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

The first open attack upon lord Clarendon was made by the earl of Bristol; who, in 1663, exhibited against him a charge of high treason to the house of lords. There had been a long course of friendship, both in prosperity and adversity, between the chancellor and this earl: but they had gradually fallen into different measures in religion and politics. In this state of things, the chancellor refusing what lord Bristol considered as a small favour (which was said to be the passing a patent in favour of a court lady), the latter took so much offence, that he resolved upon revenge. The substance of the whole accusation was as follows: “That the chancellor, being in place of highest trust and confidence with his majesty, and having arrogated a supreme direction in all thingjs, had, with a traiteroas intent to draw contempt upon his majesty’s person, and to alienate the affections of his subjects, abused the said trust in manner following. 1. He had endeavoured to alienate the hearts of his majesty’s subjects, by artfully insinuating to his creatures and dependent);, that his majesty was inclined to popery, and designed to alter the established religion. 2. He had said to several persons of his majesty’s privy council, that his majesty was dangerously corrupted in his religion, and inclined to popery: that persons of that religion had such access and such credit with him, that, unless there were a careful eye had upon it, the protestant religion would be overthrown in this kingdom. 3. Upon his majesty’s admitting sir Henry Bennet to be secretary of state in the place of sir Edward Nicholas, he said, that his majesty had given 10,000^. to remove a most zealous Protestant, that he might bring into that place a concealed Papist. 4. In pursuance of the same traiterous design, several friends and dependents of his have said aloud, that ‘ were it not for my lord chancellor’s standing in the gap, Popery would be introduced into this kingdom.’ 5. That he kad persuaded the king, contrary to his opinion, to allow his name to be used to the pope and several cardinals, in the solicitation of a cardinal” cap for the lord Aubigny, great almoner to the queen: in order to effect which, he had employed Mr. Richard Bealing, a known Papist, and had likewise applied himself to several popish priests and Jesuits to the same purpose, promising great favour to the Papists here, in case it should be effected. 6. That he had likewise promised to several Papists, that he would do his endeavour, and said, * he hoped to compass taking away all penal laws against them; to the end they might presume and grow vain upon his patronage; and, by their publishing their hopes of toleration, increase the scandal designed by him to be raised against his majesty throughout the kingdom. 7. That, being intrusted with the treaty between his majesty and his royal consort the queen, he concluded it upon articles scandalous and dangerous to the Protestant religion. Moreover, he brought the king and queen together without any settled agreement about the performance of the marriage rites; whereby, the queen refusing to be married by a Protestant priest, in case of her being with child, either the succession should be made uncertain for want of the due rites of matrimony, or else his majesty be exposed to a suspicion of having been married in his own dominions by a Romish priest. 8. That, having endeavoured to alienate the hearts of the king’s subjects upon the score of religion, he endeavoured to make use of all his scandals and jealousies, to raise to himself a popular applause of being the zealous upholder of the Protestant religion, &c. 9. That he further endeavoured to alienate the hearts of the king’s subjects, by venting in his own discourse, and those of his emissaries, opprobrious scandals against his majesty’s person and course of life; such as are not fit to be mentioned, unless necessity shall require it. 10. That he endeavoured to alienate the affections of the duke of York from his majesty, by suggesting to him, that ‘ his majesty intended to legitimate the duke of Monmouth.’ 11. That he had persuaded the king, against thie advice of the lord general, to withdraw the English garrisons out of Scotland, and demolish all the forts built there, at so vast a charge to this kingdom; and all without expecting the advice of the parliament of England. 12. That he endeavoured to alienate his majesty’s affections and esteem from the present parliament, by telling him, ‘ that there never was so weak and inconsiderable a house of lords, nor never so weak and heady a house of commons’ and particularly that ’ it was better to sell Dunkirk than be at their mercy for want of money.' 13. That, contrary to a known law made last session, by which money was given and applied for maintaining Dunkirk, he advised and effected the sale of the same to the French king. 14. That he had, contrary to law, enriched himself and his treasures by the sale of offices. 15. That he had converted to his own use vast sums of public money, raised in Ireland by way of subsidy, private and public benevolences, and otherwise given and intended to defray the charge of the government in that kingdom. 16. That, having arrogated to himself a supreme direction of all his majesty’s affairs, he had prevailed to have his majesty’s customs farmed at a lower rate than others offered; and that by persons with some of whom he went a share, and other parts of money resulting from his majesty’s revenue."

, an industrious French author and bibliographer, was born at Chalons sur Saone, Aug. 20, 1608. He was educated among the Carmelites, and entered into that order in 1625, and, during his studies, the distinguished progress he made in theology and 'he belles lettres, procured him easy access to the libraries and the collections of literary men of eminence, who contributed very readily to promote his taste for bibliography and literary history. In 1639 he went to Italy, and resided some time at Rome, consulting the libraries, and collecting materials for his future works, particularly his “Bibliotheca Pontificia,” which he undertook at the solicitation of Gabriel Naude“, and published at Lyons in 1642; but this is by far the worst specimen of his talents, and has many ridiculous errors, which we can only ascribe to his having hastily copied erroneous catalogues, without consulting the books themselves. On his return to Paris he became librarian to de Gondi, afterwards cardinal de Retz, and was likewise appointed counsellor and almoner to the king. We find him then librarian to de Harlay, first president of the parliament of Paris, in whose house he lodged, and where he died May 10, 1670. He was a man of great industry and application, and continually employed in inquiries into the history of literature and literary men; but he was deficient in critical taste, undertook too many things at once, and hence committed errors which have thrown a suspicion on the general accuracy of all his works. Niceron has enumerated thirty-seven of his publications, of which the principal are, 1.” Bibliotheca Pontificia,“already mentioned, Lyons, 1643, 4to. 2.” Traite“des plus belles Bibliotheques du monde,” Paris, 1644, 8vo. 3. “Bibliotheca Parisina, hoc est Catalogus omnium librorum Parisiis annis 1643 & 1644 inclusive excusorum,” Paris, 1645, 4to. This catalogue, for such it simply is, without any thing but the titles of the books, he continued to the year 1650; and by way of supplement compiled his “Bibliotheca Gallica universalis,” for the same or a greater number of years, including books published in other parts of France. 4. “De Claris Scriptoribus Cabilonensibus, libri tres,” 1652, 4to. Among the many plans which he meditated, one was an universal library of French authors, which he is said to have compiled, but what became of it is not known. If completed, as Mr. Dibdin says, in 1638, it could not have been a work of much accuracy, for he had then scarcely attained his thirtieth year, and published long afterwards works which sufficiently shew that he never attained much experience and correctness in his researches.

, bishop of Lucera, was employed in various important affairs by Sixtus IV. and his successors, and created cardinal in 1517, by Leo X. He died July 2, 1527, aged 84. He left a “Treatise on the Councils,” in Latin, which is sold very dear, though justly considered by the learned as worth very little. It is in the last volume of P. Labbe’s councils; the first edition is Rome, 1538, fol. but the edition of Paris., made for Labbe’s councils, is the only one which is esteemed, and no copy of Labbe can be complete without it. The re-impression of Venice is not valued.

, a celebrated cardinal in the thirteenth century, born at Vitry, a village near Paris, was canon of Ognies, then pastor of Argenteuil, attended the crusades, staid a long time in the Levant, and was made bishop of Acre, otherwise called Ptolemais. Gregory IX. created him cardinal in 1230, and gave him the bishopric of Frescati. He was afterwards legate in France, Brabant, and the Holy Land; in all which offices his zeal and prudence were remarkable. He died April 30, 1244, at Rome. He left many works, the most curious and most sought after among which, is an “Eastern and Western History,” ^in Latin, in “Gesta Dei per Francos,” by Canisius. The third book has been published, with some alterations, in the third volume of P. Martenne’s “Thesaurus Anecdotorum.”

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

, or Geoffrey, of Monmouth (ap Arthur), the famous British historian, who flourished in the time of Henry I. was born at Monmouth, and probably educated in the Benedictine monastery near that place; for Oxford and Cambridge had not yet risen to any great height, and bad been lately depressed by the Danish invasion so that monasteries were at this time the principal seminaries of learning. Tradition still points out a small apartment of the above monastery as his library; it bears in the ceiling and windows remains of former magnificence, but is much more modern than the age of Jeffery. He was made archdeacon of Monmouth, and afterwards promoted to the bishopric of St. Asaph in 1152. He is said by some to have been raised to the dignity of a cardinal also, but on no apparent good grounds. Robert earl of Gloucester, natural son of Henry I. and Alexander bishop of Lincoln, were his particular patrons; the first a person of great eminence and authority in the kingdom, and celebrated for his learning; the latter, for being the greatest patron of learned men in that time, and himself a great scholar and statesman.

, so called from the place of his birth, where he is held to be a Protestant martyr. It does not appear in what year he was born, but it is certain that he was neither a monk nor an ecclesiastic: but that, being endowed with excellent natural parts, he had a learned education, and studied at Paris, Heidelberg, Cologne, and perhaps at Oxford. The degree of M. A. was conferred on him in the three first-mentioned universities, and he commenced D. D. in 1396. He began to publish the doctrine of the Hussites in 1408, and it is said he had a greater hare of learning and eloquence than John Huss himself. In the mean time, the council of Constance kept a watchful eye over him; and, looking upon him as a dangerous person, cited him before them April 17, 1415, to give an account of Jiis faith. In pursuance of the citation, he went to Constance, in order to defend the doctrine of Huss, as he had promised; but, on his arrival, April 24, finding his master Huss in prison, he withdrew immediately to Uberlingen, whence he sent to the emperor for a safe conduct, which was refused. The council, very artfully, were willing to grant him a safe-conduct to come to Constance, but not for his return to Bohemia. Upon this he caused to be fixed upon all the churches of Constance, and upon the gates of the cardinal’s house, a paper, declaring that he was ready to come to Constance, to give an account of his faith, and to answer, not only in private and under the seal, hut in full council, all the calumnies of his accusers, offering to suffer the punishment due to heretics, it he should be convinced of any errors; for which reason he had desired a safe-conduct both from the emperor and the council; but that if, notwithstanding such a pass, any violence should be done to him, by imprisonment or otherwise, all the world might be a witness of the injustice of the council. No notice being taken of this declaration, he resolved to return into his own country: but the council dispatched a safe-conduct to him, importing, that as they had the extirpation of heresy above all things at heart, they summoned him to appear in the space of fifteen days, to be heard in the first session that should be held after his arrival; that for this purpose they had sent him, by those presents, a safe-conduct so far as to secure him from any violence, but they did not mean to exempt him from justice, as far as it depended upon the council, and as the catholic faith required. This pass and summons came to his hands, yet he was arrested in his way homewards, April 25, and put into the hands of the prince of Sultzbach; and, as he had not answered the citation of April 17, he was cited again May 2, and the prince of Sultzbach, sending to Constance in pursuance of an order of the council, he arrived there on the 23d, bound in chains. Upon his examination, he denied receiving of the citation, and protested his ignorance of it. He was afterwards carried to a tower of St. Paul’s church, there fastened to a post, and his hands tied to his neck with the same chains. He continued in this posture two days, without receiving any kind of nourishment; upon which he fell dangerously ill, and desired a confessor might be allowed, which being granted, he obtained a little more liberty. On July 19, he was interrogated afresh, when he explained himself upon the subject of the Eucharist to the following effect: That, in the sacrament of the altar, the particular substance of that piece of bread which is there, is transubstantiated into the body of Christ, but that the universal substance of bread remains. Thus, with John Huss, he maintained the “universalia ex parte rei.” It is true, on a third examination, Sept. 11, he retracted this opinion, and approved the condemnation of Wickliff and John Huss; but, on May 26, 1416, he condemned that recantation in these terms: “I am not ashamed to confess here publicly my weakness, Yes, with horror, I confess my base cowardice It was only the dread of the punishment by fire, which drew me to consent, against my conscience, to the condemnation of the doctrine of Wickliff and John Huss.” This was decisive, and accordingly, in the 21st session, sentence was passed on him; in pursuance of which, he was delivered to the secular arm, May 30. As the executioner led him to the stake, Jerome, with great steadiness, testified his perseverance in his faith, by repeating his creed with aloud voice, and singing litanies and a hymn to the blessed Virgin; and, being burnt to death, his ashes, like those of Huss, were thrown into the Rhine.

, a celebrated French divine, was born in 1592, at Poligrii in Franche-Comte. His father was a counsellor in the parliament at Dole. The piety of Le Jeune was of the most exemplary kind. He delighted in the most arduous offices of his profession; and refused a canonry of Arbois, to enter into the then rising, 'but strict society of the oratory. His patience and humility were no less remarkable than his piety. He lost his sight at the age of thirty-five, yet did not suffer that great misfortune to depress his spirits. He was twice cut for the stone, without uttering a single murmur of impatience. As a preacher he was highly celebrated, but totally free from all ostentation. As a converter of persons estranged from religion, or those esteemed heretical, he is said to have possessed wonderful powers of persuasion. Many dignitaries of the church were highly sensible of his merits; particularly cardinal Berulle, who regarded him as a son, and La Fayette bishop of Limoges, who finally persuaded him to settle in his diocese. Le Jeune died Aug. 19, 1672, at the age of eighty. There are extant ten large volumes of his sermons, in 8vo, which were studied and admired by Massillon, and have been also translated into Latin. His style is simple, insinuating, and affecting, though now a little antiquated. He published also a translation of Grotius’s tract “De Veriiate Ileligionis Christiana.”

, a celebrated French poet, was born of a noble family at Paris, in 1532. He was esteemed by Henry II. and Charles IX. but so entirely devoted to poetry and luxury, that he reaped no advantage from their patronage, but lived in poverty. He was one of the earliest tragic poets of France, but abused the uncommon facility he had in writing verses; so that though his French poems were much admired when their author was living, it now requires great patience to read them. The same cannot, however, be said of his Latin poetry, which is written in a more pure and easy style, and in a better taste. Jodelle was well acquainted with Greek and Latin, had a genius for the arts, and is said to have understood architecture, painting, and sculpture he was one of the poets in the Pleiades fancied by Ronsard, and is considered as the inventor of the Vers rapportes. This author died very poor, July 1573. The collection of his poems was published at Paris, 1574, 4to, and at Lyons, 1597, 12mo. It contains two tragedies, Cleopatra, and Dido; Eugene, a comedy; sonnets, songs, odes, elegies, &c. Cardinal du Perron valued this poet’s talents so little, that he used to say Jodelle’s verses were but pois piles.

, a French writer, was born at Paris in 1607, and obtained a canonry in the cathedral there in 1631. Discovering also a capacity for state affairs, he was appointed to attend a plenipotentiary to Munster; and, during the commotions at Paris, he took a journey to Rome. In 1671, he was made precentor of his church, and several times official. He lived to the great age of ninety-three, without experiencing the usual infirmities of it; when, going one morning to matins, he fell into a trench, which had been dug for the foundation of the high altar. He died of this fall in 1700, after bequeathing a very fine library to his church. He was the author of many works in both Latin and French, and as well upon civil as religious subjects. One of them in French, 1652, in 12mo, is entitled t( A Collection of true and important Maxims for the Education of a Prince, against the false and pernicious politics of cardinal Mazarine;“which, being reprinted in 1663, with two” Apologetical Letters,“was burnt in 1665 by the hands of the common hangman. The same year, how-. ever, 1665, he published a tract called” Codicil d'Or, or the Golden Codicil," which relates to the former; being a further collection of maxims for the education of a prince, taken chiefly from Erasmus, whose works he is said to have read seven times over.

, king’s counsellor at the Chatelet, and syndic of the annuitants of the H6tel de Ville at Paris, attached himself to cardinal de Retz, whom he attended a long time as secretary in his troubles and adventures, but quitted his eminence when he returned to Rome. There are some “Memoirs” by him, from 164-8 to 1665, designed as an explanation and supplement to those of cardinal de Retz, with which they were printed in 2 vols. 12mo. These memoirs contain some very curious particulars. He also left some tracts, written by order of the court, in defence of the queen’s rignts, against Peter Stockmans, an eminent lawyer; particularly “The Intrigues of the Peace,” and the “Negociations” made at court by the friends of M. the prince, after his retreat to Guienne, folio, with a sequel of the same “Intrigues,” 4to.

In 1613 he went to Paris, where he was admitted to an interview with cardinal Perron, and with his usual frankness told the cardinal that his translation of Virgil was “nought.” About this time he commenced a quarrel with Inigo Jones, and made him the subject of his ridicule in a comedy called “Bartholomew- Fair,” acted in 1614. Jones was architect or machinist to the masques and entertainmerits for which Jon son furnished the poetry, but the particular cause of their quarrel does not appear. “Whoever,” says lord Orford, “was the aggressor, the turbulent temper of Jonson took care to be most in the wrong. Nothing exceeds the grossness of the language that he poured out, except the badness of the verses that were the vehicle. There he fully exerted all that brutal abuse which his contemporaries were willing to think wit, because they were afraid of it; and which only serves to show the arrogance of the man who presumed to satirize Jones and rival Shakspeare. With the latter, indeed, he had not the smallest pretensions to be compared, except in having sometimes written absolute nonsense. Jonsort translated the ancients, Shakspeare transfused their very soul into his writings.” If Jonson was the rival of Shakspeare, he deserves all this; but with no other claims than his (t Cataline,“and” Sejanus,“how could he for a moment fancy himself the rival of Shakspeare?” Bartholomew Fair“was succeeded by the” Devil’s an Ass,“in 1616, and by an edition of his Works in folio, in which his” Epigrams" were first printed, although they appear to have been written at various times, and some long before this period. He was now in the zenith of his fame and prosperity. Among other marks of respect, he was presented with the honorary degree of M. A. by the university of Oxford. He had been invited to this place by Dr. Corbet, senior student, and afterwards dean of Christchurch and bishop of Norwich. According to the account he gave of himself to Drummond, he was M. A. of both universities.

Besides his principal works, which have already been mentioned, there are some other things of a smaller nature; as, “Remarks upon Spenser’s Poems,” 1734, 8vo, at the end of which are some “Remarks upon Milton;” “Remarks on Seneca,” printed in the “Present State of the Republic of Letters,” for Aug. 1734; “A Sermon preached at the Consecration of Pearce bishop of Bangor,” 1747 a few “Remarks on Tillotson’s Sermons,” given to his friend Dr. Birch, and printed in the appendix to Birch’s Life of that prelate, 1752; “Letter to Mr. Avison, concerning the Music of the Ancients,” subjoined to a second edition of Avison’s “Essay on Musical Expression,” 1753, and a few “Remarks on Phillips’s Life of Cardinal Pole,” printed in an appendix to “Neve’s Animadversions” upon that History, 1766. In 1771, the year after his death, 4 volumes of his “Sermons,” in 8vo, were inscribed by his son Rogers Jortin, esq. to his parishioners of St. Dunstan’s, at whose request they were published; and these, being well received by the public, were reprinted in 1772, with the addition of 3 volumes more. At the end of the 7th vol. a*e “Jour Charges, delivered to the Clergy of the Archdeaconry of London.” His whole Works have lately been reprinted, including his Life of Erasmus, by Messrs. White and Cochrane, in an uniform edition.

, a celebrated capuchin, better known by the name of Father Joseph, was born November 4, 1577, at Paris, where his father, John de Clerc, had an office in the palace. After pursuing his studies with success, he visited Italy and Germany, entered into the army, and gave his family the most flattering expectations of his future fortune, when he suddenly renounced the world, and took the capuchins’ habit in 1599. He afterwards preached, and discharged the office of a missionary with reputation, was entrusted with the most important commissions by the court, and contributed much to the reformation of Fontevrauld. He sent capuchin missionaries into England, Canada, and Turkey, and was the intimate confidant of cardinal Richelieu, to whotn he was servilely devoted. Father Joseph founded the new order of Benedictine nuns of Calvary, for whom he procured establishments at Angers. Louis XIII. had nominated him to the cardinalate, but he died at Reuel, before he had received that dignity, December 18, 1638. The parliament attended his funeral in a body. The abbe Richard has published two lives of this capuchin, in one of which, in 2 vols. 12mo, he represents him as a saint; and in the other, entitled “Le veritable Pere Joseph,” as an artful politician, and courtier. This last is most esteemed, and probably most to be credited.

, or Paullo Giovio, an Italian historian, was a native of Como, and was born in 1483. Being early deprived of his father, he was educated under the care of his elder brother Benedict, who was also a historical writer. After having studied at Padua, Milan, and Pavia, he took the degree of M. D. and practised for some time; but an early propensity led him to the study and composition of history. Having completed a volume, he presented it to Leo X. at Rome, in 1516, who expressed a very high opinion of him, and gave him a pension and the rank of knighthood. Jovius now became intimate with the literati of Rome, and wrote several Latin poems, which appeared in the “Coryciana,” and other collections. After the death of Leo, Adrian VI. presented him to a canonry in the cathedral of Como, and Clement VII. appointed him one of his attendant courtiers, provided him with a handsome establishment in the Vatican, gave him the precentorship of Como, and lastly the bishopric of Nocera. During the sacking of the city of Rome, in 1527, Jovius was robbed of a considerable sum of money and of his manuscripts, but recovered the latter. Under the pontificate of Paul III. he wished to exchange his bishopric of Nocera for that of Como, and even carried his ambition to the place of cardinal, but was disappointed in both. His favourite residence was at a beautiful villa on the banks of the lake of Como, where he pursued his studies, and in his museum made a collection of portraits of eminent characters, to each of which he affixed an inscription, or brief memoir, some highly favourable, others sarcastically severe. These memoirs have been frequently printed under the title “Elogia doctorum Virorum,” and the portraits, engraved in wood, have been published under the title of “Musaei Jovian i Imagines,” Basil, 1577. About two years before his death, he quitted his retirement, and took up his residence in Florence, where he died in 1552, and was buried in the church of St. Laurence, in that city.

* In the Oen?. Mag. for 1781, p 38, daleo, Oxford, on Edward Joyner, is a curious- Latin epitaph, taken from alias Lyde, who was probably the elthe parish church of St. Mary Mag- der brother of William. piety, and great fidelity. At his return he lived very retired in London; till, on the breaking out of the popish plot in 1678, he retired to Horspath, where some time after he was seized for a Jesuit, or priest, and hound to appear at the quarter-sessions at Oxford. Being found to be a mere lay-papist, and discharged, he went to Ickford, an obscure village in Buckinghamshire, near Thame, and there spent many years in devout retirement. In 1687 he was restored to his fellowship by James II. but expelled from it after a year’s enjoyment, and retired to his former recess, where, says Wood, his apparel, which was formerly gay, was then very rustical, little better than that of a day-labourer, and his diet and lodging suitable. In one of his letters to Wood, April 12, 1692, he told him that “the present place of his residence is a poor thatcht-house, where the roof is of the same stuff in the chamber where he lodged, which he assured me was never guilty of paying chimney-tax. However, he hoped that all this would not make a person neglected and despicable who had formerly slept in the royal palaces of France, under a roof fretted and embossed with gold; whereas, this is doubly and trebly interweaved only with venerable cobwebs, which can plead nothing of rarity besides the antiquity.” This personage has written, 1. “The Roman Empress,” a comedy, Lond. 1670, 4to. 2. “Some Observations on the Life of Cardinal Pole,” 1686, 8vo. 3. Various Latin and English poems, scattered in several books, especially a large English copy in “Horti Carolini Rosa altera,” 1640. He died at Ickford, Sept. 14, 1706. He was great uncle to Thomas Philips, canon of Tongres, who wrote the “Life of Cardinal Pole,” published in 1766.

, a learned divine of the congregation of the oratory, was born in 1650, at Varembon in Bresse, in the diocese of Lyons. He taught theology in several houses of the Oratory, and in the seminary de St. Magloire, at Paris, where he died December 16, 1713. His principal works are, a “Treatise on the Sacraments,” 2 vols. folio, in Latin; “Theological Institutions, 7 ' 7 vols. 12mo, also in Latin. This last was condemned at Rome, and by M. Godet, bishop of Chartres, and cardinal de Bissy, as reviving the errors of Jansenius. Cardinal de Noailles also prohibited it in his diocese, but was afterwards satisfied with the explanation given him by the author. Juennin wrote against the mandates of M. Godet and cardinal de Bissy; which two apologetical defences were published in 12mo, without any name. He also left an” Abridged System of Divinity,“by question and answer, for the use of persons going to be examined for holy orders;” La Théorie practique des Sacremens,“3 vols. 12mo, without the author’s name” Théologie Morale,“6 vols. 12mo,” Cas de Conscience sur la vertu de Justice et d'Equité," 4 vols. 12mo.

, a learned Hollander, was born, in 1511 or 1512, at Hoorn, of which place his father had been secretary, and five times burgomaster. Having passed through his first studies at Haeriem and Louvain, he fixed Upon physic for his profession, and, for his improvement, resolved to travel abroad. Accordingly, going first to France, he put himself under the care of James Houlier, a celebrated physician at Paris. Thence he went to Bologna in Italy, where he was admitted M. D. and afterwards, passing through several parts of Germany, arrived in England, and became physician to the duke of Norfolk in 1543, and was afterwards retained in that quality by a certain great lady. He continued in England several years, and wrote many books there; among others, a Greek and Latin lexicon, to which he added above 6500 words. He dedicated this work, in 1548, to Edward VI. with the title of king. Edward not being acknowledged such by the pope> our author, who was of that religion, fell under the displeasure of the court of Rome for his dedication, and was prosecuted for it a long time after. His works were put into the “Index Expurgatorius,” where he was branded as a Calvinist, and an author “damnatae memories,” of condemned memory; a disgrace which gave him great uneasiness and concern; and, in order to be freed from it, having laid his case before cardinal Granville, he applied, by the advice of Arias Montanus, directly to the pope, and prepared an apology, shewing the indispensable necessity he was under of giving Edward the title of king, and at the same time protesting he had always been a good catholic.

In 1557 he accepted the offer made to him, of the Hebrew and divinity professorship in the new university of Jena, where he had read lectures for five years, and where he engaged in a dispute with his colleague, Strigelius, on the nature of original sin, which Strigelius held to be accidental of the soul, and Flacius maintained that it was of the soul’s substance and essence. This dispute was held before the duke of Saxony at Weimar, and carried on to thirteen meetings, the acts of which were published, with a preface by Musaeus, one of Flacius’s followers. His opinion on this subject, however, was so unpalatable, that he was obliged to leave Jena and go to Ratisbon, where he published some more works, and was in such reputation among the adherents to the Au^sburgh confession, that, in 1567, he was called into Brabant, to establish churches there according to that rule of faith; but these new churches were soon dispersed by the persecution arisen in that country, which obliged him to fly to Antwerp and Strasburg, and finally to Francfort. Here he maintained his opinion on original sin with such rigid adherence as to be charged with Manicheism on this point, which greatly injured his reputation, and deprived him of many of his followers. He died in this city, March 11, 1575. He is said to have been a man of extensive learning, but of a controversial turn, which frequently embroiled him with his brethren; but on the other hand he must be allowed to have been a powerful agent in promoting the Reformation. His works were numerous. Teissier, in his “Eloges des homines savans,” has given the titles of seventy-eight treatises, the greater part of which are also enumerated by Niceron. The principal are his “Clavis Scripturae,” 2 vols. fol. of which there have been seven editions, the last at Leipsic in. 1695; no inconsiderable test of its merit. To this may be added his “Catalogus testium veritatis,” of which there have been several editions in 4to and fol.; and an edition of the “Ancient Latin Mass,” Strasburg, 1557, 8vo. He thought this work would assist the common cause; but the Lutherans, perceiving the contrary, did all they could to suppress it, which is the reason of its scarceness; nor has the republication in P. le Cointe’s “Annals,” and in cardinal Bona’s “Liturgies,” reduced the very high price. In the edition of Sulpicius Severus, published by him ut Basil, 1556, 8vo, there is an “Appendix to the Latin Mass,” which may be added to it. There is another very rare work of his, entitled “Varia doctorum piorumque virorum de corrupto ecclesise statu, Poemata,” Basil, 1557.

, a famous cardinal, was born April 26, 1651, of an illustrious family at Genoa. He was appointed general of the mint, then treasurer of the apostolical chamber, afterwards cardinal, February 13, 1690. The popes employed him in the most important affairs, and he was within one vote of being elected pope in the conclave 1730. His probity, talents, and love of learning, made him universally esteemed. He died January 4, 1737, at Rome, aged 86. He ordered, by will, that his noble library should be made public, of which a catalogue was printed at Rome in 1711, fol. by Justus Fontanini. This library was long one of the ornaments of Rome.

of Seville, was born at Carthagena, in Spain, the son of Severian, governor of that city, and was educated by his brother Leander, bishop of Seville, whom he succeeded in the year 601. St. Isidore was the oracle of Spain during thirty-five years, and died April 4, 636, leaving the following works: Twenty books of “Origines,” or Etymologies, Paris, 1601, fol., or Cologn, 1617, fol.; a “Chronicle” ending at the year 626, useful for the history of the Goths, Vandals, and Suevi “Commentaries” on the historical books of the Old Testament a treatise “on Ecclesiastical Writers” “a Rule for the Monastery of Honori;” a “Treatise on Ecclesiastical Offices,” containing many very important passages relating to Ecclesiastical Discipline, and in which he mentions seven prayers of the sacrifice. These prayers may still be found in the Mosarabic.mass, which is the ancient Spanish liturgy, and of which this saint is known to have been the principal author. The edition of the Missal, 1500, fol. and of the Breviary, 1502, fol. printed by cardinal Ximenes’ order, are very scarce; a Treatise on this Liturgy was printed at Rome, 1740, fol. The “Collection of Canons” attributed to St. Isidore, was not made by him. In the Rule above mentioned, he speaks of the monks as follows: “The monks shall every year at Pentecost make a declaration that they keep nothing as their own. A monk ought to work with his hands, according to the precept of St. Paul, and the example of the patriarchs. Every one ought to work, not only for his own maintenance, but for that of the poor. Those who are in health, and do not work, sin doubly, by idleness, and setting a bad example. Those who chuse to read without working, show that they receive no benefit from what they read, which commands them to work.” This Rule of St. Isidore prescribes about six hours work every day, and three hours reading. This Isidore is frequently ranked among musical writers. In his treatise on the divine offices, much curious information occurs concerning canto fermo, and music in general; but particularly its introduction into the church, the institution of the four tones by St. Ambrose, and the extension of that number to eight by St. Gregory. In treating of secular music, he has a short chapter on each of the following subjects of music, and its name of its invention its definition of its three constituent parts, harmonics, rhythm, and metre; of musical numbers; of the three-fold divisions of music; 1st, Of the harmonical division of music; 2dly, Of the organic or instrumental division; 3dly, Of the rhythmical division. These chapters are very short, and contain little more than compressed definitions of musical terms. In enumerating the seven liberal arts, cap. II. he ranks them in the following manner: grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, music, geometry, astronomy.

, a French poet, was born of a respectable family at la Fresnaye, a castle near Falaise. He discovered early a taste for poetry and the belles lettres, and, after having distinguished himself as a student at Caen, succeeded his father as lieutenant-general of the city; but the marechal d‘Estrees persuaded him to resign his post and go to court, where he placed him with M. de Vendome, son of the celebrated Gabrielle d’Estrées. It was for this young prince that des Ivetaux wrote his poem of “L'Institution du Prince,” in which he gives his pupil very sensible, judicious, and even religious advice. After this he was preceptor to the dauphin, afterwards Louis XIII; but his licentious way of life displeased the queen, and occasioned him to be excluded from the court a year after Henry IV. died. A pension and several benefices were, however, given him; but he afterwards resigned his benefices, on being reproached by cardinal Richelieu for his libertinism. Thus free from all restraint, des Ivetaux retired to an elegant house in the fauxbourg St. Germain, where he spent the rest of his days in pleasure and voluptuousness, iiving in the Epicurean style. Fancying that the pastoral life was the happiest, he dressed himself like a shepherd, and led imaginary flocks about the walks of his garden, repeating to them his lays, accompanied by a girl in the dress of a shepherdess, whom he had picked up with her Jiarp in the streets, and taken for his mistress. Their whole employment was to seek refinements in pleasures, and every day they studied how to render them more exquisite. Thus des Ivetaux passed his latter years; and it has been said that he ordered a saraband to be played when he was dying, to sooth his departing soul; but M. Huet, on the contrary, affirms, that he repented of his errors at the point of death. However that may be, he died in his ninetieth year, at Brian val, near Germigni, in 1649. Besides the poem above mentioned, des Ivetaux left stanzas, sonnets, and other poetical pieces, in the “Deiices de la Poésie Françoise,” Paris, 1620, 8vo.

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

On Aug. 3, 1710, appeared the first number of “The Examiner,” the ablest vindication of the measures of the queen and her new ministry. Swift be^an with No. 13, and ended by writing part of No. 45 when Mrs.Mauley took it up, and finished the first volume it was afterwards resumed by Mr. Oldisworth, who completed four volumes more, and published nineteen numbers of a sixth volume, when the queen’s death put an end to the work. The original institntors of that paper seem to have employed Dr. King as their publisher, or ostensible author, before they prevailed on their great champion to undertake that task. It is not clear which part of the first ten numbers were Dr. King’s; but he appears pretty evidently the writer of No. H, Oct. 12 No. 12, Oct. 19 and No. 13, Oct. 26 and this agrees with the account given by the publisher of his posthumous works, who says he undertook that paper about the 10th of October. On the 26th of October, no Examiner at all appeared; and the next number, which was published Nov. 2, was written by Dr. Swift. Our author’s warm zeal for the church, and his contempt for the whigs (“his eyes,” says Dr. Johnson, “were open to all the operations of whiggism”), carried him naturally on the side of Sacheverell; and he had a hand, in his dry sarcastic way, in many political essays of that period. He published, with this view, “A friendly Letter from honest Tom Boggy, to the Rev. Mr. Goddard, canon of Windsor, occasioned by a sermon preached at St. George’s chapel, dedicated to her grace the duchess of Marlborough,” 1710; and “A second Letter to Mr. Goddard, occasioned by the late Panegyric given him by the Review, Thursday, July 13, 1710.” These were succeeded by “A Vindication of the Rev. Dr. Henry Sacheverell, from the false, scandalous, and malicious aspersions, cast upon him in a late infamous pamphlet entitled ‘The Modern Fanatic;’ intended chiefly to expose the iniquity of the faction in general, without taking any particular notice of their poor mad fool, Bisset, in particular in a dialogue between a tory and a whig.” This masterly composition had scarcely appeared in the world before it was followed by “Mr. Bisset’s Recantation in a letter to the Rev. Dr. Sacheverell” a singular banter on that enthusiast, whom our author once more thought proper to lash, in “An Answer to a second scandalous book that Mr. Bisset is now writing, to be published as soon as possible.” Dr. White Kennel’s celebrated sermon on the death of the first duke of Devonshire, occasioned, amongst many other publications, a jeu d'esprit of Dr. King-, under the title of “An Answer to Clemens Alexandrinus’s Sermon upon * Quis Dives salvetur?‘ ’ What rich man can be saved' proving it easy for a camel to get through the eye of a needle.” In 1711, Dr. King very diligently employed his pen in publishing that very useful book for schools, his “Historical account of the Heathen Gods and Heroes, necessary for the understanding of the ancient Poets;” a work still in great esteem, and of which there have been several editions. About the same time he translated “Political considerations upon Refined Politics, and the Master-strokes of State, as practised by the Ancients and Moderns, written by Gabriel Naude, and inscribed to the cardinal Bagni.” At the same period also he employed himself on “Rufinus, or an historical essay on the Favourite Ministry under Theodosius and his son Arcadius with a poem annexed, called ' Rufinus, or the Favourite.” These were written early in 1711, but not printed till the end of that year. They were levelled against the duke of Marlborough and his adherents and were written with much asperity. Towards the close of 1711 his circumstances began to reassume a favourable aspect and he was recommended by his firm friend Swift to an office under government. “I have settled Dr. King,” says that great writer, “in the Gazette; it will be worth two hundred pounds a year to him. To-morrow I am to carry him to dine with the secretary.” And in another letter, he tells the archbishop of Dublin, “I have got poor Dr. King, who was some time in Ireland, to be gazetteer; which will be worth two hundred and fifty pounds per annum to him, if he be diligent and sober, for which I am engaged. I mention this because I think he was under your grace’s protection in Ireland.” From what Swift te,lls the archbishop, and a hint which he has in another place dropped, it should seem, that our author’s finances were in such a state as to render the salary of gazetteer no contemptible object to him. The office, however, was bestowed on Dr. King in a manner the most agreeable to his natural temper; as he had not even the labour of soliciting for it. On the last day of December, 1711, Dr. Swift, Dr. Freind, Mr. Prior, and some other of Mr. secretary St. John’s friends, came to visit him; and brought with them the key of the Gazetteer’s office, and another key for the use of the paper-office, which had just before been made the receptacle of a curious collection of mummery, far different from the other contents of that invaluable repository. On the first of January our author had the honour of dining with the secretary; and of thanking him for his remembrance of him at a time when he had almost forgotten himself. He entered on his office the same day; but the extraordinary trouble he met with in discharging its duties proved greater than he could long endure. Mr. Barber, who printed the gazette, obliged him to attend till three or four o'clock, on the mornings when that paper was published, to correct the errors of the press; a confinement which his versatility would never have brooked, if his health would have allowed it, which at this time began gradually to decline. And this, joined to his natural indisposition to the fatigue of any kind of business, furnished a sufficient pretence for resigning his office about Midsummer 1712. On quitting his employment he retired to the house of a friend, in the garden-grounds between Lambeth and Vauxhall, where he enjoyed himself principally in his library; or, amidst select parties, in a sometimes too liberal indulgence of the bottle. He still continued, however, to visit his friends in the metropolis, particularly his relation the earl of Clarendon, who resided in Somerset-house.

