” We learn from the same authority, that the emperor Rodolphus II. ordered the plate of St. Eustachius to be gilded; and that Durer, at the intimation of his friend and patron Bilibaldus Pirkheimer, corrected an error in it, which was, that the stirrups of the horse on which Eustachius was to ride, were too short.

The incidents of Albert Durer’s life have been variously represented, and modern critics have entertained various opinions of his skill. Referring to our authorities for some of these, we shall conclude this article with what has been advanced by his latest critic, Mr. Fuseli. He seems, says this artist, to have had a general capacity, not only for every branch of his art, but for every science that stood in some relation with it. He was perhaps the best engraver of his time. He wrote treatises on proportion, perspective, geometry, civil and military architecture. He was a man of extreme ingenuity, without being a genius. He studied, and as far as his penetration reached, established rtain proportions of the human frame, but he did not invent or compose a permanent standard of style. Every work of his is a proof that he wanted the power of imitation; of concluding from what he saw, to what he did not see; that he copied rather than imitated the forms of individuals, and tacked deformity and meagreness to fulness, and sometimes to beauty. Such is his design. In composition, copious without taste, anxiously precise in parts, and unmindful of the whole, he has rather shewn us what to avoid than what to follow: in conception he sometimes had a glimpse of the sublime, but it was only a glimpse. Such is the expressive attitude of his Christ in the Garden, and the figure of Melancholy as the Mother of Invention. His Knight attended by Death and the Fiend, is more capricious than terrible, and his Adam and Eve are two common models, hemmed in by rocks. If he approached genius in any part of the art, it was in colour. His colour went beyond his age, and in easel-pictures, as far excelled the oil-colour of Raphael for juice and breadth, and handling, as Raphael excels him in every other quality. His drapery is broad, though much too angular, and rather snapt than folded. Albert is called the Father of the German school, and if numerous copyists of his faults can confer that honour, he was. That the exportation of his works to Italy should have effected a temporary change in the principles of some Tuscan artists, in Andrea del Sarto and Jacopo da Pontormo, who had studied Michel Angelo, is a fact which proves that minds at certain periods may be as subject to epidemic influence, as bodies.

, an eminent engraver, was born at Antwerp in 1641, and there learnt the first elements of drawing and engraving; but it was in France that he made the full display of his talents, being invited thither by the munificence of Louis XIV. about 1665. He was made choice of to engrave two pieces of the highest reputation; the picture of the Holy Family, by Raphael, and that of Alexander in the Tent of Darius, by Le Brim. Edelinck surpassed expectation in the execution of these masterpieces; and the copies were as much applauded as the originals. It is impossible not to a.-lmire in them, as in all his other productions, a neatness of touch, a plumpness, and a shade that are inimitable. The ease and assiduity with which he worked procured the public a great number of estimable pieces. He succeeded equally well in the portraits of the most famous personages of his time, among whom he might reckon himself. This excellent artist died in 1707, at the age of sixty-six, in the hotel royal of the Gobelins, where he had apartments, with the title of engraver in ordinary to the king, and counsellor in the royal academy of painting. In the list of his plates may be noticed that of Mary Magdalen renouncing the vanities of the world, from a painting by Le Brun, remarkable for the beauty of the work, and the delicacy of the expression. He had a son and a brother, both engravers, briefly noticed by Mr. Strutt, but inferior in reputation.

On his arrival in London, he again established himself in his profession. He had seen much, and his opinions, which were given with uudeviating integrity, were always respected,- but his productions seldom excited much approbation, nor have there been many instances where an artist, with so much general capacity and vigour of mind, has not been able to make greater proficiency. In 1781 he obtained a premium from the society of arts for a landscape painting; and the same year he presented to the royal society a paper on the storm at Roehampton, accompanied by drawings made by himself of the singular effects of it. In June 1782, he went to Bath, where he was employed to paint three arabesque ceilings, in the house of the honourable Charles Hamilton. This was one of the greatest commissions he ever received, and occupied him till March 1783; and the politeness and liberality of Mr. Hamilton made his time pass very agreeably. He soon after met with less liberal treatment from Horace Walpole, who gave him some commissions until 1784, when their intercourse ceased. Walpole had been, as he thought, charged too much for a cabinet made by a person recommended by Edwards, and expressed himself on the subject with so much petulance and coarseness as to provoke Edwards to reply with proper indignation.

But with this work it soon appeared that he did not mean to discontinue his labours; his mind was too active, and his love of knowledge too ardent, for him to rest satisfied with what he had already done. Accordingly, in 1758, he published his first volume of “Gleanings of Natural History,” exhibiting seventy different birds, fishes, insects, and plants, most of which were before non-descripts, coloured from nature, on fifty copper-plates. This work much increased his fame as a natural historian, and as an artist. In 1760, a second volume appeared, dedicated to the late earl of Bute, whose studious attachment to natural history, particularly to botany, was then well known. The third part of the “Gleanings,” which constituted the 7th and last volume of Mr. Edwards’s works, was published in 1763, and was dedicated to earl Ferrers, who, when captain Shirley, had taken in a French prize, a great number of birds, intended for madame Pompadour, mistress of Louis XV. These he communicated to our naturalist, who was hence enabled more completely to add to the value of his labours. Thus, after a long series of years, the most studious application, and a very extensive correspondence with every quarter of the world, Mr. Edwards concluded a work, which in 7 vo!s. 4to, contains engravings and descriptions of more than an hundred subjects in natural history, not before described or delineated, and all the productions of his own hand. We have already mentioned his scrupulous exactness, and may now confirm it in his own words. In the third volume of his “Gleanings” he says, “It often happens that my figures on the copper-plates differ from my original drawings for sometimes the originals have not altogetherpleased me as to their attitudes or actions. In such cases I have made three or four, sometimes six sketches, or outlines, and have deliberately considered them all, and then fixed upon that which I judged most free and natural, to be engraven on my plate.” He added to the whole a general index in English and French, which is now perfectly completed, with the Linna-an names, by Li mums himself, who frequently honoured him with his friendship and correspondence. Upon Mr. Edwards’ completing his great work, we find him making the following singular declaration, or rather petition, in which he seems afraid that his passion for his favourite subject of natural history, should get the better of a nobler pursuit, viz. the contemplation of his Maker.

After the last publication of his “Gleanings,” being arrived at his seventieth year, he found that his sight began to fail him, and that his hand lost its steadiness. He continued, however, some years afterward in his office of librarian; but finding his infirmities to increase, he retired in 1769 from public employment, to a small house which be had purchased at Plaistow: previously to which he disposed of all the copies, as well as plates, of his works to the late Mr. Robson, bookseller in New Bond-street, who published the Linnaean Index, his papers from the Philosophical Transactions, with the plates relative to these subjects all new engraved, in 1776, in a proper size to bind with his other vorks, the whole of which he assigned to Mr. Robson solely, and addressed a letter to the public upon the occasion, dated May 1, 1709. His collection of drawings, amounting to upwards of nine hundred, had before been purchased by the earl of Bute. The conversation of a few select friends, and the perusal of a few choice books, w,ere his amusement in the evening of his life, and he occasionally made excursions to some of the principal cities in England. During his residence at Plaistow, however, he delineated some scarce animals, which were afterwards engraved. His latter years were much embittered by a cancerous complaint which deprived him of the sight of one of his eyes, and by the stone, to which he had been subject at different periods of his life. It was nevertheless remarked, that in the severest paroxysms of misery, he was scarcely known to utter a single complaint. Having completed his eightieth ye?.r, and become emaciated with age and sickness, he died on the 23d of July, 1773, and was Interred in the church-yard of WestHam, his native parish, where his executors erected a stone with a plain inscription, to perpetuate his talents as an artist and zoologist. Dying a bachelor, he left his fortune to two sisters, who did not long survive him.

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

, another artist, emU nent for the success with which he imitated Rembrandt, was born at Amsterdam, in 1621, and was a disciple of Rembrandt, whose manner of designing, colouring, and penciling, he imitated wonderfully. But although it is difficult to distinguish between several of his paintings, and those of his master, he is thought to have excelled him in the extremities of his figures. His principal employment was for portraits, and he surpassed all iris contemporaries in the power he had of painting the mind in the countenance, His portrait of his own father had so much force, resemblance, and life, as to astonish even Rembrandt himself when he saw it. But, although Eeckhout painted portraits with great success, he was much more pleased to paint historical subjects, and not less happy in his execution, his composition being rich, and full of judgment; the distribution of his masses of light and shadow truly excellent; and in the opinion of some connoisseurs, he had more transparence in his colouring, and better expression than Rembrandt. His back-grounds are generally clearer than his, yet, if in this and other respects he attained to the perfections of Rembrandt, he also shared his defects; he was often incorrect in design, elegance, and grace, and was totally negligent of the costume. In the collection of the elector Palatine, a picture of this master if mentioned, as. having a strong and admirable expression; the subject is “Christ among the Doctors;” another picture of this master, representing “Simeon with Christ in fcis arms,” is a most excellent performance, and sir Robert Strange had a third, the “Guard Room,” which he praised very highly. This artist died July 22, 1674.

It is understood that his grace before be came of age, digested the plans which he afterwards prosecuted with such success, and proceeded to put them in execution as soon as he obtained possession of his paternal inheritance. Among other estates, the duke had one at Worsley, in Lancashire, rich in coal-mines, but, owing to the expence of land-carriage, of inconsiderable value: desirous, therefore, of working those mines to greater advantage, he projected a canal from his estate at Worsley, to the rich and flourishing town of Manchester. With this view he applied to the ingenious Mr. Brindley, who had previously manifested unusual talents; and that artist, after surveying the ground, pronounced the execution of the work to be practicable. As, however, we have detailed the early history of this undertaking in our article of Bkindley, (vol. VII.) it may suffice to refer to it; and briefly notice in this place that the duke caused a bill to be introduced into Parliament in 1758-9, which met with uncommon opposition in its progress, though it ultimately passed both houses; and further powers, as well for the purpose of effecting the original design, as for extending the line of navigation, being afterwards found necessary, application was again made to parliament, and they were much more readily obtained than the former. This canal begins at Worsley-Mill, about seven miles from Manchester, where his grace cut a bason capacious enough to hold all his boats and a body of water to serve as a reservoir for his navigation. The canal enters a hill by a subterraneous passage of nearly a mile in length, that admits flat-bottom boats, which are toweci along by hand-rails to the coal-works: this passage afterwards divides into two; is in some places cut through the solid rock, in others arched with brick; and is provided with several air-funnels, cut to the top of the hill. At the entrance, the arch is about six feet wide,and in some parts of sufficient breadth to admit of boats passing each other. Five or six of those boats, which carry seven tons each, are drawn by one horse to Manchester. In other places, the canal is carried over public roads by means of ardhes; and where the road is too high, it is gradually lowered, and rises on the opposite side. But one of the most arduous works accomplished on this canal is the aqueduct over the river Irwell, where the canal runs forty feet over the river, and where the barges are seen passing on the former, and the vessels on the latter in full sail under them. This aqueduct begins three miles from Worsley, and is carried for more than two hundred yards over a valley. When the works approached the river, several artists pronounced their completion impracticable; and one went so far as to call it “building a castle in the air.” Had the duke attended to these opinions, without doubt delivered by men of skill and penetration, he would have relinquished his purpose; but his own sagacity, and his confidence in the assurances of Mr. Brindley, determined him to persevere; and the aqueduct over the river Irwell will for ages remain as a monument of the public spirit of his grace the late duke of Bridgewater, and of the rare abilities of the artist; while it may also read a salutary lecture on the imbecility of human judgment and human foresight.

, an ingenious botanical painter, the son of the prince of Baden Durlach’s gardener, was born in 1710, and very early shewed a taste for drawing, and painting the flowers of the garden. Although he received no instructions, yet such was his proficiency, that, whilst a very young man, he had painted 500 plants with a skill and accuracy that was almost unexampled, under the disadvantages of so total a want of instruction as this young artist had experienced. His merit, however, remained long unknown, or at least ineffectually noticed, until it was discovered by a gentleman of curiosity and judgment, who visited the garden of which his father was the superintendant. Fortunately for young Ehret, this stranger was a physician and a friend of the celebrated Dr. Trew, of Norimberg, to whom he justly supposed these paintings would be acceptable. Ehret by this means was introduced to Trew, who immediately purchased the whole 500 paintings, and generously gave him double the price at which the young artist had modestly valued them.

, an eminent painter, was born in the village of Peene, near Cassel, in 1658, of parents extremely poor, and seemed destined to rise in the world by slow degrees. His mother, who was a widow, lived in the country on what she earned by washing linen; her whole wealth consisted in a cow, which her little boy used to lead to pick up its pasture by the side of the ditches. One day Corben, a famous painter of landscapes and history, going to put up some pictures which he had made for Cassel, as he went along the road, took notice of this lad, who had made a fortification of mud, and little clay" figures that were attacking it. Corbéen was immediately struck with the regularity and taste that was evident in the work. He stopped his chaise, and put several questions to the lad, whose answers increased his astonishment. His figure and countenance added to the impression; and the painter asked him whether he would go and live with him, and he would endeavour to put him in a way of getting his bread; the boy said he would willingly accept of his offer, if his mother would but agree to it. Elias failed not to be at the same place on the day appointed, accompanied by his mother; he ran before the chaise, and Corbéen told the woman to bring her son to him at Dunkirk, where he lived. The boy was received, and the master put him to school, where he was taught the languages, and he himself taught him to draw and to paint. The scholar surpassed his fellow-students: he acquired the esteem of the public, and gained the favour of his master to such a degree, that he sent him to Paris at the age of twenty; whence Elias transmitted his works to his master and benefactor. With great gentleness of character, he possessed the good quality of being always grateful; he thus repaid his master for his kindness to him, as Corbéen frequently confessed. Elias, after having been some while at Paris, married. He made a journey to Dunkirk for the purpose of visiting his master, and it was while there that he painted a picture for the altar of St. Barbara’s chapel, in which he represented the martyrdom of that saint; a fine composition. On his return to Paris, he was appointed professor at St. Luke, and successively obtained several other posts. He was much employed, and composed several subjects taken from the life of St. John Baptist de la Barriere, author of the reform of the Feuillants. All these subjects were painted on glass, by Simpi and Michu, and are in the windows of the cloister. Elias, now become a widower, took a journey to Flanders, in hopes of dispelling his grief. Being arrived at Dunkirk, the brotherhood of St. Sebastian engaged him to paint their principal brethren in one piece; he executed this great picture, with a number of figures as large as life, and some in smaller dimensions. The company of taylors having built a chapel in the principal church, Elias was employed to paint the picture for the altar, in which he represented the baptism of Christ; in the fore-ground is St. Lewis at prayers, for obtaining the cure of the sick. Being now on the point of returning to Paris, he was so earnestly solicited to remain in his native country, that at length he yielded to the entreaties of his numerous friends. He now executed a grand picture for the high altar of the Carmelites; it was a votive piece of the city to the Virgin Mary. This picture is a fine composition, and of a style of colouring: more true and warm than was usual with him the artist, as is often the practice, has introduced his own portrait. Elias was complimented on this alteration in his colouring; by which he was encouraged to redouble his care. He executed for the parish church of Dunkirk art altar-piece of the chapel of St. Croix; a Transfiguration for the altar of the parish church of Bailleul, and in that of the Jesuits at Cassel, a miracle of St. Francis Xavier, &c. The abbot of Bergues, St. Winox, employed our artist a long time in ornamenting the refectory of his house. Among his great works he made some portraits in a capital manner. In his greatest successes, Elias never made any change in his conduct, but always continued to lead the same regular life; he was seen no where but at church and in his work-room, into which he rarely admitted visitors. He was much esteemed for the mildness of his disposition. Detesting those malicious reports which are but too common among rival artists, he minded only his business. Not desirous of having pupils, he rather dissuaded young men from cultivating an art that was attended with so much trouble, than encouraged them to enter upon it; those that knew him best, always spoke of this artist as a model of good conduct. He continued working to the end of his days, which happened at Dunkirk the 22d of April 1741, in the eighty -second year of his age. He had but one son, who died at Paris, doctor of the Sorbonne. Neither had he more than one pupil, Carlier, who was living at Paris in 1760.

, an artist, was the son of an able physician, and was born at Gottemburg the I 8th of September 1633, according to Houbraken, and in 1632 by Weyermann’s account. Ottomar’s father centred all his views in making his son a scholar, and he therefore put him to study the languages under the most famous professors. It was soon perceived that he relaxed in his progress in every other of his lessons, in proportion as his taste for painting was unfolded: and that in the very classes and school-hours he was secretly practising with the crayon. Chastisements were even found ineffectual to his correction, notwithstanding the obstinacy of his mother in not altering her purpose. A lucky accident delivered our young man from this disagreeable situation. One day a poor person desired to speak in private with the physician: the beggar displayed to him his extreme distress in several languages. The wife of the physician, who was present at this conversation, said to her husband, “Since I see that there are men of learning in indigence as well as painters, I think it altogether indifferent to which profession my son applies; let him satisfy his own inclination.” Elliger was then placed at Antwerp in the school of Daniel Segers, the Jesuit; where he learnt to paint flowers and fruit, and at length equalled his master. He was called to the court of Berlin, where he was highly honoured for his talents, and the elector Frederic William appointed him his principal painter. This prince found great amusement in conversing with Elliger, and his smart replies on all occasions pleased him so much, that he made frequent visits to his lodgings. This agreeable life, in which he found much profit as well as pleasure, continued till his death, the year of which is not known. Elliger’s works, which are as much sought after as those of his master, are principally in Germany, where they are preserved with the utmost care.

, the son of the preceding, was born at Hamburgh, Feb. 16, 1666. He learned of his father the first elements of painting; from whom he went to Amsterdam, and studied under Michael Van Musscher. Struck with the beauty of the works of Lairessc, he was fortunate enough to gain admission to his school in 1686, None conld be more assiduous than this disciple in follow^ ing the lessons of his master, whether in copying his works and those of others, or in painting from nature. The genius of the young painter was encouraged by Lairesse: one year of his instructions qualified him for composing freely, without following any other model than nature, and without having in view the manner of any one; his own is grand and noble, and his back grounds are of a fine architecture: among them are to be found the most valuable remains of the Ægyptians, the Greeks, and the Romans. If the scene of his composition was to be laid in one of these countries, he likewise introduced bas-reliefs relative to the time: he was a man of genius, and had a mind well stored with literature, and his pictures are therefore interesting both to painters and scholars. At Amsterdam he painted several cielings and large subjects for ornaments to the public halls and grand apartments. The elector of Mcntz took so much pleasure in contemplating his works, that he ordered of him two very large pictures, owe representing the Death of Alexander, the other the nuptials of Thetis and Peleus; which are both highly celebrated. The elector was so satisfied with them, that be amply paid the artist, and made him a rich present besides: he also appointed him his principal painter, but which title Elliger refused, as well as the pension that was attached to it, preferring his liberty, as he said, to an honourable bondage; and soon after retired to his own country. Typography was embellished with the ingenious compositions of his hand but this took up so much of his time, that he had but little for applying to grand works he made pictures in small sixes, not unworthy of being placed in the first cabinets. This good artist may justly boast also of the “Banquet of the Gods,” a large picture, sufficient, of itself to immortalize his name. But this man, to amiable, and so much esteemed, soon fell into intemperance and contempt, and his works no longer resembled those of his former years, scarcely any of them rising above mediocrity. He died Nov. 24, 1732, in the sixtysixth year of his age. In the cabinet of M. Half-Wassenaer, at the Hague, was lately his very fine picture representing Alexander dying.

, F. R. S. an eminent naturalist, is thought to have been born in London, about 1710, but of his early life and occupations no certain information has been obtained, except that he was engaged in mercantile pursuits. He imbibed a taste for natural history, probably when young, made collections of natural curiosities, and by attentive observation and depth of thought soon rose superior to the merit of a mere collector. It is to him we owe the discovery of the animal nature of corals and corallines, which is justly said to form an epocha in natural science. The first collection he made of these new-discovered animals, after being presented to, and examined by the royal society, was deposited in the British museum, where it till remains. His mind was originally turned to the subject by a collection of corallines sent him from Anglesey, which he arranged upon paper so as to form a kind of natural landscape. But although the opinion he formed of their being animals was confirmed by some members of the royal society, as soon as he had explained his reasons, he determined to make farther observations, and enlarge his knowledge of corallines on the spot. For this purpose he went, in August 1752, to the isle of Sheppy, accompanied by Mr. Brooking, a painter, and the observations which he made still further confirmed him in his opinions. In 1754, he prevailed on Ehret, the celebrated botanist and artist, to accompany him to Brighthelmstone, where they made drawings, and formed a collection of zoophites. In 1755, he published the result of all his investigations, under the title of an “Essay to wards a Natural History of Corallines,” 4to, one of the most accurate books ever published, whether we consider the plates, the descriptions, or the observations which demonstrate the animal nature of the zoophites. His opinions on this subject were opposed by Job Easier, a Dutch physician and naturalist, who published various dissertations in the Philosophical Transactions in order to prove that corallines were of a vegetable nature. But his arguments were victoriously refuted by Ellis, whose opinions on the subject were almost immediately assented to by naturalists in general, and have been further confirmed by every subsequent examination of the subject.

, a celebrated painter, born at Francfort upon the Maine in 1574, was a taylor’s son, and at first a disciple of Philip Uftenbach, a German: but an ardent desire of improvement carrying him to Rome, he soon became an excellent artist in landscapes, histories, and night-pieces. He was a person by nature inclined to melancholy, and through continued study and thoughtfulness so far settled in that unhappy temper, that, neglecting his domestic concerns, he contracted debts, and imprisonment followed; which struck such a damp upon his spirits, that though he was soon released, he d'ld not long survive it, but died about 1610. The Italians had a great esteem for him, and lamented the loss of him exceedingly. James Ernest Thomas, of Landaw, was his disciple; and his pictures are so like Elsheimer’s, that they are often taken the one for the other.

, another artist, was born atMalines in the year 1527. Though he, has left chiefly pictures in distemper, yet he is allowed to be a very able artist. His principal works are in the church of St, llorabout. He has represented on a large canvas, the works of mercy. A multitude of figures, well designed, form the object of this grand composition, and among them he is said to have distinguished, with great spirit, the poor that deserve our compassion, from those who do not. His works are dispersed in the principal towns of Germany. At Hamburgh, in the church of St. Catharine, was a grand and learned composition representing the conversion of St. Paul. He painted for the prince of Orange, ill the castle of Antwerp, the history of David, from the designs of Lucas van Heere. De Vries painted the architecture of it, the friezes, the terms, and the other ornaments. The whole was executed in water-colours. Enghelrams died in, 1583, at the age of fifty-six.

All we know of this curious artist is, that she lived single to the age of about forty, and then married Mr. Bartholomew Kello, a North Briton; that she had a son who was educated at Oxford, and was minister of Speckshall. in Suffolk. His son was sword-bearer of Norwich, and died in 1709. Joseph Hall, bishop of Norwich, when dean of Worcester, 1617, is styled by her, “My very singulaf friend,” in a manuscript dedicated to him, now in the Bodleian library.

Mr. Evelyn’s early affection to, and skill in, the fine arts, appeared during these travels; for we find that he delineated upon the spot, the prospects of several remarkable places that lie between Rome and Naples, particularly “The three Taverns or the forum of Appius,” mentioned in the twenty-eighth chapter of the Acts “The promontory of Auxur” “A prospect of Naples from mount Vesuvius;” “A prospect of Vesuvius, as it appears towards Naples,” and “The mouth of mount Vesuvius.” All these were engraved from our author’s sketches, by Hoare, an artist of character at that time, though some have attributed these engravings to himself. Architecture, painting, and sculpture, Mr. Evelyn particularly studied, and seems to have contracted an acquaintance with those persons who were most eminent in each branch of these arts. Nanteuil, the celebrated French engraver, appears to have been his particular favourite, who, besides drawing a portrait of him in black and white, with Indian ink, engraved a print of him in 1650, which is mentioned by Florent Le Comte in these words, “Yvelin, dit le petit milord Anglois, ou Je portrait Grec; parcequ'il y a du Grec au bas; ou est ecrit aussi, meliora retinete.” The Greek is a sentence from Isocrates, to this purpose, “Let your pictures rather preserve the memory of your virtues, than of your person.”

, a painter, born at Maaseyk in 1366, is regarded as the founder of the Flemish school of painting, the Giotto of Flanders; and exhibited, for that early period of art, great genius and skill. In concert with his brother John, he was celebrated for many extraordinary and curious works, executed in oil, after the latter had made his discovery of that mode of painting., He painted well also in distemper, but gave that up after he adopted the other. One work of his, painted in conjunction with John, was in a chapel of the cathedral of Ghent. Sir Joshua Reynolds, who saw it there, says of it, “it represents the adoration of the lamb taken from the Apocalypse: it contains a great number of figures in a hard manner, but there is great character of truth and nature in the heads, and the landscape is well coloured.” It is now among the spoils of the French in the gallery of the Louvre; but whileat Ghent it was held in such estimation as to be shut up from public view, except on festivals; and at other times was only shewn to ambassadors or princes themselves who desired to see it. Philip I. of Spain wished to purchase it; but that not being practicable, he employed Michael Coxis to copy it, who spent two whole years about it, and received four thousand florins for his labour from the king, who placed it in the Escurial. This artist died in 1426, aged sixty.

, a self-taught genius, was born in 1648 at Lisle en Albigeois in Languedoc. He drevr with the pen, or Indian ink, and arrived at such eminence in that branch as to be complimented upon it by Carlo Marat. He went to visit that painter, who received him with politeness, and offered him his pencil; when he declined using it, saying, that he had never practised painting. “I am glad to hear it,” said the artist, “for if I may judge from your drawings of the progress you would have made in painting, I must certainly have given place to you.” Fage lived irregularly, generally drawing at a public-house, and sometimes paying his bills by a sketch, produced upon the occasion. He died in 1690; Audran, Simoneau, and others, engraved a collection of one hundred and twenty-three prints from his designs, and Strutt mentions some prints engraved by himself.

As a poet, Falconer’s fame must rest entirely on “The Shipwreck.” His other pieces could never have survived the occasion which produced them, and could have ranked him only among the versifiers of a day^ while the Shipwreck bids fair for immortality. In the powers of description, he has scarcely a superior, and has excluded comparison by choosing a subject with which accident only can make a poet acquainted, a subject which may be described, for he has described it in all its awful dignity, but which surpasses the common reach of imagination. The distant ocean, and its grand phenomena, have often employed the pens of the most eminent poets, but they have generally produced an effect by indefinite outlines and imaginary incidents. In Falconer, we have the painting of a great artist taken on the spot, with such minute fidelity as well as picturesque effect, that we are chained to the scene with all the feelings of actual terror.

, an English artist of great promise, the fourth son of the rev. William Farington, B. D. rector of Warrington, and vicar of Leigh in Lancashire, was born in 1754, and received his first instructions in the art from his brother Joseph, one of the present royal academicians; but his inclinations leading him to the study of historical painting, he acquired farther assistance from Mr. West. He was for some time employed by the late alderman Boy dell, for whom he executed several very excellent drawings from the Houghton collection. He studied long in the royal academy, and obtained a silver medal in 1779; and in 1780, obtained the golden medal for the best historical picture, the subject of which was the cauldron scene in Macbeth. In 1782 he left England, and went to the East Indies, being induced to undertake that voyage by some advantageous offers. In India he painted many pictures; but his principal undertaking was a large work, representing the Durbar, or court of the nabob, at Mershoodabad. Whilst employed on this work, he imprudently exposed himself to the night air, to observe some ceremonies of the natives, in order to complete a series of drawings begun for that purpose, when he was suddenly seized with a complaint, which, in a few days, unfortunately terminated his life in 1788.

, of Pavia, an artist who flourished about 1518, was a pupil or imitator of Lionardo da Vinci, and the most successful of all his imitators, Luino perhaps excepted, if he be judged by the only picture, which, without hesitation, may be ascribed to him. This picture, which belonged to the gallery of prince Braschi, was carried by the French to that of the Louvre, and represents, in a groupe of natural size, the Madonna with the. infant on her lap: the mother in quiet repose, with bent eyes, and absorbed in meditation; her simple attitude is contrasted by the lively one of the child, who seems to take refuge at her neck and breast from some external object. The picture is inscribed “Bernardinus Faxolus de Papia fecit, 1518.”

, a learned Spaniard, considered as a prodigy in the fifteenth century, may be termed the Crichton of Spain, whom he resembled in the marvellous and universal knowledge attributed to him. He was well skilled in languages and the sciences; understood the Bible, the works of Nicholas Lyranus, St. Thomas, St. Bonaventura, Alexander Ales, and Scotus; with those of Aristotle, Hippocrates, Galen, Avicenna, and several law authors. He was also a brave soldier, played on several instruments, was admired for his singing and dancing, and equalled any artist of Paris in painting. It is said that he foretold the death of Charles the Rash, duke of Burgundy, and in 1445, was the admiration of all the learned at Paris. Commentaries on Ptolemy’s Almagest, and on the Apocalypse, are ascribed to him, and a treatise “De Artificio omnis scibilis,” and other works.