, an eminent portrait painter, was born at Lubec about 1648. His father was surveyor-general of the mines, and inspector of count Mansfeldt’s revenues. At first Godfrey was destined for a military life, and was sent to Leyden, where he applied to mathematics and fortification; but the predominance of nature determining him to painting, his father acquiesced, and placed him under Bol, at Amsterdam, and he had also some instructions from Rembrandt. He visited Italy in 1672, and remained some time at Venice, where he painted some of the first families, and amongst them the cardinal Bassadonna. It is probable that he here learned that free, loose style of execution in which he delighted, but by no means excelled; with him it fell to negligence and clumsiness, particularly in his draperies, whilst sometimes his heads exhibit a perfect master of the pencil.

, the chief instrument and promoter of the reformation in Scotland, was descended of an ancient and honourable family, and born 1505, at Gifford, in the county of East Lothian, Scotland. His parents gave him a liberal education, which in that age was far from being common. He was first placed at the grammar-school of Haddington, and after acquiring the principles of the Latin tongue, was sent to the university of St. Andrew’s under professor John Major, the same who was Buchanan’s tutor, a very acute schoolman, and deep in theology. Knox, however, examining the works of Jerom and Austin, began to dis-relish this subtilizing method, altered his taste, and applied himself to plain and solid divinity. At his entrance upon this new course of study, he attended the preaching of Thomas Guillaume, or Williams, a friar of eminence, whose sermons were of extraordinary service to him; and he acquired still more knowledge of the truth from the martyr, George Wishart, so much celebrated in, the history of this time, who came from England in 1554, with commissioners from king Henry VIII. Knox, being of an inquisitive nature, learned from him the principles of the reformation; with which he was so well pleased, that he renounced the Romish religion, and having now relinquished all thoughts of officiating in that church, which had invested him with clerical orders, he entered as tutor into the family of Hugh Douglas of Long Niddrie, a gentleman in East Lothian, who had embraced the reformed doctrines. Another gentleman, in the neighbourhood, also put his son under his tuition, and these two youths were instructed by him in the principles of religion, as well as of the learned languages, and he taught the former in such a way as to allow the rest of the family, and the people of the neighbourhood, to reap advantage from it. He catechised them publicly in a chapel at Long Niddrie, in which be also read to them at stated times, a chapter of the Bible, accompanied with explanatory remarks. The memory of this has been preserved by tradition; and the chapel, the ruins of which are still apparent, is popularly called “John Knox’s kirk.” It was not, however, to be expected, that he would long be suffered to continue in this employment, under a government entirely at the devotion of cardinal Beaton (see Beaton); and although he was, in the midst of his tyranny, cut off by a conspiracy in 1546, Hamilton, successor to the vacant bishopric, sought Knox’s life with as much eagerness as his predecessor. Hence Knox resolved to retire to Germany, where the reformation was gaining ground; knowing that, in England, though the pope’s authority was suppressed, yet the greater part of his doctrine remained in full vigour. He was, however, diverted from his purpose, and prevailed on to return to St. Andrew’s, January 1547; where he soon after accepted a preacher’s place, though sorely against his will.

, a Spaniard, and celebrated general of the Jesuits, in which office he succeeded St. Ignatius 1558, after having been one of his first disciples, appeared with great distinction at the council of Trent and colloquy of Poissy was much esteemed for his prudence, learning, and piety refused the cardinal’s hat, and died at Rome, January 19, 1565, aged fifty-three, leaving some works in Latin, on “Providence,” “On the use of the Cup,” and “On Women’s painting and dress,” &c. Father Theophil us Raynaud attributes to him also “The Declarations on the Constitutions of the Jesuits;” while others believe that Lainez drew up the constitutions themselves, alledging, in support of this opinion, that they discover too much penetration, strength of genius, and refined policy, to have been the work of St. Ignatius. In the first congregation after that saint’s death, Lainez caused an absolute authority ty be granted him, with a perpetuity of the generalship, and a right of having prisons; thus changing the uprightness and simplicity of the founder’s maxims for a system of human policy, which guided all the undertakings of the society, and led at length to its destruction.

, librarian to the cardinal Lomenie, a member of various learned academies in France and Italy, professor of bibliography, and member of the Lyceum, was born in 1739, at Dole in Franche-comte“, of reputable but poor parents, who, however, procured him admission into the religious house of the Minims of his native place. Here his easy access to the fine library of the order, inspired and gratified an early predilection for bibliographical researches, and laid the foundation of that general knowledge of literary history and antiquities, for which he was afterwards so much distinguished, and which he improved in the course of his travels in France, Italy, and Greece. He died at Paris in 1801. His works are, 1.” Memoires pour servir a i‘Histoire Litteraire de quelques grands hommes du 15 siecle, avec un Supplement aux Annales Typographiques de ’Mattaire.“This, of which we have only the French title, was published in Latin, at Naples in 1776, 4to. 2.” Specimen Historicum Typographic Romanic XV saeculi,“Rome, 1778, 3vo. This is the least valued of his works. 3.” Epistola ad abbatem Ugolini, c.“printed at Pavia, but in the title, Strasburgh. 4.” De l'origine et des progres de rimprimerie en FrancheComte,“with a catalogue of the works printed there Dole, 1784, 12mo. 5.” $erie dell' edizioni Aldine,“written in conjunction with the cardinal Lomenie, whose librarian he was, as noticed above: of this there have been three editions, at Pisa, 1790, at Padua, in the same year, and at Venice in 1792, 12mo. 6.” Index librorum ab inventa Typographia, ad annum 1500,“Sens, 1791, 2 vols. 8vo. This is a catalogue of the books of the fifteenth century, belonging to the library of the cardinal Lomenie, and is our author’s most useful work. Laire also published some pajiers on subjects of French antiquities, in the” Magazin Encyclopedique."

, a French ecclesiastic, was born at Paris in 1653, became bachelor of the Sorbonne, and chaplain of Notre Dame, and took possession of a canonry of St. Oportune, 1721, but never enjoyed it peaceably. He undertook missions in the provinces for the re- union of the Protestants, and devoted himself with success to the care of souls, and to preaching. He died May 9, 1724, aged seventy-one. He was for some time in the congregation of the oratory. His works are, 1. “Traite” de Controverse pour les nouveaux Reunis, suf la Presence resile, sur la Communion sous une Espece, et sur les Traduct. Fr. de PEcriture,“1692, 12mo. 2.” Extraits des S. S. Peres de PEglise, sur la Morale,“in 4 parts, 16to. 3.” An Abridgment of the Life of Catherine Antoinette de Gondi,“superior-general of Calvary, who died 1716, 12mo. 4. An Abridgment of the” Life of Cardinal le Camus, bishop of Grenoble,“12mo. 5.” The History and Abridgment of the pieces written for and against Plays and Operas,“12mo; a curious work and 6.” Pense*es sur les Spectacles," Orleans, 12mo, are also attributed to him.

While at Amsterdam, by the advice of his uncle, he learned the art of drawing geographical charts. He also began to study jurisprudence, and after visiting Ley den, and other principal cities in the Netherlands, arrived at Paris in September 1646. Here he resided a year with cardinal Barberini, who showed him every kindness in consideration of his relationship to Holstein; and partly by his means, and Holstein’s letters of recommendation, Lambecius was admitted into considerable familiarity, notwithstanding his youth, with many of the most learned men of the time. Having obtained access to the libraries, he availed himself of this opportunity to examine some manuscripts of importance, and in consequence published his “Prodromus lucubrationum criticorum in Auli Gellii Noctes Atticas, una cum dissertatione de vita et nomine A. Gellii,” Paris, 1647, 8vo. Gronovius reprinted this in his edition of Gellius, 1706, 4to. Lambecius also collected materials, while at Paris, for an edition of the antiquities of Constantinople, which did not, however, appear until 1655, when it was printed at Paris, under the title “Syntagma originum et antiquitatum Constantinopolitarum,” &c. Gr. et Lat. fol.

In 1647 he went to Italy, still under the direction of Holstein, whom he met there, but who had much reason to be dissatisfied with his conduct towards him, which was not respectful. What other faults Lambecius may have been guilty of, are not clearly explained; one at least, we hope, was not true, that he disgusted his uncle by proposing to steal some manuscripts before he left Rome. After remaining nearly two years at Rome, Lambecius returned to France, and went to Toulouse, where he studied law for a year. He again went to Paris, resumed his acquaintance with his former literary friends, and consulted the libraries for materials to enrich a history of the city of Hamburgh, which he had undertaken; but at the request of his parents, he returned home in 1650. About a year after, he was appointed professor of history, and commenced his office in January 1652, with an oration on the connection of history with other sciences, “De historiarum cum caeteris sapientise et literarum studiis conjunctione.” He was uow only in his twenty-fourth year. During his professorship, he took the degree of doctor of laws in France. In 1659, he was elected rector of the college of Hamburgh, and entered on the office in Jan. 1660, with an oration on the origin of the college of Hamburgh. His departure, however, from Hamburgh was approaching; for which various reasons have been assigned. It appears from the evidence produced by Chaufepie, that his religious principles began to be suspected and that he was querulous and ambitious but what, in the opinion of some, precipitated his retreat, was his marriage to an old maid, rich, but avaricious, with whom he found it impossible to live, when he found it impossible to get possession of her fortune. Perhaps all these causes might determine him to leave Hamburgh, which he did in April 1662, and arrived at Vienna, where, being introduced by Miller, the Jesuit, to the emperor Leopold, he presented to his majesty, his “Prodromus Historiae Literariae,” which he printed in 1659, and dedicated to Leopold, and his history of Hamburgh. The emperor received him very graciously, and presented him with a gold chain and medal. In May he left Vienna for Italy, and on his arrival at Venice, sent to the senate of Hamburgh, a formal resignation of his offices of rector and professor. From Venice he went to Rome, and made public profession of the Roman catholic religion. Here he was received into the house of his former patron cardinal Barberini, but was much chagrined to find that his uncle Holstein, who died in 1661, had made the cardinal his heir. In other respects he had no reason to be dissatisfied with his reception at Rome, being very kindly treated by Gudius, Leo AUatius, queen Christina of Sweden, the cardinals Azzolini and Chigi, and the pope himself. At Florence his reception was equally flattering on the part of Charles Dati, and Magliabecchi, who introduced him to Ferdinand II.

, a learned Frenchman, and noted commentator upon the classics, was born in 1516 at Montrevil in Picardy. Applying himself with indefatigable industry to polite literature, he made an extraordinary progress, especially in the critical knowledge of the classic authors. After some time he was taken into the retinue of cardinal Francis de Tournon, whom he attended into Italy, where he continued several years. On his return to Paris, he was made king’s professor of the belles lettres, which he had taught before at Amiens. He published commentaries upon Piautus, Lucretius, Cicero, and Horace; he translated, into Latin, Aristotle’s morals and politics, and several pieces of Demosthenes and Æschines. He died in 1572, of grief, for the loss of his friend Peter Ramus, who perished in the massacre of the protestants on the infamous vespers of St. Bartholomew. Lambin was not without apprehensions of suffering the same fate, notwithstanding he was otherwise a good catholic. He was married to a gentlewoman of the Ursin family, by whom he had a son, who survived him, and published some of his posthumous works.

, a learned priest of the Oratory, was born at Mans in 1640; and educated among the religious of the congregation of the oratory at Paris, and at Saumuc From 1661 to 1667, he taught the classics and the belles lettres, and in the latter of these years he was ordained priest. He taught philosophy at Sauimir and at Angers, till 1676, when he was deprived of his professorship for being a Cartesian, and his enemies having obtained a lettre de cachet agains^t him, he was banished to Grenoble, where cardinal le Camus had established a seminary, for the education of ecclesiastics^ and having a great esteem for Lami, appointed him professor of divinity. He died January 29, 1715, at Rouen. He left many valuable works: the principal are, “Les Elemens de Geometric, et de Mathematiques,” 2 vols. 12mo; “Un Trait de Perspective,” 1700, 8vo; “Entretiens sur lea Sciences, et sur la Methode d'Etudier,” 1706, 12mo; an introduction to the Holy Scriptures, entitled “Apparatus Biblicus,” 4to. The abbe de Bellegarde has translated it under the title of “Apparat de la Bible,” 8vo, and there is an English translation, by Bundy, in 4to, with fine plates, Lond. 1723, 4to. He published also a valuable work, the labour of thirty years, entitled, “De Tabernaculo foederis, de Sancta Civitate Jerusalem, et de Templo ejus,” folio; “Demonstration, ou Preuves eVidentes de la Vérite et Sainted de la Morale Chretienne,” 1706 to 1711, 5 vols. 12 mo. He wrote also several works concerning the time in which our Saviour kept the passover, &c. the largest of which is his “Harmonia sive concordia Evangelii,” &c. Lyons, 1699, 2 vols. 4to with a Commentary, and a Geographical and Chronological Dissertation. He asserts in this work, that John the Baptist was imprisoned twice; that Christ did not eat the paschal lamb, nor celebrate the passover at his last supper; and that Mary Magdalen, and Mary the sister of Lazarus, were the same person; which three opinions involved him in a long series of disputes with many among the learned. Pere Lami also left “A System of Rhetoric,” 1715, 12mo; “Reflexions sur l'Art Poetique,” 12mo; “Traite de Mechanique, de PEquilibre,” 1687, 12ino, &c. It "was Lami’s practice to travel on foot, and he composed his Elements of Geometry and Mathematics in a journey from Grenoble to Paris, as cardinal Quirini assures us in his Memoirs.

, archbishop of Canterbury, and cardinal, was probably born at Langham in Rutlandshire, whence he took his name, but the date is nowhere specified. He became a monk of St. Peter, Westminster, in 1335, and soon attained a considerable degree of eminence among his brethren. In 1346 he officiated at the triennial chapter of the Benedictines, held at Northampton, by whom in 1349 he was elected prior, and two months after abbot. The revenues of this monastery having been much wasted in his predecessor’s time, the new abbot directed his attention to a system of ceconomy, and partly by his own example, and partly by earnest persuasion, was soon enabled to pay off their debts. When he began this reformation of the abuses which had crept into the cloister, he (knowing the disposition of his fraternity) thought that those which respected the articles of provision were of the first importance. He therefore took care that their mistricordia, or better than ordinary dishes, and those dinners which were somewhat similar to what in our universities have obtained the names of Exceeding and Gaudy-days, should be common to the whole society; and not, as had formerly been the practice, confined to a few, to the extreme mortification of the rest. To effect this purpose, he relinquished the presents which it had been usual for preceding abbots, at certain times, to accept.

In Sept. 1368, the pope promoted Langham to the dignity of cardinal, as it is said, without solicitation, and merely because he thought a man of his talents would be an ornament to the sacred college. The king, however, was not pleased with this promotion, probably because he had uot been consulted, and ordered the temporalities of the archbishopric to be seized, as if the see were vacant, which, on promotion to the dignity of cardinal, was a natural consequence, unless the party had conditioned to hold his preferments. Langham, as far as can be discovered, made no opposition to the king’s pleasure, but merely attended at court to ask leave to retire to Otford; which being granted, he reduced his establishment, repaired to his rural mansion, and continued for some months to live very privately.

The death of pope Urban happened at a period, as it was thought, critical to the affairs of the cardinal, as well as to those of the two kingdoms of England and France, as he had just appointed him to mediate a peace between them. But Gregory the Eleventh, who succeeded Urban, as sensible of his merit as his predecessor, confirmed his appointment, and even enlarged his powers. This treaty Tailing, as nad been foreseen by the cardinal, he proceeded from Melun, the place where he had met cardinal de Beauvois, to England with the sense of the French court upon the negotiation. Although unsuccessful in this business, he had, whilst abroad, an opportunity of displaying his diplomatic talents, wnich had a more fortunate issue. Through his (oediation a peace was made betwixt the king and the earl of Flanders, who had been at variance upon the account of the earl’s breaking his engagement to marry his daughter to Edmund earl of Cambridge, and betrothing her to Philip, the brother of Charles the Fifth, king of France. In the beginning of 1372, cardinal Langham left England in order to return to the pope; and when he arrived at Avignon, he found that his conduct had, during the course of his mission, been misrepresented to the pope, but he so amply satisfied his holiness on that point, that, in the same year, he elevated him to the dignity of cardinal bishop of Praeneste. On the death of Wittelsey, who succeeded him as archbishop of Canterbury, the monks endeavoured to persuade the king to allow Langham to return; but the king was enraged at their insolence, and in this was seconded by the pope, who preferred employing the cardinal at Avignon, where the affairs of the holy see rendered his presence necessary. From this situation, however, Langham had a strong desire to remove, and visit his native country, where he had projected some architectural plans, and meant to devote a large sum of money to the rebuilding of the abbey at Westminster. With this view he procured some friends at court to solicit leave to return, and their applications were successful; but before he could know the issue, he died suddenly of a paralytic stroke, July 22, 1376. His body was, according to 'the direction of his will, first deposited in a new-built church of the Carthusians, near the place of his decease, where it remained for three years. It was then with great state and solemnity removed to Saint Benet’s chapel, in Westminster abbey, where his tomb with his effigy upon it, and the arms of England, the monastery of Saint Peter, and the sees of Canterbury and Ely, engraved in tablets around it, still remains.

, archbishop of Canterbury in the thirteenth century, a native of England, was educated at the university of Paris, where he afterwards taught divinity, and explained the Scriptures with much reputation. His character stood so high, that he was chosen chancellor of that university, canon of Paris, and dean of Rheims. He was afterwards sent for to Rome by pope Innocent III. and created a cardinal. In 1207, the monks of Canterbury having, upon a vacancy taking place in that see, made a double return, both parties appealed to the pope, and sent agents to Rome to support their respective claims. His holiness not only determined against both the contending candidates, but ordered the monks, of Canterbury, then, at Rome, immediately to proceed to the election of an archbishop, and, at the same time, commanded them to choose cardinal Stephen Langton. After various excuses, which the plenitude of papal power answered, by absolving these conscientious monks from all sorts of promises, oaths, &c. and by threatening them with the highest penalties of the church, they complied; and Langton was consecrated by the pope at Viterbo. As soon as the news arrived in England, king John was incensed in the highest degree both against the pope and monks of Canterbury, which last experienced the effects of his indignation. He sent two officers with a company of armed men to Canterbury, took possession of the monastery, banished the monks out of the kingdom, and seized all their property. He wrote a spirited letter to the pope, in which he accused him of injustice and presumption, in raising a stranger to the highest dignity in his kingdom, without his knowledge. He reproached the pope and court of Rome with ingratitude, in not remembering that they derived more riches from England than from all the kingdoms on this side the Alps. He assured him, that he was determined to sacrifice his life in defence of the rights of his crown; and that if his holiness did not immediately repair the injury he had done him, he would break off all communication with Rome. The pope, whom such a letter must have irritated in the highest degree, returned for answer, that if the king persisted in this dispute, he would plunge himself into inextricable difficulties, and would at length be crushed by him, before whom every knee must bow, &c. All this may be deemed insolent and haughty, but it was not foolish. The pope knew the posture of king John’s affairs at home he knew that he had lost the affections of his subjects by his imprudence his only miscalculation was respecting the spirit of the people for when, which he did immediately, he laid the kingdom of England under an interdict, and two years after excommunicated the king, he was enraged to find that the great barons and their followers adhered with so much steadiness to their sovereign, that, while he lay under the sentence of excommunication, he executed the only two successful expeditions of his reign, the one into Wales, and the other into Ireland a proof that if he had continued to act with firmness, and had secured the affections of his subjects by a mild administration, he might have triumphed over all the arts of Rome. Such, however, was not the policy of John; and in the end, he submitted to the most disgraceful terms. In 1213, cardinal Langton arrived in England, and took possession of the see; and though he owed all his advancement to the pope, yet the moment he became an English baron, he was inspired with a zealous attachment to the liberties and independence of his country. In the very year in which he came over, he and six other bishops joined the party of the barons, who associated to resist the tyranny of the king; and at length they were successful in procuring the g eat charter. Langton was equally zealous in opposing the claims of the papal agents, particularly of the pope’s legate, who assumed the right of regulating all ecclesiastical affairs in the most arbitrary manner. In the grand contest which took place between king John and the barons about the charter, the archbishop’s patriotic conduct gave such offence to the pope, that, in 1215, he laid him under a sentence of suspension, and reversed the election of his brother Simon Langton, who had been chosen archbishop of York. Yet in the following year we find Langton assisting at a general council held at Rome; and during his absence from England at this time, king John died. In 1222, he held a synod at Oxford, in which a remarkable canon was made, prohibiting clergymen from keeping concubines publicly in their houses, or from going to them in other places so openly as to occasion scandal. In the following year, he, at the head of the principal nobility, demanded an audience of king Henry III. and demanded of him a confirmation of the charter of their JiberTheir determined manner convinced the king that their demand was not to be refused, and he instantly gave s lor the assembling of parliament. The archbishop shewed, in several instances, that he was friendly to the legal prerogatives of the crown; and by a firm conduct, in a case of great difficulty, he prevented the calamity of a civil war. He died in 1228, leaving behind him many works, which prove that he was deserving the character of being a learned and polite author. He wrote “Commentaries” upon the greatest part of the books of the Old and New Testament. He was deeply skilled in Aristotelian dialectics, and the application of them to the doctrines of Scripture. The first division of the books of the Bible into chapters is ascribed to this prelate. The history of the translation of the body of Thomas a Becket was printed at the end of that archbishop’s letters, at Brussels, 1682; and there are various Mss. of his in our public libraries. His letter to king John, with the king’s answer, may be seen, in d'Achery’s Spicilegium.

M. la Rue, in his “Dissertation on the Lives and Works of several Anglo-Norman poets of the Thirteenth Century,” has placed our metropolitan at the top of his list; and has taken the first proof of his poetical talents from the stanza of a song, introduced in one of his sermons, written upon the holy virgin. In the same ms. which contains this sermon, are two other pieces attributed to the cardinal. The first is a theological drama, in which Truth, Justice, Mercy, and Peace, debate among themselves, what ought to be the fate of Adam after his fall. The second is a Canticle on the “Passion of Jesus Christ,” in 123 stanzas, making more than 600 verses, in which the historical details are brought forward in a quick succession, and in a manner as interesting as the subject. But as the author was provided with all the facts, and had nothing left to his care but the versification, there is less imagination and poetry in this piece than in the preceding, the idea of which is borrowed from Ps. Ixxx. v. 10, and which he has worked up with equal taste and delicacy.

Languet used besides to grant great sums of money to such ladies as were examples of ceconomy, virtue, and piety, in those religious houses which he superintended. The poor women and children who formed the second part, were provided with food every day, and work at the spinning-wheel. They made a great quantity of linen and cotton. Different rooms were assigned to them, and they were arranged under different classes. In each room were two ladies of the society of St. Thomas, of Ville N‘euve, q which Languet was superior-general. These ladies were placed there to oversee the work, and to give such instructions as they thought proper. The women and the girls who found employment in this house, had in a former period of their lives been licentious and dissolute, but were generally reformed by the example of virtue before their eyes, and by the salutary advice given to them, and had the amount of their work paid them in money when they left the house. By these means they became industrious and exemplary, and were restored to the community. There were in the house de retifans Jesus, in 1741, more than 14-00 women, and girls of this sort; and the vicar of St. Sulpice employed all the means in his power to make their situation agreeable. Although the ’land to the house measured only 17 arpens (about 100 perches square, each perch 18 feet), it had a large dairy, which gave milk to 2000 children belonging to the parish, a menagery, poultry of all sorts, a bake-house, spinning-rooms, a very neat and well cultivated garden, and a magnificent laboratory, where all sorts of medicines were made. The order and ceconomy observed in this house in the education, instruction, and employment of so many people, were so admirable, and gave so great an idea of the vicar of St. Sulpice, that cardinal Fleury proposed to make him superintenilant- general of all the hospitals in the kingdom but Langut-t used to answer him with a smile, “I have always said, ui) lord, that it was the bounty of your highness led me to the hospital.” The expence of this establishment was immense. He spent his revenue on it; an inheritance which came to him by the death of the baron of Montigni, his brother, and the estate of the abbe de Barnay, granted him by the king.

Languet was not less to be esteemed for his beneficence and his zeal in aiding the poor of every sort. Never man took more pains than he did in procuring donations and legacies, which he distributed with admirable prudence and discretion. He inquired with care if the legacies which were left him were to the disadvantage of the poor relations of the testator; if he found that to be the case, he restored to them not only the legacy, but gave them, when wanting, a large sum of his own. Madame de Camois, as illustrious for the benevolence of her disposition as for her rank in life, having left him by her last will a legacy of more than 600,000 livres, he only took 30,000 livres for the poor, and returned the remaining sum to her relations. It is said from good authority, that he disbursed near a million of livres in charities every year. He always chose noble families reduced to poverty, before all others; and there were some families of distinction in his parish, to each of whom he distributed 30,000 livres per annum. Always willing to serve mankind, he gave liberally, and often before any application was made to him. When there was a general dearth in 1725, he sold, in order to relieve the poor, his household goods, his pictures, and some scarce and curious pieces of furniture, which he had procured with difficulty. From that time he had only three pieces of plate, no tapestry, and but a mean serge bed, which madam e de Camois had lent him, having before sold all the presents she had made him at different periods. His charity was not confined to his own parish. At the time that the plague raged at Marseilles, he sent large sums into Provence to assist the distressed. He interested himself with great zeal in the promotion of arts and commerce, and in whatever concerned the glory of the nation. In times of public calamity, as conflagrations, &c. his prudence and assiduity have been much admired. He understood well the different dispositions of men. He knew how to employ every one according to his talent or capacity. In the most intricate and perplexed affairs he decided with a sagacity and judgment that surprized every one. Languet refused the bishopric of Couserans anid that of Poictiers, and aeveral others which were offered him by Louis Xtv. and Louis XV. under the ministry of the duke of Orleans and cardinal Fleury. He resigned hia vicarage to Mons. l'Abbé du Lau, in 1748, but continued to preach every Sunday, according to his custom, in his own parish church; and continued also to support the house de rev fans Jesus till his death, which happened Oct. 11, 1750, in his seventy-fifth year,- at the abbey de Bernay, to which place he went to make some charitable establishments. His piety and continued application to works of beneficence did not hinder him from being lively and chearful; and he delighted his friends by the agreeable repartees and sensible remarks he made in conversation.

, called Rhyndacenus, as Constantine was called Byzantinus, was a learned Greek of the same family with the preceding, who came either from Greece or Sicily to Italy, on the ruin of his country. He was indebted to cardinal Bessarion for his education at Padua, where he obtained a high reputation for his knowledge in the learned languages, and received the patronage of Lorenzo de Medici, who sent him into Greece with recommendatory letters to the sultan Bajazet, in order to collect ancient manuscripts: for this purpose he took two journeys, in the latter of which he appears to have been very successful. After the expulsion of the Medic, family from Florence, in 1494, he was carried to France by Charles VIII. alter which he was patronized by Louis XII. who sent him, in 1503, as his ambassador to Venice, in which oroce he remained till 1508. He ioined the pursuit of literature with his public employment, and held a correspondence with many learned men. After the termination of hi. embassy, he“remained some yeaa' Venice, as an mstructor in the Greek language. On the election of pope Leo X. to the popedom in 1513, he set out for Rome, where, at his instigation, Leo founded a college for noble Grecian youths at Rome, at the head of which he placed the author of the plan, and likewise made him superintendant of the Greek press; his abilities as a corrector and editor, had been already sufficiently evinced by his magnificent edition of the Greek” Anthologia,“printed in capital letters at Florence in 1494, and by that of” Callimachus,“printed in the same form. Maittaire thinks he was also editor of four of the tragedies of” Euripides,“of the” Gnorase Monastichoi,“and the” Argonautics“of Apollonius Rhodius. He now printed the Greek” Scholia“on Homer, in 1517; and in 1518 the” Scholia“on Sophocles. Having in this last-mentioned year quitted Rome for France, whither he was invited by Francis I. he was employed by that monarch in forming the royal library. He was also sent as his ambassador to Venice, with a view of procuring Greek youths for the purpose of founding a college at Paris similar to that of Rome. After the accomplishment of other important missions, he died at Rome in 1535, at an advanced age. He translated into the Latin language, a work extracted from Polybius, on the military constitutions of the Romans; and composed epigrams in Greek and Latin; this rare volume is entitled” Lascaris Rhydaceni epigrammata, Gr. Lat. edente Jac. Tossano,“printed at Paris, 1527, 8vo. There is another Paris edition of 1544, 4to. Mr. Dibdin has given an ample and interesting account of his” Anthologia" from lord Spencer’s splendid vellum copy.

, a learned Italian, was born at Naples, Sept. 25, 1590. In compliance with his father, he first cultivated and practised the law; but afterwards followed the bent of his inclination to polite literature; applying himself diligently to acquire the Greek language, in which his education had been defective. He also learnt French and Spanish. From Naples he removed to Rome; where he was no sooner settled, than he obtained the protection of cardinal Francis Barberini, besides other prelates; he also procured the friendship of Lucas Holstenius, Leo Allatius, and other persons of rank in the republic of letters. He made use of the repose he enjoyed in this situation to put the last hand to some works which he had begun at Naples; but his continual intense application, and too great abstinence (for he made but one meal in twenty- four hours), threw him into a fever, of which he died, Sept. 30, 1636. At his death, he left to cardinal Barberini two Latin discourses, which he oad pronounced before tb^ Greek academy of the monks of St. Basil, “De Lingua Heiiemstica,” in which he discussed, with great learning, a point upon that subject, which then divided the literary world. He also left to cardinal Brancaccio his book entitled “Dell' antico Gimusio Napolitano,” which was afterwards published in 1688, 4to. It contains a description of the sports, shows, spectacles, and combats, which were formerly exhibited to the people of Naples. He was the author likewise of “Nepenthes Homeri, sen de abojendo luctu,” Ltigd. 1624, 8vo; and “Cleombrotus, sive de iis qui in aquis pereunt,” Home. 1637, 8vo.

The principal persons at this time concerned in ecclesiastical affairs were cardinal Wolsey, Warham archbishop of Canterbury, and Tunstal bishop of London; and as Henry VIII. was now in the expectation of having the business of his divorce ended in a regular way at Rome, he was careful to observe all forms of civility with the pope. The cardinal therefore erected a court, consisting of bishops, divines, and canonists, to put the laws in execution against heresy: of this court Tunstal was made president; and Bilney, Latimer, and one or two more, were called before him. Bilney was considered as the heresiarch, and against him chiefly the rigour of the court was levelled; and they succeeded so far that he was prevailed upon to recant: accordingly he bore his faggot, and was dismissed. As for Latimer, and the rest, they had easier terms: Tunstal omitted no opportunities of shewing mercy; and the heretics, upon their dismission, returned to Cambridge, where they were received with open arms by tlicir friends. Amidst this mutual joy, Bilney alone seemed unaffected: he shunned the sight of hi* acquaintance, and received their congratulations with confusion and blushes. In short, he was struck with remorse for what he bad done, grew melancholy, and, after leading an ascetic life for three years, resolved to expiate his abjuration by death. In this resolution he went to Norfolk, the place of his nativity; and, preaching publicly against popery, he was apprehended by order of the bishop of Norwich, and, after lying a while in the county gaol, was executed in that city.

, one of the revivers of classical learning in England, was educated at Oxford, and became fellow of All-Souls’ college, in 1489. Afterwards travelling into Italy, which was then the resort of those who wished to extend their studies, he remained for some time at Padua, where he improved himself very much, especially in the Greek language. On his return to England, he was incorporated M. A. at Oxford, Nov. 18, 1513. Soon afterwards he became tutor to Reginald Pole, afterwards the celebrated cardinal, by whose interest, it is thought, he obtained the rectories of Saintbury and Weston-underEdge, in Gloucestershire, and a prebend of Salisbury. He had also the honour of being one of those who taught Erasmus Greek at Oxford, and assisted him in the second edition of his New Testament. He died very old, about Sept. 1545; and was buried in the chancel of his church at Saintbury. He was reckoned one of the greatest men of his age, and with Colet, Lily, and Grocyn, contributed much to establish a taste for the Greek language. Erasmus styles him an excellent divine, conspicuous for integrity and modesty; and Leland celebrates his eloquence, judgment, piety, and generosity. Of his writings there is nothing extant, but a few letters to Erasmus.

After the duke of Buckingham’s murder, Laud became chief favourite to Charles I. which augmented indeed his power and interest, but at the same time increased that envy and jealousy, already too strong, which at length proved fatal to him. Upon the decline of archbishop Abbot’s health and favour at court, Laud’s concurrence in the very severe prosecutions carried on in the high-commission and star-chamber courts, against preachers and writers, did him great prejudice with most people. Among these, however, it has been remarked that his prosecution of the king’s printers, for leaving out the word “not,” in the seventh commandment, cpuld be liable to no just objection. On May 13, 163 3, he left London to attend the king, who was about to set out for his coronation in Scotland, and was sworn a privy-counsellor of that kingdom, June 15, and, on the 26th, came back to Fulham. During his stay in Scotland he formed a resolution of bringing that cnurch to a conformity with the church of Englan I; but the king committed the framing of a liturgy to a select number of Scottish bishops, who, inserting several variations from the English liturgy, were opposed strenuously but unsuccessfully, by Laud. Having endeavoured to supplant Abbot, “whom,” as Fuller observes in his Church History, “he could not be contented to succeed,” upon his death in August this year,' he was appointed his successor. That very morning, August 4, there came one to him at Greenwich, with a serious offer (and an avowed ability to perform it) of a cardinal’s hat; which offer was repeated on the 17th; but his answer both times was, “that somewhat dwelt within him which would not suffer that till Home were other than it is.” On Sept. 14 he was elected chancellor of the university of Dublin.

, or Launoius, a very learned man and voluminous writer, was born about 1601, and took a doctor of divinity’s degree in 1636. He made a journey to Rome, for the sake of enlarging his ideas and knowledge; and there procured the esteem and friendship of Leo Allatius and Holsten. Upon his return to Paris, he shut himself up, entering upon an extensive course of reading, and making collections upon all subjects. He held at his house every Monday a meeting where the learned conversed on many topics, but particularly on the discipline of the church, and the rights of the Gallican church; and they cordially agreed in condemning such legends as the apostolate of St. Dionysius the Areopagite into France, the voyage of Lazarus and Mary Magdalen into Provence, and a multitude of other traditions. Launoi was such an enemy to legendary saints, that Voltaire records a curate of St. Eustachius, as saying, “I always make the most profound obeisance to Mr. Launoi, for fear he should take from me my St. Eustachius.” He died at cardinal d‘Estr^es’s hotel, March 10, 1678, aged 75, and was buried at the convent of the Minimes de la Place Ro’iale, to whom he left two hundred crowns in gold, all the rituals which he had collected, and half his books; bequeathing the remainder to the seminary at Laon. Few men were so industrious and so disinterested, as M. de Launoi, who persisted in refusing all the benefices which were offered him, and lived in a plain, frugal manner, contented with his books and his private fortune, though the latter was but moderate. He was an enemy to vice and ambition, charitable, benevolent, a kind friend, ever consistent in his conduct, and submitted to be excluded from the faculty of theology at Paris, rather than sign the censure of M. Arnauld, though he differed in opinion from that celebrated doctor on the subject of Grace.

universal language. him by cardinal Casanata, while hf Leibnitz was in person of a middle stature, and of a thin habit. He had a studious air, and a sweet aspect, though short-sighted. He was indefatigably industrious, and so continued to the end of his life. He ate and drank little. Hunger alone marked the time of his meals, and his diet was plain and strong. He loved travelling, and different climates never affected his health. In order to impress upon his memory what he had a mind to remember, he wrote it down, and never read it afterwards. His temper was naturally choleric, but on most occasions he had th art to restrain it. As he had the honour of passing for one of the greatest men in Europe, he was sufficiency sensible of it. He was solicitous in procuring the favour of princes, which he turned to his own advantage, as well as to the service of learning. He was affable and polite in conversation, and averse to disputes. He was thought to love money, and is said to have left sixty thousand crowns, yet no more than fifteen or twenty thousand out at interest; the rest being found in crown-pieces and other specie, hoarded in corn-sacks. He always professed himself a Lutheran, but never joined in public worship; and in his last sickness, being desired by his coachman, who was his favourite servant, to send for a minister, he would not hear of it, saying he had no occasion for one. He was never married, and never attempted it but once, when he was about fifty years old; and the lady desiring time to consider of it, gave him an opportunity of doing the same; which produced this conclusion, “that marriage was a good thing, but a wise man ought to consider of it all his life.” Mr. Lcefler, son of his sister, was his sole heir, whose wife died suddenly with joy at the sight of so much money left them by their uncle. It is said he had a natural son in his youth, who afterwards lived with him, was serviceable to him in many ways, and had a considerable share in his confidence. He went by the name of William Dinninger, and extremely resembledhis father.

, a voluminous French writer, was born October 5, 1674, at Beauvais. He entered the Sorbonne, as a student, under M. Pirot, a celebrated doctor of that house; but, being convicted of having privately obtained from this gentleman’s bureau, some papers relative to what was then transacting in the Sorbonne, respecting Maria d'Agreda’s “Mystical city of God,” and having published, 1696, a “Letter addressed to Messieurs the Syndics and doctors in divinity of the faculty of Paris,” concerning this censure, M. Pirot expelled him. Lenglet then went to the seminary of St. Magloire, entered into sacred orders, and took his licentiate’s degree, 1703. He was sent to Lisle, 1705, by M. Torcey, minister for foreign affairs, as first secretary for the Latin and French languages, and with a charge to watch that the elector of Cologn’s ministers, who were then at Lisle, might do nothing against the king’s interest; and was also entrusted by the elector with the foreign correspondence of Brussels and Holland. When Lisle was taken in 1708, Lenglet obtained a safeguard for the elector of Cologn’s furniture and property from prince Eugene. Having made himself known to that prince through M. Hoendorf, he desired the latter to tell his highness, that he would give up the memoirs of the Intendants for fifty pistoles, which the prince sent him; but be wrote to M. Hoendorf eight days after, to say that the papers had been seized at his house by the minister’s order, and kept the money. He discovered a conspiracy formed by a captain at the gates of Mons, who had promised not only to deliver up that city, but also the electors of Cologn and Bavaria, who had retired thither, for a hundred thousand piastres. Lenglet was arrested at the Hague fur his “Memoirs sur la Collation des Canonicats de Tournay,” which he had published there, to exclude the disciples of Jansenius from this collation; but he obtained his liberty six weeks after, at prince Eugene’s solicitation. After his return to France, the prince de Cellemare’s conspiracy, which cardinal Albtjroni had planned, being discovered in Dec. 1718, he was chosen to find out the number and designs of the conspirators, which he did, after receiving a promise that none of those so discovered should be sentenced to death; this promise the court kept, and gave Lenglet a pension. In 1721, he went to Vienna, pretending to solicit the removal of M. Ernest, whom the Dutch had made dean of Tournay; but having no orders from France for the journey, was arrested at Strasburgh on his return, and confined six months in prison. This disgrace the abbé Lenglet attributed to the celebrated Rousseau, whom he had seen at Vienna, and from whom he had received every possible service in that city; and thence originated his aversion to him, and the satire which he wrote against him, under the title of “Eloge historique de Rousseau, par Brossette,” which that friend of Rousseau’s disavowed, and the latter found means to have suppressed in Holland, where it had been printed, in 1731. Lenglet refused to attach himself to cardinal Passionei, who wished to have him at Rome, and, indeed, he was so far from deriving any advantage from the favourable circumstances he found himself in, or from the powerful patrons which he had acquired by his talents and services, that his life was one continued series of adventures and misfortunes. His passion was to write, think, act, and live, with a kind of cynical freedom; and though badly lodged, clothed, and fed, he was still satisfied, while at liberty to say and write what he pleased; which liberty, however, he carried to so great an extreme, and so strangely abused, that he was sent to the bastille ten or twelve times. Lenglet bore all this without murmuring, and no sooner found himself out of prison, than he laboured to deserve a fresh confinement. The bastille was become so familiar to him, that when Tapin (one of the life guards) who usually conducted him thither, entered his chamber, he did not wait to hear his commission, but began himself by saying, “Ah M. Tapin, good morning” then turning to the woman who waited upon him, cried, “Bring my little bundle of linen and snuff directly,” and followed M. Tapin with the utmost cheerfulness. This spirit of freedom and independence, and this rage for writing, never left him; he chose rather to work and live alone in a kind of garret, than reside with a rich sister, who was fond of him, and offered him a convenient apartment at her house in Paris, with the use of her table and servants. Lenglet would have enjoyed greater plenty in this situation, but every thing would have fatigued him, and he would have thought regularity in meals quite a slavery. Some have supposed that he studied chymistry, and endeavoured to discover the philosopher’s stone, to which operations he desired no witnesses. He owed his death to a melancholy accident; for going home about six in the evening, Jan. 15, 1755, after having dined with his sister, he fell asleep, while reading a new book which had been sent him, and fell into the tire. The neighbours went to his assistance, but too late, his head being almost entirely burnt. He had attained the age of eighty-two. The abbé Lenglet’s works are numerous their subjects extremely various, and many of them very extravagant. Those which are most likely to live are his, “Méthode pour etudier l'Histoire, avec un Catalogue des principaux Historiens,” 12 vols.; “Methode pour Etudier la Geographic,” with maps; “Histoire de la Philosophic Hermetique,” and “Tablettes Chronologiques de T Histoire Universelle,” 1744-, two vols. An enlarged edition of this work was published in 1777. His “Chronological Tables” were published in English, in 8vo. It is a work of great accuracy, and of some whim, for he lays down a calculation according to which a reader may go through an entire course of universal history, sacred and profane, in the space of ten years and six months at the rate of six hours per day.

was a pontiff whose history is so connected with that of literature and the reformation, that more notice of him becomes necessary than we usually allot to his brethren, although scarce any abridgment of his life will be thought satisfactory, after the very luminous and interesting work of Mr. Roscoe. Leo was born at Florence in December 1475, the second son of Lorenzo de Medici, the Magnificent, and was christened John. Being originally destined by his father for the church, he was prorooted before he knew what it meant, received the tonsure at the age of seven years, two rich abbacies, and before he ceased to he a boy, received other preferments to the number of twenty-nine, and thus early imbibed a taste for aggrandizement which never left him. Upon the accession of Innocent VIII. to the pontificate, John, then thirteen years of age only, was nominated to the dignity of cardinal. Having now secured his promotion, his father began to think of his education, and when he was nominated to the cardinalate, it was made a condition that he should spend three years at the university of Pisa, in professional studies, before he was invested formally with the purple. In 145>2 this solemn act took place, and he immediately went to reside at Rome as one of the sacred college. His father soon after died, and was succeeded in his honours in the Florentine republic by his eldest son Peter. The young cardinal’s opposition to the election of pope Alexander VI. rendered it expedient for him to withdraw to Florence, and at the invasion of Italy by Charles VIII. he and the whole family were obliged to take refuge in Bologna. About 1500 he again fixed his residence at Rome, where he resided during the remainder of Alexander’s pontificate, and likewise in the early part of that of Julius II. cultivating polite literature, and the pleasures of elegant society, and indulging his taste for the fine arts, for music, and the chase, to which latter amusement he was much addicted. In 1505 he began to take an active part in public affairs, and was appointed by Julius to the government of Perugia. By his firm adherence to the interest of the pope, the cardinal acquired the most unlimited confidence of his holiness, and was entrusted with the supreme direction of the papal army in the Holj League against the French in 1511, with the title of legate of Bologna. At the bloody battle of Ravenna, in 1512, he was made prisoner, and wos conveyed to Milan, but afterwards effected his escape. About this time he contributed to the restoration of his family at Florence, by overthrowing the popular “constitution of that republic, and there he remained until the death of Julius II. in 1513, when he was elected pope in his stead, in the thirty-eighth year of his age. He assumed the name of Leo X. and ascended the throne with greater manifestations of goodwill, both from Italians and foreigners, than most of his predecessors had enjoyed. One of his first acts was to interpose in favour of some conspirators against the house of Medici, at Florence, and he treated with great kindness the family of Sodorini, which had long been at the head of the opposite party in that republic. He exhibited his taste for literature by the appointment of two of the most elegant scholars of the age, Bembo and Sadoleti, to the ffice of papal secretaries. With regard to foreign politics, he pursued the system of his predecessor, in attempting to free Italy from the dominion of foreign powers: and in order to counteract the antipapal council of Pisa, which was assembled at Lyons, he renewed the meetings of the council of Lateran, which Julius II. had begun, and he had the good fortune to terminate a division which threatened a schism in the church. Lewis XII. who had incurred ecclesiastical censure, made a formal submission, and received absolution. Having secured external tranquillity, Leo did not delay to consult the interests of literature by an ample patronage of learned studies. He restored to its former splendour the Roman gymnasium or university, which he effected by new grants of its revenues and privileges, and by filling its professorships with eminent men invited from all quarters. The study of the Greek language was a very particular object of his encouragement. Under the direction of Lascaris a college of noble Grecian youths was founded at Rome for the purpose of editing Greek authors; and a Greek press was established in that city. Public notice was circulated throughout Europe, that all persons who possessed Mss. of ancient authors would be liberally rewarded on bringing or sending them to the pope. Leo founded the first professorship in Italy of the Syriac and Chaldaic languages in the university of Bologna. With regard to the politics of the times, the pope had two leading objects in view, viz. the maintenance of that balance of power which might protect Italy from the over-bearing influence of any foreign potentate; and the aggrandizement of the house of Medici. When Francis I. succeeded to the throne of France, it was soon apparent that there would necessarily be a new war in the north of Italy.' Leo attempted to remain neuter, winch. being found to be impracticable, he joined the emperor, the Swiss, and other sovereigns against the French king and the state of Venice. The rapid successes of the French arms soon brought him to hesitate, and after the Swiss army had been defeated, the pope thought it expedient to abandon his allies, and form an union with the king of France. These two sovereigns, in the close of 1515, had an interview at Bologna, when the famous Pragmatic Sanction was abolished, and a concordat established in it stead. The death of Leo’s brother left his nephew Lorenzo the principal object of that passion for aggrandizing his family, which this pontiff felt full as strongly as any one of his predecessors, and to gratify which he scrupled no acts of injustice and tyranny. In 1516 he issued a monitory against the duke of Urbino, and upon his non-appearance, an excommunication, and then seized his whole territory, with which, together with the ducal title, he invested his nephew. In the same year a general pacification took place, though all the efforts of the pope were made to prevent it. In 1517 the expelled duke of Urbino collected an army, and, by rapid movements, completely regained his capital and dominions. Leo, excessively chagrined at this event, would gladly have engaged a crusade of all Christian princes against him. By an application, which nothing could justify, of the treasures of the church, he raised a considerable army, under the command of his nephew, and compelled the duke to resign his dominion, upon what were called honourable terms. The violation of the safe conduct, granted by Lorenzo to the duke’s secretary, who was seized at Rome, and put to torture, in order to oblige him to reveal his master’s secrets, imprints on the memory of Leo X. an indelible stain. In the same year his life was endangered by a conspiracy formed against him, in which the chief actor was cardinal Petrucci. The plan failed, and the cardinal, being decoyed to Rome, from whence he had escaped, was put to dt-ath; and his agents, as many as were discovered, were executed with horrid tortures. The conduct of Leo on this occasion was little honourable to his fortitude or clemency, and it was believed that several persons suffered as guilty who were wholly innocent of the crimes laid to their charge. To secure himself for the future, the pope, by a great stretch of his high authority, created in one day thirty-one nevr cardinals, many of them his relations and friends, who had not even risen in the.church to the dignity of. the episcopal office; but many persons also, who, from their talents and virtues, were well worthy of his choice. He bestowed upon them rich benefices and preferments, as well in the remote parts of Christendom, as in Italy, and thus formed a numerous and splendid court attached to his person, and adding to the pomp and grandeur of the capital. During the pontificate of Leo X. the reformation under Luther took its rise, humanly speaking, from the following circumstances. The unbounded profusion of this pope had rendered it necessary to devise means for replenishing his exhausted treasury; and one of those which occurred was the sale of indulgences, which were sold in Germany with such ridiculous parade of their efficacy, as to rouse the spirit of Luther, who warmly protested against this abuse in his discourses, and in a letter addressed to the elector of Mentz. He likewise published a set of propositions, in which he called in question the authority of the pope to remit sins, and made some very severe strictures on this method of raising money. His remonstrances produced considerable effect, and several of his cloth undertook to refute him. Leo probably regarded theological quarrels with contempt, and from his pontifical throne looked down upon the efforts of a German doctor with scorn; even when his interference was deemed necessary, he was inclined to lenient measures. At length, at the express desire of the emperor Maximilian, he summoned Luther to appear before the court of Rome. Permission was, however, granted for the cardinal of Gaeta to hear his defence at Augsburg. Nothing satisfactory was determined, and the pope, in 1518, published a bull, asserting his authority to grant indulgences, which would avail both the living, and the dead in purgatory. Upon this, the reformer appealed to a general council, and thus open war was declared, in which the abettors of Luther appeared with a strength little calculated upon by the court of Rome. The sentiments of the Christian world were not at all favourable to that court.” The scandal,“says the biographer,” incurred by the infamy of Alexander VI., and the violence of Julius II., was not much alleviated in the reign of a pontiff who was characterized by an inordinate love of pomp and pleasure, and whose classical taste even caused him to be regarded by many as more of a heathen than a Christian."

, a French monk, was born at Rennes in the year 1600. Before he entered into the religious profession his name was John Mace. He was nominated to all the honourable and confidential posts of his order, and for his eloquence had the honour of preachjng before Louis XIII. and Louis XIV. His early patrons were popes Leo XL and Alexander VIII.; and in France cardinal Richelieu was his friend. He died in 1671, leaving behind him numerous works, the principal of which are, “Studium Sapientise Universalis,” 3 vols. fol. A “History of the Carmelites” “Lives of different Romish Saints” and “Journal of what took place during the last Sickness, and at the Death of cardinal Richelieu.”

Lily’s works are, 1. “Brevissima institutio, seu ratio grammatices cognoscendi,” Lond. 1513; reprinted often, and used at this day, and commonly called “Lily’s Grammar.” The English rudiments were written by Dr. Colet, and the preface to the first edition, by cardinal Wolsey. The English syntax was written by Lily; also the rules for the genders of nouns, beginning with Propria quse maribus; and those for the preter-perfect tenses and supines, beginning with “As, in prsesenti.” The Latin syntax was chiefly the work of Erasmus. See Ward’s preface to his edition of Lily’s grammar, 1732. 2. “In senigmatica Bossi Antibossicon primum, secundum, tertium, ad G. Hormannum,” Lond. 1521, 4to. 3. “Poemata varia,” printed with the former. 4. “Apologia ad R. Whyttingtonum.” 5. “Apologia ad Joan. Skeltonum,” in answer to some invectives of that poet. 6. “De laudibus Deipari Virginis.” 7. “Super Philippi archiducis appulsu.” 8. “De Caroli quinti Caesaris adventu panegyricum.” Some other pieces are attributed to him on doubtful authority.

Lily had two sons, George and Peter. George was born in London, and bred at Magdalen-college, in Oxford; but, leaving the university without a degree, went to Rome, where he was received into the patronage of cardinal Pole, and became eminent for several branches of learning. Upon his return, he was made canon of St. Paul’s, and afterwards prebendary of Canterbury. He published the first exact map of Britain, and died in 1559. He wrote “An^lorum Regum Chronices Epitome,” Venice, 1548, Francf. 1565, Basil, 1577. To which are added, “Lancastrian & Eboracensis [Famil.] de Regno Contentiones, & Regum Anglise genealogia” “Elogia Virorum illustrium, 1559,” 8vo; “Catalogus, sive Series Pontificum Romanorum;” besides the “Life of Bishop Fisher,” ms. in the library of the Royal Society. Peter, his second son, was a dignitary in the church, of Canterbury, and father of another Peter Lily, D. D, This other was some time fellow of Jesus-college in Cambridge afterwards a brother of the Savoy-hospital in the Strand, London prebendary of St. Paul’s; and archdeacon of Taunton. He died in 1614, leaving a widow, who published sooie of his sermons.

In the mean time he was sent as lion king, with sir John Campbel of Laudon, in 1535, to the emperor, to demand in marriage one of the princesses of his house. The king, however, not being satisfied with the portraits of the princesses presented to him, or perhaps, as Mr. Chalmers thinks, being attracted by a more useful connection with France, sent Lindsay, in 1536, to that country to demand in marriage a daughter of the house of Vendome; but the king himself, arriving the year following, made choice of Magdalene of France, who died in about two months after her marriage; and this lamentable event occasioned Lindsay’s next poem, the “Deploratioun of the Deith of quene Magdalene.” The king, however, married again in 1538, and Lindsay’s talents were called forth in the rejoicings and ceremonies consequent to that event, and afterwards on the birth of a prince. During the remainder of the reign of James V. he appears to have retained his majesty’s favour, and to have been frequently employed in his character of herald; but few of these incidents seem of sufficient importance to be detached from his biographer’s narrative. During the regency, he appears to have espoused the cause of the reformers, and after the assassination of cardinal Beaton, wrote his “Tragedie of the late Cardinal,” to strengthen the prejudices of the public against that ecclesiastic.

, a very learned critic, was born at Isch, a country-seat of his father, between Brussels and Louvain, Oct. 18, 1547. He was descended from ancestors who had been ranked among the principal inhabitants of Brussels. At six years of age he was sent to the public school at Brussels, and soon gave proofs of uncommon parts. He tells as himself in one of his letters, that he acquired the French language, without the assistance of a master, so perfectly as to be able to write it before he was eight years old. From Brussels he was sent, at ten years old, to Aeth; and, two years after, to Cologne, where at the Jesuits’ college he prosecuted his literary and philosophical studies. Among the ancients, he learned the precepts of morality from Epictetus and Seneca, and the maxims of civil prudence from Tacitus. At sixteen, he was sent to the university of Louvain; and having now acquired a knowledge of the learned languages, applied himself to the civil law; but his principal delight was in belles lettres and ancient literature; and, therefore, losing his parents, and becoming his own master before he was eighteen, he projected a journey to Italy, for the sake of cultivating them. Before, however, he set out, he published three books of various readings, “Variarum Lectionum Libri tres,” which laid the foundation of his literary fame; and his dedication of them to cardinal Perenettus, a great patron of learned men, served to introduce him to the cardinal, on his arrival in 1567, at Rome, where he lived two years with him, was nominated his secretary, and treated with the utmost kindness and generosity. His time he used to employ in the Vatican, the Farnesian, the Sfortian, and other principal libraries, which were open to him, and where he carefully collated the manuscripts of ancient authors, of Seneca, Tacitus, Plautus, Propertius, &c. His leisure hours he spent in inspecting the most remarkable antiquities, or in cultivating the acquaintance of the literati then residing at Rome, Antonius Muretus, Paulus Manutius, Fulvius Ursinus, Hieronymus Mercurialis, Carolus Sigonius, Petrus Victorius, and others, from whose conversation he could not fail to reap advantage and encouragement in his studies.

, or Longolius, a very elegant scholar, was born in 1490, at Mechlin, although some have called him a Parisian, and Erasmus makes him a native of Schoohhoven in Holland. He was the natural son of Antony de Longueil, bishop of Leon, who being on some occasion in the Netherlands, had an intrigue with a female of Mechlin, of which this son was the issue. He remained with his mother until eight or aine years old; when he was brought to Paris for education, in the course of which he fur exceeded his fellowscholars, and was able at a very early age to read and understand the most difficult authors. He had also an extraordinary memory, although he did not trust entirely to it, but made extracts from whatever he read, and showed great discrimination in the selection of these. His taste led him chiefly to the study of the belles lettres, but his friends wished to direct his attention to the bar, and accordingly he went to Valence in Dauphiny, where he studied civil law under professor Philip Decius, for six years, and returning then to Paris, made so distinguished a figure at the bar, that in less than two years, he was appointed counsellor of the parliament of Paris, according to his biographer, cardinal Pole, but this has been questioned on account of its never having been customary to appoint persons so young to that office; Pole has likewise made another mistake, about which there can be less doubt, in asserting that the king of Spain, Philip, appointed Longueil his secretary of state, for Philip died in 1506, when our author was only sixteen years of age.

In the mean time, it is certain that his attachment to other studies soon diverted him from his law practice. He appears in particular to have considered Pliny as an author meriting his most assiduous application, and whose works would furnish him with employment for many years. With this view he not only studied Pliny’s “Natural History,” with the greatest care, as well as every author who had treated on the same subject, but determined also to travel in pursuit of farther information, as well as to inspect the productions of nature, wherever found. But before this it became necessary for him to learn Greek, with which he had hitherto been unacquainted, and he is said to have made such progress, as to be able, within a year, to read the best Greek authors, on whom he found employment for about five years. Besides selecting from these works whatever might serve to illustrate his favourite Pliny, he now determined to commence his travels, and accordingly went to England, Germany, and Italy, and would have travelled to the East had not the war with the Turks prevented him. In England, in which he appears to have been in 1518, he became very intimate with Pace and Linacre. He encountered many dangers, however, in his continental tour. As he was travelling, with two friends, through Switzerland, the natives of that country, who, after the battle of Marignan, regarded the French with horror, conceived that Longueil and his party were spies, and pursued them as far as the banks of the Rhone. One was killed, the other made his escape by swimming; but Longueil, being wounded in the arm, was taken prisoner, and treated with great severity for about a month, at the end of which he was released by the interposition of the bishop of Sion, who furnished him with money and a horse, to convey him to France. At Rome he was afterwards honoured with the rank of citizen, and received with kindness by Leo X. who had a great opinion of his talents and eloquence, made him his secretary, and employed him to write against Luther. He visited France once more after this, but the rec<*ption he met with in Italy determined him to settle there, at Padua, where he resided, first with Stephen Sauli, a noble Genoese, and on his departure, with Reginald Pole, afterwards the celebrated cardinal, to whom we are indebted for a life of Longueil. Here he died Sept. 11, 1522, in the thirty-third year of his age, and was interred in the church of the Franciscans, in the habit of that order, as he had desired. He was honoured with a Latin epitaph by Bembo, who was one of his principal friends, and recommended to him the writings of Cicero, as a model of style. Longueil became so captivated with Cicero, as to be justly censured by Erasmus on this account. Longueil, however, was not to be diverted by this, but declared himself so dissatisfied with what he ha4 written before he knew the beauties of Cicero’s style, *s to order all his Mss. written previous to that period, to be destroyed. We have, therefore, but little of Longueil left. Among the Mss. destroyed was probably his commentary on Pliny, which some think was published, but this is very doubtful. We can with more certainty attribute to him, 1. “Oratio de laudibus D. Ludovici Francorum regis, &c.” Paris, 1510, 4to. Some remarks on the court of Rome in this harangue occasioned its being omitted in the collection of his works, but Du Chesne printed it in the fifth volume of his collection of French historians. 2. “Christ. Longolii, civis Roman ae perduellionis rei defensiones duae,” Venice, 8vo. This is a vindication of himself against a charge preferred against him, when at Rome, that he had advanced sentiments dishonourable to the character of the Romans in the preceding oration. 3. “Ad Lutheranos jam damnatos Oratio,” Cologn, 1529, 8vo. It appears from his letters that he had been, requested both to write for and against Luther, that he was long in great perplexity on the subject, but that at length Leo X. prevailed with him to write the above. These last two pieces with his letters, &c. have been often reprinted, under the title of “Christ. Longolii Orationes, Epistolcc, et Vita, necnon Bembi et Sadoleti epistolse,” the first edition, at Paris, 1533, 8vo. There are many curious particulars of literary history and character scattered through this correspondence. The life prefixed is now known to have been written by Pole, who was his most intimate friend and admirer, and to whom he bequeathed his library.

, son of Peter Dufour, seigneur de Longuerue, a Norman gentleman, king’s lieutenant of Charleville, in which city he was born, 1652, discovered such uncommon genius for learning t four years old, that Louis XIV. passing through Charleville, and hearing him mentioned, desired to see him. His tutor was the celebrated Richelet; and Peter d'Ablancourt, who was related to him, superintended his education and studies. He was taught both the oriental and European languages, and acquired an extensive knowledge of history, antiquities, the sacred writings, the holy fathers, &c. To an uncommon memory he joined very considerable critical talents. He held two abbeys, that of Sept- Fontaines in the diocese of Rheims, and of Jard in the diocese of Sens. He died November 22, 1733, at Paris, aged eighty-two. Hi works are, 1. A Dissertation in Latin, on Tatian, in the edition of that author, published at Oxford, 1700, 8vo 2. “La Description Historique de la France,” Paris, 1719, folio. This work his countrymen think unworthy of the abbe“de Longuerue, from the changes which have been made in it, and the hurry in which it was printed. The original maps, which have been altered, may be found in some copies. 3.” Annales Arsacidarum,“Strasburg, 1732. 4.” Dissertation on Transubstantiation," which passed under the name of his friend the minister Allix, because unfavourable to the catholic faith. He wrote also Remarks on the Life of Cardinal Wolsey, and left numerous works in Mss. on different subjects in several volumes, folio. There is a collection of his bon mots among the Ana.

, an eminent Italian poet, was born at Home, Oct. 12, 1680. He was in his twenty-second year received into the society of the Jesuits, among whom he had been educated, but owing to bad health, was obliged to quit them, and after much consideration, and a conflict with his taste, which was decide.ily for polite literature, he studied and practised the law for some time, until iiis inclination for more favourite studies returning, he entered, in 1705, into the academy of the Arcadi, the chief object of which was the reformation of the bad taste which had infected Italian poetry. He is said to have excelled in melo-dramas, or pieces on religious subjects, adapted to being sung, written in the Latin language; and has been denominated the Michael Angelo of Italian poets, on account of the boldness and energy of his expressions. In 1728, on the death of Crescembini, he was chosen president of the academy, and besides founding five academical colonies in the neighbouring towns, instituted a private weekly meeting of the Arcadi, at which the plays of Plautus or Terence, in the original language, were performed by youths trained for the purpose But the want of a regular profession, and his constant attendance to these pursuits, often deranged his finances; and he appears not to have acquired permanent patronage until cardinal Borghese enrolled him among his noble domestics, and paid him liberally. In 1741, he took up his residence in the Borghese palace, where he died in June 1743. His Italian poems, which are much admired, have been printed at Milan, Venice, Florence, Naples, &c. and in many of the collections. His Latin “Sacred Dramas” were separately published at Rome; and his other Latin poetry, among those of the academicians of the Arcadi.

, master of the works to the French kin;', was born at Lyons about the beginning of the sixteenth century. At fourteen, he went into Italy, to study the beauties of antiquity. There he became acquainted with Cervius, afterwards pope Marceilus II. who had a good taste for the polite arts, and, conceiving a great esteem for Lorme, communicated to him every thing that he knew. Enriched with the spoils of antiquity, he returned to Lyons in 1536, and banished thence the Gothic taste. At length, going to Paris, to work for the cardinal de Bellay, he was soon employed in the court of Henry II. He made the Horse-shoe, a fortification at Fontainbleau, built the stately chateau of Anet and Meudon; the palace of the Thuilleries, and repaired and ornamented several of the royal houses, as Villiers, Colerets, St. Germain then called the castle of the Muette, the Louvre, &c. These services were recompensed above his expectations. He was made almoner and counsellor to the king, and had the abbies of St. Eloy and St. Serge of Angers conferred upon him.

, an eminent sculptor, was born at Paris in November 1666. From his infancy he made so rapid a progress in the art of designing, that, at eighteen, the celebrated Girardon intrusted him with the care of teaching his children, and of correcting the designs of his disciples. He committed to him also, in conjunction with Noulisson, the execution of the famous tomb of cardinal Richelieu in the Sorbonne, and of his own tomb at St. Landres, in Paris. On his return from Rome, he finished several pieces at Marseilles, which had been left imperfect by the death of M. Pu-get. He was received into the academy of sculpture, Oct. 1701, when he composed his Galatea for his chef d'ceuvre, a work universally esteemed. Lorrain afterwards made a Bacchus for the gardens at Versailles, a fawn for those at Marli, and several bronzes; among others, an Andromeda, &c. The academy elected him professor May 29, 1717; and he died their governor June 1, 1743, aged 77.

, a learned cardinal, was born in 1617, of an obscure family at Venozza in the Basilicate, and raised himself by his learning and merit. He died February 5, 1683, aged sixty-six. He left Notes on the Council of Trent, in Latin; a curious “Account of the Court of Rome,” in Italian, Rome, 1680, 4to; and an elaborate work on the ecclesiastical law, entitled “Theatrum justitiae et veritatis.” The best edition of this last is that printed at Rome, 21 vols. fol. bound in 12.

, a Spanish Jesuit and cardinal, was born Nov. 28, 1583, at Madrid. His talents began to appear so early, that it is said he was able, at three years of age, to read not only printed books, but manuscripts. He maintained theses at fourteen, and was sent to study the taw, soon after, at Salamanca; where he entered into the order f the Jesuits in 1603, against his father’s wish. After finishing his course of philosophy among the Jesuits of Pampeluna, and of divinity at Salamanca, he was sent to Seville by his superiors, on his father’s death, to take possession of his patrimony, which was very considerable, and Which he divided among the Jesuits of Salamanca. He then taught philosophy five years after which, he was professor of divinity at Valladolid. The success with which he filled this chair, convinced his superiors that he was worthy of one more eminent: accordingly he received orders, in the fifth year of his professorship, to go to Rome, to teach divinity there. He set out in March 1621, and arrived at Rome in June the same year, having met with Bjanv dangers in travelling through the provinces of France. He taught divinity at Rome for twenty years, and attended wholly to that employ, without making his court to the cardinals, or visiting any ambassadors.

The publication of his works was in consequence of an order which his vow of obedience would not suffer him to refuse: he published accordingly, seven large volumes in folio , the fourth of which he dedicated to Urban VIII. Upon this occasion he went for the first time to pay his respects to the pope, by whom he was very graciously received; and from that time so highly respected, that Urban made him a cardinal, in Dec. 1643, without any previous notice or solicitation. To this promotion, however, he is said to have shown the greatest repugnance, and would not permit the Jesuits’ college to discover any signs of joy, or grant the scholars a holiday. He looked upon the coach, which cardinal Barberifli sent him, as his coffin; and when he was in the pope’s palace, he told the officers who were going to put on his cardinal’s robes, that he was resolved to represent first to his holiness, that the vows he had made as a Jesuit would not permit him to accept of a cardinal’s hat. He was answered, that the pope had dispensed with those vows. “Dispensations,” replied he, “leave a man to his natural liberty and, if I am permitted to enjoy mine, I will never accept of the purple.” Being introduced to the pope, he asked whether his holiness, by virtue of holy obedience, commanded him to accept the dignity ' to which the pontiff answering, that he did; Lugo acquiesced, and bowed his head to receive the hat. Yet he constantly kept a Jesuit near his person, to be a perpetual witness of his actions. He continued to dress and undress himself; he would not suffer any hangings to be put up in his palace; and established so excellent an order in it, that it was considered as an useful seminary. He died Aug. 20, 1660, leaving his whole estate to the Jesuits’ college at Rome; and was interred, by his own directions, at the feet of Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the order.

While he was cardinal, he was very charitable and bestowed tlu> Jesuits’ bark, which then sold for its weight in gold, very liberally to persons afflicted with agues. He was iiic first that brought this febrifuge specific into France in 1650, when it was called cardinal de Lugo’s powder. He was undeniably a learned man, and had all that subtlety of genius which is the characteristic quality of the Spanish divines; and is said to be the first that discovered the philosophical sin, and the justice of punishing it eternally. His solution of this difficulty is somewhat extraordinary; for, having asserted that the savages might be ignorant of God inculpably, he observes that the Deity gave them, before their death, so much knowledge of himself as was necessary to be capable of sinning theologically, and prolonged their life till they had committed such sin, and thereby justly incurred eternal damnation. Among his other scholastic absurdities he has also the reputation of inventing the doctrine of inflated points, in order to remove the difficulties in accounting for the infinite divisibility of quantity, and the existence of mathematical points. It was a received opinion, that a rarefied body takes up a greater space than before, without acquiring any new matter; our cardinal applied this to a corpuscle, or atom, without parts or extension, which he supposes may swell itself in such a manner as to fill several parts of space.

, elder brother of the preceding, was born at Madrid in 1580, and became a Jesuit at Salamanca in 1600, where he first employed himself in teaching the rudiments of grammar: but he afterwards was professor of philosophy, and was sent to the Indies. There he filled the divinity-chair in the town of Mexico, and also in Santa Fe. These posts, however, not being agreeable to tfhe Retirement in which he desired to live, he returned to Spain. In the voyage he lost the best part of his commentaries upon the “Summit” of T. Aquinas, and narrowly escaped being taken prisoner by the Dutch. He was afterwards deputed to Rome by the province of Castile, to assist at the eighth general assembly of the Jesuits; and, upon the conclusion of it, he was detained there by two employments, that of censor of the books published by the Jesuits, and that of Theologue general. But finding himselt to be courted more and more, from the time that his brother was made a cardinal, he went back into Spain where he was appointed rector of two colleges, or of a college or school consisting of two divisions, as is that of Westminster. He died in 1652, after writing several books, the chief of which are, 1. Commentarii in primam partem S. Thomae de Deo, trinitate, & angelis,“Lyons, 1647, 2 vols, folio. 2.” De sacramentis in genere, &c.“Venice, 1652, 4to. 3.” Discursus praevius ad theologiam moralem, &c.“Madrid, 1643, 4to. 4.” Quasstiones morales de sacramentis," Grenada, 1644, 4to.

, an eminent scholar, was the son of William Lupset, goldsmith and citizen of London. He was born in the parish of St. Mildred’s, Bread-street, in 1498, and was educated at St. Paul’s school under the celebrated Lily. After this he is supposed to have studied some time at Pembroke-hall, Cambridge, whence he went to Paris, and took his bachelor’s degree in arts. On his return to England, he settled, about 1519, in Corpus Christi college, Oxford, and succeeded John Clement in the place of lecturer in rhetoric, founded by cardinal Wolsey; and such appears to have been his reputation, that the university publicly thanked the cardinal for his recommendation of so able a man. In 1521 he proceeded M. A. When Richard Pace was sent agent to Italy, Lupset accompanied him as his secretary, and in the course of his travels became acquainted with many of the most learned men of the time, particularly Pole, afterwards cardinal, sir Thomas More, and Erasmus. After returning to England, He was sent to France by cardinal Wolsey, as tutor to his natural son Thomas Winter. In 1529 he was presented to the living of St. Martin’s Ludgate, and in 1530 was made prebend of Salisbury. He died in the flower of his age, Dec. 27, 1532, having scarcely completed his thirty-sixth year. He was reputed a man of very general learning, and of great piety, modesty, and candour, in all which respects Lelaiul and sir Thomas More have celebrated his praises. Wood says that he left a wife named Alice, and thai she died in 1545.; but this Alice appears to have been his mother. Lupset, being in priest’s orders, and a prebendary of Salisbury, could not have been married. Wood likewise doubts his having studied at Cambridge, because Dr. Caius, who mentions this circumstance, does not give his authority; but Caius was his contemporary at that university, and is, therefore sufficient authority for the fact. Of his works, the following have been printed: 1. A Treatise of Charity,“1546, 8vo. a.” An Exhortation to young Men,“1540, 8vu 3. V A. treatise teaching how to die well,” 1534. 4. “Epistolie varive,” dated from Corpus Christi college, and printed in “Epist. aliquot eruditorum vivorum,” Basil, 1520. He also translated into English a homily of St. Chrysostom’s, another of St. Cyprian’s, Picus of Mirandula’s Rules for a godly life, and the Councils of Isidorus, all printed at London in 1560, 8vo. Pts mentions other works by him, but of doubtful authority.

, a female writer, very much admired in France for the romances which she produced, was the daughter of a coachman belonging to cardinal Fleury, and was born about 1682. Some have said that she was the daughter of prince Thomas of Savoy, the prince de Carignano’s elder brother, because prince Eugene shewed her much kindness. She had, however, an education much above her birth, which enabled her to compose the various works which she has left us. M. Huet, to whom she accidentally became known, advised her to write romances, in which she succeeded tolerably well with the help of M. Ignatius Lewis de la Serre, sieur de Langlade (author of nine or ten operas,) who was her intimate friend, after having been her lover. This gentleman inherited an income of 25,000 livres, which he consumed by gaming, and died in 1756. Mademoiselle de Lussan was more admired for her mental than for her personal qualities, for she squinted, and bad a very brown skin, with a masculine voice and gait; but she was gay, lively, extremely humane, constant in her friendships, liable to anger, but never to hatred. She died in 1758, aged seventy-five, in consequence of bathing during an indigestion. Her works are, “La Comtesse de Gondez,” 2 vols. 12mo; “Anecdotes de Philippe Auguste,” 6 vols. 12m<>, attributed to the abb de Boismorand. “Memoires de Charles VII.” 12mo; “Anecdotes” of Francis I. 3 vols. 12mo; of Henry II. 2 vols. 12mo; of Mary of England, 12mo; “La Vie de Crillon,” 2 vols. 12mo. She published also under her name a “History of Charles VI.” 9 vols. 12mo; of Louis XI. 6 vols. and “L'Hist. de la derniere Revolution de Naples,” 4 vols. but these three were written by M. Baudot de Juilly, as we have mentioned in his life. Mademoiselle de Lussan gave this gentleman half of what she gained from these works, and half of her pension of 2000 livres.