, a German artist, born at Vienna in 1689, had different masters. He quitted Vienna in 1718, and exercised his art with success at Bamberg, went from thence to Dresden, in company with Alexander Thiele, in whose landscapes he inserted the figures and animals. He also passed over to England, where he married, became involved in his circumstances, and, according to report, was found dead at the door of his lodgings, apparently exhausted by cold, want, and misery, in 1740. The style and subjects of this painter resemble those of Berghem and Wouwermans. The ruins which adorn his landscapes are selected in a grand taste, and often executed with a finish that discriminates the rougher surface of hewn stone from the polished one of marble. He combined with great force of colour great truth of imitation. He etched well in aqua fortis, and his prints are eagerly sought for by the curious.

, an eminent artist of Valdugia, was born in 1484. He is by Vasari called “Gaudenzio Milanese.” Some have supposed him a scholar of Perugino, but Lomazzo, who was a nurseling of his school, names Scotto and Luini as his masters. His juvenile works prove what Vasari says, that he had profited by those of Lionardo da Vinci. He went young to Rome^ and is said to have been employed in the Vatican by Raffaello; and there, it is probable, that he acquired that style of design and tone of colour which eclipsed what before him had been done in Lombardy. He possessed a portentous feracity of ideas, equal to that of Giulio, but far different; instead of licentious excursions over the wilds of mythology, he attached himself to sacred lore, to represent the majesty of Divine Being, the mysteries of religion, and emotions of piety, and succeeded to a degree which acquired him the name of “eximie pius” from a Novarese synod. Strength was his element, which he expressed less by muscles forcibly marked, than by fierce and terrible attitudes, as in the Passion of Christ, at the grazie of Mu Jano, where he had Titian for a competitor; and in the Fall of Paul, at the conventuals of Vercelli, which approaches that of M. Angelo, at the Paolina; in the expression of character and mind, he is inferior perhaps only to Raffaelo; and at St. Cristoforo of Vercelli has shewn himself master of angelic grace, With a full and genial vein of colour, Gaudenzio unites an evidence which admits of no hesitation, and attracts the eye in the midst of other works. His tone is determined by the subject, as his carnations by character; but his draperies and parerga are commended more by caprice and novelty, than simplicity and grandeur. Whether it were modesty, situation, ignorance, or envy, that defrauded powers so eminent, of the celebrity often lavished on minor talents, is not now to be determined. Ferrari was little known, and less favoured by Vasari, whom the blind herd of dilettanti on either side of the Alps generally follow in their search of excellence in art. He is supposed to have died in 1550. There was another of the name John Andrew Ferrari, or De Ferrara, who was born at Genoa, in 1599, and was a disciple of Bernard Castelli; but, in order to obtain a more extensive knowledge in his profession, he studied afterwards for some time under Bernardo Strozzi. His application was attended with success, for he at last attained to such a degree of excellence, that he was equally expert in painting history, landscape, fruit, animals, and flowers; and those subjects he finished in a small size, but with extraordinary beauty and exactness, so that few of the princes or nobility of his time were satisfied without possessing some of his compositions. Benedetto Castiglioue was his disciple. He died in 1669.

, of Ferrara, an artist born in 1532, was nicknamed Gratella by his countrymen, because he was the first who introduced the method of squaring large pictures, in order to reduce them with exactness to smaller proportions, which the Italians call graticolare, a method which he had learned from Michel Angelo, whose scholar he was at Rome, though unknown to Vasari, at least not mentioned in his life. He was the son of Camillo Filippi, who died in 1574, an artist of uncertain school, but who painted in a neat and limpid manner and if we may judge from a half-figure of S. Paul, in an Annunziata of his in S. Maria in Vado, not without some aim at the style of Michel Angelo. From him therefore Bastiano probably derived that ardent desire for it which made him secretly leave his father’s house, and journey to Rome, where he became one of the most indefatigable copyists and dearest pupils of Buonarotti. What powers he acquired is evident from the “Universal Judgment,” which he painted in three years, in the hoir of the metropolitan a work nearer to Michel Angelothau what can be produced by the whole Florentine school. It possesses grandeur of design with great variety of imagery, well disposed groupes, and repose for the eye. It appears incredible that in a subject pre-occupied by Buonarotti, Filippi should have been able to appear so novel and so grand. He imitated the genius, but disdained to transcribe the figures of his model. He too, like Dante and Michel Angelo, made use of that opportunity to gratify his affections or animosities, by placing his friends among the elect, and his enemies with*the rejected. In that hapless host he painted the faithless mistress who had renounced his nuptials, and drew among the blessed another whom he had married in her place, casting a look of insult on her rival. At present it is not easy to decide on the propriety or intemperance of Barui Taldi and other Ferrarese writers, who prefer this painting to that of the Sistina, for decorum and colour, because it has been long retouched; and already made Barotti, in his description of Ferrarese pictures, lament " that the figures which formerly appeared living flesh, now seem to be of wood. 7 ' Of Filippi’s powers, however, as a colourist, other proofs exist at Ferrara in many an untouched picture: they appear to advantage, though his flesh-tints are too adust and bronzed, end his colours too often united into a misty mass.

, the celebrated bishop of Nismes, distinguished equally for elegant learning, abilities, and exemplary piety, was born June 10, 1632, at Perne, near Avignon, in Provence, and educated in the study of literature and virtue under his uncle Hercules AudifiTret. After the death of this relation, who was principal of the congregation styled De la Doctrine Chretienne, he appeared at Paris, about 1659, where he was soon distinguished as a man of genius, and an able preacher. A description of a carousal, in Latin verse, which, notwithstanding the difficulty of a subject unknown to the ancients, was pure and classical, first attracted the public admiration. It was published in 1669, in folio, and entitled “Cursus Regius,” and has since been included in his miscellaneous works. His funeral orations completed the fame which his sermons had begun. He had pronounced one at Narbonne, in 1659, when professor of rhetoric there, on the bishop of that city, but this is not extant. The first of those that are published, was delivered in 1672, at the funeral of madam de Montausier, whose husband had become his patron and friend. He soon rose to be the rival of Bossuet in this species of eloquence. His oration on mareschal Turenne, pronounced in 1676, is esteemed the most perfect of these productions; it excited at once the liveliest regret for the deceased hero, and the highest admiration of the orator. The last oration in the collection must have agitated his feelings as well as exercised his talents, for it was in honour of his well-tried friend the duke of Montausier, who died in 1690. In 1679 he published his history of the emperor Theodosius the Great, the ouly part that was ever executed, of a plan to instruct the dauphin, by writing for him the lives of the greatest Christian princes. The king, after having testified his regard for him by giving him the abbey of S. iSeverin, and the office of almoner in ordinary to the dauphin, promoted him in 1685 to the see of Lavaur, saying to him at the same time, < Be not surprised that I so Jong delayed to reward your merit; I was afraid of losing the pleasure of hearing your discourses.“Two years after, he was made bishop of Nismes. In his diocese he was no less remarkable for the mildness and indulgence by which he drew hack several protestants to his church, than for his general charity, and attention to the necessities of the unfortunate of all descriptions. At the time of a famine, in 1709, his charity was unbounded, and was extended to persons of all persuasions; and his modesty was at all times equal to his benevolence. Numbers were relieved by him, without knowing the source of their good fortune. His father had been a tallowchandler; but Flechier had too much real greatness of mind to conceal the humbleness of his origin: and, being once insolently reproached on that subject, he had the spirit to reply,” I fancy, sir, from your sentiments, if you had been so born, you would, have made candles still.“It is said that he had a presentiment of his death by means of a dream; in consequence of which, he employed an artist to design a monument for him, wishing to have one that was modest and plain, not such as vanity or gratitude might think it necessary to erect. He urged the artist to execute this design before his death, which happened Feb. 16, 1710.” He died,“says d'Alembert,” lamented by the catholics, regretted by the protestants, having always exhibited to his brethren an excellent model of zeal and charity, simplicity and eloquence."

, a German artist, was born in 1616, at Cloves, and by the appointment of his father was to have been bred up as a merchant; but neither the influence of his friends, nor the prospect of making an immense fortune, could prevail with him to abandon the art of painting, to which from his earliest youth he felt an invincible inclination. He was first placed with Lambert Jacobs; under whom he made extraordinary proficiency, by capacity, diligence, and emulation, to excel Backer, who was then a disciple of Jacobs. When he quitted his master, he went to Amsterdam, and entered himself in the school of Rembrandt, and became so captivated with the excellences of that great artist, that he studied his style of composition, manner of colouring, and penciling, incessantly; and at last shewed himself not only a good imitator of him, but in some respects his equal, and in freedom of hand rather his superior. Such talents being soon noticed, he was almost continually employed in painting the portraits of princes and illustrious personages, although his genius was abundantly more inclined to paint historical subjects; and several of his performances in that style were admired for the goodness of the design, and the beauty of the colouring. He remarkably excelled in imitating the manner of Rembrandt, and many of his paintings are sold at this day for the work of his master. But as the Italian taste began to be more esteemed after the death of Rembrandt, Flink took great pains to alter his first manner. For this purpose he made a large collection of the finest casts that could be procured from Rome of the best drawings and designs of the artists of Italy as also of several of their paintings and those he made his principal studies. When he imagined himself to be competently improved, he finished a noble design for the great hall of the senate-house at Amsterdam, representing Solomon praying for wisdom; in which his disposition and manner of grouping the figures appear excellent, and the tone of the colouring is strong and livety, He likewise painted a grand historical composition for the artillery company at Amsterdam, consisting of portraits of the most distinguished persons of that body. The figures were well disposed, and every part of the picture was painted by Flink, except the faces, which are by Vander Heist. He died in 1660, much regretted, and his collection of prints and drawings were sold for twelve thousand florins.

, a French engraver and letter-founder, was born at Paris in 1712, and excelled in his profession. His letters not only embellished the typographical art, but his genins illustrated and enlarged it He published in 1737 a table of proportions to be observed between letters, in order to determine their height and relations to each other. This ingenious artist ascended to the very origin of printing, for the sake of knowing it thoroughly. He produced at different times several historical and critical dissertations upon the rise and progress of the typographical art, which have since been collected and published in 1 vol. 8vo, divided into three parts; the last including a curious history of the engravers in wood. But the most important work of Fournier, is his “Manuel Typographique, utile aux gens de Lettres, et a ceux qui exercent les differents parties de PArt de Plmprimerie,” in 2 vols. 8vo. The author meant to have added two more, but was prevented by his death, which happened in 1768. In this “Manuel” are specimens of all the different characters he invented. He was of the most pleasing manners, and a man of virtue and piety.

, or Fiuncia Bigio, was an historical painter, born in 1483. He studied for a short time under Albertinelli, but is chiefly known as the competitor, and in some works the partner of Andrea del Sarto. Similar in principle, but inferior to him in power, he strove to supply by diligence the defects of nature; with what success, will appear on comparison of his work in the cloister of the Nunziata at Florence, with those of Andrea at the same place. On its being uncovered by the monks, the painter in a fit of shame or rage gave it some blows with a hammer, nor ever after could be induced to finish it. He appears to have succeeded better in two histories which he inserted among the frescos of Andrea at the Scalzo, nor is he there much inferior. He likewise emulated him at Poggio a Cajano, where he represented the return of M. Tullius from exile, a work, which though it remained unfinished, shews him to great advantage. This artist died in 1524, in the prime of life.

, or Franciscus Francken, but more generally called Old Francks, was an artist of the sixteenth century. Very few circumstances relative to him are handed down, although his works are as generally known in these kingdoms as they are in the Netherlands: nor are the dates of his birth, death, or age, thoroughly ascertained; for Dcscamps supposes him to be born in 1544, to be admitted into the society of painters at Antwerp in 1561, which was at seventeen years of age; and fixes his death in 1666, by which computation Francks must have been a hundred and twenty-two years old when he died, which appears utterly improbable; though others fix his birth in 1544, and his death in 1616, aged seventy-two, which seems to be nearest the truth. He painted historical subjects taken froni the Old orNewTestameut, and was remarkable for introducing a great number of figures into his compositions, which he had the skill to express very distinctly. He had a fruitful invention, and composed readily; but he wanted grace and elegance in his figures, and was apt to crowd too many histories into one scene. His touch was free, and the colouring of his pictures generally transparent; yet a predominant brown or yellowish tinge appeared over them, neither natural nor agreeable. But, in several of his best performances, the colouring is clear and lively, the design good, the figures tolerably correct, and the whole together very pleasing. -At Wilton is his “Belshazzar’s Feast,” a very curious composition.

, an ingenious artist, was a native of Ireland, where he was born in 1710. He came very early to London, when he practised portrait-painting in oil, crayons, and in miniature. In 1734 he had the honour of painting his royal highness, Frederick prince of Wales, a full length, now in Sadler’s-hall, Cheapside. But his genius was not confined to this art, and it is said that he was the inventor and first manufacturer of porcelain in England, and that he spent fifteen years of his life in bringing this to perfection at a manufactory at Bow, during which, his constitution being impaired by constantly working in furnaces, he retired into Wales, with little hope of recovery. Here, however, his health was perfectly restored, and he returned again to London, and resumed his profession, to which he now added the art of mezzotinto engraving, and had considerable employment and success, both as a painter and engraver, tie died of a decline, brought on by intense application, April 2, 1762.

In the first exhibition in 1760 there was a half-length portrait of the famous singer, Leveridge, which was painted by Frye, and possessed very considerable merit; and in the exhibition of the following year he also had pictures in all the different processes of oil-colours, crayons, and miniature. 'Of his mezzotinto productions, there are six heads as large as life; one of them the portrait of the artist himself; to which may be added two other portraits of their majesties, the same size with the former, but inferior in execution. He had issued proposals in 1760 for twelve heads in the above manner, but we presume his illness and subsequent death prevented his completing more than six; in these, however, he shewed rather more industry than judgment; for no branch of engraving, whether in mezzotinto, or in strokes, can be suited to the display of portraits of such magnitude.

, a Swiss artist, and a man of considerable learning, was born at Zurich in 1706. After acquiring the elements of painting from a very indifferent artist, he left his country in the eighteenth year of his age, and going to Vienna, associated himself with Sedelmeier. Gran and Meitens were his principal guides, if he could be said to have any other guide than his own genius. He became well known at court, but his love of independence induced him to refuse very advantageous offers. He would not, however, have probably ever left Vienna, had not the prince of Schwarzeuburg persuaded him to go to Kadstadt, where he became the favourite of the court. Among others whose portraits he painted was the margrave of Dourlach, who had a great affection for him, and advised him to go to Ludwigsbourg, which he did with letters of recommendation to the duke of Wirtemberg, who immediately took him into his service. Here he passed his time very agreeably, making occasional excursions to paint the portraits of persons of distinction, until the war of Poland, when the entrance of the French into Germany threw every thing into confusion. The duke his patron at the same time fell sick, and was removed to Stutgard, but on Fuessli’s leaving him to go to Nuremberg, his highness presented him with a gold watch, and requested him to return when the state of public affairs was changed. At Nuremberg he had a strong desire to see the celebrated artist Kupezki, of whose manners he had imbibed an unfavourable impression, but he was agreeably disappointed, and they became friends from their first interview. After remaining six months at Nuremberg, the duke of Wirtemberg died, and there being no immediate prospect of peace, Fuessli returned to his own country, and in 1740 married. Although his wife was a very amiable woman, he used to say that marriage was incompatible with the cultivation of the fine arts: if, however, he felt himself occasionally disturbed by domestic cares, he had the happiness to communicate his art to his three sons, Rodolph, who settled at Vienna; Henry, at present so well known in England; and Caspar, who died in the vigour of life, an entomologist of fidelity, discrimination, and taste.

, was an English painter of some note in the reign of Charles II. but of his family or masters we have no account, except that he studied many years in France under Perrier, who engraved the antique statues. In his historical compositions he has left little to admire, his colouring being raw and unnatural, and not compensated by disposition or invention, but in portraits his pencil was bold, strong, and masterly. In the latter he was much employed, particularly at Oxford. His own portrait in the gallery there is touched with great force and character. The altar-piece of Magdalen was also by him, but has not been much approved. As an imitation of Michel Angelo, it falls far short of the sublime, although sometimes wild imagination of that great artist; nor is the colouring harmonious. Some of the figures, however, are correctly drawn; and he has at least imitated the temper of Michel Angelo with success, in introducing among the damned, the portrait of an hostler at the Greyhound-inn, near the college, who had offended him. The picture, it is well known, was honoured by Addison in an elegant Latin poem. At Wadham college is an altar-cloth by Fuller in a singular manner, and of merit; which is just brushed over for the lights and shades, and the colours melted in with a hot iron. Soon after the restoration, he was engaged in painting the circumstances of king Charles II.'s escape, which he executed in five large pictures. These were presented to the parliament of Ireland, where they remained for many years in one of the rooms of the parliament house in Dublin. But some time in the last century the house undergoing a thorough repair, these pictures were not replaced, but lay neglected, until they were rescued by the late earl of Clanbrassil, who obtained possession of them, and had them cleaned and removed to his seat at Tullymore park, co. Down, where they were a few years ago. Lord Orford speaks slightingly of these, which he had never seen, and probably with as much justice as of Fuller’s altar-piece at All-souls college, which he never could have seen, for Fuller had no picture there. Fuller died in Bloomsbury-square July 17, 1672, and left a gon, an ingenious but idle man, chiefly employed ia coach -painting, who died young.

Furietti collected and published at Rome the works of the celebrated Caspar Barziza of Bergamo, and of his son Guiniforte, most of which were never before printed, in a handsome 4to vol. 1723, with a learned preface and life. He published, likewise, at Bergamo in 1752, a fine edition of the poems of Fontana; but what obtained him most reputation among scholars and antiquaries, was his treatise on the Mosaic art of painting, entitled “De Musivis, vel pictoriae Mosaicse artis origine, progressu, &c.” Home, 1752, 4to. In this he describes a rare specimen of Mosaic which he discovered in 1737 in the ruins of Adrian, and which, according to him, is mentioned by Pliny, as being the work of the celebrated artist Sosius. This exquisite specimen, with the centaurs belonging to Furietti, was purchased after his death by pope Clement XIII. for 14,000 Roman crowns, and deposited in the museum.

, an Italian artist, born at Florence in 1652, was successively the pupil of Subtermans and Vincenzo Dandini, and studied under Giro Ferri at Rome, and after the best colourists at Venice. He was a ready and correct designer. His colour, though sometimes languid, is generally true, juicy, and well united in the flesh-tints. The greatest flaw of his style lies in the choice, the hues, and the execution of his draperies. He excels in “pretty” subjects; his Gambols of Genii and Children in the palace Pitti, and elsewhere, are little inferior to those of Baciccio. His greatest and most famed work in fresco, is the vast cupola of Cestello, which was not wholly terminated. His altar-pieces are unequal: the best is that of S. Filippo in the church of the fathers Dell' Oratorio. In easel-pictures he holds his place even in princely galleries. He died in 1726, in consequence of a tall from the scaffold on which he was painting the cupola Of Cestello.

, an admirable English artist, was born in 1727, at Sudbury, in Suffolk, where his father was a clothier. He very early discovered a propensity to painting. Nature was his teacher, and the woods of Suffolk his academy, where he would pass in solitude his mornings, in making a sketch of an antiquated tree, a marshy brook, a few cattle, a shepherd and his flock, or any other accidental objects that were presented. From delineation he got to colouring; and after painting several landscapes from the age of ten to twelve, he quitted Sudbury, and came to London. Here he received his first instructions from Gravelot, and was then placed under the tuition of Mr. Hayman, with whom he staid but a short time. After quitting this master, he for a short time resided in Hatton-garden, and practised painting of portraits of a small size, and also pursued his favourite subject, landscape. During this residence in London, he married a young lady, who possessed an annuity of 200l.; and then retired to Ipswich, and from thence to Bath, where he settled about 1758. He now began painting portraits at the low price of five guineas, for a threequarter canvas, and was soon so successful as to be encouraged to raise his price to eight guineas. In 1761, for the first time, he sent some of his works to the exhibition in London. In 1774, he quitted Bath, and settled in London in a part of the duke of Schomberg’s house in Pail-Mall. In this situation, possessed of ample fame, and in the acquisition of a plentiful fortune, he was disturbed by a complaint in his neck, which was not much noticed upon the first attack, nor was it apprehended to be more than a swelling in the glands of the throat, which it was expected would subside in a short time, but it was soon discovered to be a cancer, which baffled the skill of the first medical professors. Finding the danger of his situation, he settled his affairs, and composed himself to meet the fatal moment, and expired Aug. 2, 1788. He was buried, according to his own request, in Kew Churchyard.

Nothing could have enabled Gainsborough to reach so elevated a point in the art of painting without the most ardent love for it. Indeed his whole mind appears to have been devoted to it, even to his dying day; and then his principal regret seemed to be, that he was leaving his art, when, as he said, “he saw his deficiencies, and had endeavoured to remedy them in his last works.” Various circumstances in his life exhibited him as referring every thing to it. “He was continually remarking to those who happened to be about him, whatever peculiarity of countenance, whatever accidental combination of figures, or happy effects of light and shadow occurred in prospects, in the sky, in walking the streets, or in company. If in his walks he found a character that he liked, and whose attendance was to be obtained,- he ordered him to his blouse and from the fields he brought into his paintingroom stumps of trees, weeds, and animals of various kinds; and designed them not from memory, but immediately from the objects. He even framed a kind of model of landscapes on his table composed of broken stones, dried herbs, and pieces of looking-glass; which he magnified, and improved into rocks, trees, and water: all which exhibit the solicitude and extreme activity that he had about every thing relative to his art; that he wished to have his objects embodied as it were, and distinctly before him, neglecting nothing that contributed to keep his faculties alive; and deriving hints from every sort of combination.” He was also in the constant habit of painting by night, a practicevery advantageous and improving to an artist, for, by this means he may acquire a new and a higher perception of what is great and beautiful in nature. His practice in the progress of his pictures was to paint on the whole together; wherein he differed from some, who finish each part separately, and by that means are frequently liable to produce inharmonious combinations of forms and features.

This eminent artist had a nephew, Gainsborough Du­Pont, a modest and ingenious man, who painted portraits with considerable success, but died at the early age of thirty, in January 1797. His principal work is a large picture (for which he received 500l.) of all the Trinity masters, which is in the court- room of the Trinity-house upon Tower-hill.

, an able artist, although little known, was born in 1619, and instructed by Vandyck; and his works are a sufficient proof of the signal improvement he received from the precepts and example of that great master. The cause of his being so totally unknown was, his being brought into Ireland by the old duke of Ormond, and retained in his service. And as Ireland was at that time in a very unsettled condition, the merit and the memory of this master would have been entirely unnoticed, if some of his performances, which still subsist, had not preserved him from oblivion. There are at this time in Ireland many portraits, painted by him, of noblemen and persons of fortune, which are very little inferior to Vandyck, either for expression, colouring, or dignity; and several of his’copies after Vandyck, which were in the Ormond collection at Kilkenny, were sold for original paintings of Vandyck. Mr. Gandy died in 1689.

As he advanced in years, humanity, taste* and public spirit, became still more eminently the predominant principles in his mind. He pitied the condition of the peaa^ntry, depressed rather by their ignorance of the most skilful modes of labour, and by their remoteness from the sphere of improvement, than by any tyranny or extortion of their landlords. He admired, protected, and cultivated the fine arts. He was the ardent votary of political liberty, and friendly to every thing that promised a rational amelioration of public oeconomy, and the principles of government. In 1762 he purchased the estate of Johnston, co. Kincardine. Within a few years after he began to attempt a plan of the most liberal improvement of the value of tins estate, by an extension of the village of Laurencekirk, adjoining. He offered leases of small farms, and of ground for building upon, which were to last for the term, of one hundred years; and of which the conditions were extremely inviting to the labourers and tradesmen of the surrounding country. These offers were eagerly listened to; and being more desirous to make the attempt beneficial to the country than profitable to himself, he was induced within a few years to reduce his ground-rents to one half of the original rate. Weavers, joiners, shoemakers, and other artizans in a considerable number, resorted to settle in the rising village. His lordship’s earnestness for the success of his project, and to promote the prosperity of the people whom he had received under his protection, led him to engage in several undertakings, by the failure of which he incurred considerable losses. Projects of a print-field, and of manufactures of linen and of stockings, attempted with sanguine hopes in the new village, and chiefly at his lordship’s risk and expence, misgave in such a manner as might well have dispirited a man of less steady and ardent philanthropy. But the village’still continued to advance under his lordship’s eye and fostering care. In 1779 he procured it to be erected into a burgh of barony, having a magistracy, an annual fair, and a weekly market. He provided in it a good inn for the reception of travellers, and furnished it with a library for their amusement, the only one of the kind probably in either kingdom. We remember, likewise, an Alburn^ in which were many ingenious contributions, both in prose and verse, by the literati of Scotland. He invited an artist for drawing, from the continent, to settle at Laurencekirk. He had at length the pleasure of seeing a considerable linen-manufactory fixed in it; and before his death he saw his plan of improving the condition of the labourers, by the formation of a new village at Laurencekirk, crowned with success beyond his most sanguine hopes. He has acknowledged in a memoir concerning this village, “That he had tried in some measure a variety of the pleasures” which mankind pursue; but never relished any so much as the pleasure arising from the progress of his village.“In 1785, by the death of a brother, he became possessed of the family estates, worth about 3000l. a year, which not only enabled him to pursue his usual course of liberality, but to seek relief from the growing infirmities of his age, by a partial relaxation from business, which he determined to employ in travel. Accordingly, he set out in Sept. 1786, and performed the tour of France, Geneva, Swisserland, the Netherlands, and Italy, and after three years, returned to his native country, with a large collection of objects of natural history, and specimens of the fine arts. His last years were spent in the discharge of the duties of his office as a judge; in performing many generous offices of benevolence and humanity, and in promoting the comfort of his tenants. As an amusement for the last twoor three years of his life, he revised some of the light fugitive pieces, in which he had indulged the gaiety of his fancy in his earlier days; and a small volume was published under the title of” Miscellanies in prose and verse,“in which the best pieces are upon good authority ascribed to lord Gardenstone. He revised also the” Memorandums“which he had made upon his travels, and two volumes of them were published during his lifetime, under the title of” Travelling Memorandums,“containing a number of interesting observations, criticisms, and anecdotes. A third volume appeared after his death, with an account of him, from which we have borrowed the greater part of this article. His lordship died July 22, 1793, deeply regretted by his friends and by his country. His last publication was” A Letter to the Inhabitants of Laurencekirk," containing much salutary advice.

, a French engraver and man of letters, was born at Paris in 1740, and became the pupil of Le Bas, who taught him the arts of design and engraving. Being early convinced of the importance of learning in his profession, he devoted much of his time to study, and became so celebrated for the productions of his pen as well as his graver, that he was elected a member of various literary societies both at home and abroad. As an artist he succeeded principally in engraving portraits; and his portrait of the queen of Louis XV. is considered as a chef-d'oeuvre; nor was he much less esteemed in France as a writer. In Fontenay’s Dictionary of Artists, published in 1770, he wrote the articles concerning engravers, with much candour, spirit, and discrimination. His other publications are, 1. “Observations sur le Costume Franchise,” in the “Journal des beaux arts,” 1774. 2. “De l'orjgine et de la suppression des Cloches.” 3. “Voyage au Havre.” 4. “Amour maternel,” a successful dramatic piece. 5. “Iconolo'gie, ou Traite complet des allegories et emblemes,” 4'vols. 8vo. 6. “Essai sur la gravure.” 7. “Traite d‘anatomie a l’usage des artistes,” fol. with fine engravings. He is also said to have written *' Le Desaveu des artistes," 1776, 8vo. He died at Paris Nov. 28, 1803.