In this manner was he employed when the general indulgences were published in 1517. Leo X. who succeeded Julius II. in March 1513, formed a design of building the magnificent church of St. Peter’s at Rome, which was, indeed, begun by Julius II. but still required very large sums to be finished. The treasure of the apostolic chamber was much exhausted, and the pope himself, though of a rich and powerful family, yet was far from being able to do it at his own proper charge, on account of the excessive debts he had contracted before his advancement to the popedom. There was nothing new in the method of raising money by indulgences. This had been formerly on several occasions practised by the court of Rome; and none had been found more effectual. Leo, therefore, in 1517, published general indulgences throughout all Europe, in favour of those who would contribute any sum to the building of St. Peter’s; and appointed persons in different countries to preach up these indulgences, and to receive money for them. Albert of Brandenburg, archbishop of Mentz and Magdeburg, who was soon after made a cardinal, had a commission for Germany; and Luther assures us that he was to have half the money that was to be raised, which does not seem improbable, for Albert’s court was at that time very luxurious and splendid; and he had borrowed 30,000 florins of that opulent family the Fuggers of Augsburg, to pay the pope for the bulls of his archbishopric, which sum he was bound to repay. Be this however as it will, Albert gave out this commission to John Tetzel, orTecelius, a Dominican friar, and others of his order. These indulgences were immediately exposed to sale; and Tetzel boasted of “having so large a commission from the pope, that though a man should have deflowered the virgin Mary, yet for money he might be pardoned.” He added further, that “he did not only give pardon for sins past, but for sins to come.” A book came out also at the same time, under the sanction of the archbishop, in which orders were given to the commissioners and collectors to enforce and press the power of indulgences. These persons performed their offices with great zeal indeed, but not with sufficient judgment and policy. They over-acted their parts, so that the people, to whom they were become very troublesome, saw through the cheat;' being at length convinced, that under a pretence of indulgences they only meant to plunder the Germans; and that, far from being solicitous about saving the souls of others, their only view was to enrich themselves.

The emperor Maximilian was equally solicitous with the pope, about putting a stop to the propagation of Luther’s opinions in Saxony; since the great number of his followers, and the resolution with which he defended them, made it evident beyond dispute that if he were not immediately checked he would become troublesome both to the church and empire. Maximilian therefore applied to Leo in a letter dated Aug. 5, 1518, and begged him to forbid by his authority, these useless, rash, and dangerous disputes; assuring him also that he would strictly execute in the empire whatever his holiness should enjoin. The pope on his part ordered Jerom de Genutiis, bishop of Ascula, or Ascoli, auditor of the apostolic chamber, to cite Luther to appear at Rome within sijcty days, that he might give an account of his doctrine to the auditor and master of the palace, to whom he had committed the judgment of the cause. He wrote at the same time to Frederick the elector of Saxony, to pray him not to protect Luther and let him know that he had cited him, and had given cardinal Cajetan, his legate in Germany, the necessary instructions upon that occasion. He exhorts the elector to put Luther into the hands of this legate, that he might be carried to Rome; assuring him that, if he were innocent, he would send him back absolved, and if he were guilty, would pardon him upon his repentance. This letter to Frederic was dated Aug. 23, 1518, and it was by no means unnecessary; for though Luther had nothing to trust to at first but his own personal qualities, his parts, his learning, and his courage, yet he was afterwards countenanced and supported by this elector, a prince of great personal worth. At the same time also the pope sent a brief to cardinal Cajetan, in which he ordered him to bring Luther before him as soon as possible; and to hinder the princes from being any impediment to the execution of this order, he denounced the punishments of excommunication, interdiction, and privation of goods against all who should receive Luther, and give him protection; and promised a plenary indulgence to those who should assist in delivering him up.

In the mean time Luther, as soon as he understood what was transacting about him at Rome, used all imaginable means to prevent his being carried thither, and to obtain a hearing of his cause in Germany. The university of Wittemberg interceded for him, and wrote a letter to the pope, to excuse him from going to Rome, because his health would not permit it; and assured his holiness that he had asserted nothing contrary to the doctrine of the church, and that all they could charge him with was his layingdown some propositions in disputation too freely, though without any view of deciding upon them. The elector also was against Luther’s going to Rome, and desired of cardinal Cajetan, that be might be heard before him, as his legate in Germany. Upon these addresses, the pope consented that the cause should be tried before cardinal Cajetan, to whom he had given power to decide it. Luther, therefore, set off immediately for Augsburg, poor, and on foot, as he says in his narrative, and carried with him letters from the elector*. He arrived here in October 1518, and upon an assurance of his safety, was admitted into the cardinal’s presence. The legate told him that he did not intend to enter into any dispute with him, but should only propound three things to him, on the pope’s behalf; and he did admonish him, “First, to become a sound member of the church, and to recant his errors; secondly, to promise that he would not teach such pernicious doctrines for the future; and thirdly, to take care that the peace of the church was not broken by his means.” Luther beseeched the legate to acquaint him what his errors were, who alleged to him a decretal of Clement VI. in which “the merits of Jesus Christ are affirmed to be a treasure of indulgences,” which he the said Luther-denied; and objected to him also his teaching, that “faith was necessary for all who should receive the sacrament, so as to obtain any benefit by it.” Luther replied, that “he had read the decretal of Clement, which the legate alleged; but did humbly conceive that it was not of sufficient authority to retract any opinion which he believed to be conformable to Holy Scripture.” The legate had then recourse to the authority of the pope, who, he said, “could only decide upon the sense of Scripture;” upon which Luther desired time to deliberate upon what the legate had proposed to him, and so the dispute ended for that day.

of such a conflagration. You will act Rescue’s Leo. him a protestation, in which he declared that “he honoured and would obey the holy church of Rome in all things; that if he had said or done any thing contrary to its decisions, he desired it might be looked upon as never said or done;” and for the three propositions made to him by the legate, he declared, “That, having sought only the truth, he had committed no fault, and could not retract errors of which he had not been convinced, nor even heard; that he was firmly persuaded of his having advanced nothing contrary to Scripture and the doctrines of the fathers; that, nevertheless, being a man, and subject to error, he would submit himself to the lawful determination of the church; and that he offered, further, to give reasons in this place, and elsewhere, of what he had asserted, answer the objections, and hear the opinions of the doctors of the famous universities of Basil, Friburg, Louvain,” &c. The legate only repeated what he had said the day before about the authority of the pope, and exhorted Luther again to retract. Luther answered nothing, but presented a writing to the legate, which, he said, contained all he had to answer. The legate received the writing, but paid no regard to it; he pressed Luther to retract, threatening him with the censures of the church, if he did not; and commanded him not to appear any more; in his presence, unless he brought his recantation with him. Luther was now convinced that he had more to fear from the cardinal’s power than from disputations of any kind; and therefore, apprehensive of being seized if he did not submit, withdrew from Augsburg upon the 20th. But, before his departure, he published a formal appeal to the pope, in which he declared, that “though he had submitted to be tried by cardinal Cajetan, as his legate, yet he had been so borne down and injured by him, that he was constrained at length to appeal to the judgment of his holiness.” He wrote likewise a letter to the cardinal, and told him that “he did not think himself bound to continue any longer at Augsburg; that he would retire after he had made his appeal; that he would always submit himself to the judgment of the church; but for his censures, that as he had not deserved, so he did not value them.”

While these things passed in Germany, Leo attempted to put an end to these disputes about indulgences, by a decision of his own; and for that purpose, November the 9th, published a brief, directed to cardinal Cajetan, in which he declared, that “the pope, the successor of St. Peter, and vicar of Jesus Christ upon earth, hath power to pardon, by virtue of the keys, the guilt and punishment of sin, the guilt by the sacrament of penance, and the temporal punishments due for actual sins by indulgences; that these indulgences are taken from the overplus of the merits of Jesus Christ and his saints, a treasure at the pope’s own disposal, as well by way of absolution as suffrage; and that the dead and the living, who properly and truly obtain these indulgences, are immediately freed from the punishment due to their actual sins, according to the divine justice, which allows these indulgences to be granted and obtained.” This brief ordains, that “all the world shall hold and preach this doctrine, under the pain of excommunication reserved to the pope; and enjoins cardinal Cajetan to send it to all the archbishops and bishops of Germany, and c:iuse it to be put into execution by them.” Luther knew very well that after this judgment made by the pope, he could not possibly escape being proceeded against, and condemned at Rome; and therefore, upon the 28th of the same month, published a new appeal from the pope to a general council, in which he asserts the superior authority of the latter over the former. The pope, foreseeing that he should not easily manage Luther so long as the elector of Saxony continued to support and protect him, sent the elector a golden rose, such an one as he used to bless every year, and send to several princes, as marks of his particular favour to them. Miltitius, or Miltitz, his chamberlain, who was a German, was intrusted with this commission; by whom the pope sent also letters in Jan. 1519, to the elector’s counsellor and secretary, in which he prayed those ministers to use all possible interest with their master, that he would stop the progress of Luther’s errors, and imitate therein the piety of his ancestors. It appears by Sectendorf 's account of Miltitz’s negotiation, that Frederick had long solicited for this bauble from the pope; and that three or four years before, when his electoral highness was a bigot to the court of Rome, it had probably been a most welcome present. Bat it was now too late: Luther’s contests with the see of Rome had opened the elector’s eyes, and enlarged his mind; and therefore, when Miltitz delivered his letters, and discharged his commission, he was received but coldly by the elector, who valued not the consecrated rose, nor would receive it publicly and in form, but only privately, and by his proctor; and to the remonstrances of Miltitz respecting Luther, answered that he would not act as a judge, nor oppress a man whom he had hitherto considered as innocent. It is thought that the death of the emperor Maximilian, who expired on the 12th of this month, greatly altered the face of affairs, and made the elector more able to determine Luther’s fate. Miltitz thought it best, therefore, to try what could be done by fair and gentle means, and to that end came to a conference with Luther. He poured forth many commendations upon him, and earnestly intreated him that he would himself appease that tempest which could not but be destructive to the church. He blamed at the same time the behaviour and conduct of Tetzel; whom he called before him, and reproved with so much sharpness, that he died of melancholy a short time after. Luther, amazed at all this civil treatment, which he had never before experienced, commended Miltitz highly, owned that, if they had behaved to him so at lirst, all the troubles occasioned by these disputes, had been avoided; and did not forgt-t to cast the blame upon Albert archbishop of Mentz, who had increased these troubles by his severity. Miltitz also made some concessions; as, that the people had been seduced by false opinions about indulgences, that Tetzel had given the occasion, that the archbishop had employed Tetzel to get money, that Tetzel had exceeded the bounds of his commission, &c. This mildness and seeming candour on the part of Miltitz gained so wonderfully upon Luther, that he wrote a most submissive letter to the pope, on March 13, 1519. Miltitz, however, taking for granted that they would not be contented at Rome with this letter of Luther’s, written, as it was, in general terms only, proposed to refer the matter to some othec judgment; and it was agreed between them that the elector of Triers should be the judge, and Coblentz the place of conference; but this came to nothing; for Luther afterwards gave some reasons for not going to Coblentz, and the pope would not refer the matter to the elector of Triers.

This same year 1519, Luther’s books concerning indulgences were formally censured by the divines of Louvain and Cologne. The former having consulted with the cardinal of Tortosa, afterwards Adrian VI. passed their censure on the 7th of November; and the censure of the lakter, which was made at the request of the divines of Louvain, was dated on the 30th of August. Luther wrote immediately against these censures, and declared that be valued them not: that several great and good men, such as Occam, Picus Mirandula, Laurentius Valla, and others, had been condemned in the same unjust manner; nay, he would venture to add to the list, Jerom of Prague and John Huss. He charged those universities with rashness, in being the first that declared against him; and accused them of want of proper respect and deference to the holy see, in condemning a book presented to the pope, on which judgment had not yet been passed. About the end of this year, Luther published a book, in which be contended for the communion being celebrated in both kinds. This was condemned by the bishop of Misnia, Jan. 24, 1520. Lnther, seeing himself so beset with adversaries’, wrote a letter to the new emperor, Charles V. of Spain, who was not yet come into Germany, and another to the elector of Mentz; in both which he humhly implores protection, till he should be able to give an account of himself and his opinions; adding, that he did not desire to be defended, if he were convicted of impiety or heresy, but only that he might not be condemned without a hearing. The former of these letters is dated Jan. 15, 1520; the latter, Feb. 4. The elector Frederic fell about this time into a dangerous illness, which threw the whole party into great consternation, and occasioned some apprehensions at Wittemberg: but of this he happily recovered.

While Luther was labouring to excuse himself to the emperor and the bishops of Germany, Eckius had gone to Rome, to solicit his condemnation: which, it may easily be conceived, was not now very difficult to be obtained, as he and his whole party were had in abhorrence, and the elector Frederic wajs out of favour, on account of the protection which he afforded Luther. The elector excused himself to the pope, in a letter dated April 1; which the pope answered, and sent him at the same time a copy of a bull, in which he was required “either to oblige Luther to retract his errors, or to imprison him for the disposal of the pope.” This peremptory proceeding alarmed at first the court of the elector, and many German nobles who were of Luther’s party, but their final resolution was, to protect and defend him. In the mean time, though Luther’s condemnation was determined at Rome, Miltitz did not cease to treat in Germany, and to propose means of accommodation. To this end he applied to the chapter of the Augustine friars there, and prayed them to interpose their authority, and to beg of Luther that he would endeavour to conciliate the pope by a letter, full of submission and respect. Luther consented to write, and his letter bears date April the 6th; but matters had been carried too far on both sides, ever to admit of a reconciliation. The mischief Luther had done, and continued to do, to the papal authority, was irreparable; and the rough usage and persecutions he had received from the pope’s party had now inflamed his active spirit to that degree, that it was not possible to appease it, but by measures which the pope and the court of Rome could never be expected to adopt. At all events, the letter he wrote at this juncture could not be attended with any healing ednsequences; the style and sentiments were too irritating for a less degree of pride than that which presided at Rome. In this epistle Luther says, “that among the monsters of the age, with whom be had been engaged for three years past, he had often called to mind the blessed father Leo: that now he began to triumph over his enemies, and to despise them: that, though he had been obliged to appeal from his holiness to a general council, yet he had no aversion to him: that he had always wished and prayed for all sorts of blessings upon his person and see: that his design was only to defend the truth: that he had never spoken dishonourably of his holiness, but had called him a Daniel in the midst of Babylon, to denote the innocence and purity he had preserved among so many corrupt men: that the court of Rome was visibly more corrupt than either Babylon or Sodom; and that his holiness was as a lamb among wolves, a Daniel among lions, and an Ezekiel ampng scorpions: that there were not above three or four cardinals of any learning or piety: that it was against these disorders of the court of Rome he was obliged to appear: that cardinal Cajftan, who was ordered by his holiness to treat with him, bad shewn no inclinations to peace: that his nuncio JVliltitz had indeed come to two conferences with him, and that he had promised JVliltitz to be silent, and submit to the decision of the archbishop of Triers; but that the dispute at Leipsic had hindered the execution of this project, and put things into greater confusion: that Milt it/ hud applied a third time to the chapter of his order, at whose instigation he had written to his holiness: and that he now threw himself at his feet, praying him to impose silence upon his enemies: but that, as for a recantation on his part, be must not insist upon it, unless he would increase the troubles; nor prescribe him rules for the interpretation of the word of God, because it ought not to be limited. Then he admonishes the pope not to suffer himself to be seduced, by his flatterers, into a persuasion that he can command and require all things, that he is above a council and the universal church, that he alone has a right to interpret scripture; but to believe those rather who debase, than those who exalt him.”

Before the diet of Worms was dissolved, Charles V. caused an edict to be drawn up, which was dated the 8th of May, and solemnly published on the 2oth in the assembly of the electors and princes held in his palace. In this edict, after declaring it to be the duty of an emperor, not only to defend the limits of the empire, but to maintain religion and the true faith, and to extinguish heresies in their original, he commands, That Martin Luther be, agreeably to the sentence of the pope, henceforward looked upon as a member separated from the church, a schismatic, and an obstinate and notorious heretic. He forbids all persons, under the penalty of high treason, loss of goods, and being put under the ban of the empire, to receive or defend, maintain or protect him, either in conversation or in writing; and he orders, that, after the twenty-one days allowed in his safe-conduct, he should be proceeded against according to the form of the ban of the empire, in what place soever he should be: or, at least, that he should be seized and imprisoned, till his imperial majesty’s pleasure should be further known. The same punishments are denounced against all the accomplices, adherents, followers, or favourers of Luther; and also all persons are forbidden to print, sell, buy, or read any of his books: and, because there had been published several books concerning the same doctrines, without his name, and several pictures dispersed that were injurious to the pope, cardinal, and bishops, he commands the magistrates to seize and burn them, uod to punish the authors and printers of those pictures and libels. Lastly, it forbids in general the printing of any book concerning matters of faith, which hath not the approbation of the ordinary, and some neighbouring university.

, a very learned French writer, was born Nov. 23, 1632, at Pierre-mont, on the frontiers of Champagne. He was educated in the university of Rheims, and afterwards entered into the abbey of the Benedictines of St. Remy; where he took the habit in 1653, and made the profession the year following. He was looked upon at first as a person that would do honour to his order; but a perpetual head-acb, with which he was afflicted, almost destroyed all the expectations which were conceived of him. He was ordained priest at Amiens in 1660; and afterwards, lest too much solitude should injure his health, which was not yet re-established, was sent by his superiors to St. Denis, where he was appointed, during the whole year 1663, to shew the treasure and monuments of the kings of France. But having there unfortunately broken a looking-glass, which was pretended to have belonged to Virgil, he obtained leave to quit an employment, which, as he said, frequently obliged him to relate things he did not believe. As the indisposition of his head gradually abated, he began to shew himself more and more to the world. Father d'Acheri, who was then compiling his “Spicilegium,” desiring to have some young monk, who could assist him in that work, Mabillon was chosen for the purpose, and accordingly went to Paris in 1664, where he was very serviceable to d'Acheri. This began to place his talents in a conspicuous light, and to shew what might be expected from him. A fresh occasion soon offered itself to him. The congregation of St. Maur had formed a design of publishing new editions of the fathers, revised from the manuscripts, with which the libraries of the order of the Benedictines, as one of the most ancient, are furnished. Mabillon was ordered to undertake the edition of St. Bernard, which he had prepared with great judgment and learning, and published at Paris, in 1667, in two volumes folio, and nine octavo. In 1690 he published a second edition, augmented with almost fifty letters, new preliminary dissertations, and new notes; and just before his death was preparing to publish a third. He had no sooner published the first edition of St. Bernard, than the congregation appointed him to undertake an edition of the “Acts of the Saints of the order of Benedictines;” the first volume of which, he published in 1668, and continued it to nine volumes in folio, the last of which was published in 1701. The writers of the “Journal de Trevoux” speak not improperly of this work when they say that “it ought to be considered, not as a simple collection of memoirs relating to monastic history, but as a valuable compilation of ancient monuments; which, being illustrated by learned notes, give a great light to the most obscure part of ecclesiastical history.” The prefaces alone,“say they,” would secure to the author an immortal reputation. The manners and usages of those dark ages are examined with great care; and an hundred important questions are ably discussed.“Le Clerc, in the place referred to above, from which we have chiefly drawn our account of Mahillon, has given us one example of a question occasionally discussed by him in the course of his work, concerning the use of unleavened bread, in the celebration of the sacrament. Mabillon shews, in the preface to the third age of his” Acta Sanctorum,“t'hat the use of it is more ancient than is generally believed; and, in 1674, maintained it in a particular dissertation, addressed to cardinal Bona, who was before of a contrary opinion. But the work which is supposed to have done him the most honour is his” De re diplomatica libri sex, in quibus quicquid ad veterum instrumentorum antiquitatem, materiam, scripturam et stilutn; quicqnid ad sigilla, monogrammata, subscriptiones, ac notas chronologicas; quicquid inde ad antiquariam, historicam, forensemque disciplinam pertinet, explicatur, et illustratur. Accedunt commentarius de antiquis regum Francorum palatiis, veterum scripturarum varia specimina tabulis LX. comprehensa, nova ducentorum et amplius monumentoruoi collectio," Paris, 1631, folio. The examination of almost an infinite number of charters and ancient titles, which had passed through his hands, led him to form the design of reducing to certain rules and principles an art, of which before there had been only very confused ideas. It was a bold attempt; but he executed it with such success, that he was thought tp have carried it at once to perfection.

In 1682 he took a journey into Burgundy, in which M. Colbert employed him to examine some ancient titles relating to the royal family. That minister received all the satisfaction he could desire; and, being fully convinced of Mabillon’s experience and abilities in these points, sent him the year following into Germany, in order to search there, among the archives and libraries of the ancient abbeys for materials to illustrate the history of the church in general, and that of France in particular. He spent five months in this journey, and published an account of it. He took another journey into Italy in 1685, by order of the king of France; and returned the year following with a very noble collection of above three thousand volumes of rare books, both printed and manuscript, which he added to the king’s library; and, in 1687, composed two volumes of the pieces he had discovered in that country, under the title of “Museum Italicum.” After this he employed himself in publishing other works, which are strong evidences of his vast abilities and application. In 1698 he published a Latin letter concerning the worship of the unknown saints, which he called “Eusehii Romani ad Theophilum Gallum epistola.” The history of this piece does credit to his love of truth, and freedom from traditional prejudices. While at Rome he had endeavoured to inform himself particularly of those rules and precautions, wh:ch were necessary to be observed with regard to the bodies of saints taken out of the catacombs, in order to be exposed to the veneration of the public. He had himself visited those places, and consulted all persons who could give him light upon the subject; but five or six years elapsed after his return to France, without his having ever thought of making use of these observations. In 1692, however, he drew up the treatise above-mentioned; in which he gave it as his opinion, that the bodies found in the catacombs were too hastily, and without sufficient foundation, concluded to be the bodies of martyrs. Still, aware this was a subject of a very delicate nature, and thai such an opinion might possibly give offence, he kept it by him five years, without communicating it to above one person; and then sent it, under the seal of secresy, to cardinal Colloredo at Rome, whose opinion was, that it should not be published in the form it was then in. Nevertheless, in 1698 it was published; and, as might easily be foreseen, very ill received at Rome; and after many complaints, murmurs, and criticisms, it was in 1701 brought before the Congregation of the Index, and Mabillon fou.id it necessary to employ all his interest to prevent the censure of that body. Nor, perhaps, could he have averted this misfortune if he had not agreed to publish a new edition of it; in which, by softening some passages, and throwing upon inferior officers whatever abuses might be committed with regard to the bodies taken out of the catacombs, he easily satisfied his judges; who, to do them justice, had a great esteem for his learning and virtues, and were not very desirous of condemning him.

This eminent man died of a suppression of urine, at the abbey of St. Germain-des-Pres, in Dec. 1707. His great merit had procured him, in 1701, the place of honorary member of the academy of inscriptions. Du Pin tells us thac “it would be difficult to give Mabillon the praises he deserves: the voice of the public, and the general esteem of all the learned, are a much better commendation of him than any thing we can say. His profound learning appears from his works: his modesty, humility, meekness, and piety, are no less known to those who have had the least conversation with him. His style is masculine, pure, clear, and methodical, without affectation or superfluous ornaments, and suitable to the subjects of which he has treated.” Few men were more honoured by the notice of the great than Mabillon, and to this he was entitled both by his virtues and his extensive learning. Pope Clement XI. paid him the compliment to write to father Iluinart, expressing his hopes that the remains of such a man had been interred with the honours due to him. “Every man of learning who goes to Paris,” said cardinal Colloredo, “will ask where you have placed him”.

, a celebrated French political and miscellaneous writer, and brother to the abbé Condillac, was born at Grenoble in March 1709, and was educated in the Jesuits’ college at Lyons. In his youth he attached himself to his relation the cardinal de Tencin, but never took any higher order in the church than that of sub-deacon. On his coming into life, as it is called, he had the honour to be admitted, both as a relation and a man of letters, into the parties of madame de Tencin, so well known for her intrigues and her sprightly talents, who at that time gave dinners not only to wits, but to politicians. Here madame de Tencin was so much pleased with the figure Mably made in conversation with Montesquieu and other philosophical politicians at hertable, that she thought he might prove useful to her brother, then entering on his ministerial career. The first service he rendered to the cardinal was to draw out an abridgment of all the treaties from the peace of Westphalia to that time (about 1740): the second service he rendered his patron, was of a more singular kind. The cardinal soon becoming sensible that he had not the talent xof conveying his ideas in council, Mably suggested to him the lucky expedient of an application to the king, that he might be permitted to express his thoughts in writing, and there can be little doubt that m this also he profited by the assistance of his relative, who soon began himself to meddle in matters of state. In 1743 he was entrusted to negoeiate privately at Paris with the Prussian ambassador, and drew up a treaty, which Voltaire was appointed to carry to Berlin. Frederick, to whom* this was no secret, conceived from this time a very high opinion of the abbe, and, as Mably’s biographer remarks, it was somewhat singular that tvro men of letters, who had no political character, should be employed on a negociation which made such an important change in the state of affairs in Europe. The abbe" also drew up the papers which were to serve as the basis of the negociation carried on in the congress at Breda in the month of April 1746.

His success in these affairs had nearly fixed him in political life, when a dispute with the cardinal changed his destination, and the circumstance does credit to his liberality. The cardinal was not only minister of state, but archbishop of Lyons, when the question was agitated respecting the marriages of protestants. The abbe wished him to view this question with the eyes of a statesman only, but the cardinal would consider it only as a prince of the Romish church, and as he persisted in this opinion, the abbe saw him no more. From this time he gave himself up to study, without making any advances to fortune, or to literary men. He always said he was more anxious to merit general esteem than to obtain it. He lived a long time on a small income of a thousand crowns, and an annuity; which last, on the death of his brother, he gave up to his relations. The court, however, struck with this disinterested act, gave him a pension of 2800 Jivres, without the solicitation or knowledge of any of his friends. Mably not only inveighed against luxury and riches, but showed by his example that he was sincere; and to these moderate desires, he joined an ardent love of independence, which he took every opportunity to evince. One day when a friend brought him an invitation to dine with a minister of state, he could not prevail on him to accept it, but at length the abbe said he would visit the gentleman with pleasure as soon as he heard that he was “out of office.” He had an equal repugnance to become a member of any of the learned societies. The marshal Richelieu pressed him much to become a candidate for the academy, and with such arguments that he could not refuse to accept the offer; but he had fio sooner quitted the marshal than he ran to his brother the abbe Condillac, and begged he would get him released, cost what it would. “Why all this obstinacy?” said his brother. “Why!” rejoined the abbe“Mably,” because, if I accept it 1 shall be obliged to praise the cardinal de Uichelieu, which is contrary to my principles, or, it I do not praise him, as I owe every thing to his nephew, I shall be accused of ingratitude.“In the same spirit, he acquired a bluntness of manner that was not very agreeable in the higher circles, where he never tailed to take the part of men of genius who were poor, against the insults of the rich and proud. His works, by which the booksellers acquired large sums of money, contributed very little to his own finances, for he demanded no return but a lew copies to give as presents to his friends. He appeared always dissatisfied with the state of public affairs, and had the credit of predicting the French revolution. Political sagacity, indeed, was that on which he chiefly rested his fame, andhaving formed his theory from certain systems which he thought might be traced to the Greeks and Romans, and even the ancient Gauls, he went as far as must of his contemporaries in undervaluing the prerogatives of the crown, and introducing a representative government. In his latter works his own mind appears to have undergone a revolution, and he pro\ed that if he was before sincere in his notions of freedom, he was now equally illiberal. After enjoying considerable reputation, and bein^ considered as one of the most popular French writers on the subjects of politics, morals, and history, he died at Paris, April 23, 1785. The abbe Barruel ranks him among the class of philosophers, who wished to be styled the Moderates, but whom Rousseau calls the Inconsistents. He adds, that” without being impious like a Voltaire or a Condorcet, even though averse to their impiety, his own tenets were extremely equivocal. At times his morality was so very disgusting, that it was necessary to suppose his language was ambiguous, and that he had been misunderstood, lest one should be obliged to throw off all esteem for his character." Such at least was the defence which Barruel heard him make, to justify himself from the censures of the Sorbonne.

, a Portuguese Jesuit, and most indefatigable writer, born at Coimbra, in 1596, quitted that order after a time to take the habit of a cordelier. He was strongly in the interest of the duke of Braganza when he seized the crown of Portugal. Being sent to Rome, he acquired for a time the favour of pope Alexander the Vllth, and was preferred by him to several important offices. The violence of his temper however soon embroiled him with this patron, and he went to Venice, where he disputed de omni scibili; and gaining great reputation, obtained the professorship of moral philosophy at Padua. Afterwards, having ventured to interfere in some state matter at Venice, where he had been held very high, he was imprisoned, and died in confinement, in 1681, at the age of 85. He is said, in the “Bibliotheque Portugaise,” to have published 109 different works: and in one of his own books he boasts that he had pronounced 53 public panegyrics, 60 Latin discourses, and 32 funeral orations; that he had written 48 epic poems, 123 elegies, 115 epitaphs, 212 dedications, 700 familiar letters, 2600 poems in heroic verse, 3000 epigrams, 4 Latin comedies, and had written or pronounced 150,000 verses extemporaucously. Yet the man who could declare all this, is hardly known by name in the greater part of Europe; and of the enormous list of his printed works, not more than five are thought worthy of mention by the writers of his life- To write much, is far easier than to write well. The works specified by his biographers are, 1. “Clavis Augustiniana liberi arbitrii,” a book written against father, afterwards cardinal Noris. The disputants were both silenced by authority; but Macedo, not to seem vanquished, sent his antagonist a regular challenge to a verbal controversy, which by some biographers has been mistaken for a challenge to fight. The challenge may be found in the “Journal Etranger” for June 1757. 2. “Schema Sanctae Congregationis,” 1676, 4to a dissertation on the inquisition, full of learning and absurdity. 3. “Encyclopaedia in agonem literatorum,” 1677, folio. 4. “Praise of the French,” in Latin, 1641, 4to; a book on the Jansenian controversy. 5. “Myrothecium Morale,” 4to. This is the book in which he gives the preceding account of what he had written and spoken, &c. He possessed a prodigious memory, and a ready command of language; but his judgment and taste were by no means equal to his learning and fecundity.

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

Among his works, we have mentioned his “Geometria Organica,” in which he treats of the description of curve lines by continued motion: and that which gained the prize of the royal academy of sciences in 1724. In 1740, he likewise shared the prize of the same academy, with the celebrated Bernouilli and Euler, for resolving the motion of the tides from the theory of gravity; a question which had been given out the former year, without receiving any solution. He had only ten days for composing this paper, and could not find leisure to transcribe a fair copy; so that the Paris edition of it is incorrect. He afterwards revised the whole, and inserted it in his “Treatise of Fluxions,” as he did also the substance of the former piece. These, with the “Treatise of Fluxions,” and the pieces printed in the “Philosophical Transactions,” of which we have given a list, are all the writings which he lived to publish. Since his death, two volumes more have appeared his “Algebra,” and his “Account of sir Isaac Newton’s Philosophical discoveries.” His “Algebra,” though not finished by himself, is yet allowed to be excellent in its kind; containing, in no large volume, a complete elementary treatise of that science, as far as it has hitherto been carried; besides some neat analytical papers on curve lines. His “Account of sir Isaac Newton’s Philosophy” was occasioned by the following circumstances: sir Isaac dying in the beginning of 1728, his nephew, Mr, Conduitt, proposed to publish an account of his life, and desired Mr. Maclaurin’s assistance. The latter, out of gratitude to his great benefactor, chearfully undertook, and soon finished, the history of the progress which philosophy had made before sir Isaac’s time: and this was the first draught of the work in hand, which not going forward, on account of Mr. Conduitt’s death, was returned to Mr. Maclaurin. To this he afterwards made great additions, and left it in the state in which it now appears. His main design seems to have been, to explain only those parts of sir Isaac’s philosophy which have been, and still are, controverted: and this is supposed to be the reason, why his grand discoveries concerning light and colours are but transiently and generally touched. For it is known, that ever since the experiments on which his doctrine of light and colours is founded, have been repeated with due care, this doctrine had not been contested; whereas his theory of celestial phaenomena, founded on gravitation, had been misunderstood, and even ridiculed. The weak charge of introducing occult qualities has been frequently repeated; foreign professors still amuse themselves with imaginary triumphs; and even the polite and ingenious cardinal de Polignac has been seduced to lend them the harmony of his numbers.

, a learned Jesuit, was born at Bergamo in 1536, and was instructed by his uncles Basil and Chrysostom Zanchi, canons regular of that city, in Greek, Latin, philosophy and theology. His studies being finished he went to Rome, where his talents became so well known that several princes invited him to settle in their dominions, but he gave the preference to Genoa, where in 1563 he was appointed professor of eloquence, with an ample salary. He continued in that office two years, and was chosen to the office of secretary of state; but in 1565, he returned to Rome, where he entered into the society of Jesuits. He spent six years as professor of eloquence in the Roman college, during which he translated, into the Latin language, the history of the Indies by Acosta, which was published in 1570. He then went to Lisbon at the request of cardinal Henry, and compiled from papers and other documents with which he was to be furnished, a complete history of the Portuguese conquests in the Indies, and of the progress of the Christian religion in that quarter. He returned to Italy in 1581, and some years after was placed, by Clement VIII. in the Vatican, for the purpose of continuing, in the Latin language, the annals of Gregory XIII. begun by him in the Italian of this he had finished three books at the time of his death, which happened at Tivoli Oct. 20, 1603. Soon after he entered among the Jesuits he wrote the life of Ignatius Loyola; but his principal work is entitled “Historiarum Indicarum,” lib. XVI. written in a very pure style, which has been frequently reprinted. The best edition is in two volumes 4to, printed at Bergamo in 1747. The purity of his style was the effect of great labour. Few men ever wrote so slowly; nothing seemed to please him, and he used to pass whole hours in polishing his periods; but we cannot readily credit all that has been reported on this subject, as that he never could finish above twelve or fifteen lines in a clay; that he was twelve years in writing his history of the Indies, and that, to prevent his mind being tainted with bad Latin, he read his breviary in Greek. There are, however, some other particulars of his personal history which correspond a little with all this. He disliked the ordinary commons of the Jesuits’ college, aftid had always something very nice and delicate provided for him, considering more substantial and gross food as incompatible with elegant writing; yet with all this care, he was of such an irascible temper as to be perpetually giving offence, and perpetually asking pardon.

This extraordinary application, and talents, soon recommended him to Ermini, librarian to the cardinal de Medicis, and to Marmi, the grand duke’s librarian, who introduced him into the company of the literati, and made him known at court. Every where he began to be looked upon as a prodigy, particularly for his vast and unbounded memory, of which many remarkable anecdotes have been given. A gentleman at Florence, who had written a piece that was to be printed, lent the manuscript to Magliabechi; and some time after it had been returned with thanks, came to him again with the story of a pretended accident by which he had lost his manuscript. The author seemed inconsolable, and intreated Magliabechi, whose character for remembering what he read was already very great, to try to recollect as much of it as he possibly could, and write it down for him against his next visit. Magliabechi assured him he would, and wrote down the whole ms. without missing a word, or even varying any where from the spelling. Whatever our readers may think of this trial of his memory, it is certain that by treasuring up at least the subject and the principal parts of all the books he ran over, his head became at last, as one of his acquaintances expressed it to Mr. Spence, “An universal index both of titles and matter.”

Of the domestic habits of Magliabechi, we have many accounts that represent him as an incorrigible sloven. His attention was so entirely absorbed by his books and studies, that he totally neglected all the decencies of form and ceremony, and often forgot the most urgent wants of human nature. His employment under the grand duke did not at all change his manner of life: the philosopher still continued negligent in his dress, and simple in his manners. An old cloak served him for a gown in the day, and for bed-clothes at night. He had one straw chair for his table, and another for his bed; in which he generally continued fixed among his books till he was overpowered by sleep. The duke provided a commodious apartment for him in his palace; of which Magliabechi was with much difficulty persuaded to take possession; and which he quitted in four months, returning to his house on various pretences, against all the remonstrances of his friends. He was, however, characterized by an extraordinary modesty, and by a sincere and beneficent disposition, which his friends often experienced in their wants. He was a great patron of men of learning, and ha4 the highest pleasure in assisting them with his advice and information, in furnishing them with all necessary books and manuscripts. Cardinal Nods used to call him his Maecenas; and, writing to him one day, he told him he thought himself more obliged to him for direction in his studies, than to the pope for raising him to the purple. He had the utmost aversion to any thing that looked like constraint. The grand duke knew his disposition, and therefore always dispensed with his personal attendance upon him; and, when he had any orders to give him, sent him them in writing. The pope and the emperor would gladly have drawn him into their service, but he constantly refused their most honourable and advantageous offers. The regimen he observed contributed not a little to preserve his health to old age. He always kept his head warmly covered, and took at certain times treacle, which he esteemed an excellent preservative against noxious vapours. He loved strong wine, but drank it in small quantities. He lived upon the plainest and most ordinary food. Three hard eggs and a draught of water was his usual repast. He took tobacco, to which he was a slave, to excess; but was absolute master of himself in every other article.

, a celebrated Capuchin, born at Milan in 1586, descended from the earls of Magni, acquired great reputation in the seventeenth century by his controversial writings against the protestants, and philosophical ones in favour of Descartes against Aristotle. He passed through the highest offices in his order, and was apostolical missionary to the northern kingdoms. It was by his advice that pope Urban VIII. abolished the Jesuitesses in 1631. Uladislaus king of Poland, solicited a cardinal’s hat for Magni; but the Jesuits are said to have opposed it. They certainly informed against him as a heretic, because he had said that the pope’s primacy and infallibility were not founded on scripture, and he was imprisoned at Vienna; but regained his liberty by favour of the emperor Ferdinand III. after having written very warmly against the Jesuits in his defence. He retired at last to Saltzburg, and died there, 1661, aged seventyfive. Mention is made of Magni in the sixteenth Provincial Letter and one of his Apologetical Letters may be found in the collection entitled “Tuba magna,” tom. II.

However freely he examined the opinions of philosophy, instead of shewing himself incredulous in matters of divinity, he implicitly submitted to all the tenets of his church. But, as the arguments of the Peripatetics were commonly applied to illustrate and confirm those tenets, where he did not upon examination find them wellgrounded, he made no scruple to prefer the assistance of Plato to that of Aristotle. His reputation was so great, that it spread beyond the Alps and Pyrenees; and the general of the minims ordered him to Rome, in 1636, to fill a professor’s chair. His capacity in mathematical discoveries and physical experiments soon became known; especially from a dispute which arose between him and father Kircher, about the invention of a catoptrical work. In 1648 his book “De perspectiva horaria” was printed at Rome, at the expence of cardinal Spada, to whom it was dedicated, and greatly esteemed by all the curious. From Rome he returned to Toulouse, in 1650, and was so well received by his countrymen, that they created him provincial the same year; though he was greatly averse to having his studies interrupted by the cares of any office, and he even refused an invitation from the king in 1660, to settle in Paris, as it was his only wish to pass the remainder of his days in the obscurity of the cloister, where he had put on the habit of the order. Before this, in 1652, he published his “Course of Philosophy,” at Toulouse, in 4 vols. 8vo, in which work, if he did not invent the explanation of physics by the four elements, which some have given to Empedocles, yet he restored it, as Gassendus did the doctrine of the atomists. He published a second edition of it in folio, 1673, and added two treatises to it the one against the vortices of Des Cartes, the other upon the speaking-trumpet invented by our countryman sir Samuel Morland. He also formed a machine, which shewed by its movements that Des Cartes’s supposition, concerning the manner in which the universe was formed, or might have been formed, and concerning the centrifugal force, was entirely without foundation.

The son of this d'Aubigne was the father of madam de Maintenon her mother the daughter of Peter de Cardillac, lord of Lane; and of Louisa de Moritalembert. They were married at Bourdeaux, Dec. 27, 1627, not without some apprehensions, it is said, on the part of the lady, upon her being united, we know not haw, to a man of a most infamous character, and who had actually murdered his first wife: for such was Constance d‘Aubigne. Going to Paris soon after his marriage, he was for some very gross offence cast into prison; upon which madam d’Aubign6 followed to solicit his pardon; but in vain: cardinal Richelieu was inflexible, and told her, that “to take such a husband from her, was to do her a friendly office.” Madam d'Aubign6, more attached to her husband in proportion as he became more miserable, obtained leave to shut herself up in prison with him. Here she had two sons, and becoming pregnant a third time, obtained leave from court to have her husband removed to the prison of Niort, that they might be nearer the assistance which they derived from their relations.

In 1651, she was married to the abb Scarron. Madam de Neuillant, being obliged to go to Paris, took her along with her; and there becoming known to this old famous buffoon, who admired her for her wit, she preferred marrying him to the dependent state she was in. Scarron was of an ancient and distinguished family, but deformed, infirm, and in no very advantageous circumstances; as he subsisted only on a pension, which was allowed him by the court, in consideration of his wit and parts. She lived with him, however, many years; and Voltaire says that this part of her life was undoubtedly the happiest. Her beauty, but still more her wit, for she was never reckoned a complete beauty, distinguished her greatly; and her conversation was eagerly sought by all the best company in Paris. Upon the death of her husband, which happened in 1660, she was reduced to the same indigent condition she was in before her marriage; but her friends did all they timid to prevail upon the court to continue to her the pension which Scarron had enjoyed: in order to which, petitions were frequently given in, beginning always with, “The widow Scarron most humbly prays your majesty,” &c. For a time all these petitions signified nothing; and the king was so weary of them, that he has been heard to say, “Must I always be pestered with the widow Scarron?” At length, madam de Montespan, his mistress, undertook to present one to him “How” cried the king, “the widow Scarron again Shall I never hear of any thing else” “Indeed, Sire,” replied madam de Montespan, “you ought to have ceased hearing of it long ago.” The pension was granted, and madam Scarron went to thank madam de Montespan, who was so struck with the charms of her conversation, that she presented her to the king, who is reported to have said: “Madam, I have made you wait a long time; but your friends are so numerous, that I was desirous of your owing this to me alone.” Voltaire tells us, he had this fact from cardinal Fleury, who took a pleasure in often repeating it, because he said Louis XIV. had made him the same compliment when he gave him the bishopric of Frejus.

In the mean time, her elevation was to her only a retreat. Shut up in her apartment, which was on the same floor with the king’s, she confined herself to the society of two or three ladies, as retired as herself; and even these she saw but seldom. The king came to her apartment every day after dinner, before and after supper, and continued there till midnight. Here he did business with his ministers, while madam de Maintenon employed herself in reading or needle-work, never shewing any eagerness to talk of state affairs, often seeming wholly ignorant of them, and carefully avoiding whatever had the least appearance of cahal and intrigue. She studied more to please him who governed, than to govern; and preserved her credit, by employing it with the utmost circumspection. She did not make use of her power, to give the greatest dignities and employments among her own relations Her brother count d'Aubigne, a lieutenant-general of long standing, was not even made a marshal of France; a blue ribbon, and some appropriations in the farms of the revenue, were all his fortune: which made him once say to the marshal de Vivone, the brother of madam de Montespan, that “he had received the staff of marshal in ready money.” It was rather high fortune for the daughter of this count, to marry the duke de Noailles, than an advantage to the duke. Two more nieces of madam de Maintenon, the one married to the marquis de Caylus, the other to the marquis de Villette, had scarcely any thing. A moderate pension, which Louis XIV. gave to madam de Caylus, was almost all her fortune; and madam de Villette had nothing but expectations. This lady, who was afterwards married to the celebrated lord Bolingbroke, often reproached her aunt for doing so little for her family; and once told her in some anger, that “she took a pleasure in her moderation, and in seeing her family the victim of it.” This Voltaire relates as a fact, which he had from M. de Villette herself. It is certain, that M. de Maintenon submitted every thing to her fears of doing what might be contrary to the king’s sentiments. She did not even dare to support her relation the cardinal de Noailles, against father le Tellier. She had a great friendship for the poet Kacine, yet did not venture to protect him against a slight resentment of the king’s. One day, moved with the eloquence with which he had described to her the people’s miseries in 1698, she engaged him to draw up a memorial, which might at once shew the evil and the remedy. The king read it; and, upon his expressing some displeasure at it, she had the weakness to tell the author, and not the courage to defend him. Racine, still weaker, says Voltaire, was so hurt, that it was supposed to have occasioned his xleath. The same natural disposition, which made her incapable of conferring benefits, made her also incapable of doing injuries. When the minister Louvois threw himself at the feet of Louis XIV. to hinder his marriage with the widow Scarron, she not only forgave him, but frequently pacified the king, whom the rough temper of this minister as frequently angered.

, a scholastic divine and historian, was born, not at Haddington, as is usually said, but at Gleghorn, a village near North Berwick, in 1469. From some passages in his writings, it appears that he resided for a time both at Oxford and at Cambridge. At the former particularly, we learn from the dedication of one of his works to cardinal Wolsey, he resided, not three months, as Wood says, but a year. The cardinal, whom he styles “your majesty,” received him “after the old manner of Christian hospitality, and invited him with a splendid salary to Oxford, where he had lately founded his college, which Major did not accept, on account of the love he bore to his mother university of Paris.” It appears that he went in 1493 to Paris, and studied in the college of St. Barbe, under the famous John Boulac. Thence he removed to the college of Montacute, where he began the study of divinity, under the celebrated Standouk. In 1498 he was entered of the college of Navarre in 1505 he was created D. D. returned to Scotland in 1519, and taught theology for several years in the university of St. Andrew’s. At length, disgusted with the quarrels of his countrymen, he returned to Paris, and resumed his lectures in the college of Montacute, where he had several pupils, afterwards men of eminence. About 1530, he removed once more to Scotland, was chosen professor of divinity at St. Andrew’s, and afterwards became provost. It is usually supposed that he died in 1547, but it is certain that he was alive in 1549; for in that year he subscribed (by proxy, on account of his great age) the national constitutions of the church of Scotland. He died soon after, probably in 1550, which must have been in his eighty-second year. Du Pin says, that of all the divines who had written on the works of the Master of Sentences (Peter Lombard), Major was the most learned and comprehensive. His History of Scotland is written with much commendable freedom; but in a barbarous style, and not always correct as to facts. Hs was the instructor, but not, as some have said, the patron of the famous George Buchanan. He also had the celebrated John Knox as one of his pupils. Baker in a ms note on the “Athenae,” adds to the mention of this fact, that “a man would hardly believe he ha.d been taught by him.” Baker, however, was not sufficiently acquainted with Major’s character to be able to solve this doubt. Major, according to the very acute biographer of Knox (Dr. M‘Crie) had acquired a habit of thinking and expressing himself on certain subjects, more liberal than was adopted in his native country and other parts of Europe. He had imbibed the sentiments concerning ecclesiastical polity, maintained by John Gerson, Peter D’Ailly, and others, who defended the decrees of the council of Constance, and liberties of the Gallican church, against those who asserted the incontroulable authority of the sovereign pontiff. He thought that a general council was superior to the pope, might judge, rebuke, restrain, and even depose him from his dignity; denied the temporal supremacy of the bishop of Rome, and his right to inaugurate or dethrone princes; maintained that ecclesiastical censures and even papal excommunications had no force, it* pronounced on invalid or irrelevant grounds; he held that tithes were merely of human appointment, not divine right; censured the avarice, ambition, and secular pomp of the court of Rome and the episcopal order; was no warm friend of the regular clergy, and advised the reduction of monasteries and holidays. His opinions respecting civil government were analogous to those which he held as to ecclesiastical policy. He taught that the authority of kings and princes was originally derived from the people that the former are not superior to the latter, collectively considered that if rulers become tyrannical, or employ their power for the destruction of their subjects, they may lawfully be controuled by them; and proving incorrigible, may be deposed by the community as the superior power; and that tyrants may be judicially proceeded against, even to capital punishment. The affinity between these and the political principles afterwards avowed by Knox, and defended by the classic pen of Buchanan, is too striking to require illustration. But although Major had ventured to think for himself on these topics, in all other respects be was completely subservient to the opinions of his age; and with a mind deeply tinctured with superstition, defended some of the absurdest tenets of popery by the most ridiculous and puerile arguments. We cannot, therefore, greatly blame Buchanan, who called him in ridicule, what he affected to call himself in humility, “Joannes, solo cognomine, Major.” His works are, 1. “Libri duo fallaciarum,” Lugd. 1516, comprising his “Opera Logicalia.” 2. “In quatuor sententiarum commentarius,” Paris, 1516. 3. “Commentarius in physica Aristotelis,” Paris, 1526. 4. “In primum et secundum sententiarum commentarii,” Paris, 1510. 5. “Commentarius in tertium sententiarum,” Paris, 1517. 6. “Literalis in Matthaeum expositio,” Paris, 1518. From these two last may be collected his sentiments on ecclesiastical polity, mentioned above. 7. “De historia gentis Scotorum, sen historia majoris Britanniae,” Paris, 1521, 4to. Of this a new edition was printed at Edinburgh, 17+0, 4to. 8. “Luculenta in 4 Evangelia expositiones,” &c. Paris, 1529, folio. 9. “Placita theologica.” 10. “Catalogus episcoporum Lucionensium.” He also translated Caxton’s Chronicle into Latin.

, a French poet of later times, was born at Besan^on, in 1604, and was gentleman in waiting to the duke of Montmorency, under whom he signalized himself in two battles against the Hugonots. His patron settled upon him a pension of 15,000 livres but, not contented with that, he complained heavily that the poets of his time received praises and incense, like the deities of antiquity, but nothing that could support life. He was in truth a lover of good cheer, and would have been more pleased with presents of wine, or delicacies for the table, than crowns of laurel, or any unsubstantial honour. His remonstrances were not ineffectual. He received many presents from the duke de Longueville, and favours in, great number from cardinal Richelieu, the count of Soissons, and cardinal la Valette. He married in 1648, and retired to Besangon, where he principally resided from that time, though he lost his wife in about ten years. He had some talent for negotiation, and conducted the business of a suspension of arms for Franche Comte with such success, that the emperor rewarded him in 1668, by reestablishing an ancient claim to nobility that had been in his family. He died in 1686, at the age of eighty-four. Mairet was never rich, yet led a life of ease and gratification. He very early began to write. His first tragedy of “Chryseide,” was written at sixteen “Sylvia,” at seventeen “Sylvianire,” at twenty-one “The Duke de Ossane,” at twenty-three “Virginia,” at twenty-four and “Sophonisba,” at twenty-five. He wrote in all, 1. Twelve tragedies, which, though they have some fine passages, abound in faults, and are written in a feeble style of versification. Corneille had not yet established the style of the French drama. On the Sophonisba of Mairet, Voltaire has formed another tragedy of the same name. 2. A poem, entitled “Le Courtisan solitaire,” a performance of some merit 3. Miscellaneous poems, in general moderate enough. 4. Some criticisms against Corneille, which were more disgraceful to the author than to the person attacked. His Sophonisba, however, was preferred to that of Corneille, but then that drama is by no means esteemed one of the happiest efforts of the great tragic poet.

, a very learned Spanish Jesuit, was born at Fuente del Maestro, a small village in the province of Estramadura, in 1534. He studied under Dominicus Asoto, a Dominican, and also under Francis Tolet, a Jesuit, who was afterwards a cardinal, and there was no better scholar in the university of Salamanca in his time, than Maldonat. He there taught philosophy, divinity, and the Greek language. He entered into the society of the Jesuits, but did not put on the habit of his order till 1562, when he was at Rome. In 1563, he was sent by his superiors to Paris, to teach philosophy in the college which the Jesuits had just established in that city; where, as the historians of his society tell us, he was so crowded with hearers, that he was frequently obliged to read his lectures in the court or the street, the hall not being sufficient to contain them. He was sent, with nine other Jesuits, to Poictiers, in 1570, where he read lectures in Latin, and preached in French. Afterwards he returned to Paris, where he was not only accused of heresy, but likewise of procuring a fraudulent will from the president de St. Andre, by which the president was made to leave his estate to the Jesuits. But the parliament declared him innocent of the forgery, and Gondi, bishop of Paris, entirely acquitted him of the charge of heresy. He afterwards thought proper to retire to Bourges, where the Jesuits had a college, and continued there about a year and a half. Then he went to Rome, by the order of pope Gregory XIII. to superintend the publication of the “Septuagint'? and after finishing his” Commentary upon the Gospels," in 1582, he died there, in the beginning of 1583.

He composed several works, which shew great parts and learning; but published nothing in his life-time. The first of his performances which came abroad after his death, was his “Comment upon the Four Gospels;” of which father Simon says: “Among all the commentators which we have mentioned hitherto, there are few who have so happily explained the literal sense of the Gospels as John, Maldonat the Spanish Jesuit. After his death, which happened at Rome before he had reached his fiftieth year, Claudius Aquaviva, to whom he presented his” Comment“while he was dying, gave orders to the Jesuits of Pont a Mousson to cause it to be printed from a copy which was sent them. The Jesuits, in the preface to that work, declare that they had inserted something of their own, according to their manner; and that they had been obliged to correct the manuscript copy, which was defective in some places, because they had no access to the original, which was at Rome. Besides, as the author had neglected to mark, upon the margin of his copy, the books and places from whence he had taken a great part of his quotations, they supplied that defect. It even appeared, that Maldonat had not read at first hand all that great number of writers which he quotes; but that he had made use of the labours of former writers. Thus he is not quite so exact, as if he had put the last hand to his Comment. Notwithstanding these imperfections, and some others, which are easily corrected, it appears plainly, that this Jesuit had bestowed abundance of pains upon that excellent work. He does not allow one difficulty to pass without examining it to the bottom. When a great number of literal interpretations present themselves upon the same passage, he usually fixes upon the best, without paying too great a deference to the ancient commentators*, or even to the majority, regarding nothing but truth alone, stript of all authorities but her own.” Cardinal Perron laid, that he “was a very great man, and a true divine; that he had an excellent elocution as a speaker, understood the learned languages well, was deeply versed in scholastic divinity and theology, and that he had thoroughly read the fathers.” His character has been as high among the Protestants, for an interpreter of Scripture, as it was among the Papists. Matthew Pole, in the preface to the fourth volume of his “Synopsis Criticorum,” calls him a tvriter of great parts and learning. “He was,” says Dr. Jackson, “the most judicious expositor among the Jesuits. His skill in expounding the Scriptures, save only where doting love unto their church had made him blind, none of theirs, few of our church, have surpassed.” His “Commentaries upon Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezekiel, and Daniel,” were printed at Lyons in 1609, and at Cologne in 1611. To these were added, his “Exposition of the cixth Psalm,” and “A letter concerning a celebrated dispute which he had with above twenty Protestant ministers at Sedan.” His treatise “De fide,” was printed at Maienne in 1600; and that upon “Angels and Demons” at Paris, in 1605. In 1677, they published at Paris some pieces which had never appeared before; namely, his treatise “Of Grace,” that upon “Original Sin,” upon “Providence,” upon “Justice,” upon “Justification,” and that upon “The Merit of Works;” besides “Prefaces, Harangues, and Letters,” one volume, folio.

Malherbe was born at Caen, about 1555, of an ancient and illustrious family, who had formerly borne arms in, England, under Robert duke of Normandy. He lived to be old; and, about 1601, he became known to Henry the Great, from a very advantageous mention of him to that prince by cardinal du Perron. The king asked the cardinal one day, “if he had made any more verses?” To which the cardinal replied, that “he had totally laid aside all such amusements since his majesty had done him the honour to take him into his service; and added, that every body must now throw away their pens for ever, since a gentleman of Normandy, named Malherbe, had carried the French poetry to such a height, as none could hope to reach.” About four years after, he was called to court, and enrolled among the pensioners of that monarch. After the death of Henry, queen Mary of Medicis became his patroness, and settled upon him a very handsome pension. This he enjoyed to the time of his death, which happened at Paris in 1628. It was the misfortune of this poet, that he had no great share in the affection of cardinal Richelieu. It was discovered, that, instead of taking more than ordinary pains, as he should have done, to celebrate the glory of that great minister, he had only patched together old scraps, which he had found among his papers. This was not the way to please a person of so haughty a spirit; and therefore he received this homage from Malherbe very coldly, and not without disgust. “I learned from M. Racan,” says Menage, “that Malherbe wrote those two stanzas above thirty years before Richelieu, to whom he addressed them, was made a cardinal; and that he changed only the four first verses of the first stanza, to accommodate them to his subject. I learned also from the same Racan, that cardinal Richelieu knew that these verses had not been made for him.” His apparent indolence upon such an occasion was probably owing to that extreme difficulty with which he always wrote. All writers speak of the time and labour it cost Malherbe to produce his poems.

, an Italian physician and anatomist, was born March 10, 1628, at Crevalcuore, near Bologna, in Italy, where he was taught Latin and studied philosophy. In 1649, losing his parents, and being obliged to choose his own method of life, he determined to apply himself to physic. The university of Bologna was then supplied with very learned professors in that science, particularly Bartholomew Massari, and Andrew Mariano, under whose instructions Malpighi in a short time made great progress in physic and anatomy. After he had finished the usual course, he was admitted doctor of physic, April 6, 1653, In 1655 Massari died, a loss which Malpighi severely felt, as independent of his esteem for him as a master, he had become more nearly related to him by marrying his sister. In 1656, the senate of Bologna gave him a professorship, which he did not long hold; for the same year the grand duke of Tuscany invited him to Pisa, to be professor of physic there. Here he contracted a strict friendship with Borelli, whom he subsequently owned for his master in philosophy, and to whom he ascribed all the discoveries which he afterwards made. They dissected animals together, and it was in this employment that he found the heart to consist of spiral fibres; a discovery, which has been ascribed to Borelli in his posthumous works. The air of Pisa not agreeing with Malpighi, be continued there but three years: and, in 1659, returned to Bologna, to resume his former posts, notwithstanding the advantageous offers which were made him to stay at Pisa. In 1662 he was sent for to Messina, in order to succeed Peter Castello, first professor of physic, who was just dead. It. was with reluctance that he went thither, though the stipend was great; and although he was prevailed on at last by his friend Borelli, to accept it, yet in 1666 he returned to Bologna. In 1669 he was elected a member of the royal society of London, with which he ever after kept a correspondence by letters, and communicated his discoveries in anatomy. Cardinal Pignatelli, who had known him while he was legate at Bologna, being chosen pope in 1691, under the name of Innocent XII. immediately sent for him to Rome, and appointed him his physician. In 1694 he was admitted into the academy of the Arcadians at Rome. July the 25th, of the same year, he had a fit, which struck half his body with a paralysis; and, November the 29th following, he had another, of which he died the same day, in his 67th year. His remains were embalmed, and conveyed to Bologna, where they were interred with great funeral honours in the chureh of St. Gregory, and a statue was erected to his memory. Malpighi is described as a man of a serious and melancholy temperament, which is confirmed by his portrait in the meeting-room of the royal society at Somerset-house. He was indefatigable in the pursuit of knowledge, on the sure ground of experience and observation, ever candid in his acknowledgments to those who had given him any information, and devoid of all ostentation or pretension on the score of his own merits. He ranks very high among the philosophers of the physiological age in which he lived, when nature began to be studied instead of books, and the dreams of the schools. Hence arose the discoveries of the circulation of the blood, the absorbent system of the animal body, and the true theory of generation. To such improvements the investigations of Malpighi, relative to the anatomy and transformation of insects, particularly the silk-worm, and the developement of the chick in the egg, lent no small aid. From these inquiries he was led to the anatomy and physiology of plants, in which he is altogether an original, as well as a very profound, observer. His line of study was the same as that of Grew, but these philosophers laboured independent of each other, and their frequent coincidence evinces the accuracy of both.

In the necessary pains upon these works, Aldus had the assistance of some of the best and most learned among his contemporaries. His house became a sort of new academy. The learned in Venice began, about 1500, to assemble there on fixed days of frequent recurrence, for conversation on interesting literary topics: and their meetings were continued for several years subsequent. The topics on which they conversed were, usually, what books were fittest to be printed, what manuscripts might be consulted with the greatest advantage, what readings, out of a diversity, for any one passage, ought to be preferred. Among those who attended these conversations, were, besides Aldus himself, the famous A. Navagerus, P. Bembo the celebrated cardinal, Erasmus, when he was at Venice, P. Alcionius, M. Musurus, Marc-Ant. Cocch. Sabellicus, Albertus Pius, prince of Carpi, and others, whose names, though they were then eminent, are not now equally in remembrance. Among those who assisted Aldus in the correction of the press, were men not less eminent than Demetrius Chalcondylas, Aleander, afterwards famous as a cardinal, and even Erasmus.

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

, de Saint Sorlin, was a man of getiius, and a favourite of cardinal Richelieu, who used to receive him at his retired hours, and unbend his mind by conversing with him upon gay and delicate subjects. On. this account, and because he assisted the cardinal in the tragedies he composed, Bayle used to say, that “he possessed an employment of genius under his eminence;” which in French is a pun, as genie means genius and engineers/lip. He was born at Paris in 1595. He has left us himself a picture of his morals, which is by no means advantageous; for he owns that, in order to triumph over the virtue of such women as objected to him the interest of their salvation, he made no scruple to lead them into atheistical principles. “I ought,” says he, “to weep tears of blood, considering the bad use I have made of my address among the ladies; for I have used nothing but specious falsehoods, malicious subtleties, and infamous treacheries, endeavouring to ruin the souls of those I pretended to love. I studied artful speeches to shake, blind, and seduce them; and strove to persuade them, that vice was virtue, or at least a thing natural and indifferent.” Marets at length became a visionary and fanatic; dealt in nothing but inward lights and revelations; and promised the king of France, upon the strength of some prophecies, whose meaning be tells us was imparted to him from above, that he should have the honour of overthrowing the Mahometan empire. “This valiant prince,” says he, “shall destroy and expel from their dominions impiety and heresy, and reform the ecclesiastics, the courts of justice, and the finances. After this, in common agreement with the king of Spain, he shall summon together all the princes of Europe, with the pope, in order to re-unite all the Christians to the true and only catholic religion. After all the heretics are re-united to the holy see, the king, as’eldest son of the chu/ch, shall be declared generalissimo of all the Christians, and, with the joint forces of Christendom, shall destroy by sea and land the Turkish enapire, and law of Mahomet, and propagate the faith and dominion of Jesus Christ over the whole earth:” that is to say, over Persia, the empire of the great mogul, Tartary, and China.

In 1601, he went to Venice, to print some poems which he dedicated to Crescentio; and after making the tour of that part of Italy, returned to Rome. His reputation increased greatly, so as to engage the attention of the cardinal Peter Aldobrandini, who made him his gentleman, and settled on him a considerable pension. After the election of pope Paul V. which was in 1605, he accompanied this cardinal to Ravenna, his archbishopric, and lived with him several years. He then attended him to Turin, at which court he ingratiated himself by a panegyric upon the duke Charles Emmanuel; for which this prince recompensed him with honours, and retained him, when his patron the cardinal left Piedmont. During his residence here he had a violent dispute, both poetical and personal, with Gasper Murtola, the duke’s secretary. Murtola was, or fancied himself, as good a poet as Marini, and was jealous of Marini’s high favour with the duke, and therefore took every opportunity to speak ill of him. Marini, by way of revenge, published a sharp sonnet upon him at Venice, in 1608, under the title of “II nuovo mondo;” to which Murtola opposed a satire, containing an abridged life of Marini. Marini answered in eighty-one sonnets, named the “Murtolelde:” to which Murtola replied in a “Marineide,” consisting of thirty sonnets. But the latter, perceiving that his poems were inferior in force as well as number to those of his adversary, resolved to put an end to the quarrel, by destroying him; and accordingly fired a pistol, the ball of which luckily missed him. Murtola was cast into prison, but saved from punishment at the intercession of Marini, who, nevertheless, soon found it expedient to quit his present station.

He went afterwards to France, where he found a patroness in Mary de Medicis, who settled a handsome pension upon him. In 1621 he sent a nephew whom he had with him at Paris, to Rome, about business, and conveyed by him his compliments to cardinal Louis Ludovisio, nephew to Gregory XV. then the reigning pope; which compliments were so well received by the cardinal, that he wrote to him immediately to return to Rome. Marini complied, and quitted France about the end of 1622; and on his arrival at Rome, was made president of the academy of the Umoristi. Upon the advancement of Urban VIII. to the pontificate, in 1623, he went to Naples, and was chosen president of one of the academies in that city, but soon after conceived an inclination to return to Rome, which he was about to indulge, when he was seized with a complaint which carried him off, in 1625.

, an eminent protestant divine of the sixteenth century, and classed among the reformers, was born in the dukedom of Lorrain in 1506. He was educated in a monastery of the Augustine friars, where he made great proficiency in his studies, and appears to have conceived, from the licentious morals of the friars, a dislike to their religion, which he afterwards abandoned. Leaving the monastery he pursued his studies in France, and afterwards at Lausanne, where he made open profession of the protestant religion, and was admitted into orders. He was chosen pastor at Vevey. and then at Rouen in Normandy, where he contributed to the diffusion of the principles of the reformation. In 1561 he was present at the memorable conference held at Poissy between Beza and the cardinal of Lorrain, in which he distinguished himself by his ability and zeal in defence of the protestant cause. The year following the civil wars broke out in France, and Rouen being besieged and taken, Montmorency, constable of France, threw Marlorat into prison, as a seducer of the people. On this charge, of which no proofs were brought, he was condemned to be hanged, his head then to be set on a pole on the bridge of the city, and his goods and inheritance to be confiscated. He accordingly suffered this punishment Oct. 30, 1562, in. the fifty-sixth year of his age. His works were chiefly commentaries on the Holy Scriptures: 1. “Genesis, cum catholica expositione,” 1562, fol. 2. “Liber Psalmorum, et Cantica, &c.” 1562, fol. 3. “Jesaise Prophetia,” 1564, folio. 4. “Novum Testamentum,” 1605, 2 vols. folio, and a book of Common Places. Translations from most of these were published in England during the Elizabethan period.

, a French historian of some credit, was born at Paris in 16*7. He took the habit of a canon regular of St. Gdnevieve, and was sent to regulate the chapter of Usez, where he was made provost. This office he resigned in favour of the abbe Poncet, who was afterwards bishop of Angers. Some time after, he was made archdeacon of Usez, and died in that city Aug. 30, 1724, at the age of 78. Marsollier published several histories, which are still read by his countrymen with some pleasure: the style, though occasionally debased by low and familiar expressions, being in general rather lively and flowing. There are extant by him, 1. “A History of Cardinal Ximenes,” in 1693, 2 vols. 12mo, and since frequently reprinted. The only fault found with this work is, that the author gives up his attention to the public man so much, as almost to forget his private character. 2. “A History of Henry VII. King of England,” reprinted in 1727, in 2 vols. 12mo. Some consider this as the master-piece of the author. 3. “The History of the Inquisition and its origin,” 1693, 12mo. A curious work, and in some respects a bold one. 4. “Life of St. Francis de Sales,” 2 vols. 12mo. 5. “The Life of Madame de Chantal,” 2 vols. 12mo. 6. “The Life of Dom Ranqe, abbe and reformer of La Trappe,” 1703, 2 vols. 12mo. Some objections have been made to the veracity of this history, but the journalists de Trevoux seem disposed to prefer it upon the whole to Maupeou’s life of Ranee. 7. “Dialogues on many Duties of Life,” 1715, 12mo. This is rather verbose than instructive, and is copied in a great degree from Erasmus. 8. “The History of Henry de la Tour d'Auvergne, duke of Bouillon,” 3 vols. 12mo. Not much esteemed. 9. “An Apology for Erasmus,” 12mo; whose catholic orthodoxy the author undertakes to prove from passages in his works. 10. “A History of Tenths, and other temporal Goods of the Church,” Paris, 1689, 12mo. This is the most scarce, and at the same time the most curious, of all the works of Marsollier.

nience, he went to Lucca, where he was made superior of St. Fridian, a house of his own order; and there he lived with Tremellius and Zanchius, whom he is said to have converted. But, finding himself in more danger here, he left the city secretly, and travelled to Pisa; whence, by letters to cardinal Pole, and to the society of Lucca, he fully explained the reasons of his departure. Then coming to Florence, but making no long stay there, he set forward for Germany; and, passing the Alps, went to Zurich with Ochinus, who had been one of the most celebrated preachers of Italy, but had now forsaken his former superstitions. From Zurich he went to Basil; and thence, by Bucer’s means, was brought to Strasburg; Here he married a young nun that had left her convent, who lived with him eight years, and died at Oxford, as will be noticed hereafter. After he had spent five years at Strasburg, he was, through the management of Seymour the protector, and archbishop Cranmer, sent for to England by Edward VI. who made him professor of divinity at Oxford in 1549. Here he read lectures, to which even the popish party, from the fame of his learning, resorted: and though they could not be easily reconciled to his doctrines, yet they bore him with some patience, till he came to handle that of the Lord’s Supper. Then they began to disturb him in his lectures, to fix up malicious and scandalous libels against him, and to challenge him to disputes; uhich challenges he did not disdain to accept, but disputed, first privately in the vice-chancellor’s lodge, and afterwards in public, before his majesty’s commissioners, deputed for that purpose. His adversaries, finding no advantage could be gained by argument, stirred up the multitude so successfully, that he was obliged to retire to London till the tumult was suppressed. In 1550, the king bestowed on him a canonry of Christ church, on which he returned, and entered on the lodgings belonging to him, near the great gate of Christ church leading into Fish-street. Here being still much disturbed by the rabble, who broke his windows in the night-time, and rendered the situation very uneasy, he was obliged to exchange his lodgings for those in the cloister, where he quietly passed the remainder of his abode in the university. For the more privacy in his studies, he erected a fabric of stone in his garden, situated on the east side of his apartments, in which he partly composed his commentaries on the first epistle to the Corinthians, and his epistles to learned men. This fabric, which contained two stories, remained until 1684, when it was pulled down by Dr. Aldrich, then canon.

We have mentioned that Peter Martyr’s wife died at Oxford, in 1551, and was buried in the cathedral of Christ church. Here her remains quietly reposed until 1556, when cardinal Pole appointed a set of commissioners to reform the university of Oxford, from all remains of the new religion, or heresy, as it was called. In the discharge of their functions, they were ordered to take into their consideration the manners and life “of one Catherine Cathie, or Dampmartin, the late wife of Dr. Peter Martyr, who died about four years ago, and was buried in the cathedral of Christ church, near to the reliques of St. Frideswyde.” They accordingly summoned several persons of her acquaintance, “to the end that if they could find any thing of her, favouring of heresy, they might take up her body and commit it to the fire” but, as these witnesses pretended they did not understand her language, and therefore could not tell what religion she professed, they informed the cardinal of their progress, who immediately wrote to Dr. Marshall, the dean, a letter, which by no means exhibits Pole as a man possessed of that greatness of mind which his late biographers have attributed to him. He tells the dean that “forasmuch as Catherine Cathie, of detestable memory, who had professed herself the legitimate wife of Peter Martyr, a heretic, though he and she had before marriage entered into solemn vows of religion, and that she had lived with him in Oxford in cursed fornication, when he denied the truth of the Sacrament, and that also after her death she was buried near the sepulchre of that religious virgin St. Frideswyde; he should according to his discretion deal so with her carcass that it should be far enough cast from ecclesiastical sepulture.” Melchior Adam imputes this conduct on the part of the cardinal, to a motive of resentment, which he had conceived against Peter Martyr. The cardinal had formerly been his most intimate friend, and even continued to appear so, after Martyr had expressed his disgust at the errors and superstitions of Rome; but when Martyr left Italy, he became his most inveterate enemy, and exercised that indignity, and even cruelty upon the wife, which it was not in his power to shew to the husband.

All these accomplishments, added to a fine person, rendered her so amiable to Henry II. of France and his queen, as to make them desirous of marrying her to the dauphin, which was accordingly arranged: and the nuptials were solemnized the 20th of April, 1558. But this happy marriage, for such it seems to have been, lasted only a little while; as Francis II. as he then was, died Dec. 5, 1560. His disconsolate queen, being left without issue, returned soon after to Scotland; where she had not been long, before Charles archduke of Austria was proposed to her as an husband, by the cardinal of Lorrain. But queen Elizabeth interposed, and desired she would not marry with any foreign prince, but make choice of an husband out of her own nobility. She recommended to her either the earl of Leicester, or the lord Dandy; giving her to understand, that her succession to the crown of England would be very pred&rious, if she did not comply. Being thus overawed by Elizabeth, and not a little pleased with lord Darnly, who was extremely handsome, she consented to marry him; and creating him earl of Ross and duke of Rothesay, July 28, 1565, he was the same day proclaimed king at Edinburgh, and married to the queen the day after. By this husband she had one son, born at Edinburgh, June 19, 1566, who was afterwards James the Sixth of Scotland, and the First of England. Queen Elizabeth congratulated her upon this occasion; though, as Camden says, she inwardly grieved at being prevented by her rival in the honour of being a mother. She openly favoured her title to the succession; and the prince was commended to her majesty’s protection.

, a distinguished person in the republic of letters, was born at Sarzana, in the state of Genoa, in 1591. He spent the early partofhis life among the Jesuits, and afterwards became chamberlain to pope Urban VIII. He vvas naturally so eloquent, that this same pope, merely to exercise his talent, founded a professorship of rhetoric for him, in the college de la Sapienza, in 1628, and settled upon him for life a pension of 500 crowns. Mascardi filled the chair with great reputation; but his love of letters made him neglect the management of his affairs, and he was always poor, and always in debt. He is described in “Erytbrsei Pinacotheca/' as never being able to supply his own wants, but by borrowing from others, and removing from place to place, without a fixed habitation. He wrote a great many compositions in verse and prose, the principal of which is entitled,” Dell' arte historica.“Of this he printed so large an edition at his own expence, that he would have been a considerable loser by it, if a great number of copies had not been sold at Paria by the influence of cardinal Mazarine. He had some literary contests with several authors. In his” History of the Conspiracy of the Compte de Fiesco" he has very frequently attacked the religion of Hubert Folietta; and in his other books he used some writers in the same way, which occasioned him to be attacked in his turn. The objections which were made to him, together with his answers, were added to the second edition of the history just mentioned. H& died at Sarzana, in 1640, in his forty-ninth year.

, a French historical and miscellaneous writer, was the son of a rich merchant, and born at St. Germain-Laval, in the territory of Forez, May 16, 1544. He lost his father when a child; and, though his mother married again, she appears to have taken great care of his education. At a proper age he was put under the Jesuits at Billon, in Auvergne, with whom he continued four years; and was then called to Lyons by an uncle, who intended to send him to Toulouse, to study the law: but the civil wars rendering this unsafe, he returned to Billon, where he applied himself to the belles lettres and philosophy. Here contracting an intimacy with a fellow-student, Anthony Challon, he joined with him in a resolution of entering into the society of Jesuits: and accordingly they went soon after to Rome, where they took the habit. Masson made a funeral oration at Rome for some cardinal, in the presence of several others, and acquired by it great credit and reputation. Afterwards these two friends went to Naples, where Masson taught two years in the college of Jesuits. They returned together to France, when Challon quitted the society, as did Masson some time after, and defended this step with so much moderation and candour that the society were not displeased at it.