, an ingenious though unsuccessful artist, who was a goldsmith in Edinburgh, deserves to be recorded for his attempt to introduce an improvement in the art of printing. The invention, first practised by Ged in 1725, was simply this. From any types of Greek or Roman, or any other character, he formed a plate for every page, or sheet, of a book, from which he printed, instead of using a type for every letter, as is done in the common way. This was first practised on blocks of wood, by the Chinese and Japanese, and pursued in the first essays of Coster, the European inventor of the present art. “This improvement,” says James Ged, the inventor’s son, “is principally considerable in three most important articles, viz. expence, correctness, beauty, and uniformity.” In July 1729, William Ged entered into partnership with William Fenner, a London stationer, who was to have half the profits, in consideration of his vancing all the money requisite. To supply this, Mr. John James, then an architect at Greenwich (who built sir Gregory Page’s house, Bloomsbury church, &c.) was taken into the scheme, and afterwards his brother, Mr. Thomas James, a letter-founder, and James Ged, the inventor’s son. In 1730, these partners applied to the university of Cambridge for printing bibles and common-prayer books by block instead of single types, and, in consequence, a lease was sealed to them April 23, 1731. In their attempt they sunk a large sum of money, and finished only two prayer-books, so that it was forced to be relinquished, and the lease was given up in 1738. Ged imputed his disappointment to the villainy of the press-men, and the illtreatment of his partners (which he specifies at large), particularly Fenner, whom John James and he were advised to prosecute, but declined it. He returned to Scotland in 1733, and had no redress. He there, however, had friends who were anxious to see a specimen of his performance; which he gave them in 1744, by an edition of Sallust. Fenner died insolvent in or before 1735, and his widow married Mr. Waugh, an apothecary, whom she survived. Her effects were sold in 1768. James Ged, the son, wearied with disappointments, engaged in the rebellion of 1745, as a captain in Perth’s regiment; and being taken at Carlisle, was condemned, but on his father’s account (by Dr. Smith’s interest with the duke of Newcastle) was pardoned, and released in 1748. He afterwards worked for some time as a journeyman, with Mr. Bettenham, and then commenced master; but being unsuccessful, he went privately to Jamaica, where his younger brother William was settled as a reputable printer. His tools, &c. he left to be shipped by a false friend, who most ungenerously detained them to try his skill himself. James died the year after he left England; as did his brother in 1767. In the above pursuit Mr. Thomas James, who died in 1738, expended much of his fortune, and suffered in his proper business; “for the printers,” says Mr. Mores, “would not employ him, because the block-printing, had it succeeded, would have been prejudicial to theirs.” Mr. William Ged died, in very indifferent circumstances, October 19, 1749, after his utensils were sent for Leith to be shipped for London, to have joined with his son James as a printer there. Thus ended his life and project, which has lately been revived both in France and England, under the name of stereotype, although its application to the printing of books has hitherto been partial, and indeed chiefly confined to such as are supposed not to admit of changes or improvements, such as Bibles, and some school-books.

, two brothers, the sons of Ercole Gennari, by a sister of Guercino, were the heirs of the latter, and his copyists, and imitators they made numerous repetitions of his Sibyl, his St. John, and Herodias, recognized by tints less vigorous, and the want of that freshness which distinguishes the originals. After having worked jointly at Cento, Bologna, and various towns of Italy, x Caesar established himself at Bologna, and continued to imitate his uncle. Benedict, or, as he is more familiarly called, Benedetto, went to England, and adopted a neater and more studied manner: as painter to James II. he painted the portrait of that prince and of his family; but at their expulsion, returned to Italy, nearly transformed to a Dutch or Flemish artist; such was the truth with which he imitated velvets, silks, stuffs, ornaments, and whatever can give brilliancy to portraits, whilst at the same time he corrected and embellished the character of his sitters without impairing the resemblance: a taste so novel in Italy acquired him applause and distinguished employment. His historic works are, a St. Leopardo in the dome of Osimo, and a St. Zaccaria at Forli, which want only more vigour and relief, to be equal to Guercino. He died 1715, aged eighty-two. There was another artist of this family, Bartholomew, uncle to the preceding, who, as a copyist resembles Guercino less than the three already mentioned; perhaps, as an imitator, more. He has animation and expression. One Lorenzo Gennari, of Rimini, who appears to advantage in a picture at the Capuchins, was likewise a pupil of Guercino, and perhaps a relative.

, a painter in miniature, was born at Antwerp in 1592. He was employed by Charles I. but is far more conspicuous as having been engaged, in conjunction with Rubens, to negociate a treaty with Spain; and for having been for a time British resident at Brussels. His being in the suite of Buckingham in Spain was the means of this elevation; for which he does not appear to have been duly qualified. He was somewhat acquainted with architecture, and was employed by lord Craven to give designs for Ilempsted-hall, which has since been burnt. Being neglected by the court, he in 1648 appeared as an author, and founder of an academy at Bethnal-green; and in 1649 published his first lecture on geography. This was followed by others, and by various pamphlets respecting quackish schemes and projects, with which his head appears to have been full. He afterwards went to Cayenne, and settled with his family at Surinam; where, by order of the Dutch, he was seized and sent back to Holland, from the jealousy of that government, which regarded him since his naturalization in England as an agent of the king. On the restoration of Charles II. hereturned to England, and prepared triumphal arches for; his honour. Here he practised various means of riving forsome years, with no great respect or profit, and at last died in 1667, having passed his latter days in all the expedients of quackery. Lord Orford has bestowed a long article upon sir Balthasar, but has not much exalted his merit as a man or an artist.

At this crisis, after he had secreted himself for some time in a hired room, he waited on Hempel, the king’s painter, whose friendship he had already gained, and requested that gentleman to follow him to his chambers. Here the walls were covered with paintings which he had just finished, entirely from his own invention. The painter complimented him, although with the proviso, that farther labour and experience would be necessary to render him an accomplished artist. Probably, by Hempel’s means, his father was persuaded not only to pardon him, but to grant him leave to prolong his stay at Berlin, where he formed an acquaintance with artists and men of letters. Krause, Hempei, Rainier, and Sulzer, were his principal companions, and Ramler, to whom he had communicated some of his poetical attempts, gave him very useful advice on the nature of poetical composition, and the defects which he perceived in Gesner' s pieces.

, an eminent carver in wood, and a statuary, supposed to be of Dutch parents, was born in Spur-alley in the Strand. He lived afterwards in Bell-savage court, Ludgate-hill, where he carved a pot of flowers, which shook surprizingly with the motion of the coaches that passed by. There, is no instance, says lord Orford, of a man, before Gibbons, who gave to wood the loose and airy lightness of flowers, and chained together the various productions of the elements with a free disorder natural to each species. He lived afterwards at Deptford, where Mr. Evelyn, discovering his wonderful talents, recommended him to Charles II. who gave him a place in the board of works, and employed him in the chapel at Windsor. His carved work here is done in lime-tree, representing a great variety of pelicans, doves, palms, and other allusions to scripture history, with the star and garter, and other ornaments, finished with great perfection. At Windsor too, he carved the beautiful pedestal in marble, for the equestrian statue of the king in the principal court. The fruit, fish, implements of shipping, are all exquisite; the base of the figure at Charing-cross, and the statue of Charles II. in the Royal-exchange, were also his, and probably the brazen statue of James II. in the Privy-­garden, for there was no other artist of that time capable of it.

Gibbons made a magnificent tomb for Baptist Noel viscount Camden, in the church of Exton, in Rutlandshire; it cost 1000l. is twenty-two feet high, and fourteen wide. There are two figures of him and his lady, and bas-reliefs of their children. The same workman performed the wooden throne at Canterbury, which cost 70l. and was the donation of archbishop Tenison. The foliage in the choir of St. Paul’s is of his hand. At Burleigh is a noble profusion of his carving, in picture frames, chimney-pieces, and door-cases, and the last supper in alto-relievo, finely executed. At Chatsworth, where a like taste collected ornaments, by the most living eminent masters, are many by Gibbons, particularly in the chapel; in the great antichamber are several dead fowl over the chimney, finely executed, and over a closet-door, a pen not distinguishable from real feather. When Gibbons had finished his works in that palace, he presented the duke with a point cravat, a woodcock, and a medal with his own head, all preserved in a glass case in the gallery. In lord Orford’s collection is another point cravat by him, the art of which arrives even to deception, and Herodias with St. John’s head, alto-relievo, in ivory. In Thoresby’s collection was Elijah under the juniper-tree, supported by an angel, six inches long and four wide. At Houghton, two chimneys are adorned with his foliage. At Mr. Norton’s, at Southwich, in Hampshire, was a whole gallery embroidered in pannels by his hand but the most superb monument of his skill is a large chamber at Petworth, enriched frpm the ceiling, between the pictures, with festoons of flowers and dead game, &c. all in the highest perfection and preservation. Appendant to one is an antique vase, with a basrelief of the purest taste, and worthy the Grecian age of cameos. At the earl of Halifax’s, at Stanstead, is a chimney-piece, adorned with flowers, and two beautiful vases. The font in St. James’ church in white marble, was also the work of Gibbons. It is supported by the tree of life; fche serpent is offering the fruit to our first parents, who stand beneath; on one side, of the font is engraven the Baptist baptising our Saviour: on another, St. Philip baptising the Eunuch: and on the third, Noah’s ark, with the dove bringing the olive-branch, the type of peace, to mankind. The chancel, above the altar, is enriched with some beautiful foliage in wood, by the same great artist.

, a late artist, and a descendant of the Apostle of the North, was born at Carlisle in 1733, from whence, after having acquired some relish for the art from his father, who was a captain in the army, he came to London, and was articled to a ship-painter. His first interesting works were composed of some market groups which struck his eye from his window. Soon after he went to Newmarket, being encouraged by the late William, duke of Cumberland, where he executed many compositions which might have vied with Hogarth in point of character. In the duke’s stud he acquired that knowledge of the horse, which he afterwards displayed with such superior spirit and beauty; and when we see with what felicity he applied it to the higher departments of the art, to historic compositions in the triuiph of Camillas, the election of Darius, the story of Phaeton, we must lament that such talents should have been drawn aside to the meaner employment of horse-portrait painting, which occupied too much of his valuable life.

, an eminent artist, was born at Naples, in 1629, and at first was the disciple of Spagnoletto, and afterwards of Pietro da Cortona.When. h quitted the school of the latter, he went to Lonabarcly, to study Corregio 3 and then travelled to Venice, to improve himself hy the colouring and compositions of the besi Venetian artists. He had a fruitful imagination, and a surprising readiness and freedom of hand; his tone of colouring is agreeable; and his design, when he chose, correct. He studied the manners and particularities of the greatest masters with such care and judgment, and possessed so happy a memory, that he not only retained in his mind a distinct idea of the style of every celebrated master, but had the skill and power to imitate them with such a critical exactness, as to deceive even the ablest connoisseurs. In his early time this might have been the effect of study, and an attempt to arrive at excellence; but we may observe the same disposition of mind in those pictures which he painted in the best periods of his life, many of them being in the peculiar manner of Titian, Tintoretto, Guido, and Bassan. Some of those paintings are so like, that it is said there are in the most capital collections in England, some called Titian’s which are incontestably the sportings of Giordano’s pencil. One of his most considerable productions is the altar-piece of the church of the Ascension at Naples, representing the fall of Lucifer. And at Genoa, is a fine picture of Seneca dying in the Bath; of which, also, there is a duplicate in the gallery at Dresden. In Spain he executed many compositions at Madrid, Toledo, and at the Escurial; and employed only two years to paint ten arched ceilings of the church and staircase of that palace. He was exceedingly industrious, generally painting six or seven hours every day; and being highly favoured by the king, became exceedingly rich. In 1692 he first arrived at Madrid, and did not return to Italy till 1702, when he accompanied Philip V. to Naples, and in 1704 died there. The appellation of “Luca fa Presto” was accidentally applied to Giordano; not on account of the fame he had acquired by his expeditious manner of painting, but from the mercenary eagerness of his father, who sold at a high price the designs of Luca, which he m<Cde after the compositions of the great masters, while he pursued his studies. The father of Luca scarce allowed him time to refresh himself, but still said to him while he was at his meals as well as at his work, “Lucn, fa presto,” or, “Luca, make haste;” from which expression perpetually uttered, his companions gave him the nick-name of “Fa Presto.”

, an eminent artist, whose name was Gioggio Barbarellj, but was generally known by the appellation of Giorgione, from loftiness of figure and gait, or the grandeur that stamps his style, was born at Castelfranco, in Frioul, 1477, and became the scholar of Giovanni Bellini. Even then he dismissed the minuteness which chained his master, and substituted that freedom, that disdainful superiority of handling, which, if it be not the result of manner, is the supreme attainment of execution. Ample outlines, bold fore-shortening, dignity, and vivacity of aspect and attitude, breadth of drapery, richness of accompaniment, more natural and softer passages from tint to tint, and forcible effects of chiaroscuro, marked the style of Giorgione. This last, the great want of the Venetian school, had, indeed, already been discovered to Upper Italy, by Lionardo da Vinci. To him, or rather to certain pictures and drawings of his, all unknown to us, Vasari pretends that Giorgione owes his chiaroscuro; but neither the line and forms peculiar to Vipci, nor his system of light and shade, seem to countenance this assertion. Gracility and amenity of aspect characterize the lines and fancy of Lionardo; fulness, roundness, those of Giorgione. Fond of a much wider diffusion of shades, and gradually diminishing their mass, the Tuscan drives light to a single point of dazzling splendour. Not so the Venetian; more open, less dark, neither brown nor ferrugineous in his demi-tints, but transparent and true; to tell the whole, he is nearer to Corregioi He may, however, have inspected and profited by the example of Lionardo, the inventor of chiaroscuro; but so as Corregio did by the fore-shortening of Mantegna. His greatest works were in fresco, of which little but the ruins remain. His numerous oil-pictures, by rigorous impasto, and fulness of pencil, st^ll preserve their beauty. Of these, his portraits have every excellence which mind, air, dignity, truth, freshness, and contrast, can confer; he sometimes indulged in ruddy, sanguine tints, but, on the whole, simplicity is their standard. His compositions are few; the most considerable was, perhaps, that of the “Tempest allayed,” in the school of St. Marco at Venice. Some consider as his master-piece “Moses taken from the Nile, and presented to the daughter of Pharaoh,” in the archiepiscopal palace at Milan, in which a certain austerity of tone gives zest to sweetness. One large picture of a holy family is in possession of the marquis of Stafford, which is highly laboured as to effect. But, perhaps the most perfect work of his in this country, is a small picture in the collection of the earl of Carlisle, a portrait of Gaston de Foix, with a servant putting on his armour. We are not acquainted with any picture that has more truth or beauty of colour, and style of character. It is told of Giorgione, that having a dispute concerning the superiority of sculpture or painting; and it being argued, that sculpture had the advantage, because the figures it produces may be seen all around; he took the adverse side, maintaining, that the necessity of moving, in order to see the different sides, deprived it of its superiority; whereas the whole figure might be viewed at one glance, in a minute. To prove his position, he painted a figure, and surrounded it with mirrors, in which all the various parts were exhibited, and obtained great applause for his ingenuity. This artist is said to have fallen in love with a young beauty at Venice, who was no less charmed with him, and submitted to be his mistress. She fell ill with the plague; but, not suspecting it to be so, admitted Giorgione to her bed, where, the infection seizing him, they both died in 1511, he being no more than 33.

, an ingenious young landscapepainter, was born Feb. 18, 1773, and received his first instructions from Mr. Fisher, a drawing-master in Aldt rsgatestreet, and was, for a short time, the pupil of Mr. Daves. He early made nature his model; but the first master that struck his attention forcibly was Canaletti, and, in the latter part of his life, he sedulously studied the colouring of Rubens. He was the first who introduced the custom of drawing upon cartridge-paper; by which means he avoided that spotty, glittering glare so common in drawings made on white paper; and some of his later productions have as forcible and spirited an effect as an oil-picture, and are more clear. In his first manner he made the outline with a pen, but afterwards did away that hard outline, which gives so edgy an effect to drawings that are not, in other respects, destitute of merit; and, having first given his general forms with Indian ink, finished his work by putting on his different tints. This, if judiciously managed, is certainly a great improvement in the art. It has been said, that he made great use of the rule, and produced some of his most forcible effects by trick, but this was not the case. His eye was peculiarly accurate; and by that he formed his judgment of proportions. Whoever inspected his pallet would find it covered with a greater variety of tints than almost any of his contemporaries employed. Mr. Moore was his first patron, and with him he went a tour into Scotland. The prospects he saw in that country gave that wildness of imagery to the scenery of his drawings by which they are so pre-eminently distinguished. He also went with Mr. Moore to Peterborough, Lichfield, and Lincoln; and, indeed, to many other places remarkable for their rich scenery, either in nature or architecture. That gentleman had a drawing that Girtin made of Exeter cathedral, which was principally coloured on the spot where it was drawn; for he was so uncommonly indefatigable, that, when he had made a sketch of any place, he never wished to quit it until he h^d given it all the proper tints. He was early noticed by lord Harewood, Mr. Lascellos^ and Dr. Monro; in whose collections are some of those fine specimens of the arts by the study of which he formed his taste. The doctor has in his possession some of his earliest, and many of his finest, drawings. He painted two pictures in oil; the first was a view in Wales, which was exhibited, and much noticed, in 1801; and the second, the panorama view of London, which was exhibited in Spring-gardens. About twelve months before his death he went to France, where he staid till May. His la:>t, and indeed his best, drawings were the views of Paris, which were purchased by lord Essex, and from which aqun-tinta prints by other artists have since been made. This promising young artist died Nov. 9, 1802, of an astnmatic disorder, which Mr. Edwards seems to attribute to irregularity.

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

, an eminent sculptor and architect of Paris, lived under Francis I. and Henry II. and is supposed to have designed the fronts of the old Louvre. This artist’s figures, in demi -relief, have never been surpassed; nor can any thing of that kind be more beautiful than his Fountain of the Innocents, in the street of St. Denis at Paris. The cariatides which support a tribune in the hall of the Hundred Swiss at the Louvre are no less so. Many more of his works may be seen in that city, which are the admiration of connoisseurs, and remind us of the simple and sublime beauties of the antique style; for which reason he is justly called the Corregio of sculpture.

, an artist, born at Florence in 1400, was the disciple of Fra Angelico, but the imitator of Masaccio, to whom he was little inferior in most, and superior in some parts of the art. He lived long at Pisa, where his best works still exist, and appear less loaded with the gaudy extravagance of that missal style which deluded the age. The Bible-histories, with which he filled one entire side of the Campo Santo at Pisa, are by Vasari styled “a terrible work, performances to intimidate a legion of painters.” It is in that place where he displays a power of composition, a truth of imitation, a variety of character and attitude, a juicy, lively, lucid colour, and a pathos of expression that places him next to Masaccio. The inequality of the work, however, seems to betray more than one hand. He died at Pisa in 1478, and a sepulchre, erected to his memory by the gratitude of his employers, is placed near the above work, with an epitaph in his praise. His works were engraved by Lasinio, and published in 1805 and 1807.

, clock and watch maker, the most ingenious and accurate artist in his time, was born at Horsgills, in the parish of Kirklinton in Cumberland, in 1675. In 1688 he came up to London, and was put apprentice to a person in that profession; but after being some time with his master, he was received, purely on account of his merit, into the family of the celebrated Mr. Tompion, who treated him with a kind of parental affection as long as he lived. That Mr. Graham was/ without competition, the most eminent of his profession, is but a small part of his character he was the best general mechanic of his time, and had a complete knowledge of practical astronomy so that he not only gave to various movements for measuring time a degree of perfection which had never before been attained, but invented several astronomical instruments, by which considerable advances have been made in that science he also made great improvements in those which had before been in use and, by a wonderful manual dexterity, constructed them with greater precision and accuracy than any other person in the world.

, a French artist, well known in this as well as his own country, was born at Paris March 26, 1699. He does not appear to have had much education in his profession, but soon made some figure as a draughtsman. He accompanied La Rochalard, who was appointed governor-general of St. Domingo, and meeting in that island with the artist Frezier, was employed by him on a map of the country. Gravelot returned to France in 1745, where he applied principally to drawing; but finding himself in the midst of a number of eminent artists, among whom he despaired of distinguishing himself, he came over to London, where he lived thirteen years. He possessed great fertility of invention, and composed, with much judgment, small subjects for vignettes and other book ornaments; he drew also admirably ancient buildings, tombs, and prospects, and was much employed in all these branches by the artists of London. He drew the monuments of the kings for Vertue, and gave the designs, where invention was necessary, for Pine’s plates of the tapestry in the house of lords. He was also for some time employed in Gloucestershire, drawing churches and antiquities. Vertue compares his neat manner to Picart, and owns that in composition and design, he even excelled his favourite Hollar. He sometimes attempted painting small histories and conversations, and he designed as well as engraved some of the prints to sir The* mas Hanmer’s edition of Shakspeare, and those belonging to Theobald’s edition: but the finest specimen of his abilities as an engraver, is his large print of Kirkstall abbey. He returned to France about the beginning of the present reign, and executed for the booksellers of Paris, the beautiful designs with which they ornamented the works of Corneille, Racine, Voltaire, Boccaccio, Ariosto, Marmontel, &c. He died at Paris in 1773. He is said to have been a man of wit and talents, and perfectly acquainted with the history and theory of his art.

In 1668 our author published at London another work, entitled “Exercitationes Geometricae,” which contributed still much farther to extend his reputation. About this time he was elected professor of mathematics in the university of St. Andrew’s, an office which he held for six years. During his residence there he married, in 1669, Mary, the daughter of George Jameson, the celebrated painter, whom Mr, Walpole has termed the Vandyke of Scotland, and who was fellow disciple with that great artist in the school of Rubens at Antwerp. His fame placed him in so great esteem with the royal academy at Paris, that, in the beginning of 1671, it was resolved by that aca^ demy to recommend him to their grand monarch for a pension; and the design was approved even by Mr. Huygens, though he said he had reason to think himself improperly treated by Mr. Gregory, on account of the controversy between them. Accordingly, several members of that academy wrote to Mr. Oldenburg, desiring him to acquaint the council of the royal society with their proposal; informing him likewise, that the king of France was willing to allow pensions to one or two learned Englishman, whom they should recommend. But no answer was ever made to that proposal; and our author, with respect to this particular, looked upon it as nothing more than a compliment.

In 1672 he published “The great and new art of weighing Vanity or a discovery of the ignorance and arrogance of the great and new artist, in his pseudo-philosophical writings. By M. Patrick Mathers, arch-bedal to the university of St. Andrew’s. To which are annexed some tentamina de motu penduli et projectorum.” Under this assumed name, our author wrote this little piece to expose the ignorance of Mr. Sinclare, professor at Glasgow, in his hydrostatical writings, and in return for some ill-usage of that author to a colleague of Mr. Gregory’s. In the same year, sir Isaac Newton, on his wonderful discoveries in the nature of light, having contrived a new reflecting telescope, and made several objections to Mr. Gregory’s, this gave birth to a dispute between those two philosophers, which was continued during that and the following year, in the most amicable manner on each side; Mr. Gregory defending his own construction so far, as to give his antagonist the whole honour of having made the catoptric telescopes preferable to the dioptric; and shewing, that the imperfections in these instruments were not so much owing to a defect in the object-speculum as to the different refrangibility of the rays of light. In the course of this dispute, our author described a burning concave mirror, which was approved by sir Isaac, and is still in good esteem. Several letters that passed in this dispute are printed by Dr. Desaguliers, in an appendix to the English edition of Dr. David Gregory’s “Elements of Catoptrics and Dioptrics.” All this while he attended the proper business of his professorship with great diligence, which taking up the greatest part of his time, especially in the winter season, interrupted him in the pursuit of his proper studies. These, however, led him to farther improvements in the invention of infinite series, which he occasionally communicated to his intimate friend and correspondent Mr. Collins. In 1674 Mr. Gregory was called to Edinburgh, to fill the chair of mathematics in that university. This place he had held but little more than a year, when, in October 1675, being employed in shewing the satellites of Jupiter through a telescope to some of his pupils, he was suddenly struck with total blindness, and died a few days after, to the great loss of the mathematical world, at only thirty-seven years of age.

, whose proper name was John Francis Barbieri, an eminent artist, was born at Cento, a village subject to Ferrara, in 1590, and learnt the principles of the art from his countrymen Cremonirii and Benedetto Gennari. Tradition classes him with the disciples of the Carracci but neither his age, his habits, nor his style, make it probable that he ever belonged to that school for of three manners which he successively adopted, it is difficult to say which differs most from its precepts. The first, and least known, is an imitation of Caravagio, abrupt with vivid lights, and deep shades, without much study in faces or extremities; flesh of a yellow cast, and little amenity of colour. From this he passed to the second, his best and most valued manner, gradually improving it by observation, and the help of the Venetian, Bolognese, and Roman schools, by connexion with the best scholars of the Carracci, and the friendship of Caravagio, whose style still forms its basis in bold contrasts of light and shade, but sweetly united, and magically relieved; like Caravagio, he obliterates the outline, but leaves him far behind in elegance and dignity of feature. His females, insidiously charming, dart a sting from their veiled eyes, though his men generally exhibit little more than what the model could afford; youthful vulgarity, emaciated age.

, a very celebrated artist, was born at Bologna in 1574, and early in life became the pupil of Denis Calvert, a Fleming; but he afterwards entered the school of the Carracci at Bologna, and is by many considered as their principal pupil, and none but Domenichino would have been entitled to dispute that praise with him, if his astonishing work of the communion of St. Jerome had been equally supported by his other labours, The Carracci, however, were too jealous to rejoice in the extraordinary progress of Guido, who threatened to rival at least, if not surpass, their own claims to public applause, and Ludovico disgracefully attempted to depreciate his pupil by opposing Guercino to him, while Annihal himself js said to have censured Albani for having conducted Guido. thither, alarmed at his aspiring talents, his graceful man-, ner, and ambitious desire to excel.

, a portrait painter of great celebrity, was born at Mechlin in 1584. He was a pupil of C. Van Mander, and by a careful observation of nature obtained that accurate knowledge of the structure of the human frame, which is so useful in his art. No man ever set the features of a face together with more truth than Frank Hals, or with a readier pencil; and he did it with great truth and spirit also of colour, as well as of execution. He avoided the laboured mode of finish so much admired among his countrymen at the time, and gave his portraits much expression and animation of countenance, particularly of a gay and humourous nature. A decided character of individual nature is remarkable in his portraits, and is not found in an equal degree in any other painter. If he had joined to this most difficult part of the art, a patience in finishing what he had so correctly planned, he might justly have claimed the place which Vandyke, all things considered, so justly holds as the first of portrait painters. This last mentioned artist was so delighted with his works, that he went to Haerlem, where he resided, for no other purpose than to pay him a visit. He introduced himself as a gentleman on his travels, who wished in haste to have his portrait painted. Hals was hurried from the tavern, where he usually passed his leisure time, seized the first canvas he could find, and began his labour. In a short time he had proceeded so far, that he asked Vandyke to look at what he had done, who expressed himself as very well pleased with it, at the same time saying that he thought such work so easy, he was persuaded he could do it himself. Taking the palette and pencils, he desired F. Hals to sit down, and in a quarter of an hour shewed him the portrait. The moment he saw it he recognized his visitor, and embraced him with transport. Vandyke endeavoured to prevail upon Hals to accompany him to England, engaging to enrich him but he was not able to succeed Hals declaring that his happiness consisted in the enjoyment of his friends and his bottle, and while he possessed these he was satisfied with his condition. For his treatment of Brouwer, see our account of that artist. He died in 1666, at the age of eighty-two. He had a brother, Dirk Hals, a painter of animals, merry-makings, conversations, feasts, and subjects of drollery, to whom, however, as an artist, he was far superior in all the better qualities of art: yet Dirk’s works gained him much reputation, and he practised with great success till he was sixty-seven years old, when he died in 1656.

A considerable part of the latter periods of this artist’s life was dedicated to the discovery of antique monuments. He opened scavos in various places of ttye Roman state, at Centumcellue, Velletri, Ostia* and above all at Tivoli, among the ruins of Adrian’s Villa; and it must be owned that the success which attended most of his researches made amply up to art in general for the loss which painting perhaps may have suffered by the intermission of his practice and example. In the collection of the Museo Clementino, next to the treasures of Belvedere, the contributions of Hamilton in statues, busts, and basso relievos, were by far the most important to the progress of art and classic learning; and the best collections scattered over Russia, Germany, and this country, owe many of their principal ornaments to his discoveries. Nor was he less attentive to modern art; he published his “Schola Italica Picture” to trace the progress of its styles from Lionardo da Vinci to the successors of the Caracci. It yet remains to be said Hamilton, that however eminent his talents or other qualities were, they were excelled by the liberality, benevolence, and humanity of his character.

Mr. Hamilton was appointed ambassador to the court of Naples in 1764; and from that time to 1800, in which he was recalled, it may be said, with the strictest justice, that he did much more for the advancementof the fine arts, natural history, and antiquities, than any individual or corporation in that metropolis; perhaps, or even the government itself. In Naples the state of those branches of knowledge, which constituted Mr. Hamilton’s pursuits, was at this time very low, and as far as early and intense application may be considered proofs of a predominant passion, it appears that the objects of natural history chiefly engaged his attention. In a short period from his arrival, he had already collected a vast number of articles connected with this science, and had thus formed a valuable cabinet, of which, according to the expression of one of his friends, “he could be himself the ablest demonstrator.” Between 1764, and the middle of 1767, he visited Vesuvius no less than twenty-two times, and had as often observed the different spots around Naples affected by volcanic eruptions; and it was universally remarked by those who had the pleasure, to accompany him in these excursions, that he was the best and most instructive “Cicerone” that could possibly be found for such occasions. He also visited Mount Etna, and the Eolian islands, places which had not been examined with such attention before. The phenomena which their surface presented to his view did not satisfy his curiosity: he observed the interior parts of the soil, and every minute circumstance that attended the operations of nature: not one of the different substances which had ever issued from these volcanoes was left unnoticed. In all his excursions he was constantly accompanied by an artist of great merit, Mr. Fabris, who drew plans and delineated such objects as were most interesting and striking.