The first publication that made him noticed, was his “Testament politiquedu Cardinal Alberoni,” one of those fictions that were very common in France and Holland on the death of any minister of state of great eminence. Of this kind were the Testaments of Richelieu, Mazarin, Colbert, Louvois, &c. vehicles for political sentiment, but of no authority as to the parties whose names are assumed. The reputation he acquired by this work, which was well enough written to deceive Voltaire into the opinion that it was the production of one long acquainted with the courts and politics of Europe, encouraged Maubert to publish “Histoire politique de siecle,” 1757, 2 vols. 4to. About this time, or soon after, we find him in England, where he boasts of the patronage of lord Bolingbroke, and his friend Mr. Henry Furnese, one of the lords of the admiralty, who endeavoured to procure him a place in that office at the head of which the duke of Newcastle then was, but that the death of his protector put an end to his hopes. In this account are some of those blunders which French writers seem to delight to commit, in speaking of the affairs of England. Mr. Furnese was a commissioner of the treasury for a year, and the duke of Newcastle first lord; but, whatever truth or falsehood there may be in his account of his connexions here, Maubert was at last obliged to make a precipitate retreat, being taken for a spy, and once more landed in Holland, where he published several political pamphlets, for which, such was his tergiversation, he was paid by that very count Bruhl who had prosecuted him some years before. At length he became obnoxious here too, and was obliged to go to Brussels, where he became editor of the Brussels Gazette, a paper, that under his management was for some time proverbial for want of veracity, marked hostility to the principles of liberty, and ignorance of the real state of the political affairs it professed to discuss or narrate. This character applied also with peculiar justice to Maubert’s “Historical and Political Mercury,” two numbers of which were translated and published in English in 1760, and to his other political pamphlets, “Testament politique de Walpole;” “Ephruimjustifie,” &c. As to the conclusion of his life, there are many reports, but they all agree that he died at Altona in 1767.

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

, a French poet, and one of the forty of the French academy, was the son of a counsellor of the parliament of Toulouse, and born in 1582. He was secretary to queen Margaret, and pleased the court of that princess by his wit and gaiety. Noailles, the ambassador to Rome, took him with him in 1634-; and pope Urban VIII. was very much pleased with him. Returning to France, he made his court to the great, but was too sanguine in the expectations he formed from them; which lead in general to disappointment. This was his case. He commended cardinal Richelieu, in order to obtain something; and abused him for giving him nothing. He had the same success at the court of Anne of Austria; and, after a variety of disappointments, he retired to his province, where he died in 1646. He wrote songs, odes, epigrams, some of them rather licentious, and a poem, entitled, “Philander,” &c. Malherbe says of him, and it has generally been allowed, that his verses were well turned, but wanted force.

, cardinal, and first minister of state in France, was born at Piscina, in the province of Abruzzo, in Italy, on July 14, 1602. His abilities enabled him to make a considerable figure, even in his early years, whilst he was studying the belles lettres, in which he had the happiness of being instructed by the abbe Jerome of Colonna, who afterwards became a cardinal. This illustrious person went to reside in the university of Alcala in Spain, whither he was followed by Mazarin, who applied himself to the law, and at his return to Italy, took his doctor’s degree. He went afterwards to the court of Rome, where he became acquainted with cardinal Sacchetti, whom Urban VIII. sent into Lombardy. It was through his means, that Mazarin was instructed in every particular relating to the interest of the difff rent princes who were then at war respecting Cassel and Montserrat. Soon after this, the cardinal Antonio Barberini, nephew to the pope, came into the Milanese and Piedmont, in the character of legate, to conclude a peace. Mazarin embraced his cause so warmly, that he was ordered to remain upon the spot with the nuncio James Pancirole, and to assist him in his endeavours to conclude this great affair. He here scrutinized closely the designs of the French, the imperialists, the Spaniards, the duke of Mantua, and the duke of Savoy; and took such measures as might best reconcile and strengthen their various interests. When it happened that peace had been concluded at Ratisbon on the 3d of October, but the French and Spaniards refused to accept it in Italy, Mazarin, who perceived that By such an opposition his care would have proved nugatory, sought for new expedients to render the peace general, and to prevent these two armies from coming to an engagement. The Spaniards, who were besieging Cassel, had made entrenchments for six miles round, and were determined vigorously to defend themselves against the French, who approached extremely near, with an intention to force their lines. On Oct. 26, 1630, the Spaniards waited only for the signal to fire, and the forlorn hope of the French army had been drawn out to force their lines; when Mazarin, after offering an accommodation in many forms, quitted the Spanish trenches, and, riding on a full gallop towards the French, waved his hat to them, crying out, “Peace! peace!” He then addressed himself to the commander in chief, the marshal duke de Schomberg, and gave in such proposals as were accepted by the generals, and followed by the peace concluded in the April following. The nuncio Pancirole and Mazarin were joint agents for the pope; but all the credit of the negociation was given to the latter.

The cardinal de Richelieu was induced from these services to conceive an esteem for him, while Barberini was equally attached to him, and prevailed upon Urban VIII. to make him keeper of the seals. He went in 1634 to Avignon, in quality of vice- legate, and to France in that of nuncio extraordinary, where he acquired a profound knowledge of state affairs, and with much art cultivated at the same time, the friendship of Richelieu, and the good-will of Louis XIII. In compliment to the nomination of this monarch, the pope added him to the number of cardinals in 1641. When Richelieu died, the same king made Mazarin his minister of state, and one of the executors to his will. In these departments, he took upon him the administration of affairs, during the minority of Louis XIV. and the regency of the queen Anne of Austria. The dawnings of his power were attended with the happiest success; and the good fortune of the king’s armies was to our cardinal a source of much national applause. But these advantages were very soon succeeded by the murmurs of an oppressed people, and the envious combination of the great nobles, who were jealous of his high advancement. Hence arose the civil wars in 1649, and the three following years; and the dissatisfaction becoming more general, it was insisted upon, that he should be dismissed from the royal presence. Mazarin, who knew how necessary it was for him to retire, demanded that he might take his leave; and immediately departed from the kingdom. He was stili so conscious of fortune’s always attending him, that he mentioned even this event as one of the chief incidents contributing to his greatness; and although decrees were issued out against him, his fine library was sold, and a price was fixed upon his head, he contrived to quell this fury with most astonishing dexterity. He even was enabled to return to court, and with a double share of power; and so mutable is popular opinion, that many who once had been his bitterest enemies, were now become his warmest friends. After this, he continued to render the state many important services, the chief of which was the obtaining of peace between France and Spain: for this purpose, he went in person to hold a conference with the Spanish minister, don Louis de Haro, in 1659. The successful termination of this affair, was followed by the king’s marriage, with the Infanta. The continual application of Mazarin to business brought on a very dangerous iUness: he was at that time at the Louvre, but gave orders to be carried to Vincennes, where he died March 9, 1661, aged 59. When sensible of his danger, he began to feel scruples concerning the wealth which he had heaped together, and his confessor plainly told him that restitution was necessary for his salvation. He gave the whole to the king, in the hope that, as was the case, his majesty would restore it to him. His wealth is said to have amounted to eight millions sterling, all collected in a time of war, or national commotion. The king paid the highest honours to his memory. His body was magnificently entombed in the college usually called after his name, but sometimes by that of “the four nations,” having been designed as a place of education for the youth of the four conquered nations.

Mazarin had a brother and two sisters. His letters have been published; thirty-six of them made their appearance at Paris in 1691; and, in 1693, a second volume came out, containing seventy-seven more: the whole was reprinted in two parts in 1694. These letters are not arranged in the order of their dates; but this error was amended in a later edition, published (as the title-page informs us) at Amsterdam, by Zachary Chatelain, in 1745, in 2 vols. 12mo. For this we are indebted to the care of the abbe“d'Alainval; but this edition is rendered more valuable than the others, being augmented by more than fifty letters, which had never before appeared, and which are all placed in their just order. The title of this work is,” Letters of cardinal Mazarin, containing the Secrets of the Negociations concerning the Pyrenean Peace, and the Conferences which he had on that subject with Don Louis de Haro, the Spanish minister; the whole enriched with historical Notes." The character of Mazarin has been compared with that of Richelieu, but unjustly. In Mazarin’s there was nothing amiable or great, and his ambition was too nearly allied to avarice to command respect.

He married a daughter of a burgomaster of Wittemberg in 1520, who lived with him till 1557. He had two sons and two daughters by her; and his eldest daughter Anne, in 1536, became the wife of George Sabinus, one of the best poets of his time. His other daughter was married, in 1550, to Caspar Peucer, who was an able physician, and very much persecuted. Melancthop was a very affectionate father; and there is an anecdote preserved of him, which perfectly agrees with his character for humility. A Frenchman, it is said, found him one day, holding a book in one hand, and rocking a child with the other; and upon his expressing some surprise, Melancthon made such a pious discourse to him about the duty of a father, and the state of grace in which the children are with God, “that this stranger went away,” says Bayle, “much more edified than he came.” Melchior Adam relates a curious dialogue which passed between his son-in-law Sabinus, and cardinal Bembus, concerning Melancthon. When Sabinus went to see Italy, Melancthon wrote a letter to cardinal Bembus, to recommend him to his notice. The cardinal laid a great stress upon the recommendation; for he loved Melancthort for his abilities and learning, however he might think himself obliged to speak of his religion. He was very civil therefore to Sabinus, invited him to dine with him, and in the time of dinner asked him a great many questions, particularly these three “Wliat salary Melancthon had what number of hearers and what he thought concerning the resurrection and a future state” To the first question Sabinus replied, “that his salary was not above 30O florins a year. 1” Upon hearing this, the cardinal cried out, “Ungrateful Germany to value at so low a price so many labours of so great a man.” The answer to the second was, “that he had usually 1500 hearers.” “I cannot believe it,” says the cardinal: “I do not know an university in Europe, except that of Paris, in which one professor has so many scholars.” To the third, Sabinus replied, “that Melancthon’s works were a full and sufficient proof of his belief in those two articles.”— “I should think him a wiser man,” said the cardinal, “if he did not believe any thing about them.”

, 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.

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

6, “Recueil des Eloges faits pour M. le cardinal Mazarin,” 1666, folio. 7. “Origine delta Lingua Italiana,” 1669, foL He undertook this work only to shew the academy della Crusca, that he was not unworthy of the place with which they had honoured Inm. Dr. Burney says that in his *' Dictionnaire Etymologique de la Langue Franchise,“and in his” Origine della Lingua Italiana,“curious inquirers after the musical language of the middle ages wilt find more information than in any other lexicons or philosophical works with which we are acquainted, except lathe Glossarium of Ducange. 8.” Juris civilis amcenitates,“Paris, 1677, 8vo, reprinted with a preface by J. G. Hoffmann, Francfort, 1737, 8vo. 9.” Les poesies de Malherbe, avec des notes,“1666,” 8vo, reprinted more than once. Io. “Observations sur la Langue Francois,” 1675, and 1676,“in 2 vols. 12mo. 11. Histoire de Sable, contenant les seigneurs de la ville de Sable, jusqu‘a Louis I, due d’Anjou et roy de Sicile; premiere partie,” 1686, folio. He was very much prejudiced in favour of this history, and was engaged in the second part at his death. In the “Menagiana,” he is represented as saying, that it is an incomparable book that one may find every thing in it; and that in every page there are many learned observations?; kut the public have not been of this opinion. 12. “Historia mulierum philosopher urn,” Lugd. 1690, 12mo. This is reprinted in Meibom’s Diogenes Laertius. 13. <* AntiBailiet,“1690: a criticism of the” Jugemens des Sgavans“of M. Baillet, who in that work had spoken of Menage in a manner that displeased him. 14.” Menagiana," not published till after his death, and printed at first in one volume, afterwards in two. But M. de la Monnoye published an edition with great additions, at Paris, 1715, in 4 rols. 12mo. This is a very amusing collection, but will admit of abridgment without any injury to the memory of Menage.

, a cardinal, archbishop of Seville, and afterwards of Toledo, chancellor of Castille and Leon, was born at Guadalajara, in 142S, of an ancient and noble family. He made a great progress in the languages, in civil and canon law, and in the belles lettres. His uncle, Walter Alvarez, archbishop of Toledo, gave him an archdeaconry in his church, and sent him to the court of John II. king of Castille, where his merit soon, acquired him the bishopric of Calahorra. Henry IV. who succeeded John, trusted him with the most important affairs of state; and, besides the bishopric of Siguença, procured a cardinal’s hat for him from Sixtus IV. in 1473. When Henry died the year after, he named cardinal Mendoza for his executor, and dignified him at the same time with the title of the cardinal of Spain. He did great services afterwards to Ferdinand and Isabella, in the war against the king of Portugal, and in the conquest of the kingdom of Granada over the Moors. He was then made archbishop of Seville and Toledo successively; and after governing some years, in his several provinces, with great wisdom and moderation, he died Jan. 11, 1495. It is said that in his younger days he translated “Sallust,” “Homer’s Iliad,” “Virgil,” and some pieces of “Ovid.”

, an Italian poet, was born at Florence in 1646, of poor and humble parents. Notwithstanding the disadvantage of his circumstances, he began his studies under Miglioraccio, and pursued them with ardour; till, being noticed for his talents by Vincentio SaU viati, he, was removed from the difficulties of poverty, received into the house of that patron, and encouraged to indulge his genius in writing. In 1674, he inscribed a volume of poems to Cosmo III. of Medicis, but obtained Do great approbation from that depraved man. In 1679, he published a book, entitled “Construzione irregolare della linga Toscana;” on the irregular construction of the Tuscan language; and, in the following year, a volume of lyric poems, by way of illustrating his own precepts. His first patron seems now to have deserted him, or not to have afforded him sufficient support, for we find hirn at this period, after several disappointments, and particularly that of not obtaining a professorship at Pisa, venting his discontent in twelve satires. These, however, were not published in his life, but given to a friend, Paulo Falconeri. When they did appear, they went through several editions. In 1685, Menzini obtained the notice and patronage of Christina queen of Sweden, whom he celebrated in Latin as well as in Italian. Under her protection he lived at Rome, and enjoyed the best period of his life. It was at this period, in 1688, that he published his “Arte Poetiea,” which he dedicated to cardinal Azzolini. Being always more or less in want, owing to mismanagement, he contrived by these dedications to lay some of the chief nobility of his country under contribution: but he did not so succeed with cardinal Atestini, who received his dedication of “II Paradiso terrestre,” without granting him any remuneration. As he had a wonderful vein of ready eloquence, one of his resources was that of composing sermons for preachers who were not equally able to supply themselves. To this there is an allusion in one of the satires of his con<­temporary Sectanus.

, a physician and naturalist, the son of Peter Mercati, a physician of St. Miniato, in Tuscany, was born April 8, 1541. After having finished his scholastic education at his native place, he was sent to Pisa, and placed under the tuition of Cesalpini, from whom he derived his taste for the study of nature. Having received his degree of doctor in philosophy and medicine ia that university, he went to Rome, where pope Pius V. appointed him superintendant of the botanical garden of the Vatican, at the age of twenty-six, but Niceron says he was not more than twenty. Afterwards Ferdinand I. the grand duke of Tuscany, raised him to the rank of nobility; and soon afterwards the same dignity was conferred upon him by the senate of Rome. Among his other honours, Sixtus V. conferred upon him the office of apostolical prothonotary, and sent him into Poland with cardinal Aldobrandini, that he might enjoy the opportunity of increasing his collections in natural history. The same cardinal, when elected pope in 1592, under the title of Clement VIII. nominated Mercati his first physician, and had in contemplation higher honours to bestow upon him, when this able physician died, in 1593, in the fifty-third year of his age. His character in private life was universally esteemed, and the regret of the most distinguished persons of Rome followed him to his grave.

, a learned bibliographer and miscellaneous writer, familiarly known in France by the title of the abbe de St. Leger, was born at Lyons, April 1, 1734. He entered when young, into the congregation of St. Genevieve, of which he became librarian, at the time that the learned Pingre, his predecessor in that office, went to observe the transit of Venus. In 1764, when Louis XV. visited this library, he was so much pleased with Mercier’s intelligent manner of displaying its treasures, that he appointed him abbe of St. Leger at Soisson, a preferment which then happened to be vacant Mercier often travelled to Holland and the Netherlands to visit the libraries and learned men of those countries, and was industriously following his various 'literary pursuits, when the revolution interrupted his tranquillity, and reduced him to a state of indigence. This he could have borne; but the many miseries he witnessed around him, and particularly the sight of his friend the abbe Poyer dragged to the scaffold, proved too much for his constitution. He continued to linger on, however, until May 13, 1799, when death relieved him. He was a man of great learning and research, as his works evidently shew, and in his private character, social, communicative, and amiable. His works are, 1. “Lettre sur la Bibliographic de Debure,” 1763, 8vo. 2. “Lettre a M. Capperonier,” on the same subject, which was followed by a third, printed in the “Journal de Trevoux.” 3. “Lettre sur le veritable auteur du Testament Politique du cardinal de Richelieu,” Paris, 1765, 8vo. 4. “Supplement a l‘Histoire de l’imprimerie de Prosper Marchand,” 1765, 4to, reprinted with additions, &c. 1771. 5. “Lettre sur la Pucelle D'Orleans,” 1775. 6. “Dissertation sur Pauteur du livre de PImitation de Jesus-Christ.” 7. “Notice du livre rare, intitule* Pedis Admirandte, par J. d'Artis.” 8. “Notice de la Platopodologie d'Antoine Fiance, medecin de Besangon,” a curious satire by Fiance. 9. “Lettre a un ami, sur la suppression de la Charge de Bibliothecaire du roi en France,” (Paris), 1737, 8vo. 10. “Notice sur les tornbeaux des dues de Bourgogne.” 11. '“Lettres sur differentes editions rares du 15 siecle,” Paris, 1785, 8vo, particularly valuable for Italian books. 12. “Observations surPEssai d'un projet de Catalogue de Bibliotheque.” 13. “Description* d'une giraffe vue a Fano.” 14. “Notice raisonnée des ouvrages de Gaspard Schott, Jesuite,” 1785, 8vo. 15. “Bibliotheque de Romans traduits du Grec.” 1796, 12 vols. 12mo. 16. “Lettre sur le projet de decret concernant les religieux, proposee a PAssemblee Nationale par M. Treilhard,” 1789, 8vo. 17. “Lettre sur un nouveau Dictionnaire Historique portatif en 4 vols. 8vo.” This, wbich appeared in the *' Journal de Trevoux," contains a sharp critique upon the first volumes of Cbaudon’s Dictionary. Mercier bestowed great pains in correcting and improving his copy of this work, which fell in the hands of thcs editors of the last edition of the Diet. Hist. Mercier was frequently employed in the public libraries; and those of Soubise and La Valliere owe much of their treasures to his discoveries of curious books. He was also a frequent writer in the Journal de Trevoux, the Journal des S9avans, the Magazin Encyclopedique, and the Annee Litteraire. He left some curious manuscripts, and manuscript notes and illustrations of many of his books.

, a father of the church, bishop of Olympus, or Patara, in Lycia, and afterwards of Tyre in Palestine, suffered martyrdom at Chalcis, a city of Greece, towards the end of Dioclesian’s persecution in the year 302 or 303. Epiphanius says “that he was a very learned man, and a strenuous assertor of the truth.” St. Jerome has ranked him in his catalogue of church writers; but Eusebius has not mentioned him; which silence is attributed by some, though merely upon conjecture, to Methodius’s having written very sharply against Origen, who was favoured by Eusebius. Methodius composed in a clear and elaborate style several works i a large one “Against Porphyry the philosopher;” “A Treatise on the Resurrection,” against Origen; another on “Pythonissa,” against the same a book entitled “The banquet of Virgins” one on “Free-will” “Commentaries upon Genesis and the Canticles” and several other pieces extant in St. Jerome’s time. Father Combesis collected several considerable fragments of this author, cited by Epiphanius, Photius, and others, and printed them with notes of his own at Paris, in 1644, together with the works of Amphilochius and Andreas Cretensis, in folio. But afterwards Possinus, a Jesuit, found “The Banquet of Virgins” entire, in a manuscript belonging to the Vatican library; and sent it, with a Latin version of his own, into France, where it was printed in 1657, folio, revised and corrected by another manuscript in the library of cardinal Mazarin. We cannot doubt that this is the true and genuine work of Methodius; as it not only carries all the marks of antiquity in it, but contains word for word all the passages that Photius had cited out of it. It is written in the way of dialogue, after the manner of “Plato’s Banquet of Socrates;” with this difference, that the speakers here are women, who indeed talk very learnedly and very elegantly.

, an eminent French historian, was born at Ry, near Argentau in Lower Normandy, in 1610. He was educated in the university of Caen, where he discovered an early inclination for poetry; and had himself so high an opinion of his talent in that art, that he thought he should be able to raise both a character and a fortune by it. But, upon going to Paris, he was dissuaded from pursuing poetry, by Vauquelin des Yveteaux, who had been the preceptor of Louis XIII. and advised to apply himself earnestly to history and politics, as the surest means of succeeding in life. In the mean time, that gentleman procured him the place of commissary of war, which he held for two or three campaigns, and then quitted it. Upon his return to Paris, he resolved to spend the remainder of his life there; and, changing the name of his family as being an obscure one, he took the name of Mezerai, which is a cottage in the parish of Ry. But his little stock of money made him apprehensive that he should not be able to continue long at Paris; and therefore, to support himself, he had recourse to writing satires against the ministry, articles which were then extremely well received, and for which he had naturally a turn. M. Larroque, in his Life of Mezerai, assures us, that he was author of all the pieces published against the government under the name of Sandricourt. They are written in a low and burlesque style, and adapted merely to please the populace. Larroque has given us the titles of nineteen of these pieces, but would not give those of others which Mezerai wrote, either during the minority of Louis XIV. or against cardinal Richelieu; “because,” he says, “they ought to be forgotten, out of reverence to the persons whom they attacked.”

In 1638, on the death of his mother, he obtained his father’s leave to travel, and about the same time a letter of instructions from sir Henry Wotton, then provost of Eton, but who had resided at Venice as ambassador from James I. He went first tp Paris, where, by the favour of lord Scudainore, he had an opportunity of visiting Grotius, at that time residing at the French court as ambassador from Christina of Sweden. From Paris he passed into Italy, of which he had with particular diligence studied the language and literature; and, though he seems to have intended a very quick perambulation of the country, he staid two months at Florence, where he was introduced to the academies, and received with every mark of esteem. Among other testimonies may be mentioned the verses addressed to him by Carlo Dati> Erancini, and others, whicfe, prove that they considered a visit from Milton as no common honour. From Florence he went to Sienna, and from Sienna to Rome, where he was again received with kindness by the learned and the great. Holstenius, the keeper of the Vatican library, who had resided three years at Oxford, introduced him to cardinal Barberini; and he, on one occasion, at a musical entertainment, waited for him at the door, and led him by the hand into the assembly. Here it is conjectured that Milton heard the accomplished and enchanting Leonora Baroni sing, a lady whom he has honoured with three excellent Latin epigrams. She is also supposed to have been celebrated by Milton in her own language, and to have been the object of his love in his Italian sonnets. While at Rome, Selvaggi praised Milton in a distich, and Salsilfl in a tetrastic, on which he put some value by printing them before his poems. The Italians, says Dr. Johnson, were gainers by this literary commerce; for the encomiums with which Milton repaid Salsilli, though not secure against a stern grammarian, turn the balance indisputably in Milton’s favour.

, an eminent painter, was, according to some, born at Coldra, and to others, at Lugano, 1609. He was at first the disciple of Gesari d'Arpino, but formed a style of his own, selected from the principles of Albani and Guercino. He never indeed arrived at the grace of the former, but he excelled him in vigour of tint, in variety of invention, in spirited and resolute execution. He had studied colour with intense application at Venice, and excelled in fresco and in oil. Of the many pictures with which he enriched the churches and palaces of Rome, that of Joseph recognised by his brothers, on the Quirinal, is considered as the most eminent. If Mola possessed a considerable talent for history, he was a genius in landscape: his landscape every where exhibits in the most varied combination, and with the most vigorous touch, the sublime scenery of the territory in which he Was born. His predilection for landscape was such, that in his historic subjects it may often be doubted which is the principal, the actors or the scene; a fault which may be sometimes imputed to Titian himself. In many of Mola’s gallery-pictures, the figures have been ascribed to Albano. He reared three disciples, Antonio Gherardi of Rieti, who after his death entered the school of Cortona, and distinguished himself more by facility than elegance of execution Gia. Batista Boncuore of Rome, a painter at all times of great effect, though often somewhat heavy and Giovanni Bonati of Ferrara, called Giovannino del Pio, from the protection of that cardinal, who painted three altar-pieces of consideration at Rome, but died young. Mola died in 1665, aged fifty-six. He had a brother, John Baptist, who was born in 1620, and also learned the art of painting in the school of Albani. He proved a very good painter in history, as well as in landscape; but was far inferior to his brother, in style, dignity, taste, and colouring. In his manner he had more resemblance to the style of Albani, than to that of his brother; yet his figures are rather hard and dry, and want the mellowness of the master. However, there are four of his pictures in the Palazzo Salviati, at Rome, which are universally taken for the hand of Albani.

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

, was an Italian physician of so much reputation, that he was regarded by his countrymen as a second Galen. He was born at Verona in 1488, of the noble family of Monte in Tuscany, and sent to Padua by his father, to study the civil law. But his bent lay towards physic; which, however, though he made a vast progress in it, so displeased his father, that he entirely withdrew from him all support. He therefore travelled abroad, and practised physic in several cities with success, and increased his reputation among the learned, as an orator and poet. He lived some time at Home, with cardinal Hyppolitus; then removed to Venice; whence, having in a short time procured a competency, he retired to Padua. Here, within two years after his arrival, he was preferred by the senate to the professor’s chair; and he was so attached to the republic, which was always kind to him, that, though tempted with liberal offers from the emperor, Charles V. Francis I. of France, and Cosmo duke of Tuscany, he retained his situation. He was greatly afflicted with the stone in his latter days, and died in 15'5l. He was the author of many works; part of which were published by himself, and part by his pupil John Crato after his death. They were, however, principally comments upon the ancients, and illustrations of their theories; and have therefore ceased to be of importance, since the originals have lost their value. He translated into Latin the works of Aetius, which he published at the desire of cardinal Hyppolitus. He also translated into Latin verse the poem of Museus; and made translations of the Argonautics attributed to Orpheus, and of Lucian’s Tragopodagra.

A place in the French academy becoming vacant by the death of monsieur de Sacy, in 1728, Montesquieu, by the advice of his friends, and supported also by the voice of the public, offered himself for it. Upon this, the minister, cardinal Fleury, wrote a letter to the academy, informing them, that his majesty would never agree to the election of the author of the “Persian Letters” that he had not himself read the book but that persons in whom he placed confidence, had informed him of its dangerous tendency. Montesquieu, thinking it prudent immediately to encounter this opposition, waited on the minister, and declared to him, that, for particular reasons, he had not owned the “Persian Letters,” but that he would be still farther from, disowning a work, for which he believed he had no reason to blush; and that he ought to be judged after a reading, and not upon information. At last, the minister did what he ought to have begun with; he read the book, loved the author, and learned to place his confidence better. The French academy, says D'Alembert, was not deprived of one of its greatest ornaments, nor France of a subject, of which superstition or calumny was ready to deprive her; for Montesquieu, it seems, had frankly declared to the government, that he could not think of continuing in France after the affront they were about to offer, but should seek among foreigners for that safety, repose, and honour, which he might have hoped in his own country. He was received into the academy, Jan. 24, 1728; and his discourse upon that occasion, which was reckoned a very fine one, is printed among his works. As before his admission into the academy, he had giveatip his civil employments, and devoted himself entirely to his genius and taste, he resolved to travel, and went first, in company with lord Waldegrave our ambassador, to Vienna, where he often saw prince Eugene; in whom he thought he could discover some remains of affection for his native country. He left Vienna to visit Hungary; and, passing thence through Venice, went to Rome. There he applied himself chiefly to examine the works of Raphael, of Titian, and of Michael Angelo, although he had not made the fine arts a particular study. After having travelled over Italy, he came to Switzerland, and carefully examined 1 those vast countries which are watered by the Rhine. He stopped afterwards some time in the United Provinces; and, at last, went to England, where he stayed three years, and contracted intimate friendships with many of the most distinguished characters of the day. He in particular received many marks of attention from queen Caroline. In the portrait of Montesquieu, written by himself, and published lately among some posthumous pieces, he gives the following proof of his gallantry in reply “Dining in England with the duke of Richmond, the French envoy there La Boine, who was at table, and was ill qualified for his situation, contended that England was not larger than the province of Guienne. I opposed the envoy. In the evening, the queen said to me, `I am informed, sir, that you undertook our defence against M. de la Boine.‘ `Madam,’ I replied, `I cannot persuade myself that a country over which you reign, is not a great kingdom.'”

, a Scotch historian, was born at Salmonet, between Airth and Grange, on the suuch-side of the Firth-of-Forth, whence he was called abroad Salmonettus Scoto-Britannus. Of his life we fcave been able to discover very few particulars. The tradition is, that he was obliged to leave Scotland upon his being suspected of adultery with the wife of sir James Hamilton of Preston-field. Monteith appears to have been a chaplain of cardinal de Retz, who also made him a canon of Notre Dame, and encouraged him in writing his history. See Joli, Memoires, torn. Ij. page 86, where he is called “homme scavant & de merite.” Cardinal de Retz also mentions him, vol. III. p. 323. His brother was lieutenant-colonel of Douglas’s regiment (the royal), and killed in Alsace. In the privilege for printing Monteith’s History, granted the 13th of September 1660, to Jaques St. Clair. de Roselin, he is styled “le defunct St. Montet” In the title-page he is called Messire. This work embraces the period of Scotch history from the coronation of Charles I. to the conclusion of the rebellion. In his preface he professes the utmost impartiality, and as far as we have been able to look into the work, he appears to have treated the history of those tumultuous times with much candour. His leaning is of course to the regal side of the question. In 17.35 a translation of this work, which was originally published in French, and was become very rare, was executed at London in one vol. fol. by J. Ogilvie, under the title of a “History of the Troubles of Great Britain.” The author was held in high esteem by Menage, who wrote two Latin epigrams in his praise. The time of his death we have not been able to discover. He must be distinguished from a Robert Monteith, the compiler of a scarce and valuable collection of all the epitaphs of Scotland, published in 1704, 8vo, under the title of “An Theater of Mortality.”

Moor now went to Rome, where his learning procured him very high distinction. He was first made censor of booksj and then invited to Montefiascone, and appointed rector of a seminary newly founded by cardinal Mark Antony Barbarigo, and also professor of philosophy and Greek. Pope Innocent XII. was so much satisfied with his conduct in the government of this seminary, that he contributed the sum of two thousand Roman crowns yearly towards its maintenance; and Clement XI. had such a high opinion of Moor that he would have placed his nephew under his tuition, had he not been prevented, as was supposed, by the persuasions of the Jesuits. On the death of James II. Dr. Moor was invited to France, and such was his reputation there, that he was made twice rector of the university of Paris, and principal of the college of Navarre, and was appointed regius professor of philosophy, Greek, and Hebrew. He died, in his eighty-fifth year, at his apartments in the college of Navarre, Aug. 22, 1726. It is evident he could have been no common character, who attained so many honours in a foreign land. His writings, however, are perhaps not much known. One of them, “DeExistentiaDei, et humanae mentis immortalitaie,” &c. published at Paris, 1692, 8vo, is said by Harris to have been translated into English by Mr. Blackmore, perhaps sir Richard, but we have not been able to find this work in any of our public libraries. Dr. Moor also published “Hortatio ad studium lingua; Graecae et Hebraicae,” Montefiascone, 1700, 12mo; and “Vera sciendi Methodus,” Paris, 1716, 8vo, against the philosophy of Des Cartes.

, one of the founders of the Royal Society, was descended of an ancient and noble family in the Highlands of Scotland, and had his education partly in the university of St. Andrews, and partly in France. In this last country he entered into the army, in the service of Lewis XIII, and became such a favourite with cardinal Richlieu, that few foreigners were held in equal esteem by that great statesman. According to Anthony Wood, sir Robert Moray was general of the ordnance in Scotland, against king Charles 1, when the presbyterians of that kingdom first set up and maintained their covenant. But if this be true, which we apprehend to be very doubtful, he certainly returned to France, and was raised to the rank of colonel, from which country he came over to England for recruits, at the time that king Charles was with the Scotch army at Newcastle. Here he grew into much favour with his majesty, and, about December 1646, formed a design for his escape, which was to have been executed in the following manner: Mr. William Moray, afterwards earl of Dysert, had provided a vessel near Tinmouth, and sir Robert Moray was to have conducted the king thither in a disguise. The matter proceeded so far, that his majesty put himself in the disguise, and went down the back-stairs with sir Robert. But, apprehending that it was scarcely possible to pass all the guards without being discovered, and judging it highly indecent to be taken in such a condition, he changed his resolution, and returned back. Upon the restoration of king Charles II. sir Robert Moray was appointed a privycounsellor for Scotland. Wood says, that, though sir Robert was presbyterianly affected, he had the king’s ear as much as any other person. He was, undoubtedly, in no small degree of esteem with his majesty but this was probably more upon a philosophical than apolitical account for he was employed by Charles the Second in his chymical processes, and was, indeed, the conducter of his laboratory. When the design was formed, in 1661, of restoring episcopacy in Scotland, sir Robert was one, among others, who was for delaying the making of any such change, till the king should be better satisfied concerning the inclinations of the nation. In the next year, sir Robert Moray was included in an act, passed in Scotland, which incapacitated certain persons from holding any place of trust under the government. This act, which was carried by the management of a faction, and to which the lord commissioner (the earl of Middleton) gave the royal assent, without acquainting his majesty with the whole purport of it, was very displeasing to the king, who, when it was delivered to him, declared, that it should never be opened by him. In 1667, sir Robert Moray was considerably entrusted in the management of public affairs in Scotland, and they were then conducted with much greater moderation than they had been for some time before. It is a circumstance highly to his honour, that though the earl of Lauderdale, at the instigation of lady Dysert, had used him very unworthily, yet that nobleman had such an opinion of his virtue and candour, that, whilst he was in Scotland, in 1669, as his majesty’s high commissioner, he trusted all his concerns in the English court to sir Robert’s care. Sir Robert Moray had been formerly the chief friend and main support of the earl of Lauderdale, and had always been his faithful adviser and reprover. Anthony Wood says, that sir Robert was a single man; but this is a mistake; for he had married a sister of lord Balcarras. He died suddenly, in liis pavilion, in the garden of Whitehall, on the 4th of July, 1673, and was interred, at the king’s expence, in Westminster-abbey, near the monument of Sfir William Davenant.

, 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.

, chancellor of England in the reign of Henry VIII. and one of the most illustrious characters of that period, was born in Milk-street, London, in 1480. He was the son of sir John More, knight, one of the judges of the king’s bench, and a man of great abilities and integrity. Sir John had also much of that pleasant wit, for which his son was afterwards so distinguished; and, as a specimen of it, Camden relates, that he would compare the danger in the choice of a wife to that of putting a man’s hand into a bag full of snakes, with only one eel in it; where he may, indeed, chance to light of the eel, but it is an hundred to one he is stung by a snake. It has been observed, however, that sir John ventured to put his hand three times into this bag, for he married three wives; nor was the sting so hurtful as to prevent his arriving at the age of ninety; and then he did not die of old age, but of a surfeit, occasioned by eating grapes. Sir Thomas was his son by his first wife, whose maiden name was Handcombe. He was educated in London, at a free-school of great repute at that time in Threadneedle-street, called St. Anthony’s, where archbishop Whitgift, and other eminent men, had been brought up; and here he made a progress in grammar-learning, suitable to his uncommon parts and application. He was afterwards placed in the family of cardinal Morton, archbishop of Canterbury, and chancellor of England: a method of education much practised in those times, but chiefly in the case of noblemen’s sons, with whom sir John More might be supposed to rank, from the high office he held. The cardinal was delighted with his ingenuous modesty, and with the vivacity and quickness of his wit, of which he gave surprising instances; one of which was, that while the players in Christmas holidays were acting there, he would sometimes suddenly step in among them, and, without any previous study, make a part of his own, to the great diversion of the audience. The cardinal indeed conceived so high an opinion of his favourite pupil, that he used frequently to say to those about him, that “More, whosoever should live to see it, would one day prove a marvellous man.”

The fame of More’s learning, ability in the law, and dexterity in the management of business, having reached the ears of Henry VI II. he ordered cardinal Wolsey to engage him in the service of the court. With this view the cardinal ottered him a pension, which sir Thomas then refused, as not thinking it equivalent to his present advantages: but the king soon after insisted upon his entering into his service, and, for want of a better vacancy, obliged him, for the present, to accept the place of master of the requests. Within a month after, he was knighted, and appointed one of the privy council. In 1520, he was made treasurer of the exchequer; and soon after this bought a house by the river-side at Chelsea , where he settled with his family, having buried his first wife, and married a second, who was a widow and somewhat in years. With all his excellent endowments for public business, sir Thomas had far less relish for the bustle of a court, than for the calmer and more substantial pleasures of the domestic circle. He thought it therefore rather a misfortune tiiat the king at this time took an extraordinary liking to his company, and began to engross all his leisure time. The moment he had finished his devotions on holidays, he used to send for sir Thomas into his closet, and there confer with him, sometimes about astronomy, geometry, divinity, and other parts of learning, as well as about his own affairs. He would frequently in the night carry him up to his leads on the top of his house, and discourse with him about the motions of the planets; and, because sir Thomas was of a very pleasant disposition, the king and queen used to send for him after supper, or in supper-time, to be merry with them. Sir Thomas perceiving, by this fondness, that he could not once a month get leave to go home to his wife and children, or be absent from court two days together, without being sent for, is said to have had recourse to a singular expedient, suppressing his accustomed facetiousness, and assuming a dullness and gravity, which is said to have put an end to his invitations. It is, however, not improbable that he really felt the uneasiness which he displayed.