A new phenomenon, however, occurred after this publication, which was too striking not to excite a peculiar attention in our ingenious naturalist, and not to engage him in a new work. We allude to the great eruption of Mount Vesuvius, on the 8th of August, 1779, and to the “Supplement” to the “Campi Phiegraei,” to which it gave rise. As was his custom, Mr. Hamilton had communicated a description of that wonderful event to the royal society, which was printed in the first part of the Philosophical Transactions for the year 1780. He afterwards, however, as he had done with his former ones, collected these observations, and formed of them a regular work. In the year of the great eruption, he published in Naples, a fine edition of the above-mentioned book, beautifully illustrated by coloured prints, from the drawings of the same artist, Peter Fabris; the drawings and illuminations being likewise copied from nature, under his own inspection.

In the science of antiquities, so early as 1765, he had promoted the publication of the magnificent and elegant ttrork, “Antiquites Etrusques, Grecques,etRomaines, tire*es du Cabinet de Mr. Hamilton;” a fine collection of designs from Etruscan, Greek, and Roman vases, which was received with the greatest satisfaction by the lovers of antiquity and the arts. The design of this work was professedly the advancement of the arts. It was intended to shew on what system the ancients gave their vases that elegance so generally acknowledged and admired, and how they were able to assign the exact measures of their proportion; and to establish certain principles for the artist who would perform something in the same way. It was, in short, a most valuable present to the learned and to artists, and above all to manufacturers of earthen ware and china, and of vase in silver, glass, &c. who found here an infinite variety of beautiful models, most of which had been until then unknown; and indeed it may be observed, that since that period our articles of the above description are universally formed with more beauty, taste, and elegance; qualities in which we as yet remain unequalled by any other country.

Among the several persons whom Mr. Hamilton honoured with his patronage at Naples, we shall only mention the celebrated engraver, Morghen; as it was owing to his encouragement that this eminent artist, in 1769, published that elegant collection of views at Pozzuoli and other spots in the neighbourhood of Naples. It is pleasing to say that Mr. Morghen soon evinced his gratitude towards his patron, and the nation to which the latter belonged the collection was dedicated to the Society of arts in London and the greatest part of the views were inscribed to some individuals of our nobility who then happened to be in Naples. Ever since the year 1770, Mr. Hamilton had established a regular correspondence with various intelligent persons 4n the several provinces of the kingdom, concerning such monuments of arts or antiquities as might happen to be found near their respective residences, and which might answer his further purposes. This correspondence was carried on with a peculiar activity in the province of Campania, that province being indeed the spot in which the greatest number of ancient vaseshas been found, and which for this reason is thought to have possessed the chief manufactures of that article.

As a composer, it would be affectation to attempt any character of Handel after what Dr. Burney has given. “That Handel was superior in the strength and boldness of his style, the richness of his harmony, and complication of parts, to every composer who has been most admired for such excellencies, cannot be disputed; and while fugue, contrivance, and a full score were more generallyreverenced than at present, he remained wholly unrivalled. We know it has been said that Handel was not the original 3-nd immediate inventor of several species of music for which his name has been celebrated; but with respect to originality, it is a term to which proper limits should be set before it is applied to the productions of any artist. Every invention is clumsy in its beginning; and Shakspeare was not the first writer of plays, or Corelli the first composer of violin solos, sonatas, and concertos, though those which he produced were the best of his time; nor was Milton the inventor of epic poetry. The scale, harmony, and cadence of music being settled, it is impossible for any composer to invent a genus of composition that is wholly and rigorously new, any more than for a poet to form a language, idiom, and phraseology for himself. All that the o-reatest and boldest musical inventor can do, is to avail himself of the best effusions, combinations, and effects of his predecessors; to arrange and apply them in a new manner; and to add from his own source, whatever he can draw, that is grand, graceful, gay, pathetic, or in any other way pleasing. This Handel did in a most ample and superior manner; being possessed in his middle age and full vigour, of every refinement and perfection of his time; uniting the depth and elaborate contrivance of his own country with Italian elegance and facility; as he seems while he resided south of the Alps, to have listened attentively in the church, theatre, and chamber, to the most exquisite compositions and performers of every kind that were then existing. We will not assert that his vocal meTodies were more polished and graceful than those of his countryman and contemporary Hasse; or his recitatives or musical declamation, superior to that of his rivals Buononcini and Porpora. But in his instrumental compositions there is a vigour, a spirit, a variety, a learning, and invention, superior to every other composer that can be named; and in his organ fugues and organ playing, there is learning always free from pedantry; and in his choruses a grandeur and sublimity which we believe has never been equalled since the invention of counterpoint.”

From every evidence, he appears to have been a man of extensive learning, and acquainted not only with the best authors of his time, but with the classics, the fathers of the church, and other eminent writers of antiquity, which Dr. Maty, rather inconsiderately, calls “Gothic erudition.” It is true that he often discovers that kind of reading which is seldom read, but the illustrations he has appended to the poems in “The Amaranth,” from the fathers, &c. are generally apt and judicious. Towards the close of life, he cheered his painful and solitary hours by devotional reading, He died unmarried, and at one time seems to have considered the married state as unfavourable to the exertions of genius. In his “Essay on Painting,” he very ungallantly recommends that the artist should be

, an English artist, much celebrated in his day, was born in 1708, at Exeter, and was the scholar of Brown. He appears to have come to London in the early part of his life, and was much employed by Fleetwood, the proprietor of Drury-lane theatre, for whom he painted many scenes. In the pursuit of his profession, he was not extremely assiduous, being more convivial than studious; yet he acquired a very considerable degree of power in his art, and was the best historical painter in the kingdom, before the arrival of Cipriani. It was this superiority of talent that introduced him to the notice of Mr. Jonathan Tyers, the founder and proprietor of Vauxhall, by whom he was employed in decorating those well-known gardens, and where some of his best historical pictures are still to be seen. He also painted four pictures from subjects taken from Sbakspeare, for what is called the prince’s pavilion in Vauxhall, but Mr. Tyers had such an high opinion of them, as to remove them to his own residence, and place copies in their room. His reputation procured him much employment from the booksellers, whom he furnished with drawings for their editions of Moore’s Fables, Congreve’s Works, Newton’s Milton, Hammer’s Shakspeare, Smcllet’s Don Quixote, Pope’s Works, &c. These drawings have in general great merit.

, a painter of considerable fame, when there were few who deserved it, was born at Ghent, in 1534, the son of John de Heere, the best statuary of his time; and Anne Smyters, who had the reputation of being a most surprising pain tress of landscapes in miniature. Van Mander gives almost an incredible account of one performance of that female artist. From such parents De Heere had a fair prospect of gaining every necessary part of instruction; and having under their direction learned to design and handle the pencil with ease and freedom, he was placed as a disciple with Francis Fioris. With that master he improved very expeditiously, and on quitting his school travelled to France, where he was employed for some years by the queen-mother, in drawing designs for tapestry. At his return to his native city, he painted a great number of portraits with applause; and was remarkable for having so retentive a memory, that if he save any person but once, he could paint his likeness as strong as if he had his model before his eyes. On the shutters of the altar-piece in the church of St. Peter at Ghent, he painted the Descent of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles, in which the draperies are extremely admired; and in the church of St. John he painted an altar-piece representing the Resurrection.

His manner was stiff, resembling that of his master; but m the colouring of the heads of his portraits there appears a great deal of nature and clearness; and he is very commendable for his high finishing, as welt as for giving a fullness to his draperies. This artist resided for several years in England, where many of his portraits of the nobility are still preserved, and much esteemed, such as lady Jane Grey, lord Darnley husband of Mary queen of Scotland, Frances duchess of Suffolk, &c. and at Longleate there is a large picture of a gentleman, his wife and family, consisting of eight persons. Soon after he came to England, he painted a naked man with different-coloured clothes lying besides him, and a pair of sheers in his-hand, as a satire on our fickleness in fashion it is illustrative of a verse by Andrew de Borde, who in his “Introduction to Knowledge,” has prefixed to the first chapter a naked man with these lines:

, a Dutch artist, was born at Haerlem in 1613, and became one of the best portrait painters of his time. He sometimes attempted history, and displayed taste and nature in the landscapes which he introduced, but his chief merit is in his portraits, which he designed in an agreeable style, with a light, free touch, and a mellow pencil. His most capital performance is in the town-hall of Amsterdam; it represents a company of trained bands, about thirty figures in whole length. Of its merit our readers may entertain a high idea when they are told that sir Joshua Reynolds has given it as his opinion that it is perhaps the first picture of portraits in the world, comprehending more of those qualities which make a perfect portrait, than any other sir Joshua had ever seen. They are correctly drawn, both head and figures, and well coloured; and have great variety of action, characters, and countenances, and those so truly and lively expressive of what they are about, that ttie spectator has nothing to wish for. This artist died in 1670.

, was a Spanish artist, but although he wrote his own life, the year and place of his birth remain uncertain. He was probably born about 1656, and was living in 1711. At Valencia, he tells us, he was called a Castilian; perhaps he was a Murcian, for in Mtircia he applied first to the art under Villacis and Gilarte: he then travelled to Rome, and under the direction of Giacinto Brand i was making considerable progress, when declining health hastened his return to the milder climate of Valencia, from whence, after a studious residence of some years, he advanced to Madrid, and in 1674 received the commission of decorating the cloisters of S. Felipe el Real with a series of paintings; a labour often interrupted by other numerous avocations, and protracted to 1711: in the twenty-four subjects of this extensive work, he shewed himself master of composition. Garcia was made painter to the court, and knight of S. Miguel, by Philip V.; and by the tribunal of the inquisition appointed censor of public paintings. His exertions in art were chiefly directed to the improvement of style and the acquisition of a classic taste in Spain; with this view he published, in 1691, his “Principios para estudiar el Nobilissimo Arte de la Pintura.”

, an eminent painter, was born in the parish of St. James, Garlickhithe, London, June 13, 1692, being the third son of Mr. Edward Hightnore , a coal-merchant in Thames-street. Having such an early and strong inclination to painting, that he could think of nothing else with pleasure', his father endeavoured to gratify him in a proposal to his uncle, who was serjeant-painter to king William, and with whom Mr. (afterward Sir James) Thorn hi 11 f had served his apprenticeship. But this was afterwards for good reasons declined, and he was articled as clerk to an attorney, July 18, 1707; but so much against his own declared inclination, that in about three years he began to form resolutions of indulging his natural disposition to his favourite art, having continually employed his leisure hours in designing, and in the study of geometry, perspective, architecture, and anatomy, but without any instructors except books. He had afterwards an opportunity of improving himself in anatomy, by attending the lectures of Mr. Cheselden, besides entering himself at the Painters’ Academy in Great Queen -street, where he drew ten years, and had the honour to be particularly noticed by sir Godfrey Kneller, who distinguished him by the name of “the Young Lawyer.” On June 13, 1714, his clerkship expired; and on March 26, 1715, he began painting as a profession, and settled in the city. In the same year Dr. Brook Taylor published his “Linear Perspective: or anew method of representing justly all manner of objects as they appear to the eye, in all situations.” On this complete and universal theory our artist grounded his subsequent practice; and it has been generally allowed, that few, if any, of the profession at that time, were so thoroughly masters of that excellent, but intricate system. In 1716, he married miss Susanna Killer, daughter and heiress of Mr. Anthony Hiller, of Em'ngliam, in Surrey; a young lady in every respect worthy of his choice. For Mr. Cheselden’s “Anatomy of the Human. Body,” published in 1722, he made drawings from the real subjects at the time of dissection, two of which were engraved for that work, and appear, but without his name, in tables xii. and xiii. In the same year, on the exhibition of “The Conscious Lovers,” written by sir Richard Stecle, Mr. Highmore addressed a letter to the author, (puhlished in 1760 in the Gentleman’s Magazine), on the limits of filial obedience, pointing out a material defect in the character of Bevil, with that clearness and precision for which, in conversation and writing, he was always remarkable, as the pencil by no means engrossed his whole attention. His reputation and business increasing, he took a more conspicuous station, by removing to a house in Lincoln’s-innfields, in March 1723-4; and an opportunity soon offered of introducing him advantageously to the nobility, &c. from his being desired, by Mr. Pine the engraver, to make the drawings for his prints of the Knights of the Bath, on the revival of that order in 1725. In consequence of this, several of the knights had their portraits also by the same hand, some of them whole lengths; and the duke of Kichmond, in particular, was attended by l.is three esquiies, with a perspective view of king Henry the Vilth’s chapel. This capital picture is now at Goodwood. The artist was also sent for to St. James’s, by George I. to paint the portrait of William duke of Cumberland, from which Smith scraped a mezzotinto.

, an English artist, the son of Nicholas Hilliard of Exeter, was born in that city in 1547 and for want of a proper instructor, studied the works of Hans Holbein, which to him seemed preferable to all others, but he was incapable of acquiring the force and nature which that great master impressed on all his smaller performances. He could never arrive at any strength of colouring his carnations were always pale, and void of any variety of tints yet his penciling was exceedingly neat, the jewels and ornaments of his portraits were expressed with lines incredibly slender, and even the hairs of the head and of the beard were almost distinctly to be counted. He was exact in describing the dress of the times, but he rarely attempted more than a head; and yet his works were much admired and highly prized. He painted the portrait of the queen of Scots, which gained bina universal applause; and queen Elizabeth sat to him for her portrait several times. He was this queen’s goldsmith, carver, and portrait-painter. He was very much employed by the nobility and gentry, and was admired and highly prized in his time. Enjoying his reputation to the age of seventy-two, he died in 1619. Donne has celebrated him in a poem called “The Storm;” where he says,

, an ingenious and amiable English artist, was born about the year 1707, at Eye, near Ipswich, in Suftblk. His father was possessed of considerable property, holding a farm of large extent in his own hands. William shewing very early a disposition to study, was sent to a. school at Faringdon in Berkshire, where the master enjoyed a hii;h reputation for classical learning. The pupil eagerly availed himself of every opportunity of improvement, and in the course of a few years attained such a degree of proficiency as to assist his master occasionally in the tuition of the other scholars. To these acquirements he added no indifferent skill in drawing, which was also taught in the school; and he soon distinguished himself above his competitors in the prize exhibitions, which took place once a year. Indulging the bent of his mind to this art, he solicited and obtained his father’s permission to follow his studies in painting with a professional view. For this purpose, after having completed the school courses with great credit to himself, he was removed to London, where he was placed under the care of Grisoni, an Italian painter of history, the best, and perhaps the only one, which that time afforded. Grisoni, however, was at the best a very poor painter, and the example of his works was little calculated to produce eminence in his scholar. But he was a man of sound judgment and benevolent disposition, and it is probable that the sense of his own insufficiency induced him to persuade young William to seek a more satisfactory guidance in the pursuit to which he devoted himself so earnestly. The schools’ of Italy appeared to him the place to which a learner should resort for the means of accomplishment in his art. William caught the suggestion with eagerness, and the father’s permission was again earnestly sought, for visiting the foreign treasures of painting and sculpture, which were then known to the English only through the communications of such of our gentlemen and nobility as travelled on the continent for the purposes of polite accomplishment. William Hoare was the first English painter who visited Rome for professional study.

, an eminent historical and landscape painter, born at Bommel in 1648, was a disciple of Warnard van Rysen, an excellent artist, who had been bred in the school of Polemburg. He was at first invited to Cleve, where his paintings procured him very great credit; but he was afterwards prevailed on to visit Paris, where not meeting with encouragement in any degree proportioned to his merit, he turned his attention to England, whither he certainly would have directed his course, had he not been dissuaded by Vosterman. After practising, therefore, for some time at Paris and Cleves, he settled at Utrecht, and in that city and its neighbourhood displayed his abilities, in executing several grand designs for ceilings, saloons, and apartments, and also in finishing a great number of easel pictures for cabinets; and his reputation was so universally established at Utrecht, that he was appointed director of an academy for drawing and painting, which he conducted, with great honour to himself, and remarkable advantage to his pupils. He had a lively imagination, a very ready invention, a talent for composition and correctness in the costume. His manner of painting was clean and neat, and he was thoroughly master of the true principles of the chiaroscuro. His figures in general are designed with elegance, his colouring is vivid, natural, and harmonious, his touch is light and firm, and his pictures have a great deal of transparence. His small easel-paintings are as distinctly touched as highly finished; and yet his larger works are always penciled with a freedom that is suitable to those grander compositions.

His first employment seems to have been the engraving of arms and shop-bills. The next step was to design and furnish plates for booksellers; and here we are fortunately supplied with dates. Thirteen folio prints, with his name to each, appeared in Aubry de la Motraye’s Travels, in 1723; seven smaller prints for Apuleius’ Golden Ass, in 1724; fifteen head-pieces to Beaver’s Military Punishments of the Ancients; five frontispieces for the translation of Cassandra, in five volumes, 12mo, 1725; seventeen cuts for a duodecimo edition of Hudibras (with Butler’s head), in 1726; two for Perseus and Andromeda, in 1730; two for Milton [the date uncertain]; and a variety of others between 1726 and 1733. Mr. Bowles, at the Black-horse in Cornhill, was one of his earliest patrons, but paid him very low prices. His next friend in the same business was Mr. Philip Overton, who rewarded him somewhat better for his labour and ingenuity. There are still many family pictures by Hogarth existing, in the style of serious conversation-pieces. What the prices of liis portraits were, Mr. Nichols strove in vain to discover; but he suspected that they were originally very low, as the persons who were best acquainted with them chose to be silent on the subject. At Rivenhall, in Essex, the seat of Mr. Western, is a family-picture, by Hogarth, of Mr. Western and his mother, chancellor Hoadly, archdeacon Charles Plumptre, the Rev. Mr. Cole of Milton near Cambridge, and Mr. Henry Taylor, the curate there 1736. In the gallery of Mr. Cole of Milton, was also a whole-length picture of Mr. Western by Hogarth, a striking resemblance. He is drawn sitting in his fellow-commoner’s habit, and square cap with a gold tassel, in his chamber at Clare-hall, over the arch towards the river; and the artist, as the chimney could not be expressed, has drawn a cat sitting near it, agreeable to his humour, to shew the situation. Mr. Western’s mother, whose portrait is in the conversation-piece at Rivenhall, was a daughter of sir Anthony Shirley.

It happened in the early part of Hogarth’s life, that a nobleman who was uncommonly ugly and deformed, came to sit to him for his picture. It was executed with a skill that did honour to the artist’s abilities; but the likeness was rigidly observed, without even the necessary attention to compliment or flattery. The peer, disgusted at this counterpart of his dear self, never once thought of paying for a reflector that would only insult him with his deformities. Some time was suffered to elapse before the artist applied for his money; but afterwards many applications were made by him (who had then no need of a banker) for payment, but without success. The painter, however, at last hit upon an expedient which he knew must alarm the nobleman’s pride, and by that means answer his purpose. It was couched in the following card: “Mr. Hogarth’s dutiful respects to lord; finding that he does not mean to have the picture which was drawn for him, is informed again of Mr. H.'s necessity for the money; if, therefore, his lordship does not send for it in three days, it will be disposed of, with the addition of a tail, and some other little appendages, to Mr. Hare, the famous wild-beast man; Mr. H. having given that gentleman a conditional promise of it for an exhibition picture, on his lordship’s refusal.” This intimation had the desired effect. The picture was sent home, and committed to the flames.

Mr. Walpole has remarked, that if our artist “indulged his spirit of ridicule in personalities, it never proceeded beyond sketches and drawings,” and wonders “that he never, without intention, delivered the very features of any identical person.” But this elegant writer, who may be said to have received his education in a court, had perhaps few opportunities of acquaintance among the low popular characters with which Hogarth occasionally peopled his scenes. The friend who contributed this remark, was assured by an ancient gentleman of unquestionable veracity and acuteness of remark, that almost all the personages who attended the levee of the Rake were undoubted portraits; and that in “Southvvark Fair,” and the “Modern Midnight Conversation,” as many more were discoverable. In the former plate he pointed out Essex the dancingmaster; and in the latter, as well as in the second plate to the “Rake’s Progress,” Figg the prize-fighter. He mentioned several others by name, from his immediate knowledge both of the painter’s design and the characters represented; but the rest of the particulars by which he supported his assertions, have esca'ped the memory of our informant. While Hogarth was painting the “Rake’s Progress,” he had a summer reidence at Isleworth, and never failed to question the company who came to see these pictures if they knew for whom one or another figure was designed. When they guessed wrongly, he set them right.

In 1727, Hogarth agreed with Morris, an upholsterer, to furnish him with a design on canvas, representing the element of earth, as a pattern for tapestry. The work not being performed to the satisfaction of Morris, he refused to pay for it, and the artist, by a suit at law, recovered the money.

In 1730, Hogarth married the only daughter of sir James Thornhill, by whom he had no child. This union, indeed, was a stolen one, and consequently without the approbation of sir James, who, considering the youth of his daughter, then barely eighteen, and the slender finances of her husband, as yet an obscure artist, was not easily reconciled to the match. Soon after this period, however, he began his “Harlot’s Progress,” and was advised by lady Thornhill to have some of the scenes in it placed in the way of his father-in-law. Accordingly, one morning early, Mrs. Hogarth undertook to convey several of them into his diningroom. When he arose, he inquired whence they came; and being told by whom they were introduced, he cried out, “Very well; the man who can furnish representations like these, can also maintain a wife without a portion.” He designed this remark as an excuse for keeping his pursestrings close; but, soon after, became both reconciled and generous to the young people. An allegorical cieling by sir James Thornhill is at the house of the late Mr. Huggins, at Headly-park, Hants. The subject of it is the story of Zepbyrus and Flora; and the figure of a satyr and sortie others were painted by Hogarth.

In 1732 he ventured to attack Mr. Pope, in a plate called “The Man of Taste,” containing a view of the gate of Burlington-house, with Pope white-washing it, and bespattering the duke of Chandos’s coach. This plate was intended as a satire on the translator of Homer, Mr. Kent tUe architect, and the earl of Burlington. It was fortunate for Hogarth that he escaped the lash of the first. Either Hogarth’s obscurity at that time was his protection, or the bard was too prudent to exasperate a painter who had already given such proof of his abilities for satire. What must he have felt who could complain of the “pictured shape” prefixed to “Gulliveriana,” “Pope Alexander’s Supremacy and Infallibility examined,” &c. by Ducket, and other pieces, had such an artist as Hogarth undertaken, to express a certain transaction recorded by Gibber?

The ingenious abbe du Bos has often complained, that no history-painter of his time went through a scries of actions, and thus, like an historian, painted the successive fortune of an hero, from the cradle to the grave. What Du Bos wished to see done, Hogarth performed. He launches out his young adventurer a simple girl upon the town, and conducts her through all the vicissitudes of wretchedness to a premature death. This was painting to the understanding and to the heart; none had ever before made the pencil subservient to the purposes of morality and instruction; a book like this is fitted to every soil and every observer, and he that runs may read. Nor was the success of Hogarth confined to his figures. One of his excellencies consisted in what may be termed the furniture of his pieces; for as in sublime and historical representations the seldomer trivial circumstances are permitted to divide the spectator’s attention from the principal figures, the greater is their force; so in scenes copied from familiar life, a proper variety of little domestic images contributes to throw a degree of verisimilitude on the whole. “The Rake’s levee-room,” says Mr. Walpole, “the nobleman’s dining-rootn, the apartments of the husband and wife in Marriage a la Mode, the alderman’s parlour, the bedchamber, and many others, are the history of the manners of the age.” The novelty and excellence of Hogarth’s performances soon tempted the needy artist and printdealer to avail themselves of his designs, and rob him of the advantages which he was entitled to derive from them. This was particularly the case with the “Midnight Conversation,” the “Harlot’s” and “Rake’s Progresses,” and Others of his early works. To put a stop to depredations Kke these on the property of himself and others, and to secure the emoluments resulting from his own labours, as Mr. Walpole observes, he applied to the legislature, and obtained an act of parliament, 8 Geo. II. cap. 38, to vest an exclusive right in designers and engravers, and to restrain the multiplying of copies of their works without the consent of the artist. This statute was drawn by his friend Mr. Huggins, who took for his model the eighth of queen Anne, in favour of literary property; but it was not so accurately executed as entirely to remedy the evil; for, in a cause founded on it, which came before lord Hardwicke in chancery, that excellent lawyer determined, that no assignee, claiming under an assignment from the original inventor, could take any benefit by it. Hogarth, immediately after the passing of the act, published a small print, with emblematical devices, and an inscription expressing his gratitude to the three branches of the legislature. Small copies of the “Rake’s Progress” were published by his permission. In 1745, finding that, however great the success of his prints might be, the public were not inclined to take his pictures off his hands, he was induced to offer some of them, and those of the best he had then produced, for disposal by way of auction; but after a plan of his own, viz. by keeping open a book to receive biddings from the first day of February to the last day of the same month, at 12 o'clock. The ticket of admission to the sale was his print of “The Battle of the Pictures,” a humourous production, in which he ingeniously upheld his assertions concerning the preference so unfairly given to old pictures, and the tricks of the dealers in them.

Hogarth had projected a “Happy Marriage,” by way of counterpart to his “Marriage a la Mode.” A design for the first of his intended six plates he had sketched out in colours; and the following is as accurate an account of it as could be furnished by a gentleman who long ago enjoyed only a few minutes sight of so great a curiosity. The time supposed was immediately after the return of the parties from church. The scene lay in the hall of an antiquated country mansion. On one side the married couple were represented sitting. Behind them was a group of their young friends of both sexes, in the act of breaking bridecake over their heads. In front appeared the father of the young lady, grasping a bumper, and drinking, with a seeming roar of exultation, to the future happiness of her and her husband. By his side was a table covered with refreshments. Jollity rather than politeness was the designation of his character. Under the screen of the hall, several rustic musicians in grotesque attitudes, together with servants, tenants, &c. were arranged. Through the arch by which the room was entered, the eye was led along a passage into the kitchen, which afforded a glimpse of sacerdotal luxury. Before the dripping-pan stood a wellfed divine, in his gown and cassock, with his watch in his baud, giving directions to a cook, dressed all in white, who was employed in basting a haunch of venison. Among the faces of the principal figures, none but that of the young lady was completely finished. Hogarth had been often reproached for his inability to impart grace and dignity to his heroines. The bride was therefore meant to vindicate his pencil from so degrading an imputation. The effort, however, was unsuccessful. The girl was certainly pretty; but her features, if we may use the term, were uneducated. She might have attracted notice as a chambermaid, but would have fa-iled to extort applause as a woman of fashion. The clergyman and his culinary associate were more laboured than any other parts of the picture. It is natural for us to dwell longest on that division of a subject which is most congenial to our private feelings. The painter sat down with a resolution to delineate beauty improved by art, but seems, as usual, to have deviated into meanness, or could not help neglecting his original purpose, to luxuriate in such ideas as his situation in early life had fitted him to express. He found himself, in short, out of his element in the parlour, and therefore hastened in quest of ease and amusement, to the kitchen fire. Churchill, with more force than delicacy, once observed of him, that he only painted the backside of nature. It must be allowed, that such an artist, however excellent ia his walk, was better qualified to represent the low-born parent than the royal preserver of a foundling.

Hogarth had one failing in common with most people who attain wealth and eminence without the aid of liberal education. He affected to despise every kind of knowledge which he did not possess. Having established his fame with little or no obligation to literature, he either conceived it to be needless, or decried it because it lay out of his reach. His sentiments, in short, resembled those of Jack Cade, who pronounced sentence on the clerk of Chatham, because he could write and read. Till, in evil hour, this celebrated artist commenced author, and was obliged to employ the friends already mentioned to correct his “Analysis of Beauty,” he did not seem to have discovered that even spelling was a necessary qualification; and yet he had ventured to ridicule the late Mr. Rich’s deficiency as to this particular, in a note which lies before the Rake whose play is refused while he remains in confinement for debt. Before the time of which we are now speaking, one of our artist’s common topics of declamation, was the uselessness of books to a man of his profession. In Beerstreet, among other volumes consigned by him to the pastry-cook, we find “Turnbull on Ancient Painting,” a treatise which Hogarth should have been able to understand before he ventured to condemn. Garrick himself, however, was not more ductile to flattery. A word in favour of “Sigismunda,” might have commanded a proof print, or forced an original sketch out of our artist’s hands. The person who supplied this remark owed one of Hogarth’s scarcest performances to the success of a compliment, which might have seemed extravagant even to sir Godfrey Kneller.

Hogarth was the most absent of men. At table he would sometimes turn round his chair as if he had finished eating, and as suddenly would return it, and commence his meal again. He once directed a letter to Dr. Hoadly, thus: “To the Doctor at Chelsea.” This epistle, however, by good luck, did not miscarry; and was preserved by the late chancellor of Winchester, as a pleasant memorial of his friend’s extraordinary inattention. Another remarkable instance of Hogarth’s absence was related by one of his intimate friends. Soon after he set up his carriage, he had occasion to pay a visit to the lord-mayor, Mr. Beckford. When he went, the weather was fine; but business detained him till a violent shower of rain came on. He was let out of the mansion-house by a different door from that at which he entered; and, seeing the rain, began immediately to call for a hackney-coach. Not one was to be met with on any of the neighbouring stands; and the artist sallied forth to brave the storm, and actually reached Leicester-fields without bestowing a thought on his own carriage, till Mrs. Hogarth (surprised to see him so wet and splashed) askeci him where he had left it.

About 1757, his brother-in-law, Mr. Thornhill, resigned the place of king’s serjeant-painter in favour of Mr. Hogarth. “The last memorable event in our artist’s life,” as Mr. Walpole observes, " was his quarrel with Mr. Wilkes, in which, if Mr. Hogarth did not commence direct hostilities on the latter, he at least obliquely gave the first offence, by an attack on the friends and party of that gentleman. This conduct was the more surprising, as he had all his life avoided dipping his pencil in political contests, and had early refused a very lucrative offer that was made, to engage him in a set of prints against the head of a courtparty. Without entering into the merits of the cause, I shall only state the fact. In September 1762, Mr. Hogarth published his print of * The Times.‘ It was answered by Mr. Wilkes in a severe ’ North Briton.‘ On this the painter exhibited the caricatura of the writer. Mr. Churchill, the poet, then engaged in the war, and wrote his ’ Epistle ta Hogarth,‘ not the brightest’ of his works, and in which the severest strokes fell on a defect that the painter had neither caused nor could amend his age; and which, however, was neither remarkable nor decrepit; much less had it impaired his talents, as appeared by his having composed but six months before, one of his most capital works, the satire on the Methodists. In revenge for this epistle, Hogarth caricatured Churchill, under the form of a canonical bear, with a club and a pot of porter So vituld tit dignus & hie never did two angry men of their abilities throw mud with less dexterity.

It may be truly observed of Hogarth, that all his powers of delighting were restrained to his pencil. Having rarely been admitted into polite circles, none of his sharp corners had been rubbed off, so that he continued to the last a gross uncultivated man. The slightest contradiction transported him into rage. To some confidence in himself he was certainly entitled; for, as a comic painter, he could have claimed no honour that would not most readily have been allowed him; but he was at once unprincipled and variable in his political conduct and attachments. He is also said to have beheld the rising eminence and popularity of sir Joshua Reynolds with a degree of envy; and, if we are not misinformed, frequently spoke with asperity both of him and his performances. Justice, however, obliges us to add, that our artist was liberal, hpspitable, and the most punctual of paymasters; so that, in spite of the emoluments his works had procured to him, he left but an inconsiderable fortune to his widow. His plates indeed were such resources to her as could not speedily be exhausted. Some of his domestics had lived many years in his service, a circumstance that always reflects credit on a master. Of most of these he painted strong likenesses, on a canvas which was left in Mrs. Hogarth’s possession.

Hogarth made one essay in sculpture. He wanted a sign to distinguish his house in Leicester-fields; and thinking none more proper than the Golden Head, he out of a mass of cork made up of several thicknesses compacted together, carved a bust of Vandyck, which he gilt and placed over his door. It decayed, and was succeeded by a head in plaster, which in its turn was supplied by a head of sir Isaac Newton. Hogarth also modelled another resemblance of Vandyck in clay; which has also perished. His works, as his elegant biographer has well observed, are his history; and the curious are highly indebted to Mr. Walpole for a catalogue of his prints, drawn up from his own valuable collection, in 1771. But as neither that catalogue, nor his appendix to it in 1780, have given the whole of Mr. Hogarth’s labours, Mr. Nichols, including Mr. Walpole’s catalogue, has endeavoured, from later discoveries of our artist’s prints in other collections, to arrange them in chronological order. There are three large pictures by Hogarth, over the altar in the church of St. Mary Redcliff at Bristol. Mr. Forrest, of York-buildings, was in possession of a sketch in oil of our Saviour (designed as a pattern for painted glass); and several drawings, descriptive of the incidents that happened during a five days’ tour by land and water. The parties were Messrs. Hogarth, Thornhill (son of the late sir James), Scott (an ingenious landscape-painter of that name), Tothall, and Forrest. They set out at midnight, at a moment’s warning, from the Bedford-Arms tavern, with each a shirt in his pocket. They had all their particular departments. Hogarth and Scott made the drawings; Thornhill the map; Tothall faithfully discharged the joint offices of treasurer and caterer; and Forrest wrote the journal. They were out five days only; and on the second night after their return, the book was produced, bound, gilt, and lettered, and read at the same tavern to the above parties then present. Mr. Forrest had also drawings of two of the members, remarkably fat men, in ludicrous situations. Etchings from all these have been made, and the journal has been printed. A very entertaining work, by Mr. John Ireland, entitled “Hogarth illustrated,” was published by Messrs. Boydell, in 1792, and has since been reprinted. It contains the small plates originally engraved for a paltry work, called “Hogarth moralized,” and an exact account of all his prints. Since that, have appeared “Graphic illustrations of Hogarth, from pictures, drawings, and scarce prints, in the possession of Samuel Ireland.” Some curious articles were contained in this volume. A supplementary volume to “Hogarth illustrated,” has more recently appeared, containing the original manuscript of the Analysis, with the first sketches of the figures. 2. A Supplement to the Analysis, never published. 3. Original Memoranda. 4. Materials for his own Life, &c. But the most ample Memoirs of Hogarth are contained in Mr. Nichols’s splendid publication of his life and works, 2 vols. 4to, with copies of all his plates accurately reduced.

, better known by his German name Hans Holbein, a most excellent painter, was born, according to some accounts, at Basil in Switzerland in 1498, but Charles Patin places his birth three years earlier, supposing it very improbable that he could have arrived at such maturity of judgment and perfection in painting, as he shewed in 1514 and 1516, if he had been born so late as 1498. He learned the rudiments of his art from his father John Holbein, who was a painter, and had removed from Augsburg to Basil; but the superiority of his genius soon raised him above his master. He painted our Saviour’s Passion in the town house of Basil; and in the fish-market of the same town, a Dance of peasants, and Death’s dance. These pieces were exceedingly striking to the curious; and Erasmus was so affected with them, that he requested of him to draw his picture, and was ever after his friend. Holbein, in the mean time, though a great genius and fine artist, had no elegance or delicacy of manners, but was given to wine and revelling company; for which he met with the following gentle rebuke from Erasmus. When Erasmus wrote his “Moriæ Encomium,” or “Panegyric upon Folly,” he sent a copy of it to Hans Holbein, who was so pleased with the several descriptions of folly there given, that he designed them all in the margin; and where he had not room to draw the whole figures, pasted a piece of paper to the leaves. He then returned the book to Erasmus, who seeing that he had represented an amorous fool by the figure of a fat Dutch lover, hugging his bottle and his lass, wrote under it, “Hans Holbein,” and so sent it back to the painter. Holbein, however, to be revenged of him, drew the picture of Erasmus for a musty book-worm, who busied himself in scraping together old M'Ss. and antiquities, and wrote. under it “Adagia.”

After almost begging his way to England, as Patin tells us, he found an easy admittance to the lord-chancellor, sir Thomas More, having brought with him Erasmus’s picture, and letters recommendatory from him to that great man. Sir Thomas received him with all the joy imaginable, and kept him in his house between two and three years; during which time he drew sir Thomas’s picture, and those of many of his friends and relations. One clay Holbein happening to mention the nobleman who had some years ago invited him to England, sir Thomas was very solicitous to know who he was. Holbein replied, that he had indeed forgot his title, but remembered his face so well, that he thought he could draw his likeness; and this he did so very strongly, that the nobleman, it is said, was immediately known by it. This nobleman some think was the earl of Arundel, others the earl of Surrey. The chancellor, having now sufficiently enriched his apartments with Holbein’s productions, adopted the following method to introduce him to Henry VIII. He invited the king to an entertainment, and hung up all Holbein’s pieces, disposed in the best order, and in the best light, in the great hall of his house. The king, upon his first entrance, was so charmed with the sight of them, that he asked, “Whether such an artist were now alive, and to be had for money?” on which sir Thomas presented Holbein to the king, who immediately took him into his service, with a salary of 200 florins, and brought him into great esteem with the nobility of the kingdom. The king from time to time manifested the greac value he had for him, and upon the death of queen Jane, his third wife, sent him into Flanders, to draw the picture of the duchess dowager of Milan, widowto Francis Sforza, whom the emperor Charles V. had recommended to him for a fourth wife; but the king’s defection from the see of Rome happening about that time, he rather chose to match with a protestant princess. Cromwell, then his prime minister (for sir Thomas More had been removed, and beheaded), proposed Anne of Cleves to him; but the king was not inclined to the match, till her picture, which Holbein had also drawn, was presented to him. There, as lord Herbert of Cherbnry says, she was represented so very charming, that the king immediately resolved to marry her; and thus Holbein was unwittingly the cause of the ruin of his patron Cromwell, whom the king never forgave for introducing him to Anne of Cleves.

It is observed by most authors, that Holbein always painted with his left hand; though Walpole objects against that tradition, (what he considers as a proof), that in a portrait of Holbein painted by himself, which was in the Arundelian collection, he is represented holding the pencil in the right hand. But that evidence cannot be sufficient to set aside so general a testimony of the most authentic writers on this subject; because, although habit and practice might enable him to handle the pencil familiarly with his left hand, yet, as it is so unusual, it must have had but an unseemly and awkward appearance in a picture; which probably might have been his real inducement for representing himself without such a particularity. Besides, the writer of Holbein’s life, at the end of the treatise by De Piles, mentions a print by Hollar, still extant, which describes Holbein drawing with his left hand. Nor is it so extraordinary or incredible a circumstance; for other artists, mentioned in this volume, are remarked for the very same habit; particularly Mozzo of Antwerp, who worked with the left; and Amico Aspertino, as well as Ludovico Cangiagio, who worked equally well with both hands. This great artist died of the plague at London in 1554; some think at his lodgings in Whitehall, where he had lived from the time that the king became his patron,' but Vertue rather thought at the duke of Norfolk’s house, in. the priory of Christ church near Aldgate, then called Uuke’s-place. Strype says that he was buried in St. Catherine Cree church; but this seems doubtful.

, a most admired engraver, was born at Prague in Bohemia, in 1607. He was at first instructed in schoollearning, and afterwards put to the profession of the law; but not relishing that pursuit, and his family being ruined when Prague was taken and plundered in 1619, so that they could not provide for him as had been proposed, he removed from thence in 1627. During his abode in several towns in Germany, he applied hiinselFto drawing and designing, to copying the pictures of several great artists, taking geometrical and perspective views and draughts of cities, towns, and countries, by land and water; in which at length he grew so excellent, especially for his landscapes in miniature, as not to be outdone in beauty and delicacy by any artist of his time. He had some instructions from Matthew Merian, an eminent engraver, and who is thought to have taught him that method of preparing and working on his plates which he constantly used. He was but eighteen when the first specimens of his art appeared; and the connoisseurs in his works have observed, that he inscribed the earliest of them with only a cypher of four letters, which, as they explain it, was intended for the initials of. “Wenceslaus Hollar Pragensis xcudit.” He employed himseif chieth in copying heads and portraits, sometimes from Rembrandt, Henzelman, Fselix Biler, and other eminent artists; but h ^ uule delicate views of Strasburgh, Cologne, Mentz, Bon>, Francfort, and other towns along the Riiine, Danube, Necker, &c. got him his greatest reputation; and when Howard earl of Arundel, was sent ambassador to the emperor Ferdinand II. in 1636, he was so iiighly pleased with his performances, that he admitted him into his retinue. Hollar attended his lordship froai Cologne to the emperor’s court, and in this progress made several draughts and prints of the places through which they travelled. He took that view of Wurtzburgh under whicn is written, “Hoilar delineavit, in legatione Arundeliana ad Imperatorem.” He then made also a curious large drawing, with the pen and pencil, of the city of Prague, which gave great satisfaction to his patron, then upon the spot.

He remained at Antwerp several years, copying from his patron’s collection, and working for printsellers, booksellers, and, publishers; but seems to have cultivated no interest among men of fortune and curiosity in the art, to dispose of them by subscription, or otherwise most to his advantage. In 1647, and 1648, he etched eight or ten of the painters’ heads with his own, with various other curious pieces, as the picture of Charles I. soon after his death, and of several of the royalists; and in the three following years, many portraits and landscapes after BreughUl, Ei sheimer, and Teniers, with the Triumphs of Death. He etched also Charles II. standing, with emblems; and also published a print of James duke of York, aetat. 18, aun. It>51, from a picture drawn of him when he was in Flanders, by Teniers. He was more punctual in his dates than roost other engravers, which have afforded very agreeable lights and directions, both as to his own personal history and performances, and to those of many others. At last, either not meeting with encouragement enough to keep him longer abroad, or invited by several magnificent and costly works proposed or preparing in England, in which his ornamental hand might be employed more to his advantage, he returned hither in 1652. Here he afterwards executed some of the most considerable of his publications: but though he was an artist superior to almost most others in genius as well as assiduity, yet he had the peculiar fate to work here, as he had done abroad, still in a state of subordination, and more to the profit of other people than himself. Notwithstanding his penurious pay, he is said to have contracted a voluntary affection to his extraordinary labour; so far, that he spent almost two-thirds of his time at it, and would not suffer himself to be drawn or disengaged from it, till his hour-glass had run to the last moment proposed. Thus he went on in full business, till the restoration of Charles II. brought home many of his friends, and him into fresh views of employment. It was but two years after that memorable epocha, that Evelyn published his “Sculptura, or the History and Art of Chalcography and engraving in copper:” in which he gave the following very honourable account of Hollar: “Winceslaus Hollar,” says he, “a gentleman of Bohemia, comes in the next place: not that he is not before most of the rest for his choice and great industry, for we rank them very promiscuously both as to time and pre-eminence, but to bring up the rear of the Germans with a deserving person, whose indefatigable works in aqua fortis do infinitely recommend themselves by the excellent choice which he fyath made of the rare things furnished out of the Arundelian collection, and from most of the best hands and designs: for such were those of L. da Vinci, Fr. Parmensis, Titian, Julio Komano, A. Mantegna, Corregio, Perino del Vaga, Raphael Urbin, Seb. del Piombo, Palma, Albert Durer, Hans Holbein, Vandyck, Rubens, Breughel, Bassan, Elheimer, Brower, Artois, and divers other masters of prime note, whose drawings and paintings he hath faithfully copied; besides several books of landscapes, towns, solemnities, histories, heads, beasts, fowls, insects, vessels, and other signal pieces, not omitting what he hath etched after I>e Cleyn, Mr. Streter, and Dankerty, for sir Robert Stapleton’s * Juvenal,‘ Mr. Ross’s * Silius Italicus,’ ‘ Polyglotta Biblia,’ * The Monasticon,‘ first and second part, Mr. Dugdale’s ’ St. Paul’s,‘ and ’ Survey of Warwickshire,' with other innumerable frontispieces, and things by him published, and done after the life; and to be on that account more valued and esteemed, than where there has been more curiosity about chimeras, and things which are not in nature: so that of Mr. Hollar’s works we may justly pronounce, there is not a more useful and instructive collection to be made.”

Some of the first things Hollar performed after the Restoration, were, “A Map of Jerusalem;” “The Jewish Sacrifice in Solomon’s Temple;” “Maps of England, Middlesex, &c.” “View of St. George’s Hospital at Windsor;” “The Gate of John of Jerusalem near London;” and many animals, fruits, flowers, and insects, after Barlow and others: many heads of nobles, bishops, judges, and great men; several prospects about London, and London itself, as well before the great fire, as after its ruin and rebuilding: though the calamities of the fire and plague in 1655 are thought to have reduced him to such difficulties, as he could never entirely vanquish. He was afterwards sent to Tangier in Africa, in quality of his majesty’s designer, to take the various prospects there of the garrison, town, fortifications, and the circumjacent views of the country: and many of his drawings on the spot, dated 1669, preserved in the library of the late sir Hans Sloane, were within three or four years after made public, upon some of which Hollar styles himself “Stenographus Regis.” After his return to England, he was variously employed, in finishing his views of Tangier for publication, and taking several draughts at and about Windsor in 1671, with many representations in honour of the knights of the garter. About 1672, he travelled northward, and drew views of Lincoln, Southwell, Newark, and York Minster; and afterwards was engaged in etching of towns, castles, churches, and their fenestral figures, arms, &c. besides tombs, monumental effigies with their inscriptions, &c. in such numbers as it would almost be endless to enumerate. Few artists have been able to imitate his works; for which reason many lovers of the art, and all the curious both at home and abroad, have, from his time to ours, been zealous to collect them. But how liberal soever the) 7 might be in the purchase of his performances, the performer himseU, it seems, was so incompetently rewarded for them, that he could not, in his old age, keep himself free from the incumbrances of debt; though he, was variously and closely employed to a short time before his death. But as many of his plates are dated that year, in the very beginning of which he died, it is probable they were somewhat antedated by him, that the sculptures might appear of the same date with the book in which they were printed: thus, in “Thoroton’s Antiquities of Nottinghamshire,” some of them appear unfinished; and the 50 1st page, which is entirely blank, was probably Jeft so for a plate to be supplied. When he was upon the verge of his seventieth year, he had the misfortune to have an execution at his house in Gardiner’s-lane, Westminster: he desired only the liberty of dying in his bed, and that he might not be removed to any other prison but his grave. Whether this was granted him or not, is uncertain, but he died March 28, 1677, and, as appears from the parishregister of St. Margaret’s, was buried in the New Chapel Yard, near the place of his death. Noble and valuable as the monuments were which Hollar had raised for others, none was erected for him: nor has any person proposed an epitaph worthy of the fame and merits of the artist.

Mr. Grose, from the information of Oldys, has favoured the public with some anecdotes of the conscientiousness of this eminent artist which are not noticed by Vertue. He used to work for the booksellers at the rate of four-pence an hour; and always had an hour-glass before him. He was so very scrupulously exact, that, when obliged to attend the calls of nature, or whilst talking, though with persons for whom he was working, and about their own business, he constantly laid down the glass, to prevent the sand from running. It is to be lamented that such a man should have known distress. His works amount, according to Yertue’s catalogue, to nearly 2400 prints. They are generally etchings performed almost entirely with the point, yet possess great spirit, with astonishing freedom and lightness, especially when we consider how highly be has finished some of them. In drawing the human figure he was most defective; his outlines are stiff and incorrect, and the extremities marked without the least degree of knowledge. In some few instances, he had attempted to execute his plates with the graver only: but in that has failed very much.

, the son and grandson of two Dutch painters of considerable reputation, was born, at Utrecht in 1636, and carefully trained up to the profession by his father. He chose the same subjects; but, in his manner, he surpassed not only his master, but even the best of his contemporaries, in a very high degree. Till he was seventeen years of age he practised under his father’s direction, and accustomed himself to paint several sorts of birds; but he was particularly pleased to represent cocks, hens, ducks, chickens, and peacocks, which he described in an elegant variety of actions and attitudes. After the death of his father, in 1653, he received some instructions from his uncle John Baptist Weeninx; but his principal and best instructor was nature, which he studied with intense application, and that enabled him to give to every animal he painted such truth, such a degree of force, expression, and life, as seemed to equal nature itself; nor did any artist take more pains to study every point that might conduce to the perfection of his art. His pencil was wonderfully neat and delicate; his touch light, his colouring exceedingly natural, lively, and remarkably transparent; and the feathers of his fowls were expressed with such a swelling softness, as might readily and agreeably deceive the eye of any spectator. It is reported, that he had trained up a cock to stand in any ajttitude he wanted to describe, and that it was his custom to place that creature near his easel; so that, at the motion of his hand, the bird would fix itself in the proper posture, and would continue in that particular position, without the smallest perceptible alteration, for several hours at a time.

, another artist, well known in this kingdom, was born at Rotterdam in 1638, according to the most authentic writers, though Descamps fixes his birth in 1650. He appears to have been an universal master, painting, with equal readiness, landscapes, animals of all kinds, particularly dogs, huntings of wild animals, boars, deer, wolves, and foxes, as also conversations and fowls; but his favourite subjects were huntings. His manner seems peculiar to himself; it was bold and free; and, except Rubens and Snyders, few masters have painted animals in a greater style, or with more spirit. There is certainly a great deal of fire in his compositions; but his colouring is often extravagant, and his drawing extremely incorrect. In general his pencilling was harsh, and he delighted in a fiery tint; yet some of his small pictures are very neatly finished. There is a great inequality as to the merit of the works of Hondius, some of them being in every respect abundantly superior to others; but there is scarce any master whose compositions are so easily distinguishable as those of Hondius, by certain particularities in his touch, his taste of design, and his colouring.

, was born in Dublin in 1767, and came to England in the early part of life, painting in several parts of the country, particularly at York, where he married a lady of some property. A short time after his marriage, he settled in London, and practised with reputation, both as a painter in oil, and in miniature, particularly enamel; and after the death of Zincke, ranked among the principal artists of his day in that branch. He was chosen one of the members of the royal academy at its first institution; but took offence at one of his pictures, intended as a satire on sir Joshua Reynolds, being rejected from the exhibition. Another was also objected to, as containing a very profane allusion, which he altered with a substance easily washed away, and the picture was again exhibited in its original state at an exhibition of his own, in 1775. As a painter in oil, he was by no means an inferior artist, yet the colouring of his pictures was too red for the carnations, and the shadows not sufficiently clear. A few years before his death, he removed to Rathboneplace. He died Aug. 14, 1784, and was buried at Hendon, where five of his children lie.

, a celebrated artist, called also Gerardo Dalle Notti, from his principal subjects, was born at Utrecht in 1592, and was a disciple of Abraham Bloemavt; but completed his studies at Home, where he continued several years, employed there by persons of the first rank, and particularly by prince Justiniani. He imitated the style of Caravaggio, with whose vivid tone and powerful masses of light and shade, he attempted to combine correctness of outline, refinement of forms, graceful attitudes, and that dignity which ought to be the characteristic of sacred subjects. In this he often succeeded. His subjects are generally night-pieces as large as life, and illuminated by torch or candle-light. Among his numerous pictures, that of our Saviour before the Tribunal of Pilate, in the gallery Justiniani, for energy, dignity, and contrast, is the most celebrated. Soon after his return to his own country he visited London, and obtained the favour of king Charles I. by several grand performances and portraits; especially by one allegorical picture, in which he represented the portraits of the king and queen, in the characters of two deities, and the portrait of the. duke of Buckingham in the character of Mercury, introducing the liberal arts to that monarch and his consort. For that composition, which was well drawn and extremely well coloured, the king presented him with three thousand florins, a service of plate for twelve persons, and a beautiful horse; and he had afterwards the honour to instruct the queen of Bohemia, and the princesses her children, in drawing.

The persons who undertook and brought to conclusion this great national work, were the two Knaptons, booksellers, encouraged by the vast success of Rapin’s History of England. They employed both Vertue and Houbraken, but chiefly the latter, and the publication began in numbers in 1744. The rirst volume was completed in 1747, and the second in 1152. It was accompanied with short lives of the personages, written by Dr. Birch. Lord Orford observes, that some of Houbraken’s beads were carelessly done, especially those of the moderns; and the engraver living in Holland, ignorant of our history, uninquisitive into the authenticity of what was transmitted to him, engraved whatever was sent. His lordship mentions two instances, the heads of Carr earl of Somerset, and secretary Thurlow, which are not only not genuine, but have not the least resemblance to the persons they pretend to represent. Mr. Gilpin, in his Essay on Prints, says, "Houbraken is a genius, and has given us in his collection of English portraits, some pieces of engraving at least equal to any thing of the kind. Such are the heads of Hampden, Schomberg, the earl of Bedford, and the duke of Richmond particularly, aud some others. At the same time, we must own that he has intermixed among his works a great numbe/ of bad prints. In his best, there is a wonderful union of softness and freedom. A more elegant and flowing line no artist ever employed.]' Mr. Strutt estimates his general merits more minutely. Houbraken’s great excellence, says that ingenious writer, consisted in the portrait line of engraving. We admire the softness and delicacy of execution, which appear in his works, joined with good drawing, and a fine taste. If his best performances have ever been surpassed, it is in the masterly determination of the features which we find in the works of Nanteuil, Edelink, and Drevet this gives an animation to the countenance, more easily to be felt than described. From his solicitude to avoid the appearance of an outline, he seems frequently to have neglected the little sharpnesses of light and shadow, which not only appear in nature, but, like the accidental semitones in music, raise a pleasing sensation in the mind, in proportion as the variation is judiciously managed. For want of attention to this essential beauty, many of his celebrated productions have a misty appearance, and do not strike the eye with the force we might expect, when we consider the excellence of the engraving. The Sacrifice of Manoah, from Rembrandt, for the collection of prints from the pictures in the Dresden gallery, is the only attempt he made in historical engraving; but in it he by no means succeeded so well. Of his private life, family, or character, nothing is known. He lived to a good old age, and died at Amsterdam, in 1780.

Mr. Howard was, in his own habits of life, rigidly temperate, and even abstemious; subsisting entirely, at one time, on. potatoes; at another, chiefly on tea and bread and butter; of course not mixing in convivial society, nor accepting invitations to public repasts. His labours have certainly had the admirable effect of drawing the attention of this country to the regulation of public prisons. In many places his improvements have been adopted, and perhaps in all our gaols some advantage has been derived from them. We may hope that these plans will terminate in such general regulations as will make judicial confinement, instead of the means of confirming and increasing depravity (as it has been too generally), the successful instrument of amendment in morality, and acquiring habits of industry. While the few criminals, and probably very few, who may be too depraved for amendment, will be compelled to be beneficial to the community by their labour; and, being advantageously situated in point of health, may suffer nothing more than that restraint which is necessary for the sake of society, and that exertion which they ought never to have abandoned. Considered as the first mover of these important plans, Howard will always be honoured with the gratitude of his country; and his monument, lately erected in St. Paul’s cathedral, is a proof that this gratitude is not inert. The monument is at the same time a noble proof of the skill and genius of the artist, Mr. Bacon, and represents Mr. Howard in a Roman dress,- with a look and attitude expressive of benevolence and activity, holding in one hand a scroll of plans for the improvement of prisons, hospitals, &c. and in the other a key while he is trampling on chains and fetters. The epitaph contains a sketch of his life, and concludes in words which we also heartily adopt: “He trod an open but unfrequented path to immortality, in the ardent and unremitted exercise of Christian charity. May this tribute to his fame excite an emulation of his truly glorious achievements!” To this may be added the eloquent eulogium pronounced upon Mr. Howard by Mr. Burke, in his “Speech at Bristol, previous to the election in 1780.” Having occasion to mention him, he adds, “I cannot name this gentleman without remarking, that his labours and writings have done much to open the eyes and hearts of mankind. He has visited all Europe, not to survey the sumptuousness of palaces, or the stateliness of temples; not to make accurate measurements of the remains of ancient grandeur, nor to form a scale of the curiosity of modern art not to collect medals, or collate manuscripts; but to dive into the depths of dungeons to plunge into the infection of hospitals to survey the mansions of sorrow and pain; to take the gage and dimensions of misery, depression, and contempt to remember the forgotten, to attend to the neglected, to visit the forsaken, and to compare and collate the distresses of all men in all countries. His plan is original, and it is as full of genius as it is of humanity. It was a voyage of discovery; a circumnavigation of charity. Already the benefit of his labour is felt more or less in every country; I hope he will anticipate his final reward, by seeing all its effects fully realised in his own. He will receive, not by retail, but in gross, the reward of those who visit the prisoner; and he has so forestalled and monopolized this branch of charity, that there will be, I trust, little room to merit by such acts of benevolence hereafter”

, a distinguished artist, was the sixth, but only surviving son and heir of John Hussey of Marnhull, esq. descended from a very ancient family, and was born at Marnhull (in Dorsetshire), Feb. 10, 1710. At seven years of age he was sent by his father, who was a Roman catholic, to Doway for his education, where he continued two years. He then was removed to St. Osier’s, where he pursued his studies for three years more. His father, though willing to afford him some education, yet designed him for trade; to which, perhaps, he was the more inclined, as a near relation, in the commercial world, offered to take him under his protection and care. Thought from a sense of parental authority, and filial obedience, Mr. Hussey did not at first openly oppose this design, yet it was so repugnant to his natural turn and bent, that he found his mind greatly embarrassed and perplexed; but after some opposition, his father very wisely yielded to his son’s request, to be permitted to follow the direction of his genius; and for that end he placed him under the care and tuition of Mr. Richardson, the painter; with whom he continued scarcely a month; revolting at the idea and proposal of being kept in the bondage of apprenticeship for seven years. He then commenced pupil at large under one Damini, a Venetian artist, esteemed one of the best painters at that time in England, with whom he continued nearly four years. During this time he was principally employed in copying pictures, and finishing those of his master, whom he assisted in painting the ornaments of the cathedral of Lincoln. During their work, on a scaffold nearly twenty feet high, as Mr. Hussey was drawing back to see the effects of his pencil, he would have fallen, had not his master saved him as ingeniously as affectionately, and at some risque to himself. Mr. Hussey entertained such a sense of his master’s humanity and kindness, that he could not bear the thought of being separated from him, and therefore requested permission of his father for Damini to attend him whilst pursuing his studies in Italy. This he obtained; and under the care and direction of the Venetian, our young and inexperienced pupil set out for the seat of science and genius; bending first his course for Bologna. But, soon after their arrival, the poor unsuspecting pupil found that one act of friendship is by no means a sure pledge of another; Damini having in a few days decamped, taking with him all his pupil’s money and the best of his apparel. Mr. Hussey was, however, kindly relieved from this state of distress by signor Gislonzoni, who had been ambassador from the States of Venice to the court of London, and now became his friend and protector.