There was a reason of more importance than his conversation talents, for Henry’s partiality. About this time his majesty was preparing his answer to Luther, in which sir Thomas assisted his majesty, by reducing that treatise into a proper method. It was published in 1521, under the title of “Assertio septem Sacramentorum adversus M. Lutherum, &c.” and, in 1523, sir Thomas published, written by himself, “Responsio ad Convicia M. Lutheri congesta in Henricum reg.'m Angliae.” Notwithstanding the confidence and friendship which Henry appeared to shew, sir Thomas understood his nature, and was not shy in giving his opinion of it. On one occasion, the king came unexpectedly to More’s house at Chelsea, and dined with him; and after dinner walked with him in his garden, for the space of an hour, holding his arm about his neck. As soon as his majesty was gone, Mr. Roper, sir Thomas’s son-in-law, observed to him how happy he must b-i: that the king had treated him with so much familiarity, as he had never seen used to any person before, except cardinal Wolsey, whom he once saw his majesty walk with arm in arm. “I thank our lord,” answered sir Thomas, “I find his grace my very good lord indeed, and I believe he doth as singularly favour me as any subject within this realm. However, son Roper, I may tell thee, I have no cause to be proud thereof: for, if my head would win him a castle in France, it should not fail to go.”

In 1523, he was chosen speaker of the House of Commons; and, soon after, shewed great intrepidity in frustrating a motion for an oppressive subsidy, promoted by cardinal Wolsey, who came to the house thinking that his presence would intimidate the members. On the contrary, the members refused to speak in his presence, and sir Thomas as speaker, gave him such an evasive answer as made him leave the house in a violent passion. This behaviour, the cardinal afterwards, in the gallery at Whitehall, complained of to him, and said, “Would to God you had been at Rome, Mr. More, when I made you speaker.” To which sir Thomas answered, “Your grace not offended, so would I too.” There was at this time no great cordiality between Wolsey and More, which has been attributed to the cardinal’s being jealous of More’s favour with the king. More, however, does not appear to have been afraid of him, and made him, on a remarkable occasion, the subject of one of his keenest witticisms. During a dispute in the privycouncil, Wolsey so far forgot himself as to call sir Thomas a fool, to which he immediately answered, “Thanks be to God, that the king’s majesty has but one fool in his right honourable council.” At length, to get rid of this rival, -in the gentlest way he could, and even under the mask of honouring his political talents, the cardinal persuaded the king to send him on the embassy into Spain in 1526: but against this sir Thomas pleaded the unfavourable climate of Spain, and the actual state of his health, which his majesty accepted as a sufficient plea, saying, “It is not our meaning, Mr. More, to do you any hurt, but to do you good; we will think of some other, and employ your service otherwise.” The following year he was joined, with several other officers of state, to cardinal Wolsey, in a splendid embassy to France. After his return he was appointed chancellor of the dutchy of Lancaster, and in July 1529, he and his friend bishop Tonstal were appointed ambassadors, to negociate a peace between the emperor, king Henry, and the king of France, which was accordingly concluded at Cambray. Sir Thomas acquitted himself in this negociation, in a manner which procured him the approbation of the king. It was sir Thomas’s custom, when in the course of these embassies he came to any foreign university, to desire to be present at their readings and disputations’, and he would sometimes dispute among them himself, and with so much readiness and learning, as to excite the admiration of the auditors; and when the king visited our own universities, where he was received with learned speeches, sir Thomas More was always appointed to make an extempore answer for the king, as the man of all his court the best qualified for the undertaking.

Before sir Thomas went on his last embassy, the king sounded him upon the subject of his divorce from Catharine of Arragon, as he did again after his return; but did not receive, either time, an answer agreeable to his inclinations. Yet, his majesty’s fixed resolution in that point did not hinder him, upon the disgrace of cardinal Wolsey, from intrusting the great seal with sir Thomas, which was delivered to him Oct. 25, 1530. His biographers have said that this favour was the more extraordinary, as he was the first layman who enjoyed it; but this is a mistake. There are at least four instances of laymen being chancellors before his time. Some have thought that the honour was conferred with a view of engaging him to approve the intended divorce. Accordingly, he entered upon it with just apprehensions of the danger to which it would expose him on that account, but determined to execute the duties of the office in a manner that might give dignity to it; and perhaps no chancellor has ever displayed more uprightness and integrity. His predecessor Wolsey was a man of unquestionable abilities, and incorrupt in his decisions: but he is said to have been proud and repulsive to the poorer suitors. Sir Thomas, on the contrary, made no distinctions; was nowise dazzled by superior rank and station, and considered the poor as especially entitled to his protection. He always spoke kindly to such, and heard them patiently. It was his general custom to sit every afternoon in his open hall, and if any person had a suit to prefer, he might state the case to him, without the aid of bills, solicitors, or petitions. And such was his impartiality, that he gave a decree against one of his sons-inlaw, Mr. Heron, whom he in vain urged to refer the matter to arbitration, and who presumed upon his relationship. So indefatigable was he also, that although he found the office filled with causes, some of which had been pending for twenty years, he dispatched the whole within two years, and calling for the next, was told that there was not one left, which circumstance he ordered to be entered on record.

As for sir Thomas’s daughters, the eldest of them, Margaret, was married to William Roper, esq. of Well-hall, in the parish of Eltham, in Kent; who wrote the “Life” of his father-in-law, which was published by Hearne at Oxford, in 1716, 8vo. She was a woman of great talents and amiable manners, and seems to have been to More what Tullia was to her father Cicero, his delight and comfort. The greatest care was taken of her education; and she became learned not only in the Greek and Latin tongues, but in music, arithmetic, and other sciences. She wrote two “Declamations” in English, which her father and she turned into Latin; and both so elegantly, that it was hard to determine which was best. She wrote also a treatise of the “Four last Things;” and, by her sagacity, corrected a corrupt place in “St. Cyprian,” reading “nervos sinceritatis,” for “nisi vos sinceritatis.” Erasmus wrote a letter to her, as to a woman famous not only for virtue and piety, but also for true and solid learning. Cardinal Pole was so affected with the elegance of her Latin style, that he could not at first believe what he read to be penned by a woman. This deservedly-illustrious lady died in 1544, and was buried at St. Dunstan’s church in Canterbury, with her father’s head in her arms, according to her desire; for she had found means to procure his head, after it had remained upon London-bridge fourteen days, and had carefully preserved it in a leaden box, till there was an opportunity of conveying it to Canterbury, to the burying-place of the Ropers in the church above mentioned. Of five children which she brought, there was a daughter Mary, as famous for parts and learning almost as herself. This Mary was one of the gentlewomen, as they were then called, of queen Mary’s privy chamber. She translated into English part of her grandfather’s “Exposition of the Passion of our Saviour;” and also “Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History” from the Greek into Latin; but this latter translation was never published, being anticipated by Christopherson’s Version.

His abilities in his profession gave him access to the great, even to cardinal Richelieu; and, under the administration of cardinal Mazarin, he obtained a pension of 2000 livres. Richelieu is said at first to have admitted him to his most secret councils, and to have consulted him about matters of the greatest importance; but during the greater part of his life, he appears to have gained most fame by his astrological predictions, which, right or wrong, were suited to the credulity of the times. He died at Paris, Nov. 6, 1656. He wrote a great number of books, not forgotten; but did not live to publish his favourite performance, his “Astrologia Gallica,” which had cost him thirty years’ labour. It was printed, however, at the Hague, 1661, in folio, with two epistles dedicatory; the one from the author to Jesus Christ; the other addressed to Louisa Maria de Gonzaga, queen c~f Poland. That princess encouraged Morin to undertake this great work, and paid the charges of the impression. At the time when it was said that she was to be married to the prince, Morin affirmed, that that marriage should never take place, and that she was destined to the bed of a monarch; and it is thought that she the more readily engaged to bear the expences of a work whose author had flattered her with the hopes of a crown, which she afterwards wore. Of his “Astrologia Gallica,” Guy Patin says, “I understand, that the” Astrologia Gallica“of the sieur Morin is at last finished at the Hague. I am told, that it abuses the Parisian and other physicians, who give no credit to judicial astrology; and I do riot wonder, that the author should behave in this manner, for he was a fool. The book is printed in one volume, folio. The queen of Poland gave 2000 crowns to carry on the edition, at the recommendation of one of her secretaries, who is a lover of astrology. You see in what manner crowned heads are imposed upon. If it had been a book which might have been of use to the public, the author would not have found one, either to print it, or to bear the charges of the press.” Morin, however, received several testimonies of esteem from the great Des Cartes. He became acquainted with this philosopher in 1626, and, some time after, maole him a present of his book upon the longitude, which was acknowledged by a very obliging letter. He sent him also, in 1638, some objections to his “Theory of Light,” which Des Cartes thought worthy of his consideration.

, a learned ecclesiastic, was born at Blois, of protestant parents, in 1591. He was instructed in the belles lettres at Rochelle, and afterwards went to Leyden, where he attained a critical knowledge of the Greek, Latin, and Oriental tongues, and applied himself to philosophy, law, mathematics, and divinity. Returning to France, he went to settle at Paris, where he gained an acquaintance with cardinal du Perron, and was induced by him to embrace the Roman catholic religion. Some time after, he entered into the congregation of the oratory, lately established, and began to make himself known by his learning and his works. In 1626 he published some “Exercita'ions upon the original of Patriarchs and Primates, and the ancient usage of ecclesiastical censures, dedicated to pope Urban VIII.” He undertook, in 1628, the edition of the “Septuagint Bible,” with the version made by Nobilius; and put a preface to it, in which he treats of the authority of the Septuagint; commends the edition of it that had been made at Rome by order of Sixtus V. in 1587, which he had followed; and maintains, that we ought to prefer this version to the present Hebrew text, because this has been, he says, corrupted by the Jews. Before this work was ready to appear, he gave the public, in 1629, a “History,” written in French, of the deliverance of the church by the emperor Constantine, and of the greatness and temporal sovereignty conferred on the Roman church by the kings of France; but this performance was not well received at Rome, and Morin was obliged to promise that he would alter and correct it. He published, soon after, “Exercitations upon the Samaritan Pentateuch;” for the sake of establishing which, he attacks the integrity of the Hebrew text. The Polyglott being then printing at Paris, Morin took upon himself the care of the Samaritan Pentateuch; but his endeavours to exalt this, together with the Greek and Latin versions of the Bible, at the expence of the Hebrew, made him very obnoxious to some learned men; and he was attacked by Hottinger and Buxtorf in particular. This, however, enhanced his merit at the court of Rome; and cardinal Barberini invited him thither, by order of the pope, who received him very graciously, and intended to employ him in the re-union of the Greek to the Roman church, which was then in agitation. He was greatly caressed at Rome, and intimate with Lucas Holstenius, LeoAllatius, and all the learned there. After having continued nine years at Rome, he was recalled, by order of cardinal Richelieu, to France, where he spent the remainder of his life in learned labours, and died of an apoplexy at Paris, Feb. 28, 1659.

In 1596 he published a piece entitled “The just Procedures of those of the Reformed Religion;” in which he removes the imputation of the present troubles and dissentions from the protestants, and throws the blame on those who injuriously denied them that liberty, which their great services had deserved. In 1598 he published his treatise “upon the Eucharist;” which occasioned the conference at Fontainbleau in 1600, between Du Perron, then bishop of Evreux, afterwards cardinal, and M. du Plessis; and raised his reputation and credit among the protestants to so great a height, that he was called by man)* “the Protestant Pope.” In 1607 he published a work entitled “The Mystery of Iniquity, or the History of the Papacy;” which was written, as most of his other works were, first in French, and then translated into Latin. Here he shews by what gradual progress the popes have risen to that ecclesiastical tyranny, which was foretold by the apostles; and what opposition from time to time all nations have given them. This seems to have been a work of prodigious labour; yet it is said, that he was not above nine months in composing it. About this time, also, he published “An Exhortation to the Jews concerning the Messiah,” in which he applies a great deal of Hebrew learning very judiciously; and for this he was complimented by the elder Buxtorf. There are several other lesser pieces of his writing; but his capital work, and for which he has been most distinguished, is his book “Upon the Truth of the Christian Religion;” in which he employs the weapons of reason and learning with great force and skill against Atheists, Epicureans, Heathens, Jews, Mahometans, and other Infidels, as he tells us in his title. This book was dedicated to Henry IV. while he was king of Navarre only, in 1582; and, the year after, was translated by himself into Latin. “As a Frenchman,” says he, in his preface tp the reader, “I have endeavoured to serve my own country first; and, as a Christian, the universal kingdom of Christ next.” Baillet observes, with justness, that “the Protestants of France had great reason to be proud of having such a man as Mornay du Plessis of their party; a gentleman, who, besides the nobleness of his birth, was distinguished by many fine qualities both natural and acquired.”

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

Among the public-spirited schemes which his liberality induced him to execute, was the famous cut or drain from Peterborough to Wisbeche, a track of upwards of twelve miles across a fenny country, which proved of great benefit to his diocese and to the public, and was completed entirely at his expence. This still is known by the name of Morton’s Leame, As soon as Henry VII. was seated on the throne, after the death of Richard III. he sent for Morton, who was still abroad, and immediately on his arrival made him one of his privy council; and on the death of cardinal Bourchier, in 1486, he was, probably on the king’s recommendation, elected by the prior and convent of Canterbury to be archbishop. In the mean time the king granted him. the whole profits of the see, until the pope’s confirmation could be obtained, and the disposal of all the preferments annexed to it; and having received the pope’s bull, dated Oct. 6, 1436, he was, by the king, admitted to the temporalities on Dec. 6 following In August 1487 he was constituted lord chancellor of England, which office he retained to his death. In a ms. in the British Museum, (Mss. Harl. 6100. fol. 54.) he is said to have been made chancellor in 1485, which was the first year of Henry VII.; and we have already mentioned, from another authority, that he filled that office while bishop of Ely. In 1493 he was creiited a cardinal by pope Alexander VI. by the title of St. Anastasia. In Hall’s Chronicle this promotion is placed in 1489, which is a mistake.

Cardinal Morton’s high favour with Henry VII. brought him into much disrepute with the people. Henry was parsimonious and avaricious, and in the choice of his ministers looked much to their capacity for raising money. Accordingly, the cardinal and sir Reginald Bray, being the leading men in the privy council, the odium of the king’s avarice fell upon them; and when, in the twelfth year of his reign, a subsidy was levied for war against Scotland, they were accused, by the Cornish insurgents, as the promoters of it.

, a learned English bishop in the seventeenth century, was of the same family with cardinal Morton, and was the sixth son of nineteen children of Mr. Richard Morton, an eminent mercer and alderman of York, by Elizabeth Leedale his wife. He was born at York, March 20, 1564, and was 6rst educated there under Mr. Pullen, and afterwards at Halifax under Mr. Maud. In 1582 he was sent to St. John’s college in Cambridge, and placed under the tuition of Mr. Anthony Higgon, afterwards dean of Rippon, who left him to the care of Mr. Henry Nelson, afterwards rector of Hougham ia Lincolnshire, who lived to see his pupil bishop of Durham, and many years after. In the beginning of November 1584, he was chosen to a scholarship of Constable’s foundation, peculiar to his native county of York; and in 1586 took the degree of bachelor of arts, and in 1590 that of master, having performed the exercises requisite to each degree with great applause. He continued his studies at his father’s charge until March 17, 1592, when he was admitted fellow, of the foundation of Dr. Keyson, merely on account of his merit, against eight competitors for the place. About the same time he was chosen logic lecturer of the university, which, office he discharged with ^reat skill and diligence, as appeared from his lectures found among his papers. The same year he was ordained deacon, and the year following priest by Richard Rowland, bishop of Peterborough. He continued five years after this in the college, pursuing his private studies, and instructing pupils. In 1598 he took the degree of bachelor of divinity; and ahout the same year was presented to the rectory of Long Marston four miles from York. He was afterwards made chaplain to the earl of Huntingdon, lord president of the North, who selected him for his zeal and acuteness in disputing with the Romish recusants. It was queen Elizabeth’s command to his lordship, to prefer arguments to force with these people: and this she expressed, as the earl used to say, in the words of scripture, “Nolo mortem peccatoris.” Afterwards, when lord Huntingdon was dead, and lord Sheffield was appointed lord president, Morton held a public conference before his lordship and the council, at the manor-, house at York, with two popish recusants, then prisoners in the castle. In 1602, when the plague raged in that city, he behaved with the greatest charity and resolution. The year following, the lord Eure being appointed ambassador-extraordinary to the emperor of Germany, and king of Denmark, Morton attended him as chaplain, along with Mr. Richard Crakenthorp, and took this opportunity to make a valuable collection of books, as well as to visit the universities of Germany. At his return he became chapJain to Roger earl of Rutland, and was afterwards presented by archbishop Matthews to a prebend in the cathedral of York. In 1606 he took the degree of doctor of divinity; and about the same time was sworn chaplain in ordinary to king James I. and preferred to the deanery of Gloucester, June 22, 1607. While he was dean there, the lord Eure above mentioned, then lord president of Wales, appointed him one of his majesty’s council for the marches. In 1609, he was removed to the deanery of Winchester; and while there, the bishop (Bilson) collated him to the rectory of Alesford. In the same year, Dr. Sutcliff, dean of Exeter, founding a college at Chelsea, for divines to be employed in defending the protestant religion against the papists, he was appointed one of the fellows. About this time, he became acquainted with Isaac Casaubon. In 1615, he was advanced to the see of Chester and, in 1618, to that of Lichfield and Coventry about which time he became acquainted with Antonio de Dominis, abp. of Spalato, whom he endeavoured to dissuade from returning to Rome. The archbishop’s pretence for going thither was, to attempt an unity between the church of Rome and that of England, upon those terms which he had laid down in his book entitled “De Repnblica Christiana.”

the temper of the people ia those parts Day“author, father Parsons having made a reply under the title of” A sober Reckoning with Mr. Tho. Morton,“printed in 160y, 4to; the latter wrote, 6.” The Encounter against Mr. Parsons,“Lond. 1609, 4to. 7.” An Answer to the scandalous Exceptions of Theophiltis Higgons,“London, 1609, 4to. 8.” A Catholike Appeale for Protestants out of the Confessions of the Romane Doctors, particularly answering the misnamed Catholike Apologie for the Romane Faith out of the Protestants, manifesting the antiquitie of our Religion, and satisfying all scrupulous objections, which have been urged against it,“Lond, 1610, fol. He was engaged in writing this work by archbishop Bancroft, as he observes in his dedication; and Dr. Thomas James took the pains to examine some of his quotations in the Bodleian library. It has never yet been answered. 9.” A Defence of the Innocencie of the three Ceremonies of the Church of England, viz. the Surplice, Crosse after Baptisme, and Kneeling at the receiving of the blessed Sacrament. Divided into two parts. In the former whereof the generall arguments urged by the nonconformists, and in the latter part their particular accusations against these three ceremonies, are severally answered and refuted. Published by authority.“Second edit. London, 1619, in 4to. This was attacked by an anonymous author, generally supposed to be Mr. William Ames; which occasioned a Defence of it, written by Dr. John Burges of Sutton Colefield in Warwickshire, and printed at London in 1631, 4to, under the title of” An Answer to a Pamphlet entitled A Reply to Dr. Morton’s general Defence of three innocent Ceremonies.“10.” Causa Regia,“London, 1620, 4to, written against cardinal Be) tannin’s book,” De Officio Principis Christiani.“11.” The Grand Imposture of the now Church of Rome, concerning this Article of their Creed, The holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church.“The second edition enlarged was printed at London in 1628, 4to. There was an answer published to this, under the name of J. S. and entitled” Anti-Mortonns.“12.” Of the Institution of the Sacrament, &c. by some called the Mass,“&c. Lond. 1631, reprinted with additions in 1635, folio. As some strictures were published on the first edition by a Romish author, under the name of an English baron, Dr. Morton replied in, 13.” A Discharge of five Imputations of Mis- allegations charged upon the bishop of Duresme by an English baron,“London, 1633, 8vo. 14.” Antidotum adversus Ecclesiae Romans de Merito ex: Condigno Venenum,“Cambridge, 1637, 4to. 15.” Replica sive Refutatio Confutationis C. R.“Lond. 1638, 4to. This is an answer to a piece published by C. R. who was supposed to be the bishop of Chakedon, against the first part of our author’s Catholic Apology. 16. A Sermon preached before the king at Newcastle, upon Rom. xiii. 1. Lond. 1639, 4to. 17.” De Eucharistia Controversiae Decisio,“Cambridge, 1640, 4to. 18.” A Sermon on the Resurrection,“preached at the Spittle in London April 26. Lond. 1641, 8vo. 1.9. A Sermon preached at St. Paul’s June 19, 1642, upon 1 Cor. xi. 16. and entitled” The Presentment of a Schismatic.!*,“” Lond. 1642, 4to. 20. “Confessions and Proofs of Protestant Divines,” &c. Oxford, 1644, 4to, published without his name or knowledge of it, and written in defence of episcopal government, and sent to archbishop Usher, who committed it to the press with some other excellent collections of his own upon the same subject. 21. “Ezekiel’s Wheels,” &c. Lond. 1653, in 8vo. The subject of this book is meditations upon God’s Providence. Besides these printed works, he left a considerable number of manuscripts, “some in my custody,” says Dr. Barwick, “which 1 found by him at his death; and some (that I hear of) in the hands of others: all of them once intended for the press, whereof some have lost their first perfection by the carelessness and negligence of some that should have kept them others want his last hand and eye to perfect them and others only a seasonable time to publish them. And he might and would have left many more, considering how vigorous his parts were even in his extreme old age, if the iniquity of the times had not deprived him of most of his notes and papers.” Among these unpublished Mss. were: 1. “Tractatus de externo Judice iniallibili ad Doctores Pontificios, imprimis vero ad Sacerdotes Wisbicenses.” 2. “Tractatus de Justificatione.” Two copies, both imperfect. 3. “Some Papers written upon the Controversy between bishop Montague and the Gagger.” 4. “A Latin edition of his book called the Grand Imposture.” Imperfect. 5. Another edition of both the parts of his book called “Apologia Catholica.” 6. “An Answer to J. S. his Anti-Mortonus.” Imperfect. 7. His treatise concerning Episcopacy above mentioned, revised and enlarged. 8. A treatise concerning Prayer in art tinknown tongue. 9. A Defence of Infants 1 Baptism against Mr. Tombes and others. 10. Several Sermons. II. “A Kelation of the Conference held at York by our author, with Mr. Young and Mr. Stillington; and a further confutation of R. G. in defence of the Articles of the church of England.” Almost the last act of his life was to procure from the few remaining bishops in England, a refutation of the fable of the Nag’s Head ordination, which was revived by some of the popish persuasion in 1658. What he procured on the subject was afterwards published by bishop Uramhai.

, a distinguished French writer in the seventeenth century, to be classed with those whose scepticism and indelicacies have disgraced their talents, was born at Paris in 1588, of a family of gentlemen of the long robe. He was himself educated for the bar, and long held the office which his father resigned to him, of substitute procurator-general to the parliament; but his love of polite literature induced him to desert his profession, and employ his time in study and writing. By this he acquired such reputation as to be received into the French academy in 1639, of which he was accounted one of the ablest members. When a tutor was to be appointed for Louis XIV. in 1644, it was generally supposed that La Alothe le Vayer would have been the man, and it certainly was so intended by cardinal Richelieu, both on account of an excellent work he had published on the education of the dauphin, and the reputation his other writings had acquired to him; but the queen having determined not to bestow the place on a married man> the design was dropt. It is probable that the queen’s object, in refusing a married man, was to prefer an ecclesiastic, of whose religious principles she might be secure; for those of Le Vayer were already more than suspected by his work De la Vertu de Payens."

, a celebrated French lady, was born in Normandy about 1615. She was the daughter of a gentleman who belonged to the court; and her wit and amiable manners recommended her to Anne of Austria, who kept her constantly near her. Cardinal Richelieu, who was always jealous of the favourites of this princess, having disgraced her, she retired, with her mother, to Normandy, where she married Nicolas Langlois, lord of Motteviile, an old man, who died in about two years. After the death of Richelieu, Anne of Austria, having been declared regent, recalled her to court. Here gratitude induced her to write the history of this princess, which has been printed several times under the title of “Memoires pour servir a I‘Histoire d’Anne d' Austriche” in 5 and 6 volumes, 12mo. These Memoirs describe the minority of Lewis XIV. and are written in a natural, unaffected style; and, says Gibbon, it is a proof of the author’s sincerity, that though she had a very high opinion of her mistress, the candour with which she relates facts, shews us Anne of Austria as she really was. Madame de Motteviile died at Paris, Dec. 29, 1689, aged seventyfive. There was a very great confidence and even intimacy between Henrietta, the widow of our Charles I. and madame de Motteviile.

The next opportunity which Du Moulin had to give his advice, was attended with more serious consequences to him. The council of Trent had just broken up, anrl the question was, whether its proceedings should be recognized in France. The papal ambassadors, and those of the most powerful princes in Europe, were for this measure but it was opposed by the leading members of the French king’s administration, who were of opinion that it would render those civil dissentions which had been in some degree quieted, and that the council of Trent had made certain regulations contrary to the liberties and royal privileges of France, which they could by no means approve. In a council held at Fontainbleau, Feb. 27, 1564-, this subject occasioned a very warm altercation between the chancellor Hospital and the cardinal of Lorraine; and chiefly by the persuasive influence of the former, it was determined that the proceedings of the council of Trent should not be published in France. Du Moulin, being solicited for his advice on this occasion, published his “Conseil sur le fait du, Concile de Trente,” Lyons, 1564, 8vo, in which he takes a very enlarged view of all the decrees of that memorable council, and shews them to be at variance with the opinions of the fathers of the church, and hostile to the liberties of France. The warmth of his temper leading him to use the plainest expressions, as was the custom with the writers of the age, he afforded ample ground for a fresh persecution by his enemies. They now accused him of exciting sedition, and disturbing the public tranquillity, and were so successful in these misrepresentations, that some of those who were the first to advise him to publish the above work, now gave him up, and even the parliament with all the esteem which most of the members entertained for him, was obliged to issue an order to imprison him, nor did he recover his liberty but upon condition that he should print nothing without the king’s permission. Scarcely had he escaped from this danger, when he was attacked by the protestant party, who forgetting his services in the common cause against the see of Rome, could never forgive him for having deserted the profession he once made of being an adherent of Calvin, and ordered his works to be burnt at Geneva. He had indeed about this time given them more reason than they ever had before, by representing their ministers as coming into France for no other purpose than to introduce a spirit of discord and insubordination, and under pretence of an imaginary liberty, to reduce the constitution of the kingdom to a republican form.

, a very celebrated French protestant minister, and of the same family with Charles da Moulin, was born at Vexin Oct. 18, 1568. He imbibed the rudiments of literature at Sedan; and, when he arrived at twenty years of age, was sent to finish his education in England, where he became a member of Christ college in Cambridge. After a residence of four years in England, he went to Holland in the retinue of the duke of Wirtemberg, but was shipwrecked in his passage, and lost all his books and baggage. This occasioned his elegant poem entitled “Votiva Tabula,” which did him great credit, and procured him many friends. The French ambassador became one of his patrons (for Henry IV. at that time sent protestant ambassadors into protestant countries), and recommended him to the queen- mother, by whose interest he obtained the professorship of philosophy at Leyden, then vacant. This he held for five or six years; and among other disciples, who afterwards became celebrated, be had Hugo Grotius. He read lectures upon Aristotle, and disciplined his scholars in the art of disputing; of which he made himself so great a master, that he was enabled to enter with great spirit and success into the controversies with the catholics. Scaliger was very much his patron; and when Du Moulin published his Logic at Ley. den in 1596, said of the epistle prefatory, “haec epistola non est hujus sevi.” He taught Greek also in the divinity schools, in which he was extremely well skilled, as appears from his book entitled “Novitas Papismi,” where he exposes cardinal Perron’s ignorance of that language.

Though Henry IV. did not much relish Du Moulin’s endeavours to convert his sister, yet he had always a great regard for him, of which Du Moulin retained a very grateful remembrance; and after the death of Henry, in 1610, he publicly charged the murder of that monarch upon Cotton and the whole order of Jesuits. It had been said that Ravillac was excited to that desperate act by some opinions derived from the writings of the Jesuits, of Mariana in particular, touching the persons and authority of kings: upon which account father Cotton published an “Apologetical Piece,” to shew that the doctrine of the Jesuits was exactly conformable to the decrees of the council of Trent. This was answered by Du Moulin in a book entitled “Anticotton or, a Refutation of Father Cotton” in which he endeavoured to prove that the Jesuits were the real authors of that execrable parricide though some indeed have doubted whether he was the author of that book. In 1615, James I. who had long corresponded with Du Moulin by letters, invited him to England; but this invitation his church at Paris would not suffer him to accept till he had given a solemn promise, in the face of his congregation, that he would return to them at the end of three months. The king received him with great affection took him to Cambridge at the time of the commencement, where he was honoured with a doctor’s degree and, at his departure from England, presented him with a prebend in the church of Canterbury. Du Moulin had afterwards innumerable disputes with the Jesuits, who, when they found him deaf to their promises of great rewards, attempted more than once his life, so that he was obliged at length always to have a guard. In 1617, when the United Provinces desired the reformed churches of England, France, and Germany to send some of their ministers to the synod of Dort, Du Moulin and three others were deputed by the Gallican church, hut were forbidden to go by the king upon pain of death. In 1618 he had an invitation from Leyden to fill their divinity chair, which was vacant, but refused to accept of it. In 1620, when he was preparing to go to the national synod of the Gallican church, lord Herbert of Cherbury, then ambassador from Britain at the court of France, asked him to write to king James, and to urge him, if possible, to undertake the defence of his son-in-law the king of Bohemia, who then stood in need of it. Du Moulin at first declined the office; but the ambassador, knowing his interest with James, would not admit of any excuse. This brought him into trouble; for it was soon after decreed by an order of parliament, that he should be seized and imprisoned, for having solicited a foreign prince to take up arms for the protestant churches. Apprised of this, he secretly betook himself to the ambassador lord Herbert, who suspected that his letters to the king were intercepted; and who advised him to fly, as the only means of providing for his safety. He went to Sedan, where he accepted the divinity-professorship and the ministry of the church; both which he held to the time of his death, which happened March 10, 1658, in his ninetieth year. He took a journey into England in 1623, when cardinal Perron’s book was published against king James; and, at that king’s instigation, undertook to answer it. This answer was published at Sedan, after the death of James, under the title of “Novitas Papismi, sive Perronii confutatio, regisque Jacobi, sed magis sacrae veritatis de-< fensio.” He was the author of many other learned works, of whiph the principal are, “The Anatomy of Arminianism;” “A Treatise on the Keys of the Church” “The Capuchin, or History of the Monks” “A Defence of the Reformed Churches,” &c. &c.

About this time the cardinal Bessarion arrived at Vienna, to negociate some affairs for the pope, and being a lover of astronomy, soon formed an acquaintance with Purbich and Regiomontanus. He had begun to form a Latin version of Ptolomy’s Almagest, or an Epitome of it; but not having time to go on with it himself, he requested Purbach to complete the work, and for that purpose to return with him into Italy, to make himself master of the Greek tongue, which he was as yet unacquainted with. To these proposals Purbach only assented, on condition that Regiomontanus would accompany him, and share in all the labours, which were, however, soon interrupted by the death of Purbach, which happened in 1461. The whole task then devolved upon Regiomontanus, who finished the work at Rome, to which city he accompanied the cardinal Bessarion, and applied himself diligently to the study of the Greek language; not neglecting, however, to make astronomical observations, and compose various works in that science, as his <f Dialogue against the Theories of Cremonensis.“The cardinal going to Greece soon after, Regiomontanus went to Ferrara, where he continued the study of the Greek language under Theodore Gaza; who explained to him the text of Ptolomy, with the commentaries of Theon; till at length he could compose verses in Greek, and read it critically. In 1463 he went to Padua, where he became a member of the university; and, at the request of the students, explained Alfraganus, an Arabian philosopher. In 1464 he removed to Venice, to meet and attend his patron Bessarion. Here he wrote, with great accuracy, his” Treatise of Triangles,“and a” Refutation of the Quadrature of the Circle," which Cardinal Cusan pretended he had demonstrated. The same year he returned with Bessarion to Rome where he made some stay, to procure the most curious books those he could not purchase, he took the pains to transcribe, for he wrote with great facility and elegance; and others he got copied at a great expence. For as he was certain that none of these books could be had in Germany, he intended, on his return thither, to translate and publish some of the best of them. During this time too he had a warm contest with George Trapezonde, whom he had greatly offended by animadverting on some passages in his translation of Theon’s Commentary.

With regard to the printing-house, which was the other part of his design in settling at Nuremberg, as soon as he hadcompletedit, he put to press two works of his own, besides “The New Theories” of his master Purbach, and the “Astronomicon” of Manilius. His own were, the “New Calendar,” in which were given the true conjunctions and oppositions of the luminaries, their eclipses, their true places every day, &c. His other work was his “Epbemerides,” of which he thus speaks in the said index “The Ephemerides, which they vulgarly call an Almanac, for 30 years where you may every day see the true motion of all the planets, of the moon’s nodes, with the aspects of the moon to the sun and planets, the eclipses of the luminaries; and in the fronts of the pages are marked the latitudes.” He published also most acute commentaries on Ptolomy’s Almagest: a work which cardinal Bessarion so highly valued, that he scrupled not to esteem it worth a whole province. He prepared also new versions of Ptolomy’s Cosmography and at his leisure hours examined and explained works of another nature. He inquired how high the vapours are carried above the earth,which he fixed to be not more than 12 German miles; and set down observations of two comets that appeared in 1471 and 1472.

Muretus was thirty-four, when the cardinal Hippolite d'Est called him to Rome, at the recommendation of the cardinal Francis de Tournon, and took him into his service: and from that time his conduct was such as to procure him universal regard. In 1562 he attended his patron, who was going to France in quality of a legate a latere; but did not return with him to Rome, being prevailed on to read public lectures at Paris upon Aristotle’s “Ethics;” which he did with singular applause to 1567. After that, he taught the civil law for four years, with a precision and elegance not common with the lawyers of his time. Joseph Scaliger assures us that he had taken the degrees in this faculty at Ascoli. It is related as a particularity in the life of Muretus, that when he first began to read law lectures at Thoulouse, he was so very indifferently qualified for the province he had undertaken, as to provoke the contempt and ridicule of his pupils, which be afterwards changed into admiration, by a very consummate knowledge in his profession. He spent the remainder of his life in teaching the belles-lettres, and explaining the Latin authors. In 1576 he entered into orders, was ordained priest, and devoted himself with zeal to all the exercises of piety. James Thomasius, in a preface to some works of Muretus, printed at Leipsic, says, that this learned man was a Jesuit at the latter end of his life; but for this there seems to be no foundation. He died at Paris, June 4, 1585, aged fifty-nine. He was made a citizen of Rome, (which title he has placed at the head of some of his pieces) probably by pope Gregory XIIL who esteemed him very highly, and conferred many favours on him.

, or Nannius, or in his native language, Nanningh (Peter), a very learned philologer, and general scholar, was born at Alcmaer, in Holland, in 1500; he studied at Louvain, and then was employed in the private education of some young men until the death of Conrad Goclenius, when the university unanimously appointed him to pronounce a funeral oration on that eminent teacher, and to succeed him as Latin professor. In this office he gave such satisfaction, that all his scholars, who were exceedingly numerous, ever preserved the highest respect for him, and acknowledged that the care he took was the foundation of their future advancement and fame. He was also much esteemed by the cardinal de Granvelle, and by Nicholas Everard, president of the great council of Mechlin. The cardinal preferred him to a canonry in his church of ArraS, and the president placed his children under his care, and rewarded him munificently. With the patronage of these two personages, he was so satisfied as to refuse many liberal offers to remove to Italy, and remained the whole of his life at Louvain. He was a most industrious writer, as well as teacher, and in the numerous list given by Foppen of his publications, we find commentaries on Cicero, on Virgil, and Horace’s Art of Poetry; paraphrases on the Song of Solomon, and on the Proverbs; annotations on civil law, of which he acquired a profound knowledge; translations of some part of Demosthenes, Synesius, Apollonius, Plutarch, St. Athanasius, St. N Basil, Chrysostom; prefaces introductory and illustrative of Homer, and Demosthenes, &c. He also translated the Psalms into Latin verse, and, in the opinion of his contemporaries, with equal elegance and fidelity. Among his separate publications his “Miscellaoeorum decas,” a collection of critical remarks on ancient authors, and his “Dialogismi Heroinarum,” were much esteemed. This eminent scholar died at Louvain, July 21, 1557, and was buried in the church of St. Peter, where one of his scholars, Sigismond Frederic Fugger, placed a monument to his memory. He is mentioned in terms of the highest praise by Miræus, Thuanus, Melchior Adam, Gyraldus, Huet, and many other learned men.