Mr. Hussey prosecuted his studies at Bologna for three years and a half, and then removed to Rome, where he was received with the most obliging courtesy by a celebrated artist, Hercule Lelli, who, refusing any compensation, imparted to him in the most friendly manner all that he knew of the art. This did not entirely satisfy Mr. Hussey, who seems to have aimed at establishing some fixed and unerring principles: hence he was led into a search after theory, which ended, although he knew nothing of music, in his adopting the ancient hypothesis of musical or harmonic proportions, as being the governing principle of beauty, in all forms produced by art, and evea by nature. Delighted with this discovery, as he thought it, he continued his studies at Rome with increasing pleasure and reputation. At length, in 1737, he returned to his friends in England, with whom he resided till 1742, when he went to London, where he submitted to the drudgery (as he used to call it) of painting portraits for his subsistence.

Whilst thus employed, our artist met with great opposition and very illiberal treatment from those to whom, in the simplicity of his heart, he communicated his principles, as well as from those whose professional pride was piqued, and envy excited, by those masterly, elegant, and graceful performances which were the result of these principles. The meek spirit of Hussey, as well as his pride of conscious superiority, could ill bear the treatment both himself and his performances met with from the envy of those who depreciated their merit. This, as he often complained, affected him deeply; and so depressed his spirits, and repressed his ardour, as to give him a disgust to the world, and almost a dislike to his profession, and his temper, though not rendered sour and morose, was certainly exasperated. After conflicting with this and other difficulties and misfortunes, Mr. Hussey left London in the month of October 1768, and retired for three years into the country, to recover his health and spirits; and having at length, by the death of his elder brother, Mr. Hussey, in 1773, succeeded to possession of his paternal estate at Marnhull, he resided there in affluence, ease, and content, and pursued his favourite studies, and amusements of gardening, till the autumn of 1787; when, from motives purely of a religious nature (after having transferred and resigned all his worldly possessions to a near relation) he retired to Beaston, near Ashburton, in Devonshire; at which place, in the month of June 1788, as he was working in the garden in a very sultry day, he suddenly fell, and expired.

The great merit of Mr. Hussey’s pencil drawings from life was, that he has preserved the best characteristic likenesses of any artist whatever. And, with respect to those of mere fancy, no man ever equalled him in accuracy, elegance, simplicity, and beauty. The academical drawings he left at Bologna, notwithstanding the school has been often purged, as it is called, by removing old drawings to make room for those of superior merit, are still shewn on account of their superior merit.

Mr. Barry, that ingenious and liberal artist, whose great work in the paintings which adorn the large room at the Society of Arts in the Adelphi, together with his description of these paintings, do no less honour to himself than to his country, has, among other illustrious characters, thought Mr. Hussey entitled to an eminent place in his Elysium, and thus notices him: " Behind Phidias, I have introdced<Giles Hussey, a name that never occurs to me without fresh grief, shame, and horror, at the mean, wretched cabal of mechanics, for they deserve not the name of artists; and their still meaner runners, and assistants, that could have co-operated to cheat such an artist out of the exercise of abilities, that were so admirably calculated to have raised this country to an immortal reputation, and for the highest, species of excellence. Why will the great, who can have no interest but in the glory of their country, why will they suffer any dirty, whispering medium to interfere between them and siicji characters as Mr. Russey, who appears to have been no less amiable as a man, than he was admirable as an artist?

“My attention was first turned to this great character by a conversation I had, very early in life, with Mr. Stuart, better known by the name of Athenian Stuart, an epithet richly merited by the essential advantages Mr. Stuart had rendered the public, by his establishing just ideas, and a true taste for the Grecian arts. The discourses of this truly intelligent and very candid artist, and what I saw of the works of Hussey, had altogether made such an impression on my mind, as may be conceived, hut cannot be expressed. With fervour I went abroad, eager to retrace all Hussey’s steps, through the Greeks, through Rafaelle, through dissected nature, and to add to what he had been cruelly torn away from, by a laborious, intense study and investigation of the Venetian school. In the hours of relaxation, I naturally endeavoured to recommend myself to the acquaintance of such of Mr. Hussey’s intimates as were still living: they always spoke of him with delight. And from the whole of what I could learn abroad, added to the information I received from my very amiable and venerable friend Mr. Moser since my return, Mr. Hussey must have been one of the most amiable, friendly, and companionable men, and the farthest removed from all spirit of strife and contention.”

By the judicious he was accounted to paint with greater freedom than Mignon or Brueghel; with more tendernessand nature than Mario da Fiori, Michael Angelo dr Campidoglio, or Segers; with more mellowness than De Heem, and greater force of colouring than Baptist. His reputation rose to such a height at last, that he fixed immoderate prices on his works; so that none but the very opulent could pretend to become purchasers. Six of his paintings were sold, at a public sale in Holland, for prices that were almost incredible. One of them, a flower-piece, for fourteen hundred and fifty guilders; a fruit-piece, for a thousand and five guilders; and the smaller pictures for nine hupdred. These vast sums caused him to redouble his endeavours to excel; no person was admitted into his room while he was painting, not even his brothers; and his method of mixing the tints, and preserving the lustre of his colours, was an impenetrable secret which he never would disclose. From the same principle he would never take any disciples, except one lady, named Haverman, and he grew envious and jealous even of her merit. By several domestic disquiets, his temper became changed; he grew morose, fretful, and apt to withdraw himself from society. He had many enviers of his fame, which has ever been the severe lot of the most deserving in all professions; but he continued to work, and his reputation never diminished. It is universally agreed, that hd lias excelled all who have painted fruit and flowers before him, by the confessed superiority of his touch, by the delicacy of his pencil, an-d by an amazing manner of finishing; nor does it ap'pear probable that any future artist will ever become his competitor. The care which he took to. purify his oils, and prepare his colours, and the various experiments he made to discover the most lustrous and durable, is another instance of his extraordinary care and capacity.

He long taught music at Exeter, and in 1777 was appointed organist of that cathedral. In 1782 he rose at once to literary fame by the publication of “Thirty Letters on various subjects,” 2 vols. 12mo. These principally consisted of essays on the belles lettres, and evinced taste, learning, vivacity, and even genius. In 1798 he published “The Four Ages, together with Essays on various subjects,” 8vo, which consisted of so much instructive, original, and entertaining matter, that it added considerably to the author’s well-earned fame. It contained, however, some opinions on religion, not sufficiently considered, which gavel offence to serious readers. He also published “A Treatise on the present state of Music,” 1791, and eighteen musical works, consisting of hymns, songs, canzonets, elegies, and “An Ode to Fancy.” Mr. Jackson also paid his court to the graphic muse, but never looked at nature, believing, that by copying other masters he might at last arrive at excellence. His great model was his friend Gainsborough, whose colouring and composition he constantly endeavoured to imitate, sometimes with a degree of success which induced him to lay a false claim to the merit of originality. But, had he succeeded in even equalling that great artist, his pictures would not have spoken the language of nature; the man who merely copies another, either in music or painting, can never be considered a great artist; he can only be a faint echo, and ranked among the servum pecus imitatorum.

, an eminent artist, the Vandyck of Scotland, was born in Aberdeen in 1586. At what age he went abroad is not known, but he studied under Rubens, with Vandyck, and returned to Scotland in 1628. After his return, he applied with indefatigable industry to portrait in oil, though he sometimes practised in history and landscape. His largest portraits were generally somewhat less than life. His excellence is said to consist in delicacy and softness, with a clear and beautiful colouring. When king Charles I. visited Scotland in 1633, the magistrates, knowing his majesty’s taste, employed Jameson to make drawings of the Scotish monarchs, with which the king was so much pleased, that he sat to him for a full length picture, presented him with a diamond ring from his finger, and on account of a complaint in his eyes or head, the king made him wear his hat, a privilege which he ever after used, and commemorated by always drawing himself with his hat on. So far also he imitated his master Rubens.

Many of the considerable families in Scotland are possessed of works by this great artist. The greatest collection is that at Taymouth, the seat of the earl of Breadalbane, Sir John Campbell of Glenorchy, his lordship’s ancestor, having been the chief and earliest patron of Jameson, who had attended that gentleman in his travels. In different gentlemen’s houses in the county of Aberdeen, there are portraits by Jameson, as well as in the halls of Marischal and King’s colleges. The most interesting of his pictures is that belonging to the earl of Findlater, at Cullen-house. This piece represents Jameson himself, as large as life, with a round hat on his head. He is looking you in the face, with his left hand, in which is his pallet, on a table, and his right over it, the forefinger of which points to several small pictures in the back ground. Dress, a black jacket with a white falling band. In the back ground are ten squares, of about six inches, representing portraits, some of them full lengths; some of the squares have two or three figures, and one of them is a sea-piece. Size of the picture, within the frame, two feet ten inches in breadth, by two feet eight in height. In the same house is another picture attributed to the same artist, three feet six inches high, by two feet eight broad. The subject must allude to the civil war, as it represents a crown, bottom upmost; sceptre, baton, royal standard, heaped near it; a printed scroll, a casket covered with crimson velvet, lid open, with necklaces and toys. At the bottom, on the right hand, is a small figure about four inches long, badly executed, of Charles I. which seems as if done with red chalk on a white ground.

, an excellent artist, was born at Antwerp in 1569, with a wonderful genius for painting, and in his youth executed some pieces which set him above all the young painters of his time; but becoming enamoured of a young woman at Antwerp, whom he obtained in marriage, he gave himself up to a dissipated course of life, which soon impoverished him, and affected his temper. He grew jealous of Rubens, and sent a challege to that painter, with a list of the names of such persons as were to decide the matter, so soon as their respective works should be finished; but Rubens, instead of accepting the challenge, answered that he willingly yielded him the preference, leaving the public to do them justice. There are some of Janssens’ works in the churches at Antwerp. He painted a descent from the cross for the great church of Boisleduc, which has been taken for a piece of Rubens; and is thought no ways inferior to any of the works of that great painter; but his chief work is his resurrection of Lazarus, in the Dussldorf gallery.

, another artist, was born at Brussels in 1664. Having applied sedulously to the practice of the art, and made much proficiency, he was employed by the duke of Holstein at a pension of 800 florins, and afterwards enabled, by the same munificent patron, to go to Italy, where, at Rome, he studied the works of Raphael, and became eminent in fame. He afterwards associated withTempesta the landscape painter, and painted figures in his pictures. In general his pictures are small in size, and have somewhat of the style of Albano His invention was copious, and his works are very pleasing. He died in 1739, at the age of 75.

In respect to his character, we are assured, by one who knew him well, that his scientific abilities surpassed most of his age. He was a perfect master of the mathematics, and was not unacquainted with the two learned languages, Greek and Latin, especially the latter; neither was he without some turn for poetry . A copy of verses composed by him is published in the “Odcombian Banquet,” prefixed to Tom Coryate’s “Crudities,” in 1611, 4to. But his proper character was that of an architect, and the most eminent of his time on which account he is still generally styled the British Vitruvius the art of designing being little known in England till Mr. Jones, under the patronage of Charles I. and the earl of Arundel, brought it into use. This is the character given him by Mr. Webb, who was his heir; and who, being born in London, and bred in Merchant Taylors’-school, afterwards resided in Mr. Jones’s family, married his kinswoman, was instructed by him in mathematics and architecture, and designed by him for his successor in the office of surveyor-general of his majesty’s works, but was prevented by Sir John Denham. Mr. Webb published some other pieces besides his “Vindication of Stone-henge restored ;” and dying at Butleigh, his seat in Somersetshire, Oct. 24, 1672, was buried in that church. Walpole enumerates among his works which are still in part extant, the new quadrangle of St. John’s college, Oxfqrd the queen’s chapel at St. James’s the arcade of Oovent-garden and the church Gunnersbury, near Brentford Lincoln’s Inn Chapel, and one or two of the houses in Lincoln’s-inn-fields Coleshill in Berkshire, and Cobham hall in Kent; the Grange, in Hampshire; the queen’s house at Greeirwich, &c. Several other of his buildings may be seen in Campbell’s “Vitruvius Britannicus.” The principal of his designs were published by Mr. Kent in 1727, fol. as also some of his less designs in 1744, foL Others were published by Mr. Isaac Ware. Our artist left in ms. some curious notes upon Palladio’s “Architecture,” now in Worcester college, Oxford, some of which are inserted in an edition of Palladio, published at London, 1714, fol. by Mr. Leoni; which notes, he says, raise the value of the edition above all the preceding ones. His original drawings for Whitehall-palace are also in Worcester library.

When he was induced to remove from Pluckley, and accept the perpetual curacy of Nayland in Suffolk, he went thither to reside with his family. Soon after, he effected an exchange of Pluckley for Paston in Northamptonshire, which he visited annually, but he determined to settle at Nayland for the remainder of his days, nor was he (as his biographer notices with some regret for neglected merit) ever tempted to quit that post by any offer of higher preferment. The “Physiological Disquisitions” before alluded to, having received their last revise, were published in 1771, and the impression was soon sold off. A notion, says his biographer, is entertained by some persons, that the elementary philosophy naturally leads to Atheism,' and sir Isaac Newton himself is charged with giving countenance to materialism by his aether; but nothing can be farther from the truth. “It is,” adds Mr. Stevens, “the aim and study of the elementary, called the Hutcliinsoniau, philosophy, not to confound God and nature, but to distinguish between the Creator and the creature; not with the heathens to set up the heavens for God, but to believe and confess, with all true worshippers, ”that it is Jehovah who made the heavens." And td maintain that the operations in nature are carried on by the agency of the elements, which, experiment demonstrates, is no more excluding God from being the Creator of the world, than to maintain that motion once given to a watch will continue without the immediate application of the artist’s hand every moment to it, is asserting that the watch made itself. Let any one read the Physiological Disquisitions, and he will soon be convinced that North and South are not more opposite than Hutchinsonianism and materialism.

, an eminent French sculptor, professor of the schools of sculpture and painting, a member of the French Institute and of the legion of honour, was born at Paulien, in the department of the Haute-Loire, in 1731. He was the pupil first of Samuel, a sculptor in Puy en Velay, with whom he remained two years, after which he was placed at Lyons under Riache, another artist, where he made great progress in sculpture, and after gaining a prize at the academy of Lyons, came to Paris. Here he entered the school of William Coustou, statuary to the king, in 1765, and gained the prize of sculpture for a beautiful bas-relief, representing Sabinus offering his chariot to the vestals, when the Gauls were about to invade Rome. There was a simplicity in the style, taste, and character of this piece which struck the connoisseurs as something different from what they had been accustomed to see in the modern school. The artist, according to the custom of the times, enjoyed the usual pension for three years at Paris, and did not go to Rome until 1768, where, his fame having preceded him, he was employed by the president Belenger to execute a mausoleum in marble for his wife and daughter. Besides the other labours enjoined to the pensionary artists, Julien made copies, in marble, for the president Ocardi, of the Apollo Belvidere, the Flora in the Farnese palace, and the Gladiator in the Borghese palace, all which are now in the collection at Versailles. He was afterwards recalled to Paris to assist Coustou in the mausoleum for the dauphin and dauphiness. Of this he executed the figure of immortality, and had the charge of removing the whole to the cathedral of Sens, where it now is.

His fame being fully established, he was, although otherwise a man of great modesty, ambitious of a seat in the academy of painting and sculpture, and with that view presented them with a Ganymede, but notwithstanding its acknowledged merit, he did not at this time succeed. In 1779, however, he made a second effort, and his “Dying Gladiator” procured him immediate admission into the academy. He was then employed by the king to make the statue of La Fontaine, which is reckoned his masterpiece in that style. He also executed various bas-relievos for the castle of Rambouillet, and a woman bathing, which is now in the hall of the Senate at Paris, and allowed to be one of the finest specimens of modern art. His last work was the statue of Nicolas Poussin, for the hall of the Institute. This excellent artist died, after a long illness, at Paris in January 1804.

, another able French artist, and a member of the ancient academy of painting, was born in 1736, of poor parents at the village of Carigliano near Locarno in Swisserland, and was first a pupil of Bardon at Marseilles; and afterwards of Carlo Vanloo at Paris, where having gained the prize of the academy, he was sent to the French school at Rome under Natoire. The sight of the ancient and modern works of that city determined him to abandon the manner taught in France, and adopt that of the great masters of Italy. This procured him, among the wits, the name of Julien the apostate, to distingush him from others of the same name, and of the same school. His successes at Rome prolonged his stay there for ten years, after which he returned to Paris, and distinguished himself by various works of great merit. He painted for the hotel of the princess Kinski a St. Dominic, and several decorations for ceilings, mentioned in the “Reeueil des curiosites de Paris,” which attracted the attention of connoisseurs and strangers. Among the works which he exhibited to the academy, when nominated a member, was the “Triumph of Aurelian,” executed for the duke ^le Rochefoucault. In the saloon of St. Louis, he exhibited in 1788, his fine picture, “Study spreading her flowers over Time,” a work of admirable composition. This was sent into England, and engraved. Among other capital performances from his hand may be mentioned his Jupiter and Juno, and Aurora and Titan. His last important work was an altar-piece for the chapel of the archbishop of Paris at Conflans, representing St. Anthony in a trance. Notwithstanding his merit, we have to add that this artist died poor, in 1799.

, mentioned in the preceding article, and we trust more unfortunate than accessary in the possession of the forged Mss. of Shakspeare, was originally a mechanic in Spitalfields, but taking advantage of the taste of the age for literary curiosities, commenced a speculator in scarce books, prints, and drawings. He had some skill in drawing and engraving, and endeavoured to turn it to account, by combining it with description, under the name of “Travels.” With this view he published in 1790, “A Picturesque tour through Holland, Brabant, and part of France, made in the autumn of 1789,” 2 vols. 8vo, illustrated with aqua-tinta and other prints. This succeeded well, although his descriptions were common-place, and his information seldom new. Encouraged, however, by the sale of the work, he produced in 1792, “Picturesque Views on the river Thames,” 2 vols. 8vo, and in 1793 “Picturesque Views on the river Medway,” in 1 vol. In 1794 he published his “Graphic Illustrations of Hogarth,” consisting of anecdotes of that eminent artist, and engraved Copies of many of his lesser and fugitive works, such as shop-cards, tickets, &c. In 1796, he was an accomplice in that fraud which eventually proved fatal to his character and comfort. This was the production of a large quantity of manuscripts, pretended to be in the hand-writing of Shakspeare and consisting of poems, letters, and one entire play. These were exhibited at his house in Norfolkstreet for the inspection of the public, and for some time divided their opinions. Connoisseurs, however, in ancient writings, and particularly in the genius and history of Shakspeare, soon detected the fraud, which, although it did for a time impose on some gentlemen in the literary world, was executed in the most slovenly and clumsy manner. A more full account of this imposition, and the controversies to which it gave rise, may be seen in our authorities: it is scarcely worth reviving in this work. After complete detection, it appeared that Mr. Ireland had been himself the dupe of a near and worthless relation; but his obstinacy in maintaining the authenticity of these papers long after he ought to have given them up, injured his character, and it is thought hastened his death, which took place in July 1800. We have to add to his works “Picturesque Views of the Severn and Warwickshire Avon,” and a “History of the Inns of Court,” the latter a posthumous work. The Mss. of Shakspeare were published under the title of “Miscellaneous papers and legal instruments, under the hand and seal of William Shakspeare, including the tragedy of King Lear, &c.” at the price of four guineas to subscribers. What was yet more absurd, a play pretended to be Shakspeare’s, entitled “Vortigern,” was actually performed on Drury-lane theatre, but hooted from the stage the first night.

, a female artist, well known in this country, was born in 1740, at Coire, the capital of the Grisons, and received the elements of art from her father, who, on some surprising proofs of her early capacity, at the age of fourteen, conducted her to Milan, and, after some years’ practice there and elsewhere, to Rome, where her talents, charms, accomplishments, and graces, soon rendered her an object of general admiration: in 1764 she removed to Venice, and in the following year accompanied lady Wentworth, the wife of the British resident, to England. Here, enjoying royal favour, the arbitress of public taste, loved, esteemed, perhaps envied by artists, decorated with academic honours, opulent and happy, she sunk her own name in that of sir A. Zucchi, a Venetian artist, whom she married, and, after a residence of seventeen years, returned, through her native place, to Italy, and settled at Rome; where, after a new career of success, courted, employed, and rewarded, by rnonarchs, princes, and the most distinguished travellers, she died in 1807, of gradual decay, resigned, regretted, and honoured by splendid obsequies.

Mr. Fuseli, who was honoured by the friendship of Angelica, and cherishes her memory, says, that he “has no wish to contradict those who make success the standard of genius, and as their heroine equalled the greatest names in the first, suppose that she was on a level with them in powers. Angelica pleased, and deserved to please, the age in which she lived, and the race for which she wrought. The Germans, with as much patriotism at least as judgment, have styled her the Paintress of Minds (Seelen Mahlerin): nor can this be wondered at from a nation, who, in A. R. Mengs, flatter themselves to possess an artist equal to Raffaello. The male and female characters of Angelica never vary in form, features, and expression, from the favourite ideal she had composed in her mind. Her heroes are all, the man to whom she thought she could have submitted, though him perhaps she never found; and to his fancied manner of acting and feeling, she, of course, submitted the passions of the subject. Her heroines are herself; and whilst suavity of countenance and alluring graces shall be able to divert the general eye from the sterner demands of character and expression, can never fail to please.”

, an ingenious artist, was born in Yorkshire, in 1685, and put apprentice to a coach-painter, but, feeling the superiority of his talents, he left his master, and came up to London, where he soon proved himself worthy of encouragement and patronage. In 1710 he was sent, by the munificence of some gentlemen of his own country, to Rome, whither he accompanied Mr. Tallman. There he studied under Cavalier Luti, and in the academy gained the second prize of the second class. He also became acquainted with lord Burlington, whose sagacity discovered the rich vein of genius that had been hid even from himself; and, on their return to England in 1719, lodged him in his own house, and shewed for him all the marks of the most disinterested friendship. By his interest he was employed in various works, both as a painter in history and portrait; and yet there appear but very faint traces of that creative talent he displayed in a sister art. His portraits did not resemble the persons that sat for them. His colouring was worse than that of the most errant journeyman to the profession; and his drawing was defective, witness the hall at Wanstead, and his picture at St. Clement’s. Fie designed some of the drawings of Gay’s Fables, the prints for Spenser’s Fairy Queen, and the vignettes to the large edition of Pope’s works. In architecture, however, of the ornamental kind, he was deservedly admired he executed the temple of Venus at Stowe the earl of Leicester’s house at Holkham in Norfolk; the great hall at Mr. Pelham’s, Arlington-street; and the stair-case at lady Isabella Finch’s in Berkeley-square. Mr. Walpole considers him likewise as the inventor of modern gardening, in which it is certain that he excelled, and every thing in that branch has been since his time more natural, graceful, and pleasing. By the patronage of the dukes of Grafton and Newcastle, Mr. Pelham, and the earl of Burlington, he was made master-carpenter, architect, keeper of the pictures, and, after the death of Jervas, principal painter to the crown; the whole, including a pension of 100l. a year, which was given him for his works at Kensington, produced 600l. a year. In 1743 he was disordered in his eyes, but recovered, and in March 1748 an inflammation in his bowels put an end to his life at Burlington-house, April 12, 1748, aged sixty-three years. He was buried in lord Burlington’s vault at Chiswick.

, eminent for his talents in perspective, was the eldest son of Mr. John Kirby, who was originally a schoolmaster at Orforcl, and who is known to topographers by a map of Suffolk which he published, and by “The Suffolk Traveller,” 12mo, a new edition of which was published in 1764. He was born at Parham, near Wickham-market, in 1716, and settled as a house-painter at Ipswich about 1738. Me had a turn for drawing, and published, early in life, twelve prints of castles, ancient churches, and monuments, in Suffolk, with a small descriptive pamphlet. He afterwards became intimate with the celebrated artist Gainsborough, the contemplation of whose works increased his taste for painting, but he had very little leisure to cultivate it, and has left only a few landscapes in the possession of his family; one of which, a view of the old kitchen at Glastonbury-abbey, was exhibited at Spring-gardens in 1770.

Before the appearance of this work he wrote a pamphlet in vindication of the fame of Dr. Brook Taylor, which was indirectly struck at in the translation of a treatise on perspective by a foreigner. This pamphlet (which has no date) was entitled “Dr. Brook Taylor’s Method of Perspective, compared with the examples lately published on the subject, as Sirigatti'i,” 4to. In 1766, in conjunction with his brother William, then of Witnesham, in the county of Suffolk, attorney at law (who died Sept. 25, 1791, aged seventy-two) he published an improved edition of their father’s map of Suffolk, on a larger scale, with engravings of the arms of the principal families in the county. In 1768 he published a third edition of his treatise on perspective, with a dedication to the earl of Bute. He was a member both of the royal aud antiquary societies; and when the chartered society of artists was disturbed by the illiberal conduct of some of the members, Mr. Kirby was elected president in the place of Hay man, but he soon resigned the chair. He died June 20, 1774, and his widow the following year, and were both buried in Kew churchyard. By his wife he had only two children, William, a promising artist, who died in 1771, and Sarah, afterwards the wife of Mr. James Trimmer, of Brentford, a lady justly celebrated for her numerous works for the religious instruction of the young.

Kneller did not stay long in Italy, as in 1674 became to England with his brother, John Zachary, who assisted him in painting, without intending to reside here; but being recommended to Mr. Banks, a Hamburgh merchant, he painted him and his family. Mr. Vernon, secretary to the duke of Monmouth, saw them, and sat to Kneller; and persuaded the duke also to sit. His grace was delighted, and engaged the king his father to have his picture by the new artist, at a time when the duke of York had been promised the king’s picture by Lely. Charles, unwilling to have double trouble, proposed that both artists should paint him at the same time. Lely, as the established artist, chose his light and station: Kneller took the next best he could, and performed his task with so much expedition and skill, that he had nearly finished his piece when Lely’s was only dead-coloured. The circumstance gained Kneller great credit; and Lely obtained no less honour, for he had the candour to acknowledge and admire the abilities of his rival. This success fixed Kneller here; and the immense number of portraits he executed, prove the continuance of his reputation.

, a very original artist, was born at Dort in 1606, and was the son of Jacob Gerritz Kuyp, a landscape painter of much merit, whom, however, he far surpassed in his progress. He was one of the most agreeable painters that ever lived; imitating with the greatest perfection the purity and brilliancy of light. No artist ever represented the atmosphere which surrounds all objects more completely than Cuyp; not even Claude: and in the effect of sun-shine, none ever approached him. The simplest scenes and combinations of objects were sufficient for him to exert his talents upon; and he never failed to give an interest to them by the sweetness of his colour, and the beauty of his light and shade.

, was an English artist, who obtained celebrity upon the revival of painting in this coontry. His taste led him to admire and to imitate the style of Caspar Poussin in landscape and he has produced several works of considerable merit; which, if theyhave not the brilliancy and force of Gaspar, are rich, and abound with beauties of a gentler kind. He also painted scenes from common nature; and at the Foundling hospital may be seen one he presented to that institution, which is deserving of very great praise. He was engaged to paint scenes for the play-houses, for which his pencil was peculiarly qualified, and, in concert with Scott, painted sir large pictures of their settlements for the East India Company, which are placed at their house in Leadenhall-street. He died in 1765. Mr. Edwards gives some anecdotes of this artist; and, among others, relates that he was the founder of the celebrated “Beef-steak-club” in Coventgarden.

, an artist of the English school, though of German extraction, was probably born about 1628. His father, a soldier of fortune, came with his wife and this only son into the Netherlands; and that country being then embroiled in a war, procured a colonel’s command, which he enjoyed not many years, dying a natural death at Antwerp. His widow, a prudent woman, so managed her small fortune, as to maintain herself suitably to her husband’s quality, and give her son a liberal education, designing him for a monastery; but early discovering his turn for painting, she, although with reluctance, placed him with a painter, from whom he learned the rudiments of his art; but his chief instruction was derived from the city-academy of Antwerp. His advances in the science were very great, especially in landscape, in which he had the advantage of Mr. Van Lyan’s collection of curious pieces of all the eminent masters of Europe. Here he selected as his favourite models Titian and Salvator Rosa.

, an artist of various talents in the seventeenth century, was born in Italy, and appears to have come over to England in the time of James I. He had a great share in the purchases of pictures made for the royal collection. He drew for Charles I. a picture of Mary, Christ, and Joseph; his own portrait done by himself with a pallet and pencils in his hand, and musical notes on a scrip of paper, is in the music-school at Oxford. He also employed himself in etching, but his fame was most considerable as a musician. It is mentioned in the folio edition of Ben Jonson’s works, printed 1640, that in 1617, his whole masque, which was performed at the house of lord Hay, for the entertainment of the French ambassador, was set to music after the Italian manner, stilo recitativo, by Nic. Laniere, who was not only ordered to set the music, but to paint the scenes. This short piece being wholly in rhyme, though without variation in the measure, to distinguish airs from recitation, as it was all in musical declamation, may be safely pronounced the first attempt at an opera in the Italian manner, after the invention of recitative. In the same year, the masque called “The Vision of Delight,” was presented at court during Christmas by the same author; and in it, says Dr. Burney, we have all the characteristics of a genuine opera, or musical drama of modern times complete: splendid scenes and machinery; poetry; musical recitation; air; chorus; and dancing. Though the music of this masque is not to be found, yet of Laniere’s “Musica narrativa” we have several examples, printed by Playford in the collections of the time; particularly the “Ayres and Dialogues,” 1653, and the second part of the “Musical Companion,” which appeared in 1667; and in which his music to the dialogues is infinitely superior to the rest; there is melody, measure, and meaning in it. His recitative is more like that of his countrymen at present, than any contemporary Englishman’s. However, these dialogues were composed before the laws and phraseology of recitative were settled, even in Italy. His cantata of “Hero and Leander” was much celebrated during these times, and the recitative regarded as a model of true Italian musical declamation. Laniere died at the age of seventyeight, and was buried in St. Martin’s in the Fields, Nov. 4, 1646.

He had two brothers unknown beyond Vercelli; Gaudenzio, of whom some sainted subject is said to exist in the sacristy of the Barnabites; and Girolamo Lamm, of whom Lanzi mentions a Christ taken from the Cross, in some private collection. They approach Bernardino in their style of faces, and the former even in strength of colour but they remain far behind him in design. This artist died about 1578.

Lawes taught music to the family of the earl of Bridgewater: he was intimate with Milton, as may be conjectured from that sonnet of the latter, “Harry, whose tuneful and well-measured song.” Peck says, that Milton wrote his masque of “Comus” at the request of Lawes, who engaged to set it to music. Most of the songs of Waller are set by Lawes; and Waller has acknowledged his obligation to him for one in particular, which he had set in 1635, in a poem, wherein he celebrates his skill as a musician. Fenton, in a note on this poem, says, that the best poets of that age were ambitious of having their verses set by this incomparable artist; who introduced a softer mixture of Italian airs than before had been practised in our nation. Dr. Burney entertains another kind of suspicion. “Whether,” says this historian, “Milton chose Lawes, or Lawes Milton for a colleague in Comus, it equally manifests the high rank in which he stood with the greatest poets of his time. It would be illiberal to cherish such an idea; but it does sometimes seem as if the twin-sisters. Poetry and Music, were mutually jealous of each other’s glory: * the less interesting my sister’s offspring may be,‘ says Poetry, * the more admiration will my own obtain.’ Upon asking some years ago, why a certain great prince continued to honour with such peculiar marks of favour, an old performer on the flute, when he had so many musicians of superior abilities about him? We were answered, * because he plays worse than himself.' And who knows whether Milton and Waller were not secretly influenced by some such consideration? and were not more pleased with Lawes for not pretending to embellish or enforce the sentiments of their songs, but setting them to sounds less captivating than the sense.”

, a most capital painter of the reign of Charles II. was born at Soest, in Westphalia, in 1617. His family name was Vander Vaas; but from the circumstance of his father, who was a captain of foot, being born in a perfumer’s shop, whose sign was a lily, and receiving the appellation of captain Du Lys, or Lely, our artist obtained it as a proper name. He was first instructed in the art by Peter Grebber, at Haerlem; and having acquired a very considerable degree of skill in execution, he came to England in 1641, and commenced portrait-painter. After the restoration he was appointed state-painter to Charles II. and continued to hold that office with great reputation till his death, which happened in 1680. He was seized by an apoplexy while painting a portrait of the duchess of Somerset, and died instantly, at the age of sixty-three.

Though Lely’s talents, as an artist, do not entitle him to hold a rank equal to that filled by his great predecessor, Vandyke, yet they justly claim very great respect and admiration. He fell short of Vandyke in two very essential parts of portraiture, viz. taste and expression. It is in parts only that he wrought with taste in the ringlets of the hair, for instance seldom in the actions of his figures, and scarcely ever in the tout- ensemble of his pictures. As to the expression of his portraits, it is almost entirely described, at least in those of his females, by what the poet Las said, that he

From the preceding circumstances, gleaned from Mr. Roscoe’s elaborate account of Leo, a judgment may be formed of his character, in which, although some things may have been exaggerated by the enemies of the Romish church, enough remains uncontested to prove that he had many of the worst vices, and, when it became necessary to his aggrandizement, practised the worst crimes of his predecessors. His biographer, by embodying the history of literature and the arts in the life of Leo, one of the most pleasing and truly valuable parts of the work, has, we think, failed, in attributing much of their advancement to Leo. And indeed it has been too much a fashion to speak of the “age of Leo” as of a glorious period which his patronage created. Too much stress, perhaps, is frequently laid on patronage; and we ought to hesitate in declaring how much it has produced, when we consider how much in all ages has been produced without it. But Leo’s patronage was not general, for it excluded Ariosto and Erasmus, two of the greatest men of the age; nor was it judicious in selection, for he bestowed it on such worthless characters as Aretin and Niso, not to speak of a number of less known characters, whose merit rises no higher than that of being able to write amorous Italian sonnets, and panegyrical Latin verses. With respect to the arts, it has been justly remarked, that when he ascended the throne they were at their meridian. He found greater talents than he employed, and greater works commenced than he completed. Leonard Da Vinci, Michael Angelo, and Raffaello, performed their greatest works before the accession of Leo X.; Bramante, the architect of St. Peter’s, died in the second year of his pontificate; and Da Vinci and Michael Angelo shared none of his favours. It is from his attachment to Raflfaello that he derives his strongest claims as a patron of art; yet a part of his conduct to this great artist makes us question whether Leo had a refined taste. Raffaello made thirteen cartoons of religious subjects to complete the decoration of the hall of Constantine, and had sent them into Flanders, to be returned in worsted copies, without any care to preserve the originals, nor any inquiry made concerning them after the subjects were manufactured into tapestry. By accident, seven of these are yet to be seen in this country, and may enable us to estimate the taste of the pontiff who could so easily forget them. Yet Leo must not be deprived of the merit that justly belongs to him. He drew together the learned men of his time, and formed eminent schools, and he did much in promoting the art of printing, then of incalculable importance to literature. In these respects, and upon account of the share he had in precipitating the reformation, his short pontificate of eight years and eight months must be allowed to form one of the most interesting periods in papal history, and worthy of the illustration it has received.

, an eminent historical painter, was born at Florence, probably about the beginning of the fifteenth century, as he was a scholar of, and of course nearly contemporary with, Massaccio. At the age of sixteen, being entered a noviciate in the convent of Carmelites at Florence, he had there an opportunity of seeing that extraordinary artist at work upon the astonishing frescoes with which he adorned the chapel of Brancacci, in the church there; and being eager to embrace the art, such was his success, that after the death of his master, it was said by common consent, that the soul of Massaccio still abode with Fra. Filippo. He now forsook the habit of his convent, and devoted himself entirely to painting; but his studies were for a time disturbed by his being unfortunately taken, while out on a party of pleasure, by some Moors, and carried prisoner to Barbary; where he remained in slavery eighteen months. But having drawn, with a piece of charcoal, the portrait of his master upon a wall, the latter was so affected by the novelty of the performance, and its exact resemblance, that, after exacting a few more specimens of his art, he generously restored him to his liberty. On his return home he painted some works for Alphonso, king of Calabria. He employed himself also in Padua; but it was in his native city of Florence that his principal works were performed. He was employed by the grand duke Cosmo di Medici, who presented his pictures to his friends; and one to pope Eugenius IV. He was also employed to adorn the palaces of the republic, the churches, and many of the houses of the principal citizens; among whom his talents were held in high estimation. He was the first of the Florentine painters who attempted to design figures as large as life, and the first who remarkably diversified the draperies, and who gave his figures the air of antiques. It is to be lamented that such a man should at last perish by the consequences of a guilty amour he indulged in at Spoleto; where he was employed at the cathedral to paint the chapel of the blessed virgin. This is differently told by different writers, some saying that he seduced a nun who sat to him for a model of the virgin, and others that the object of his passion was a married woman. In either case, it is certain that he was poisoned by the relations of the lady whose favours he was supposed to enjoy. Lorenzo di Medici erected a marble tomb in the cathedral to his memory, which Politian adorned with a Latin epitaph. His son Lippi Filippo, was renowned for excellent imitations of architectural ornaments. He died in 1505, at the age of forty-five. There was also a Florentine painter, Lorenzo Lippi, born in 1606, and likewise a great musician and a poet. In the latter character he published “II Malmantile racquistato,” which is considered as a classical work in the Tuscan language. He died in 1664.

ap edition of his collected poems. Frqm 1763. loved to associate. In his friendships he was warm, constant, and grateful, *' more sinned against than sinning;“and it would be difficult to find an apology for the conduct of those prosperous friends to whose reputation he had contributed in no inconsiderable degree by his writings. Among these, however, Hogarth appears to have been unjustly ranked. An irreconcileable quarrel had long subsisted between this artist and Churchill’s friends; and, much decayed in health, Hogarth languished for some time at Chiswick, where he died nearly two months before Lloyd. The news of Churchill’s death being announced somewhat abruptly to Lloyd, while he was sitting at dinner, he was seized with a sudden sickness, and saying” I shall follow poor Charles,“took to his bed, from which he never rose. He died December 1$, 1764, and his remains were deposited, without ceremony t on the 19th, in the churchyard of St. Bride’s parish. Ten years afterwards his poetical works were published in two handsome volumes, by Dr. Kenrick, who prefixed some memoirs, written in a negligent manner, and without a single date of birth, death, events, or publications. His poems have been added to the works of the” English Poets," although he certainly merits no very distinguished rank. His chief excellence was the facility with which he wrote a number of smooth and pleasing lines, tinctured with gay humour, on any topic which presented itself. But he has no where attempted, or afforded m much reason to think that by any diligence or effort he could have attained, the higher species of his art. He has neither originality of thought, or elegance of expression. It has been observed that those poets who have been degraded by the licentiousness of their lives, have rarely surpassed the excellence, of whatever degree, which first brought them into notice. Lloyd, however, had not the excuse which has been advanced in some recent instances. He was neither spoiled by patronage, nor flattered into indolence by injudicious praise and extravagant hopes. The friends of his youth were those of his mature years; and of the few whom he lost, he had only the melancholy recollection that some of them had quitted him from shame, and some from ingratitude.

, a spirited and tasteful engraver of the seventeenth century, was the son of a merchant at Leeds, where he was born July 4, 1649, and inherited an estate of 300l. a year. From school he was sent to Jesus college, Cambridge, and thence to Lincoln’s-inn, where his studies appear to have ended. He afterwards went abroad with Thomas lord Bellassis, in his embassy to Venice, and meeting with Barri’s “Viaggio Pittoresco,” he translated it, and added heads of the painters of his own engraving, and a map of Italy. This was printed in 1679, 8vo. While on his travels, he drew various views, which he afterwards etched. Returning to England, he assisted Dr. Lister of York, in drawing various subjects of natural history, inserted in the Philosophical Transactions. He died at Leeds, in August 1689, and was buried in Harwood church. Besides the portraits above mentioned, there are several views by this artist, etched in a slight but spirited style, from his own designs, which he made both at home and abroad. They bear the marks of genius and a good taste,

, an Italian artist, was born at Florence, in 1666. He was the disciple of Dominico Gabbiani, and at twenty-four his merit was judged equal to that of his master. He afterwards studied at Rome, under the patronage of the grand duke, and hoped to have profited by the instructions of Giro Ferri; but on his arrival he had to regret the death of that master. He now, however, pursued his studies with such success, that his works became much valued in England, France, and Germany. The emperor knighted him, and the elector of Mentz sent with his patent of knighthood, a cross set with diamonds Lutti was never satisfied with his own performances, and though he often retouched his pictures, yet they never appeared laboured; he always changed for the better, and his last thought was the best. There were three much-admired public works of his at Rome, viz. a Magdalene in the church of St. Catharine of Siena, at Monte Magna Napoli; the prophet Isaiah, in an oval, St. John de Lateran; and St. Anthony of Padua, in the church of the Holy Apostles; and at the palace Albani was a miracle of St. Pio, which some reckon his master-piece. Fuseli speaks of his “Cain, flying from his murdered brother,” he says has something of the sublimity and the pati it strike in the Pietro Martyre of Titian and his “Psyche” in the gallery of the capitol, breathes refinement of taste and elegance. His death is said to have been hastened by a fit of chagrin, owing to his not having been able to finish a picture of St. Eusebius, bishop of Vercelli, designed for Turin, for which he had received a large earnest, and promised to get it ready at a set time. But several disputes happening between him and those who bespoke the picture, brought on a fit of sickness, of which he died at Rome, in 1724, aged fifty-eight, and the picture was afterwards finished by Pietro Bianchi, one of his disciples. Lutti is blamed for not having placed his figures advantageously, but in such a manner as to throw a part of the arms and legs out of the cloth. This fault he possesses in common with Paul Veronese and Rubens, who, to give more dignity and grandeur to the subject they treated, have introduced into the fore-ground of their pictures, groups of persons on horseback, tops of heads, and arms and legs, of which no other part of the body appears.

, a celebrated statuary among the ancients, was a native of Sicyon, and flourished in the time of Alexander the Great. He was bred a locksmith, and followed that business for a while; but, by the advice of Eupompus, a painter, he applied himself to painting, which, however, he soon quitted for sculpture, and being thought to execute his works with more ease than the ancients, he became more employed than any other artist. The statue of a man wiping and anointing himself after bathing was particularly excellent: Agrippa placed it before his baths at Rome. Tiberius, who was charmed with it, and not able to resist the desire of being master of it, when he came to the empire, took it into his own apartment, and placed another very fine one in its place. But the Roman people demanding, in a full theatre, that he would replace the first statue, he found it necessary, notwithstanding his power, to comply with their solicitations, in order to appease the tumult. Another of Lysippus’s capital pieces was a statue of the sun, represented in a car drawn by four horses; this statue was worshipped at Rhodes. He made also several statues of Alexander and his favourites, which were brought to Rome by Metellus, after he had reduced the Macedonian empire. He particularly excelled in the representation of the hair, which he more happily expressed than any of his predecessors in the art. He also made his figures less than the life, that they might be seen such as statues appear when placed, as usual, at some height; and when he was charged with this fault, he answered, "That other artists had indeed represented men such as nature had made them, but, for his part, he chose to represent them such as they appeared to be to the eye/' He had three sons, who were all his disciples, and ac quired great reputation in the art,

, a Hungarian artist, was born at Maubeuge, a village in Hainault, in 1499, though in the Chronological Tables his birth is supposed to have been in 1492. It is not known from whom he derived his knowledge of the art of painting but, in his youth, he was laborious in his practice, and his principal studies were after nature, by which he acquired a great deal of truth in his compositions. To improve himself in his profession, he travelled to Italy, and became an artist of great repute. He had a good pencil, and finished his pictures highly, with great care; yet, notwithstanding his studies in Italy, and the correctness of his design, he never could arrive at the elegance of the Roman school. His manner was dry, stiff, and laboured; but he was exceedingly industrious to give a polished smoothness to his colouring. By king Henry VIII. of England he was employed to paint the portraits of some of his children, which gained him great reputation, as he finished them delicately, and gave them spirit and liveliness and he painted several others for the nobility who attended the court at London. His paintings are consequently not unfrequent in this country.

The chief abode and the school of Mantegna were at Mantua, where under the auspices of Marchese Lodovico Gonzaga, he established himself with his family, but he continued to work in other places, and particularly at Rome, where the chapel which he had painted for Innocenzio VIII. in the Vatican existed, though injured by age, at the accession of Pius VI. The style of those frescoes proved that he continued steady in his attachment to the antique, but that from a copyist he was become an imitator. Of his works in oil Mantua possesses several; but the principal one, the master-piece of the artist, and the assemblage of his powers, the picture della Vittoria, afterwards in the Oratorio de Padri di S. Filippo, is now at Paris. It is a votive picture dedicated, for a victory obtained, to the Madonna seated on her throne with the infant standing on her lap, and giving benediction to the kneeling marquis in arms before her. At one side of the throne stands the archangel Michael, holding the mantle of the Madonna; at the other are S. George, S. Maurice, John the Baptist, and S. Elizabeth on her knees. The socle of the throne is ornamented with figures relative to the fall of Adam: the scene is a leafy bower peopled by birds, and here and there open to a lucid sky. No known work of Mantegna equals in design the style of this picture: they generally shew him dry and emaciated, here he appears in all the beauty of select forms: the two infants and St. Elizabeth are figures of dignity, so the archangel who seems to have been, by the conceit of his attitude and the care bestowed on him, the painter’s favourite object. The head has the beauty and the bloom of youth, the round fleshy neck and the breast, to where it confines with the armour, are treated with great art, the expression is to a high degree spirited, and as characteristic. The countenance of the Madonna is mild and benign, that of Christ humane. The future prophet is announced in the uplifted arm of St. John. The guardian angel kindly contemplates the suppliant, who prays with devout simplicity. The whole has an air of life, All the draperies, especially that of St. Elizabeth, are elegant, and correctly folded; with more mass and less intersection of surfaces, they would be perfect. The extreme finish of execution, as it has not here that dryness which disfigures most other works of this master, does not impair the brilliancy of colour. The head of the Madonna, of the infant, of St. Michael, have a genial bloom of tints. The lights are everywhere true, the shades alone are sometimes too grey or too impure. The general scale of light has more serenity than splendour, more the air of nature than of art, but the reflexes are often cut off too glaringly from the opaque parts. The whole of the picture has preserved its tone to this day, is little damaged, and in no place retouched.

Of this artist Mr. Fuseli says, that although " he enjoyed in his life the reputation of one of the first painters of Europe, his talent seldom rose above mediocrity; he delighted in easel-pictures or altar-pieces, though not unacquainted with fresco. He is celebrated for the lovely, modest, and yet dignified air of his Madonnas, the grace of his angels, the devout character of his saints, and their festive dresses. His best pictures are in the style of Sacchi: those of his second manner are more elaborate, more anxiously studied, but, with less freedom, have less grandeur. The masses of his draperies are too much intersected, shew the naked too little, and sometimes make his figures appear too heavy or too short. He certainly aimed at fixing his principal light -to the most important spot of his picture; but, being unacquainted with the nature and the gradations of shade, involved its general tone in a certain mistiness, which was carried to excess by his pupils, and became a characteristic mark of his school. He studied in his youth the style and works of Raphael with the most sedulous attention, and strove to imitate him at every period of his practice; but it does not appear that he ever discriminated his principles of design or composition, notwithstanding the subsequent minute and laborious employment of restoring his frescoes.

He had a valuable collection of fossils and curiosities of every species, which after his death were almost given away by public auction. He was indefatigable as an artist, and as a writer he had a very happy method of explaining his subject, and wrote with clearness, and even considerable elegance. He was chiefly eminent in the science of optics; but he was well skilled in the whole circle of the mathematical and philosophical sciences, and wrote useful books on every one of them; though he was not distinguished by any remarkable inventions or discoveries of his own. His publications were very numerous, and generally useful some of the principal of them were as follow 1 “The Philosophical Grammar,” already mentioned. 2. “A new, complete, and universal system or body of Decimal Arithmetic,” 1735, 8vo. 3. “The young student’s Memorial Book, or Patent Library,” 1735, 8vo. 4. “Description and use of both the Globes, the Armillary Sphere and Orrery,” 1736, 2 vols, 8vo. 5. “Elements of Geometry,” 1739, 8vo. 6. “Memoirs of the Academy of Paris,” 1740, 5 vols. 8vo. 7. “Panegyric of the Newtonian Philosophy,” 1754. 8. “On the new construction of the Globes,” 1755. 9. “System of the Newtonian Philosophy,” 1759, 3 vols. 8vo. 10. “New Elements of Optics,” 1759. 11. “Mathematical Institutions, viz. arithmetic, algebra, geometry, and fluxions,” 1759. 12. “Natural History of England, with a map of each county,” 1759, 2 vols. 8vo. 13. “Philology and Philosophical Geography,” 1759. 14. “Mathematical Institutions,” 1764, 2 vols. 15. “Biographia Philosophica, or Lives of Philosophers,” 1764, 8vo. 16. “Introduction to the Newtonian Philosophy,” 1765. 17. “Institutions of Astronomical Calculations,” two parts, 1765. 18. “Description and use of the Air Pump,” 1766. 19. “Description of the Torricellian Barometer,” 1766. 20. “Appendix to the Description and Use of the Globes,” 1766. 21. “Philosophia Britannica,” 1778, 3 vols. 22. “Philosophical Magazine.” This when complete consists of 14 volumes, but there are parts sold separately, as “The Miscellaneous Correspondence,” 4 vols. It was discontinued for want of encouragement, which, however, it appears to have deserved, as it afforded a very correct state of scientific knowledge at that time.

We are not informed of the period at which Mr. Martyn changed his mercantile occupation for the medical profession, to which he was, doubtless, led by the general tenour of his pursuits. In 1723 he was offered admission into the royal society, which he declined, as it appears by one of his letters to Dr. Blair, from pure modesty. His objections, however, were overcome the next year; and he soon proved himself an active and worthy member, by his various communications, to be found in the Transactions of that learned body. In 1726 he published his tables of Officinal Plants, in twenty pages folio, disposed according to Ray’s system, under the title of “Tabulae Synopticae,” &c. Lond.fol. dedicated to Sir Hans Sloane. He had given a public course of lectures in Botany the preceding year, and had, with the assistance of Dr. Blair, undertaken to make a collection of birds. His herborizing excursions were from time to time continued, notwithstanding his various labours and engagements in town. His second course of lectures there, in 1726, being much approved, he was recommended by Dr. Sherard and Sir Hans Sloane as fit to teach the science in which he excelled, in the University of Cambridge. Accordingly he gave, in 1727, the first botanical course ever read in that university; and for the use of his pupils reduced the alphabetical catalogue of Cambridge Plants, printed by Ray, into a systematic form, according to the principles of its author, and published it under the title “Methodus Plantarum circa Cantabrigiam nascentium,” Lond. 12mo. As he excelled in the knowledge of cryptogamous vegetables, he improved the work in that department; and he now very judiciously laid aside the old systematic practice, of separating trees and shrubs from herbs, in his classification. In 1728 he published the first Decade of a sumptuous work, entitled “Historia Plantarum Rariorum,” in imperial folio, in which his merit in description is conspicuous. The plates were drawn by that great artist Van Huysum, engraved in mezzotinto by Kirkall, and printed in colours; but in the latter part of their execution they fail very much, that mode of colouring plates having scarcely ever been found to answer. Four more Decades of this work appeared in the course of nine years; after which it ceased, on account of the great expence of the undertaking. When this publication commenced, its author is said to have “sedulously applied himself to the practice of physic.” Sir James Smith thinks this must have been as an apothecary, for Mr. Martyn was not, by any medical degree, authorized to practise as a physician.

, a very ingenious and witty English writer, was the son of Mr. Andrew Marvel!, minister and schoolmaster of Kingston upon -Hull, in Yorkshire, and was born in that town in 1620, His abilities being very great, his progress in letters was proportionable; so that, at thirteen, he was admitted of Trinity-college in Cambridge. But he had not been long there, when he fell into the hands of the Jesuits; for those busy agents of the Romish church, under the connivance of this, as well as the preceding reign, spared no pains to make proselytes; for which purpose several of them were planted in or near the universities, in order to make conquests among the young scholars. Marvell fell into their snares, as ChilJingworth had fallen before him, and was inveigled up to London; but his father being apprised of it soon after, pursued him, and finding him in a bookseller’s shop, prevailed with him to return to college. He afterwards applied to his studies with great assiduity, and took a bachelor of arts degree in 1639. About this time he lost his father, who was unfortunately drowned in crossing the Humber, as he was attending the daughter of aa intimate female friend; who by this event becoming childless, sent for young Marvell, and, by way of making all the return in her power, added considerably to his fortune. Upon this the plan of his education was enlarged, and he travelled through most of the polite parts of Europe. It appears that he had been at Rome, from his poem entitled “Flecknoe,” an English priest at Rome in which he has described with great humour that wretched poetaster, Mr. Richard Flecknoe, from whom Dryden gave the name of Mac- Flecknoe to his satire against Shadwell. During his travels, another occasion happened for the exercise of his wit. In France, he found much talk of Lancelot Joseph de Maniban, an abbot; who pretended to understand the characters of those he had never seen, and to prognosticate their good or bad fortune, from an inspection of their band-writing. This artist was handsomely lashed by our author, in a poem written upon the spot, and addressed to him. We know no more of Marvell for several years, only that he spent some time at Constantinople, where he resided as secretary to the English embassy at that court.

, or Tomaso Da San Giovanni, an eminent artist, was born at St. Giovanni di Valdarno, in 1401, and was the disciple of Masolino da Panicale; but he proved as much superior to his master, as his master was superior to all his contemporaries: and is accounted the principal artist of the second or middle age of modern painting, from its revival under Cimabue. His genius was very extensive, his invention ready, and his manner of design had unusual truth and elegance. He considered painting as the art of representing nature with truth, by the aid of design and colouring: and therefore he made nature his most constant study, till he excelled in a perfect imitation of it. He is accounted the first who, from judicious observations, removed the difficulties that impeded the study and the knowledge of the art, by setting the artists an example in his own works, of that beauty which arises from a proper and agreeable choice of attitudes and motions, and likewise from such a spirit, boldness, and relief, as appears truly just and natural. He was the first among the painters who studied to give the draperies of his figures more dignity, by omitting the multitude of small folds, so customarily practised by the preceding artists, and by designing them with greater breadth and fulness. He was also the first who endeavoured to adapt the colour of his draperies to the tint of his carnations, so as to make the one harmonize with the other. He was uncommonly ^killed in perspective, which he had learned from P. Brujielleschi. His works procured him universal approbation: but the very same merit which promoted his fame, excited envy; and he died, to the regret of every lover of the art, not without strong suspicions of having been poisoned. Most writers agree that this event happened in 1443, but Sandrart fixes his death in 1446. Fuseli says, “Masaccio was a genius, and the head of an epoch in the art. He may be considered as the precursor of Raphael, who imitated his principles, and sometimes transcribed his figures. He had seen what could be seen of the antique, at his time at Rome: but his most perfect work are the frescoes of S, Pietro al Carmine at Florence; where vigour of conception, truth and vivacity of expression, correctness of design, and breadth of manner, are supported by truth and surprising harmony of colour.”

Among Mr. Mason’s accomplishments, his taste for painting was perhaps not inferior to that he displayed for poetry; and it has been thought that his judgment was more uniformly correct in the former than in the latter. His “Translation of Du Fresnoy’s Art of Painting,” which appeared in 1783, was begun, as he informs us, in his early years, with a double view of implanting in his memory the principles of a favourite art, and of acquiring a habit of versification, for which purpose the close and condensed style of the original seemed peculiarly calculated, especially when considered as a sort of school exercise. The task, however, proved so difficult, that it was long laid aside for original composition, and his translation would have never been made public, if sir Joshua Reynolds had not requested a sight of it, and offered to illustrate it by a series of notes. This induced him to revise the whole with such scrupulous care, that it may be considered, in a great measure, as the production of his mature talents, and whether perused as an original or a translation, is certainly not inferior to his most favourite works. In the poetical address, however, to sir Joshua Reynolds, he has not been thought so happy; and some inaccuracies of rhyme may be objected to a translation which is generally elegant and faithful. How much its value was enhanced to the artist, and to the connoisseur, by the annotations of sir Joshua Reynolds, is too obvious to be noticed.

As a poet, his name has been so frequently coupled with that of Gray, and their merits have been supposed to approach so nearly, that what has been said of the one will in some degree apply to the other. It is evident that they studied in the same school, and mutually cultivated those opinions which aim at restoring a purer species of poetry than was taught in the school of their predecessor Pope. Whether we consider Mason as a lyric, dramatic, or didactic writer, we find the same grandeur of outline, the same daring and inventive ambition which carries out of the common track of versification and sentiment into the higher regions of imagination. His attachment to the sister art, and his frequent contemplation of the more striking and sublime objects of nature, inclined him to the descriptive; and his landscapes have a warmth and colouring, often rich and harmonious, but perhaps too frequently marked with a glare of manner peculiar to the artist. His compositions, however, even on the same subject, have all the variety of a fertile invention. Although we have Evening, Morning, &c. often depicted, they are to be distinguished, and the preference we are inclined to give is regulated by the feeling which the varieties of natural appearances excite in different minds, and in the same mind at different times.

, an eminent artist, was born at Antwerp, in 1460, and for several years followed the trade of a blacksmith or farrier, at least till he was in his twentieth year. Authors vary in their accounts of the cause of his quitting his first occupation, and attaching himself to the art of painting, some attributing it to his falling in love with the daughter of a painter; others to the accidental sight of a piece of art. Whatever may have been his motive, it is certain that he appears to have had an uncommon talent: his manner was singular, not resembling the manner of any other master; and his pictures were strongly coloured, and carefully finished, though somewhat dry and hard. By many competent judges it was believed, when they observed the strength of expression in some of his compositions, that if he had been acquainted with the great masters of the Roman school, he would have proved one of the most eminent painters of the Low Countries. But he only imitated ordinary life, and seemed more inclined, or at least more qualified, to imitate the defects than the beauties of nature. Some historical compositions of this master deserve commendation particularly a Descent from the Cross, which is in the cathedral at A ntwerp, justly admired for the spirit, skill, and delicacy of the whole. Sir Joshua Reynolds says there are heads in this picture not excelled by Raphael. But the most remarkable and best known picture of Matsys, is that of the Two Misers in the gallery at Windsor, which has been engraved. Of this there is a duplicate at Hagley, the seat of lord Lyttleton. Matsys died in 1529, aged sixty-nine. — He had a son, John Matsys, who was born at Antwerp, and became his father’s disciple. He painted in the same style and manner, but not with a reputation equal to his father; though many of his pictures are sold to unskilful purchasers, for the paintings of Quintin. His most frequent subject was the representation of misers counting their gold, or bankers examining and weighing it, very common occurrences when Antwerp was in her glory.

In 1740 Maupertuis had an invitation from the king of Prussia to go to Berlin; which was too flattering to be refused. His rank among men of letters had not wholly effaced his love for his first profession, that of arms. He followed the king to the field, but at the battle of Molwitz was deprived of the pleasure of being present when victory declared in favour of his royal patron, by a' singular kind of adventure. His horse, during the heat of the action, running away with him, he fell into the hands of the enemy; and was at first but roughly treated by the Austrian hussars, to whom he could not make himself known for want of language; but, being carried prisoner to Vienna, he received such honours from the emperor as never were effaced from his memory. Maupertuis lamented very much the loss of a watch of Mr. Graham’s, the celebrated English artist, which they had taken from him; the emperor, who happened to have another by the same artist, but enriched with diamonds, presented it to him, saying, “the hussars meant only to jest with you: they have sent me your watch, and I return it to you.”

Dr. Mead was twice married. By his first lady, whom we have mentioned, he had ten children (of whom three survived him, two daughters married to Dr. Wilmot and Dr. Nicholls, and his son Richard, heir to his father’s and uncle’s fortunes): by the second lady, Miss Anne Alston, sister to sir Rowland Alston of Odell in Bedfordshire (whom he married in 1724), he had no issue. Dr. Mead raised the medical character to a higher dignity than ever was known in this or any other country. During almost half a century he was at the head of his profession, which is said to have brought him in one year upwards of seven thousand pounds, and between five and six for several years. The clergy, and in general all men of learning, were welcome to his advice; and his doors were open every morning to the most indigent, whom he frequently assisted with money; so that, notwithstanding his great income, he did not die very rich. He was a most generous patron of learning and learned men, in all sciences, and in every country; by the peculiar munificence of his disposition, making the private gains of his profession answer the end of a princely fortune, and valuing them only as they enabled him to become more extensively useful, and thereby to satisfy that greatness of mind which will transmit his name to posterity with a lustre not inferior to that of the most distinguished characters of antiquity. To him the several counties of England, and our colonies abroad, applied for the choice of their physicians. No foreigner of any learning, taste, or even curiosity, ever came to England without being introduced to Dr. Mead; and he was continually consulted by the physicians of the continent. His large and spacious house in Great Ormond street became a repository of all that was curious in nature or in art, to which his extensive correspondence with the learned in all parts of Europe not a little contributed. The king of Naples sent to request a collection of all his works; presented him with the two first volumes of signor Bajardi, and invited him to his own palace: and, through the hands of M. de Boze, he frequently had the honour of exchanging presents with the king of France. He built a gallery for his favourite furniture, his pictures, and his antiquities. His library, as appears by the printed catalogue of it, consisted of 6592 numbers, containing upwards of 10,000 volumes, in which he had spared no expence for scarce and ancient editions. It was at that time mentioned as remarkable, although it will not be thought so now, that many of his books sold for much more than they had cost him. The sale of the whole amounted to 5500l. His pictures also were chosen with so much judgment, that they produced 3417l. 11s. about six or seven hundred pounds more than he gave for them; and the total amount of his books, pictures, coins, &c. &c. was 16,069l. 8s. Md. Nor did he make this great collection for his own use only, but freely opened it to public inspection. Ingenious men were sure of finding at Dr. Mead’s the best helps in all their undertakings; and scarcely any thing curious appeared in England but under his patronage. By his singular humanity and goodness, “he conquered even Envy itself;” a compliment which was justly paid him in a dedication, by the editor of lord Bacon’s Works, in 1730. But the most elegant compliment he received, or couid receive, was in the dedication written by Dr Johnson for Dr James, which we have inserted in vol. XVIII. art. James. Dr. Johnson once said of Dr. Mead, that “he lived more in the broad sunshine of life than almost any man.” He constantly kept in pay a great number of scholars and artists of all kinds, who were at work for him or for the public. He was the friend of Pope, of Halley, and of Newton; and placed their portraits in his house, with those of Shakspeare and Milton, near the busts of their great masters, the ancient Greeks and Romans. A marble bust of Dr. Harvey, the work of an excellent artist, from an original picture in his possession, was given by him to the college of physicians: and one of Dr. Mead, by Roubillac, was presented to the college in 1756, by the late Dr. Askew. A portrait of him was etched by Pond, another by Richardson; a mezzotinto by Houston, from a painting of Ramsay; and an engraved portrait by Baron. There was also a medal of him struck in 1773, long after his decease, by Lewis Pingo.

, called Melozzo of Foiii, flourished about 1471, and was probably the scholar of Ansovino da Forli, a pupil of Squarcione. The memory of Melozzo is venerated by artists as the inventor of perspective representation and true foreshortening on arched roofs and ceilings, of what the Italians style “di Sotto in Sti;” the most difficult and most rigorous branch of execution. A tolerable progress had been made in perspective after Paolo Uccelio, by means of Piero della Francesca, an eminent geometrician, and some Lombards; but the praise of painting roofs with that charming illusion which we witness, belongs to Melozzo. Scannelli and Orlandi relate, that, to learn the art, he studied the best antiques; and, though“born to affluence, let himself as servant and colour-grinder to the masters of his time. Some make him a scholar of Piero della Francesco: it is at least not improbable that Melozzo knew him and Agostino di Bramantino, when they painted in Rome for Nicolas V. towards 1455. Whatever be the fact, Melozzo painted on the vault of the largest chapel in Ss. Apostoli, an Ascension, in which, says Vasari, the figure of Christ is so well foreshortened, that it seems to pierce the roof. That picture was painted for cardinal Riario, nephew of Sixtus IV. about 1472 and at the rebuilding of that chapel, was cut out and placed in the palace of the Quirinal, 1711, where it is still seen with this epigraphe” Opus Melotii Foroliviensis, qui summos fornices pingendi artem vel primus invenit vel illustravit.“Some heads of the apostles were likewise sawed out and placed in the Vatican. His taste on the whole resembles that of Mantegna and the Padouati schools more than any other. The heads are well formed, well coloured, well turned, and almost always foreshortened; the lights duly toned and opportunely relieved by shadows which give ambience and almost motion to his figures on that space; there is grandeur and dignity in the principal figure, and the lightsome drapery that surrounds him; with finish of pencil, diligence, and grace in every part. It is to be lamented, that so uncommon a genius has not met with an exact historian, of whom we might have learned his travels and labours previous to this great work painted for Riario. At Forli, they shew, as his work, the front of an apothecary’s shop, painted in arabesque, of exquisite style, with a half-length figure over the door pounding drugs, very well executed. We are informed by Vasari, that Francesco di Mirozzo da Forli painted before Dosso, in the villa of the dukes of Urbino, called L'lmperiale; we ought probably to read Melozzo, and to correct the word in the text, as one of that writer’s usual negligences, of which Vasari gives another instance in Marco Palmegiani, of Forli, whom he transforms to Parmegiano; a good and almost unknown artist, though many of his works survive, and he himself seems to have taken every precaution not to be forgotten by posterit3 T inscribing most of his altar-pieces and oil-pictures with Marcus pictor Foroliviensis, or, Marcus Palmasanus P. Foroliviensis pinsebat. Seldom he adds the year, as in two belonging to prince Ercolani, 1513 and 1537. In those, and in his works at Forli, we recognise two styles. The first differs little from the common one of Quattrocentist’s, in the extreme simplicity of attitude, in the gilding, in minute attention, and even in anatomy, which extended its researches at that time seldom beyond a S. Sebastian, or a S. Jerome. Of his second style the groups are more artificial, the outline larger, the proportions grander, but the heads perhaps less varied and more mannered. He used to admit into his principal subject others that do not belong to it thus in the crucifix at St. Agostino, in Forli, he placed two or three groups in different spots in one of which is S. Paul visited by S. Anthony in another, S. Augustine convinced, by an angel, of the absurdity of his attempt to fathom the mystery of the Trinity; and in those small figures he is finished and graceful beyond belief. Nor is his landscape or his architecture destitute of charms. His works abound in Romsagna, and are met with even in Venetian galleries: at Vicenza there is, in the palace Vicentini, a Christ of his between Nicodemus and Joseph; an exquisite performance, in which, to speak with Dante,” il morto par morto e vivi i vivi.

, a celebrated modern painter, was born at Aussig in Bohemia, in 1726. His lather was painter to Augustus 111. king of Poland, and he, observing the talents of his son for the same art, took him to Rome in 1741. After studying about four years, the young painter returned to Dresden, where he executed several works for Augustus with uncommon success. But his greatest patron was Charles III. king of Spain, who having, while only king of Naples, become acquainted with Mengs and his merits, in 1761, within two years after his accession to the throne of Spain, settled upon him a pension of 2000 doubloons, and gave him an house and an. equipage. Mengs, nevertheless, did not go to Spain, but resided chiefly at Rome, where he died in 1779. The labours of his art, grief for the loss of a most beautiful and amiable wife, and the injudicious medicines of an empiric, his countryman, who pretended to restore his health, are said to have occasioned his death. His character was very amiable, with no great fault but that which too commonly attends genius, a total want of reconomy; so that, though his profitsin various ways,forthe last eighteen years of his life, were very considerable, he hardly left enough to pay for his funeral. In his address, he was timid and aukward, with an entire ignorance of the world, and an enthusiasm for the arts, which absorbed almost all his passions. He left five daughters, and two sons, all of whom were provided for by his patron the king of Spain. He was an author as well as a painter, and his works were published at Parma in 1780, by the chevalier d'Azara, with notes, and a life of Mengs, in 2 vols. 4to, which were translated into English, and published in 2 vols. 1796, 8vo. They consist chiefly of treatises and letters on taste, on several painters, and various subjects connected with the philosophy and progress of the arts. They were partly translated into French, in 1782, and more completely in 1787. All that is technical on the subject of painting, in the work of his friend Winckelman, on the history of art, was supplied by Mengs. He admired the ancients, but without bigotry, and could discern their faults as well as their beauties. As an artist, Mengs seems to have been mostly admired in Spain. In this country, recent connoisseurs seem disposed to under-rate his merit, merely, as it would appear, because it had been over-rated by Azara and Winckelman. The finest specimen of his art in this country is the altar- piece of All Souls Chapel, Oxford. The subject of this picture is our Saviour in the garden it consists of two figures in the foreground, highly finished, and beautifully painted. It was ordered by a gentleman of that college whilst on his travels through Spain; but being limited to the price, he was obliged to choose a subject of few figures. This gentleman relates a singular anecdote of Mengs, which will further show the profundity of his knowledge and discernment in things of antiquity. While Dr. Burney was abroad collecting materials for his History of Music, he found at Florence an ancient statue of Apollo, with a bow and riddle in his hand: this, he considered, would be sufficient to decide the long-contested point, whether or not the ancients had known the use of the bow. He consulted many people to ascertain the certainty if this statue were really of antiquity; and at last Mengs was desired to give his opinion, who, directly as he had examined it, without knowing the cause of the inquiry, said, “there was no doubt but that the statue was of antiquity, but that the arms and fiddle had been recently added.” This had been done with such ingenuity that no one had discovered it before Mengs; but the truth of the same was not to be doubted.

The drawings of this lady have a delicacy and a beauty of colour, which have seldom been equalled, and her designs are still in high estimation, notwithstanding the great attention which has since been paid to the accurate execution of such works. She published, 1. “The origin of Caterpillars, their nourishment and changes” written in Dutch; Nuremberg, 1679–1688, in 2 vols. 4to. This was afterwards translated into Latin, and published at Amsterdam, in 1717, 4to. This work, much augmented by herself and daughters, with thirty-six additional plates and notes, was published in French by John Marret, Amsterdam, 1730, folio, under the title of, “Histoire des Insectes d'Europe.” 2. “Dissertatio de Generatione et Metamorphosibus insectorum Surinamensium,” Anise. 1705, folio. This contains only sixty plates. To some of the later editions twelve plates were annexed, by her daughters Dorothea and Helena. There is an edition of this in folio, French and Dutch, printed at Amsterdam, in 1719. Another in French and Latin, 1726; and another in Dutch, in 1730. There have been also editions of the two works united, under the title of “Histoire des Insectes de PEurope et de PAmerique,” Amst. 1730; Paris, 1768 1771. Many of the original drawings of this artist are in the British Museum, in two large volumes, which were purchased by sir Hans Sloane, at a large price. The current opinion is, that he gave five guineas for each drawing; but this is not sufficiently authenticated. Of these volumes, one contains the insects of Surinam, the other those of Europe, and among them are many designs which have never been engraved. Among those of the Surinam insects are several, which, though very elegantly finished, appear evidently, on examination, to be painted on impressions taken from the wet proofs of the engravings. Those of Europe are, perhaps, entirely original drawings. In the engraved works, much less justice has been done to the European insects than to those of America. Matthew Merian, the father of this lady, published many volumes of topographical engravings and collections of plates in sacred history.

, an eminent artist, was born at Brussels in 1634. He was a disciple of Peter Snayers, a battle painter of considerable note, and his early progress gave strong promise of his future eminence. His ingenious pictures attracted the attention of M. Colbert, the minister of Louis XIV., who induced V. Meulen to settle in Paris; and soon afterwards introduced him to the king, who appointed him to attend and paint the scenes of his military campaigns, gave him a pension of '2000 livres, and paid him besides for his performances. He made sketches of almost all the most remarkable events that occurred in these expeditions of Louis; designing upon the spot the encampments, marches, sieges, &c. of the armies the huntings of the king; the assembling of the officers, &c.: from these he composed his pictures, which are skilfully arranged, with great bustle, animation, and spirit, and executed with a very agreeable, though not always a natural tone of colour, and with a sweet and delicate pencil. Some of his pictures exhibit uncommon skill and taste in composition. Frequently the scene he had to paint was flat and insipid, such as a marshy country before long extended walls; even these he contrived to render agreeable by his judicious management of the chiaroscuro, and the pleasing groups which he displayed with his figures, which, though dressed in the stiff uncouth frippery of the French court of that period, are handled with so much delicacy and corresponding taste, that they never fail ^o please. He was particularly skilful in pourtraying the actions of the horse, of which he has left behind him a number of excellent studies, drawn with great care from nature. His pictures frequently include a great extent of country, and an immense number of objects. His perfect knowledge of perspective enabled him to manage the objects and distances with the greatest ease and effect, so that the eye accompanies the figures without confusion, and assigns to each its due action and distance. He lived not beyond the age of 56, but left a great number of pictures, most of which are in France, but they are not very unfrequent in this country.

He wrought both in enamel and water-colours, and had no competitor until Mr. Humphrey, in the latter process, produced some performances of exquisite merit: but as that gentleman soon quitted miniature painting, he left Meyer without a rival in his department. Meyer was many years a member of the academy in St. Martin’s-lane; and at the institution of the royal academy he was chosen one of the founders. He long resided in Covent-garden, but at the latter part of his life he retired to Kew, where he died Jan. 20, 1789. This event was the consequence of a fever contracted by friendly zeal, in the service of a gentleman in a contested election. Mr. Hayley says he was no less admirable as a friend than as an artist: and endeared to all who knew him by a pleasant social vivacity, and by an indefatigable spirit of extensive beneficence. “Were I required,” adds Mr. Hayley, “to name the individual whom I believe to have been most instrumental in promoting the prosperity of others (without the advantages of official authority, or of opulence), I should say, without hesitation, Meyer.”

, called Old Francis Miens, one of the most remarkable disciples of Gerard Dow, was born at Leyden, in 1635. He imitated his. master with great diligence, and has been thought in some respects to surpass him. Minute accuracy, in copying common objects on a small scale, was the excellence of this artist, with the same sweetness of colouring, and transparence that marks the paintings of Dow. In design he has been thought more comprehensive and delicate than his master, his touch more animated, with greater freshness and force in his pictures. His manner of painting silks, velvets, stuffs, or carpets, was so studiously exact, that the differences of their construction are clearly visible in his representations. His pictures are scarce, and generally bear a very high price. His own valuation of his time was a ducat an hour: and for one picture of a lady fainting, with a physician attending her, and applying remedies, he was paid at that ratio, so large a sum as fifteen hundred florins. The grand duke of Tuscany is said to have offered 3000 for it, but was refused. One of the most beautiful of the works of Francis Mieris, in this country, where they are not very common, is in the possession of Mr. P. H. Hope, and is known by the appellation of the “Shrimp Man.” Mieris died in 1681, at the age of forty-six. He left two sons, John and William, who were both eminent painters. John, however, died young; William is the subject of the ensuing article.

Louis XIV. hearing of his fame and abilities, sent for him to Paris, and is said to have sat to him for his portrait ten times. Almost all the illustrious nobles of the French court followed the example of their sovereign, and were painted by Mignard. His style of execution in these portraits is wrought up with all the false taste and pompous parade which distinguished that vicious period of the French nation; in his pictures every thing seems in motion; even. when the scene is laid in a close room, the draperies are flying about as in a high wind. With these and other defective points in his character as an artist, Mignard must be allowed to be the best portrait-painter of the French school. The king ennobled him; and, after Le Brun’s death, appointed him his principal painter, and the director of the manufactories of Seve and the Gobelins. He lived to the age of eighty-five, dying in 1695. He had an elder brother, whose name was Nicholas, a skilful painter, but who never rose to equality with him.

About this time, among other marks of esteem bestowed on Montesquieu, Dassier, who was celebrated for cutting of medals, and particularly the English coin, went from London to Paris, to engrave that of the author of the Spirit of Laws; but Montesquieu modestly declined it. The artist said to him one day, “Do not you think there is as much pride in refusing my proposal, as if you accepted it?” Disarmed by this pleasantry, he yielded to Dassier’s request.

, an excellent portrait-painter, was born atLeyden, in 1656, and at first was a disciple of Gerard Douw, and afterwards of Abraham Vanden Tempel, whose death compelled him to return to Leyden from Amsterdam, where he studied awhile with Francis Mieris, and at last went to Dort, to practise with Godfrey Schalcken, to whom he was superior as a designer; but he coveted to learn Schalcken’s manner of handling. As soon as Moor began to follow his profession, the public acknowledged his extraordinary merit; and he took the most effectual method to establish his reputation, by working with a much itronger desire to acquire fame, than to increase his fortune. He painted portraits in a beautiful style, in some of them imitating the taste, the dignity, the force, and the delicacy of Vandyck; and in others, he shewed the striking effect and spirit of Rembrandt. In his female figures, the carnations were tender and soft; and in his historical compositions, the air of his heads had variety and grace. His draperies are well chosen, elegantly disposed in very natural folds, and appear light, flowing, and unconstrained. His pictures are always neatly and highly finished; he designed them excellently, and grouped the figures of his subjects with great skill. His works were universally admired, and some of the most illustrious princes of Europe seemed solicitous to employ his pencil. The grand duke :of Tuscany desired to have the portrait of DeMoor, painted by himself, to be placed in the Florentine gallery; and, on the receipt of it, that prince sent him, in return, a chain of gold, and a large medal of the same metal. The Imperial ambassador count Sinzendorf, by order of his master, engaged him to paint the portraits of prince Eugene, and the duke of Marlborough, on horseback; and in that performance, the dignity and expression of the figures, and also the attitudes of the horses, appeared so masterly, that it was beheld with admiration, and occasioned many commendatory poems, in elegant Latin verse, to be published to the honour of the artist; and the emperor, on seeing that picture, created De Moor a knight of the empire. He died in 1738, in his eighty-second year.

, an eminent artist of the sixteenth century, was born at Utrecht in 1519, and was the scholar of John Schorel, but seems to have studied the manner of Holbein, to which he approached nearer than to the freedom of design in the works of the great masters that he saw at Rome. Like Holbein he was a close imitator of nature, but did not arrive at his extreme delicacy of finishing; on the contrary, Antonio sometimes struck into a bold and masculine style, with a good knowledge of chiaro-scuro. Among other portraits he drew Philip II. and was recommended by cardinal Granvelle to Charles V. who sent him to Portugal, where he painted John III. the king, Catharine of Austria, his queen, and the infanta Mary, first wife of Philip. For these three pictures he received six hundred ducats, besides a gold chain of a thousand florins, and other presents. He had one hundred ducats for his common portraits. But still ampler rewards were bestowed on him when sent into England to draw the picture of queen Mary, the intended bride of Philip. They gave him one hundred pounds a quarter as painter to their majesties. He made various portraits of the queen one was sent by cardinal Granvelle to the emperor, who ordered two hundred florins to Antonio. He remained in England during the reign of Mary, and was much employed; but having neglected, as is frequent, to write the names on the portraits he drew, most of them have lost part of their value, by our ignorance of the persons represented. Though portraits was the branch in which More chiefly excelled, he was not without talent for history. In this he had something of the Italian style in his design, and his colouring resembled that of Titian. A very fine work of his, representing the Ascension of our Saviour, is in the gallery of the Louvre at Paris. The style of the composition, which consists of Jesus Christ ascending, crowned by two angels, and accompanied by the figures of St. Peter and St. Paul, is of the severe and grand cast employed by Fra. Bartolomeo; the colouring is exceedingly fine, and correspondent to the style of design; he has been least successful in the expression of the principal figure; if that had been more just and grand, this picture would alone place More among the very first class of artists. On the death of the queen, he followed Philip into Spain, where he was indulged in so much familiarity, that one day the king slapping him pretty roughly on the shoulder, More returned the sport with his handstick. A strange liberty t& be taken with a Spanish monarch, and with such a monarch His biographer gives but an awkward account of the sequel, and, says Mr. Walpole, “1 repeat it as I find it. A grandee interposed for his pardon, and he was permitted to retire to the Netherlands, but on the promise of returning again to Spain. I should rather suppose that he was promised to have leave to return hither after a temporary banishment; and this supposition is the more likely, as Philip for once forgetting majesty in his love of the arts, dispatched a messenger to recal him before he had finished his journey. But the painter, sensible of the danger he had escaped, modestly excused himself. And yet, says the story, the king bestowed noble presents and places on his children.” At Utrecht, Antonio found the duke of Alva, and was employed by him to paint some of his mistresses, and was made receiver of the revenues of West Flanders, a preferment with which they say he was so elated, that he burned his easel, and gave away his painting-tools. He was a man of a stately and handsome figure; and often went to Brussels, where he lived magnificently. He died at Antwerp, in 1575, in the fifty-sixth year of his age.

In 1752 he was elected F. S. A. and two years after was one of a committee for examining the minute-books of that society, with a view to selecting thence papers proper for publication*. Being intended for orders by his father, he took the degrees of B. A. May 12, 1750, and M. A.Jan. 15, 1753; before which time he had formed considerable collections relative to the antiquities, &c. of Oxford, and particularly to those of his own college, whose archives he arranged, and made large extracts from, with a view to its history. He was at the expence of three plates of the Black Prince’s apartments there, since pulled down, which were drawn and engraved by that very ingenious artist B. Green. Twenty-eight drawings at his expence, by the same hand, of ancient gates, halls, &c. since ruined or taken down, were purchased by Mr. Gough, as also some collections for a “History of Godstow Nunnery,” by Mr. Mores, for which a plate of its ruins was engraved, and another of Iffley church. His Mss. relative to his own college, with his collections about All Souls’ college, fell after his death into the hands of Mr. Astle, who presented the former to Mr. Price of the Bodleian library.

, an eminent but very unhappy artist, was born in 1764. He was the pupil of his father Henry Robert Morland, an indifferent painter of portraits, and subjects of domestic life, whom he very soon surpassed. This perhaps was at first his misfortune, for the father, finding what advantage he might reap from his talents, confined him to such work as might be readily brought to market, without endeavouring to give him any part of that education or polish which would have enabled him to appear with credit in society. The consequence of this was, that when patrons appeared they found him wayward, dissipated, and irreclaimable. Low habits and low company early got possession of his affections, and all means to recommend oeconomy, decency, and regularity, were employed in vain. At length his father was advised to send young Morland to Margate to paint small portraits; and although this scheme did not produce all the effect expected, it made him more known, and -he became independent of his father, and could now pursue his art when he pleased, and for his own emolument.

Of his particular merits in imitative art, it may be observed that he was the first (or at least, among our countrymen, by far the most eminent) of those who have given the true spirit and character of our great palladium the British Oak as well as the form and action of all our most familiar animals, in all their subtleties and varieties nor does he appear to have undertaken any subject that he did not treat with equal success. Among his other rare qualifications, he appears to have been thoroughly and impartially acquainted with the Complexion and bias of his own genius from his very boyhood; since, after that period, he is never found “out of his element.” No sooner had he described the scrawls and daubings of puerility, than, anticipating his future success, and conscious of his present powers, he retreated in silence to the free walks of Nature; contemplated deeply, reasoned accurately, and practised diligently. A few years brought him back to public notice, a finished painter of English scenery, nature, sentiments, and manners; an artist, who, having sagaciously prescribed the limits of his pursuits, and effected whatever, in knowledge or in practice, was essential to the purpose of filling up those limits, had now nothing more to learn. He shrunk from no difficulty, for his choice of subject left him no difficulty to encounter. He disdained nothing that was natural and picturesque, consistently with that decorum which he has inviolably observed in all his public works. He would never risk truth, but would rather give 20 guineas to have a cat stolen for him, than presume to paint one from an uncertain remembrance. He sometimes leaves the truth unfinished, but never violated. He affected none of those whimsies that are for ever setting amateurs by the ears on the subject of colouring, or light and shadow. His characters affect no graces nor anti-graces that do not belong to them. His lights and shadows are mild, moderate, and diffusive. The whole together rests easy upon the eye, and pleases a correct taste as much as it would had it surprised a vicious one more. His choice is always good; for he chuses that in which there is nothing essential to reject. He never gives us too much of a thing. The character of Morland, therefore, as a painter, appears to be remarkably equal and consistent. His pictures never make a mistake never insult by falsehood, disgust by affectation, disappoint by error, or teize by mystery. His early productions were landscapes, and he painted one or two small conversation-pieces; but his favourite subjects were animals, chiefly of the domestic kind horses, dogs, pigs, and other cattle, which he painted in a very masterly manner. At the Exhibition of the Royal Academy, in 1791, he produced a picture representing the inside of a stable, with horses and draymen, &c. larger than a half-length canvas an excellent performance, and perhaps his master-piece.

, an English artist, at one time of considerable fame, was born at Eastbourne in the county of Sussex, in November 1739. His father, who was a collector of the customs at that port, was descended from Mortimer earl of March, and a man of most respectable character. His uncle was an itinerant painter, of merit much above mediocrity; from frequently seeing his productions, the nephew imbibed an early fondness for that art, which he afterwards practised with considerable success. His taste for the terrific he is said to have acquired from the scenery of the place, and the tribe of ferocious smugglers, whom it was his father’s duty to watch, whose countenances, unsoftened by social intercourse, were marked with that savage hardihood, which he afterwards so much admired, and sometimes imitated, in the banditti of Salvator Rosa.