, a celebrated engraver, was born in 1630, at Rheims, where his father kept a petty shop, suitable to his fortune, which was small, but sufficient to enable him to give his son a liberal education. Accordingly, Robert was put to the grammar-school at a proper age; and, as soon as he had made the necessary progress in classical learning, went through a course of philosophy. He had, from his childhood, a strong inclination to drawing; and he applied to it with such success, that being to maintain, according to custom, his philosophical thesis at the end of two years, he drew and engraved it himself. As he continued to cultivate his genius, his productions became the delight of the town. But finding more fame than profit at Rheims, and having married while young, he was under the necessity of seeking a situation where his talents might be more amply rewarded. With this view he left his wife and repaired to Paris, probably without introduction to any friends, as we are told he had no better way to make himself known, than the following device Seeing several young abbes standing at the door of a victualling-house, near the Sorbonne, he asked the mistress if there was not an ecclesiastic of Rheims there? telling her that he had unfortunately forgot his name, but that she might easily know him by the picture that he had of him, shewing her at the same time a portrait, well drawn, and which had the air of being an exact likeness. This drew the attention of some of the abbes, who were profuse in their praises of the portrait. “If you please, messieurs,” said Nantueil, “I will draw all your pictures for a trifle, as highly finished as this is.” The price which he asked was so moderate, that all the abbes sat to him one after another; and then bringing their friends, customers came in so fast, that he took courage to raise his price: and having in a short time acquired a considerable sum, he returned to Rheims, disposed of his little property there, and brought his wife to Paris, where his character soon became established. He applied himself particularly to drawing portraits in crayons, which he afterwards engraved for the use of the academical theses; and succeeded beyond all his predecessors in that branch. He never failed to catch the likeness; and even pretended that he had certain rules which ascertained it. His portrait of the king, as large as life, which he afterwards engraved, so pleased his majesty that he rewarded him with a present of a hundred louis d'ors, and made him designer and engraver to his cabinet, with a salary of 1000 livres per annum. Nantueil afterwards did the portrait of the queen-mother in the same manner, as also that of cardinal Mazarine, the duke of Orleans, marshal Turenne, and others. The grand duke of Tuscany hearing of his fame, requested to have Nantueil’s own portrait by himself, in crayons, in order to place it in his gallery. His works consist of 240 prints, including the portraits of almost all the persons of the first rank in France. Of his filial affection we have the following anecdote. As soon as he had made an easy fortune, his first object was to invite his father to share it; and the manner in which he received him, which happened to be before many witnesses, drew tears of joy from all. From this time the son’s greatest happiness was to comfort the declining years, and supply the wants, of his father. Nantueil died at Paris, Dec. 18, 1678, aged forty-eight.

While at Padua he lost his father, which obliged him to return to Paris to settle his affairs. In 1628, the faculty of medicine chose him to make the ordinary harangues at the admission of licentiates, which he performed entirely to their satisfaction. One of these, in Latin, on the origin and dignity of the medical school at Paris, was printed there in 1628, in octavo. He was then recommended by one of his friends to cardinal Bagni, who appointed him his librarian and Latin secretary. He took him also to Rome in 1631, and Naud had an opportunity of forming an acquaintance with the celebrated Peiresc, as the cardinal travelled by the way of Beaugensier, on purpose to see his old friend, who complimented him very warmly on having acquired for a librarian a young man of Naude’s extensive knowledge of books. While on this journey, Naude went to Padua, where, in 1633, he received the degree of doctor of philosophy and medicine, in order to support the character of physician to Louis XIII. with which he had been honoured. On the death of cardinal Bagni, in 1640, he intended to return to France, but had so many liberal offers to remain in Italy, that he changed his mincl, and determined to attach himself to cardinal Barberini. There is much difference of dates amongst his biographers respecting his return from Paris. All we can decide is, that he acted there as librarian to cardinal Mazarine, and that he collected for him a library of 40,OO0 volumes, the greatest that had then appeared in France. But the cardinal died in 1642, and he consequently could not have long been in his service. Perhaps he was employed to make purchases for this library when in Italy, &c. The cardinal appears not to have rewarded him with much liberality, and in 1648 we find him complaining of being neglected. He had, however, a greater mortification to undergo in 1652, when this fine collection was sold by order of the parliament. He is said to have been greatly irritated on this occasion, and bought all the medical books it contained for 3500 livres Isaac Vossius now recommended him to Christina queen of Sweden, with whom he resided a few months as librarian, or rather to fill up that station in the absence of Vossius, who was at this time in disgrace. Isiaude, however, neither liked the employment nor the people, and took an early opportunity to give in his resignation; on which occasion the queen, and some other persons of rank, testified their regard for him by various presents. The fatigue of his journey on returning brought on a fever, which obliged him to stop at Abbeville, where he died July 29, 1653. Naude was a man of great learning, and in his private conduct, correct, prudent, and friendly. His sentiments, as we have noticed, were on some subjects, very liberal, but on others he deserves less praise. While he played the freethinker so far as to despise some parts of the belief of his church, he could gravely vindicate the massacres of St. Bartholomew, as a measure of political expedience. His works are very numerous. To the few already mentioned we may add, 1. “Le Marfore, ou Discours contre les libelles.” Paris, 1620, 8vo. 2. “Instruction & la France sur la verit de l'histoire des freres de la Rose-croix,” ibid. 1623, 8vo. The Rosecrucians he considers as impostors. 3. “Addition a Thistoire de Louis XI.” ibid. 1630. 4. “Consideration politique sur les coups d'Etat, par G. N. P.” Rome, (i. e. Paris), 1639, 4to. It is in this work he vindicates the massacre of St. Bartholomew; but he appears to have published it with great caution, and it is said that this first edition consisted of only twelve copies. It was, however, reprinted in 1667, 1673, and in 1752, 3 vols. 12mo, with notes and reflections by Louis du May. 5. “Bibliographia Politica,” Leyden, 1642, 16mo, a learned work, but not very correct. 6. “Hieronymi Cardani vita,” Paris, 1643, 8vo. 6. “Jugement de tout ce qui a ete imprim6 contre le cardinal Mazarin depuis Jan. 6, jusqu'au 1 Avril, 1649,” Paris, 1641, 4to. This curious work, which is of great rarity, is sometimes called “Mascurat,” and consists of a dialogue between St. Ange, a librarian, L e. Naude, and Mascurat, a printer, i. e. Camusat. 7. “Avis a Nosseigneurs du pariement sur la vente de la Bibliotheque du cardinal Mazarin,” 1G52, 4to. 8. “Nundaeana et Patiniana,” Paris, 1701, in which are many of his sentiments, and some particulars of his history.

He went on however in his career, and it is to be deeply regretted that the proceeding which immediately followed, has been thought to detract from the glories of his former life. He now set sail for Sicily, and on his arrival at Naples, was received as a deliverer by their majesties and the whole kingdom. But soon after the subjects of that monarch, discontented at his conduct, and supported by the French, drove him from his capital, after which they established, or rather proclaimed, “The Parthenopean Republic.” The zeal of cardinal Ruffo, however, who successfully mingled the character of a soldier with that of a priest, proved signally efficacious towards the restoration of the exiled monarch. Having marched to Naples at the head of a body of Calabrians, he obliged “the patriots,” as they were termed, who were in possession of all the forts, to capitulate; and to this treaty the English, Turkish, and Russian commanders acceded. On the appearance of lord Nelson, however, Ferdinand publicly disavowed “the authority of cardinal Ruffo to treat with subjects in rebellion,” and the capitulation was accordingly violated, with the exception of the prisoners in Castella Mare alone, which had surrendered to the English squadron under commodore Foote. For this part of lord Nelson’s conduct much has been pleaded, but the general opinion was that it could not be justified.

In 1680 he was chosen F. R. S. probably by the introduction of his friend and school-fellow, Dr. Halley, for whom he had a particular regard, and in whose company he set out on his travels the same year. In the road to Paris they saw the remarkable comet which gave rise to the cometical astronomy of sir Isaac Newton; and our author, apparently by the advantage of his fellow-traveller’s instructions, sent dean Tillotson a description of it. Before he left Paris he received a letter from a friend in the English court, suggesting to him to purchase a place there, and promising his assistance in it. But although Nelson had a great affection for king Charles and the duke of York, and was at first pleased with the thoughts of aU taching himself to the court, on which, however, at that time, he was more likely to confer honour, than to derive any from it, yet he could not resolve upon an affair of such consequence without the approbation of his mother and uncle. He first, therefore, applied to Tillotson to obtain their opinion, with assurances of determining himself by their and the dean’s advice; but, finding no encouragement from either of the parties, he relinquished his intention, and pursued his journey with his fellow-traveller to Rome. Here he became acquainted with a lady considerably older than himself, the lady Theophila Lucy, widow of sir Kingsmili Lucy, of Broxburne, Herts, bare, and second daughter of George earl of Berkeley, who soon discovered a strong passion for him, which concluded in a marriage, after his arrival in England, in 1682. His disappointment was, however, very great, when he found that she had deceived him in one very essential point, that of her having been won over to the popish religion while on this tour; and it was some time before she confessed this change, which was owing to her acquaintance with Bossuet, and conversations at Rome with cardinal Philip Howard, who was grandson of the earl of Arundel, the collector of the Arundelian marbles, &c. and had been raised to the purple by Clement X. in May 1675. Nor was this important alteration of her religious sentiments confined to her own mind, but involved in it her daughter by her first husband, whom she drew over to her new religion; and her zeal for it prompted her even to become a writer in one of the controversies so common at that time. She is the supposed authoress of a piece printed in 1686, 4to, under the title of “A Discourse concerning a Judge of Controversy in matters of Religion, shewing the necessity of such a judge.”

, founder of the congregation of priests of the Oratory in Italy, was born July 23, 1515, of a noble family at Florence. His piety and zeal acquired him uncommon reputation. He died at Rome, 1595, aged eighty, and was canonized by pope Gregory XV. 1622. The congregation founded by St. Philip de Neri was confirmed, 1574, by pope Gregory XIII. and took the name of the Oratory, because the original assemblies, which gave rise to its establishment, were held in an oratory of St. Jerome’s church at Rome but it differs from the congregation of the Oratory founded by cardinal de Berulle, in France. Its members take no vows; their general governs but three years; their office is to deliver such instructions every day in their church as are suited to all capacities. Each institution has produced great numbers of men who have been celebrated for their learning, and services to the Romish church. It was at St. Philip de Neri’s solicitation that cardinal Baronius, who had entered his congregation, wrote his Ecclesiastical Annals.

Dr. Neve was an able divine and scholar, and had long filled his station with credit to himself and the university, of which he remained a member more than sixty years. In private life, the probity, integrity, and unaffected simplicity of his manners, endeared him to his family and friends, and rendered him sincerely regretted by all who knew him. He had accumulated a very considerable collection of books, particularly curious pamphlets, which were dispersed after his death. Most of them contain ms notes by him, which we have often found of great value. His publications were not numerous, but highly creditable to his talents. Among them was a sermon, on Act-Sunday, July 8, 1759, entitled “The Comparative Blessings of Christianity,” the text Ephes. iv. 8. “Animadversions on Philips’s Life of Cardinal Pole, Oxford, 1766,” 8vo. “Eight Sermons preached at the Lecture founded by the late Rev. John Bampton, M. A. Canon of Salisbury,” 1781, 8vo and after his death appeared “Seventeen Sermons on various subjects,” 1798, 8vo, published by subscription for his family.

, a celebrated patriarch of Constantinople, of the ninth century, was distinguished for his zealous defence of the worship of images, against the emperor Leo the Armenian, who banished him in the year 815, to a monastery, where he died in the year 828, aged seventy. His works are, “An Abridgment of History,” from the death of the emperor Mauritius to Constantino Copronymus, printed at the Louvre, 1648, fol. It forms part of the Byzantine history, and has been translated into French by president Cousin. It is said to be accurate, but written in a dry and concise style. An “Abridgment of Chronography,” which is at the end of Syncellus; and several other works in Greek, which may be found in P. Labbe’s Councils, or the Library of the Fathers. Cardinal Baronius has inserted this patriarch’s “Confession of Faith” in torn. XI. of his Annals. He is supposed by Lardner and others, to have been the author of “The Stichometry,” a catalogue of the books of sacred scripture, which, ifof no other use, at least shews that the Jewish canon was generally esteemed sacred by Christians, and that the other books of the Old Testament, which are now deemed “Apocryphal,” were not of equal authority, though sometimes read in the churches, and quoted by Christian writers.

, a Greek historian, a native, as some relate, of Paphlagonia, flourished about the end of the ninth century. He wrote the “Life of St. Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople,” translated into Latin by Frederic Mutius, bishop of Termoli, and made use of by cardinal Baronius: but we have another version, by father Matthew Raderi, printed at Ingoldstadt, in 1604. This Nicetas composed also several panegyrics, in honour of the apostles and other saints, which are inserted in the last continuation of the “Bibliotheca Patrum,” by Combesis. There are several authors of this name mentioned by Gesner and Leo Allatius.

pope, and the only pontiff of that name much deserving of notice, was originally named Thomas of Sarzana, and was born in 1398. He was the son of Barth. dei Parentucelli, a professor of arts and medicine in Pisa. His mother, Andreola, was a native of Sarzana, a small town on the borders of Tuscany, and the republic of Genoa, whence he derived his surname. In his seventh year his father died, and his mother marrying again, a man who had no affection for her offspring, his younger days were embittered by domestic neglect and harshness. He. obtained a friend, however, in cardinal Nicholas Albergati, who took him under his protection, and supplied him with whatever was necessary for pursuing his studies at the university of Bologna. At the age of twenty-four he enrolled himself in the priesthood, but continued to live in the family of his patron until the death of the latter, when his learning and virtues procured him another friend in the cardinal Gerard Andriani. By his means he was introduced to. the court of Eugenius IV. and employed in all the disputes between the Latins and Greeks at the councils ef Ferrara and Florence, for his admirable management of which he was rewarded in 1445 by the bishopric of Bologna. In 1446 he was promoted to the purple, and in March 1447 he was elevated to the papal throne, on which occasion he assumed the name of Nicholas V. The temporalties of the holy see being in a lamentable state of disorder, he had uncommon difficulties to struggle with, which, however, he encountered by a wise and temperate conduct. It was first his object to restore the finances, and to cultivate the arts of peace, which furnished him with the means of gratifying his passion for the encouragement of learning. Fostered by his patronage, the scholars of Italy no longer had reason to complain that they were doomed to obscurity and contempt. Nicholas invited to his court all those who were distinguished by their proficiency in ancient literature; and whilst he afforded them full scope for the exertion of their talents, he requited their labours by liberal remunerations. Poggio was one of those who experienced his kindest patronage.

, cardinal and archbishop of Paris, commander of the order of the Holy Ghost, proviseur of the house and society of the Sorbonne, and superior of that of Navarre, was the second son of Anne dukede Noailles, peer of France, and born May 27, 1651. In consequence of his birth, he became lord of Aubrach, commander of the order of the Holy Ghost, duke of St. Cloud, and peer of France. He was bred with great care, and his inclination leading him to the church, he took holy orders; and proceeding in the study of divinity, he performed his exercise for licentiate in that science with reputation, and was created D. D. of the Sorbonne, March 14, 1676. Three years afterwards the king gave him the bishopric of Cahors, whence he was translated to Chalons on the Marne, in 1680. He discharged the duties of both these dioceses with a distinguished vigilance, and a truly pastoral charity; so that, the archbishopric of Paris becoming vacant in 1695, by the death of Francis de Harlay, his majesty chose the bishop of Chalons to fill that important see. Invested with this dignity; he applied himself wholly to the affairs of it, and made excellent rules for the reformation of the clergy.

By another ordinance, in 1703, he likewise condemned the resolution of the “Case of Conscience,” which had been signed by forty doctors of the Sorbonne, in favour of Jansenius, the same year, respecting the distinction between the fact and the right. These maintained, that the five propositions, though rightfully condemned by the decrees of the popes, yet were not in fact taught by Jansenius, as was declared in those decrees. In the same spirit of pastoral vigilance, he did not content himself with preserving the sacred depositum of faith inviolate among the full-confirmed Catholics, but made it his business also to instruct the new converts, by a letter addressed particularly to them. With the like care, when Mr. Simon, an author of great fame, published his French version of the “New Testament,” with a paraphrase and notes, which were thought by our prelate of a bad tendency, he considered himself bound in duty to prohibit the reading of that book, in order to prevent the ill effects it might occasion by falling into the hands of the simple and unwary. In June 1700 he was created a cardinal, at the nomination of the French king, and assisted in the conclave held that year, in which Clement XI. was elected pope having, a little before, in the same year, sat president in an assembly of the clergy, where several propositions, concerning doctrine and manners, were condemned. He also presided afterwards in several of these general assemblies, both ordinary and extraordinary. In 1715, he was appointed president of the council of conscience at Rome, notwithstanding he had refused to accept the constitution Unigenitus.

This celebrated bull brought our cardinal into a great deal of trouble on this account. Pasquin Quesnel, one of the fathers of the oratory, publishing his New Testament, with moral reflections upon every verse, in 1694, our cardinal, then bishop of Chalons, gave it his approbation, and recommended it to his clergy and people in 1695; and, after his removal to Paris, procured a new edition, corrected, to be printed there in 1699. But as the book contained some doctrines in favour of Jansenism, the Jesuits took the alarm, and, after writing several pieces, charging the author with heresy and sedition, obtained, in 1708, a decree of pope Clement XI. condemning it in general. Although this decree could neither be received nor published in France, not being conformable to the usage of that kingdom, the book was condemned, without mentioning the decree, by some French bishops, at whose solicitation Lewis XIV. applied to his holiness to condemn it by a constitution in form, which was granted; and, in 1715, appeared the famous constitution “Unigenitus,” condemning the “Moral Reflections,” and 101 propositions extracted from the work. The pope also condemned all such writings as had been already published, or should hereafter be published in its defence. But the king’s letters patent, for the publication of this bull, were not registered in the parliament without several modifications and restrictions, in pursuance of a declaration made by a great number of bishops, that they accepted it purely and simply, although at the same time they gave some explications of it in their pastoral instructions. Cardinal Noailles, and some other prelates, not thinking these explications sufficient, refused absolutely to accept it, till it should be explained by the pope in such a manner as to secure from all danger the doctrine, discipline, and liberty, of the schools, the episcopal rights, and the liberties of the Gallican church. The faculty of divines at the Sorbonne declared, that the decree which was made March 5, 1714, for accepting the bull, was false. The four bishops also of Mirepoix, Seine’s, Montpelier, and Boulogne, appealed from it, March 4, 1717 and the same day the faculty of divines at Paris adhered to their appeal. This example was followed by several faculties of divines, monasteries, curates, priests, &c, and cardinal deNoailles, having appealed, about the same time, with the four bishops, published his appeal in 1718. However, he retracted this appeal, and received the constitution some time before his death, which happened in his palace at Paris, May 4, 1729.

His corpse was interred, according to the direction of his last will, in the grand nave of the metropolitan church in that city, before the chapel of the Virgin Mary, where a monument of black marble was erected, with a Latin inscription to his memory. Some notion of the character of the cardinal de Noailles may be collected from the preceding circumstances: and we are farther told by his biographers, that his conduct through life discovered exemplary piety, and attention to the promotion of learning, good conduct, and regularity of the clergy; for which purpose he zealously maintained ecclesiastical discipline. He was mild, affable, as easy to the poor as to the rich, and very charitable.

, canon and theologal of Seez, the son of John le Noir, counsellor to the presidial of Alenon, was a celebrated preacher at Paris, and in the provinces, about the middle of the seventeenth century; but, having had a quarrel afterwards with M. de Mendavi, his bishop, in consequence of the boldness with which he censured not only the doctrine, but the conduct of his superiors, he was banished in 1663, confined in the Bastille in 1683, and condemned April 24, 1684, to make amende honorable before the metropolitan church at Paris, and to the gallies for life. This punishment, however, being changed to perpetual imprisonment, M. le Noir was afterwards carried to St. Malo, then to the prisons of Brest, and, lastly, to those of Nantes, where he died April 22, 1692, leaving several works, which are curious, but full of intemperate abuse. The principal are, A collection of his Requests and Factums, folio; a translation of “L'Echelle du Clottre” “Les Avantages incontestable de PEglise sur les Calvinistes,” 8vo “L‘Herésie de la Domination Episcopate qu’on etablit en France,” 12mo “Les nouvelles Lumieres politiques pour le Gouvernement de l'Eglise, ou TEvangile nouveau du cardinal Palavicini dans son Histoiredu Concile de Trente,” Holl. 1676, 12mo. This work occasioned the French translation of cardinal Palavicini’s history to be suppressed.

, one of the most celebrated scholars of the seventeenth century, was born at Verona, Aug. 29, 1631. His baptismal name was Jerom, which he changed tO'Henry, when he entered the order of the Augustines. His family is said to have been originally of England, whence a branch passed into Ireland, and even to Cyprus. When this island was taken by the Turks, a James Noris, who had defended it as general of artillery, settled afterwards at Verona, and it is from this person that the subject of the present article descended. His father’s name was Alexander, and, according to Niceron, published several works, and among them a History of Germany. Maffei, however, attributes this work only to him, which is not a history of Germany, but of the German war from 1618 to the peace of Lubec, translated from the Italian by Alexander Noris. His son discovered, from his infancy, an excellent understanding, great vivacity, and a quick apprehension. His father, having instructed him in the rudiments of grammar, procured an able professor of Verona to be his preceptor. At fifteen, he was admitted a pensioner in the Jesuits’ college at Rimini, where he studied philosophy; after which, he applied himself to the writings of the fathers of the church, particularly those of St. Augustine; and, taking the habit in the convent of Augustine monks of Rimini, he so distinguished himself among that fraternity, that, as soon as he was out of his noviciate, the general of the order sent for him to Rome, in order to give him an opportunity of improving himself in the more solid branches of learning. Here he indulged his favourite propensity for study to the utmost, and spent whole days, and even nights, in the library of his order at Rome. His daily course of reading was fourteen hours, and this practice he continued till he became a cardinal. It, is easy to conceive that a student of such diligence, and whose memory and comprehension were equally great, must have accumulated a vast stock of knowledge. But for some time his reading was interrupted by the duties of a regent master being imposed on him, according to the usual practice; and we find that for some time he taught at Pesaro, and afterwards at Perugia, where he took his degree of doctor of divinity. Proceeding then to Padua, he applied himself to finish his “History of Pelagianism,” which he had begun at Rome, when he was no more than twentysix: and, having now completed his design, it was printed at Florence in 1673. The great duke of Tuscany invited him, the following year, to that city, made him his chaplain, and professor of ecclesiastical history in the university of Pisa, which the duke had founded with that view.

His answers to all these accusations were so much to the satisfaction of the pope, that at length his holiness honoured him with the purple in 1695. After this he was in all the congregations, and employed in the most important affairs, much to the hindrance of his studies, which he used deeply to regret to his friends. Upon the death of cardinal Casanati, he was made chief librarian of the Vatican, in 1700; and, two years afterwards, nominated, among others, to reform the calendar: but he died at Rome, Feb. 23, 1704, of a dropsy. He had the reputation of one of the most learned men in the sixteenth century, which seems justified by his many able and profound writings on subjects of ecclesiastical history and antiquities. Of the latter the most celebrated are, 1. “Annus et Epochse Syro-Macedonum in vetustis urbium Syriae nummis prsesertim Mediceis expositae,” Florence, 1691, fol. and 2. “Cenotaphia Pisana Caii et Lucii Caesarum dissertationibus illustrata,” Venice, 1681, fol. The whole of his works are comprized in 4 vols. fol. 1729 1732. Some authors mention a fifth volume, but Fabroni gives the contents of only four. They indicate much study of theology, the belles-lettres, sacred and profane history, antiquities and chronology. His History of Pelagianism, as it procured him the most reputation, occasioned also the only uneasiness with which his literary life was disturbed. He had written it with a good deal of caution, and confined himself mostly to historical detail, mixing very little discussion. The Jesuits, however, took occasion to reproach him with Jansenism, and it must be allowed that while he rejected some particular notions of Jansenius, he leaned not a little to the doctrine of St. Augustine.

, one of the restorers of literature in Spain, flourished in the sixteenth century, and was born at Vailadolid, in Latin Pinciuniy whence he was sometimes called Pingianus. His father, of the illustrious family of Guzman, was superintendant of the finances, or treasurer to Ferdinand the catholic. As entitled by birth, he received, when of proper age, the honour of knighthood of St. Jago; but his earliest taste being decidedly for literature, he put himself under a regular course of instruction for that purpose, and having a particular desire to become acquainted with the Greek language, then little known in Spain, after some elementary instruction in grammar under Antonio Lebrixa, he went to Bologna, and applied with the greatest ardour to Greek and Latin under Jovian of Peloponesus, and Philip Beroaldus. Having learned what these celebrated masters were able to teach, he determined to improve himself by every means, and laid out large sums in the purchase of Greek books and Mss. with which he returned to Spain, and devoted the whole of his time and attention to the studies he had begun with so much success. He appears to have been first employed by cardinal Ximenes on his celebrated Polyglot, and executed the greater part of the Latin version. He then succeeded Demetrius Luca of Crete, as Greek professor in the university of Alcala, then founded by the cardinal; but some disputes which occurred in this university obliged him to seek a situation of more tranquillity. This he found at Salamanca, the most famous university of Spain, where he was appointed Greek professor, and also taught rhetoric, and lectured on Pliny’s natural history. Here he formed many distinguished scholars, acquired the esteem of the learned men of his time, and was for many years the great patron and teacher of classical studies. He assisted likewise in the correction and revision of some of the ancient authors. He died about the age of eighty, in 1553, according to Antonio, or 1552, according to Thuanus and others, bequeathing his valuable library to the university of Salamanca, and his other property to the poor. His private character appears to have been estimable; he kept a plain but hospitable table, at which he loved to see his friends and scholars, whom he delighted and edified by his conversation. Among his works are, 1. “Annotationes in Senecae Philosophi Opera,” Venice, 1536, which Lipsius calls a model of just criticism. 2. “Observationes in Pomponium Melam,” Salamanca, 1543, 8vo. 3. “Observationes in loca obscura et depravata Hist. Nat. C. Plinii, cum retractationibus quorundam locorum Geographiae Pomponii Melae, locisque aliis non paucis in diversis utriusque linguae authoribus castigatis et exposuis,” Antwerp,1547, fol. Antonio thinks there was a previous edition at Salamanca in 1544, as there certainly was a subsequent one at Francfort in 1596, fol. but Saxius calls the Antwerp edition an octavo. 3. “Glosa sobre las obras de Juan de Mena,” Saville, 1528, fol. and Toledo, 1547, fol. This^is a commentary in the Spanish language on the works of John de Mena, a poet of Cordova. 4. A collection of Spanish proverbs, beguti in his old age, and published under the title “Refranes, o Proverbios en Romance,” Salamanca, fol. 1555. Of this edition there is a copy in the British Museum with ms notes. It was reprinted at Madrid in 1619, 4to.

Nyssenus, Gregory. See Gregory. Oates (Titus), a very singular character, who flourished in the seventeenth century, was born about 1619. He was the son of Samuel Gates, a popular preacher among the baptists, and a fierce bigot. His son was educated at Merchant Taylors’ school, from whence he removed to Cambridge. When he left the university, he obtained orders in the church of England, though in his youth he had been a member of a baptist church in Virginia-street, Ratcliffe Highway, and even officiated some time as assistant to his father; he afterwards officiated as a curate in Kent and Sussex. In 1677, after residing some time in the duke of Norfolk’s family, he became a convert to the church of Rome, and entered himself a member of the society of Jesuits, with a view, as he professed, to betray them. Accordingly, he appeared as the chief informer in what was called the popish plot, or a plot, as he pretended to prove, that was promoted for the destruction of the protestant religion in England, by pope Innocent XL; cardinal Howard; John Paul de Oliva, general of the Jesuits at Rome; De Corduba, provincial of the Jesuits in New Castille; by the Jesuits and seminary priests in England; the lords Petre, Powis, Bellasis, Arundel of Wardour, Stafford, and other persons of quality, several of whom were tried and executed, chiefly on this man’s evidence; while public opinion was for a time very strongly in his favour. For this service he received a pension of 1200l. per annum, was lodged in Whitehall, and protected by the guards; but scarcely had king James ascended the throne, when he took ample revenge of the sufferings which his information had occasioned to the monarch’s friends: he was thrown into prison, and tried for perjury with respect to what he had asserted as to that plot. Being convicted, he was sentenced to stand in the pillory five times a year during his life, to be whipt from Aldgate to Newgate, and from thence to Tyburn; which sentence, says Neal, was exercised with a severity unknown to the English nation. “The impudence of the man,” says the historian Hume, “supported itself under the conviction; and his courage under the punishment. He made solemn appeals to heaven, and protestations of the veracity of his testimony. Though the whipping was so cruel that it was evidently the intention of the court to put him to death by that punishment, yet he was enabled by the care of his friends to recover, and he lived to king William’s reign, when a pension of 400l. a year was settled upon him. A considerable number of persons adhered to him in his distresses, and regarded him as a martyr to the protestant cause.” He was unquestionably a very infamous character, and those who regard the pretended popish plot as a mere fiction, say that he contrived it out of revenge to the Jesuits, who had expelled him from their body. After having left the whole body of dissenters for thirty years, he applied to be admitted again into the communion of the baptists, having first returned to the church of England, and continued a member of it sixteen years. In 1698, or 1699, he was restored to his place among the baptists, from whence he was excluded in a few months as a disorderly person and a hypocrite: he died in 1705. He is described by Granger as a man “of cunning, mere effrontery, and the most consummate falsehood.” And Hume describes him as “the most infamous of mankind that in early life he had been chaplain to colonel Pride was afterwards chaplain on board the fleet, whence he had been ignominiously dismissed on complaint of some unnatural practices; that he then became a convert to the Catholics; but that he afterwards boasted that his conversion was a mere pretence, in order to get into their secrets and to betray them.” It is certain that his character appears to have been always such as ought to have made his evidence be received with great caution; yet the success of his discoveries, and the credit given to him by the nation, by the parliament, by the courts of law, &c. and the favour to which he was restored after the revolution, are circumstances which require to be carefully weighed before we can pronounce the whole of his evidence a fiction, and all whom he accused innocent.

, a celebrated Italian, was born at Sienna in 1487, and first took the habit of a Cordelier; but throwing it off in a short time, and returning into the world, applied himself to the study of physic, and acquired the esteem of cardinal Julius de Medici, afterwards pope Clement VII. At length, changing his mind again, he resumed his monk’s habit, and embraced, in 1534, the reformed sect of the Capuchins. He practised, with a most rigorous exactness, all the rules of this order; which, being then in its infancy, he contributed so much to improve and enlarge, that some writers have called him the founder of it. It is certain he was made vicar-general of it, and became in the highest degree eminent for his talents in the pulpit. He delivered his sermons with great eloquence, success, and applause. His extraordinary merit procured him the favour of pope Paul III. who, it is said, made him his father-confessor and preacher; and he was thus the favourite of both prince and people, when, falling into the company of one John Valdes, a Spaniard, who had imbibed Luther’s doctrine in Germany, he became a proselyte. He was then at Naples, and began to preach in favour of protestant doctrines with so much boldness, that he was summoned to appear at Rome, and was in his way thither, when he met at Florence Peter Martyr, with whom, it is probable, he had contracted an acquaintance at Naples. This friend persuaded him not to put himself into the pope’s power; and they both agreed to withdraw into some place of safety. Ochinus went first to Ferrara, where he disguised himself in the habit of a soldier; and, proceeding thence to Geneva, arrived thither in 1542, and married at Lucca, whence he went to Augsburg, and published some sermons.

, general of the Augustin monks, and a celebrated cardinal, was born at Saxoferato, in 1408, of poor parents. He was admitted young amongst the monks of Augustin, and studied at Rimini, Bologna, and Perugia: in which last place he was first made professor of philosophy, and afterwards appointed to teach divinity. At length he was chosen provincial, and some time after accepted, not without reluctance, the post of solicitor-general of his order. This office obliged him to go to Rome, where his learning and virtue became greatly admired, notwithstanding he took all possible methods, out of an extreme humility, to conceal them. The cardinal of Tarentum, the protector of his order, could not prevail upon him to engage in any of the public disputations, where every body wished to see his great erudition shine; they had, however, the gratification to hear his frequent sermons, which were highly applauded. He appeared in the pulpits of the principal cities in Italy, as Rome, Naples, Venice, Bologna, Florence, Mantua, and Ferrara; was elected first vicar-general, and then general of his order, in 1459; and at last created cardinal, in 1460, by pope Pius II. This learned pontiff gave him afterwards the bishopric of Camerino, and made use of his abilities on several occasions. Oliva died shortly after at Tivola, where the court of Rome then resided, in 1463. His corpse was carried to the church of the Augustin monks at Rome, where there is a marble monument, with an epitaph, and a Latin tetrastic by way of eulogium. His works are, “De Christi ortu sermones centum”' “De ccena cum apostolis facta;” “De peccato in spiritum sanctum; Orationes elegantes.”

, an Italian antiquary, was born July 11, 1689, at Rovigo, in the Venetian state. Having been ordained priest in 1711, he became professor of ethics at Azzoio, which office he filled for eight years, and went to Rome in 1715, where Clement XI. received him very kindly. After this pontiff’s decease, Oliva being made secretary to the conclave, obtained the notice of cardinal de Rohan, who patronized him, and in 1722 appointed him his librarian, which he held till his death, March 19, 1757, at Paris. He translated the abbe Fleury’s “Tr. des Etudes,” into Italian, and left a dissertation, in Latin, “On the necessity of joining the study of ancient medals to that of history;” another, “On the progress and decay of learning among the Romans;” and a third, “On a monument of the goddess Isis.” These three, under the title of “CEuvres diverses,” were printed at Paris, 1758, 8vo. He also published an edition of a ms. of Sylvestri’s, concerning an ancient monument of Castor and Pollux, with the author’s Life, 8vo; an edition in 4to, of several Letters written by Poggio, never published before; and formed a ms catalogue of cardinal de Rohan’s library, in 25 vols. fol.

After the death of Koribut, Olzoffski had a principal share in procuring the election of John Sobieski, who made him archbishop of Guesne, and primate of the kingdom; and he would have obtained a cardinal’s hat, if he had not publicly declared against it. However, he had not been long possessed of the primacy before his right to it was disputed by the bishop of Cracow; who laid claim also to other prerogatives of the see of Guesne, and pretended to make the obsequies of the Polish monarchs. On this Olzoffski published a piece in defence of the rights and privileges of his archbishopric. He also some time afterwards published another piece, but without putting his name to it, entitled “Singularia Juris Patronatus R. Poloniae,” in support of the king of Poland’s right of nomination to the abbeys. In 1678, going by the king’s command to Dantzic, in order to compose certain disputes between the senate and people of that city, he was seized with a disorder which carried him off in three days, aged about 60. He was particularly distinguished by eloquence, and love for his country and his death was lamented throughout all' the palatinates.

, a learned cardinal, was born at Florence in 1577. He went to study at Rome, and resided in a small boarding-house in the city, where he experienced the same temptation as the patriarch Joseph did, and continued no less faithful to his duty. Cardinal Bellarmine being made acquainted with this young man’s virtues, placed him in a college for education. Oregius was afterwards employed by cardinal Barberini to examine Aristotle’s sentiments concerning the immortality of the soul, that the pope might prohibit the reading of lectures on this philosopher’s works, if it appeared that his writings were contrary to that fundamental article of religion. Oregius pronounced him innocent, and published on that subject, in 1631, his book entitled “Aristotelis vera de rationalis animifc immortalitate sententia,” 4to. Barberini at length becoming pope, by the name of Urban VIII. created him cardinal in 1634, and gave him the archbishopric of Benevento, where he died in 1635, aged fifty-eight. He left tracts “de Deo,” “de Trinitate,” “de Angelis,” de Opere sex dierum,“and other works printed at Rome, in 1637 and 1642, folio. Cardinal Bellarmine called Oregius his” Divine,“and pope Urban VIII. called him his” Bellarmine." A complete edition of this cardinal’s works was published by Nicholas Oregius, his nephew, in 1637, 1 vol. folio.

These errors, and others connected with and flowing from these, together with that “furor allegoricus,” above mentioned, which pushed him on to turn even the whole law and gospel into allegory, are the foundation of all that enmity which has been conceived against Origen, and of all those anathemas with which he has been loaded. His damnation has been often decreed in form; and it has been deemed heretical even to suppose him saved. John Picus, earl of Mirandula, having published at Rome, among his 900 propositions, that it is more reasonable to believe Origen saved than damned, the masters in divinity censured him for it; asserting, that his proposition was rash, blameable, savouring of heresy, and contrary to the determination of the catholic church. This is what Picus himself relates in his “Apolog. c. 7.” Stephen Binct, a Jesuit, published a book at Paris in 1629, concerning the salvation of Origen, in which he took the affirmative side of the question, but not without diffidence and fear. This work is written in the form of a trial; witnesses are introduced, and depositions taken; and the cause is fullypleaded pro and con. The witnesses for Origen are Merlin, Erasmus, Genebrard, and Picus of Mirandula: after this, cardinal Baronius, in the name of Bellarmine, and of all who are against Origen, makes a speech to demand the condemnation of the accused; on whose crimes and heresies having expatiated, “Must I,” says he, “at last be reduced to such an extremity as to be obliged to open the gates of hell, in order to shew that Origen is there otherwise men will not believe it. Would it not be enough to have laid before you his crime, his unfortunate end, the sentence of his condemnation delivered by the emperors, by the popes, by the saints, by the fifth general council, not to mention others, and almost by the mouth of God himself? Yet, since there is no other method left but descending into hell, and shewing there that reprobrate, that damned Origen; come, gentlemen, I am determined to do it, in order to carry this matter to the highest degree of evidence: let us, in God’s name, go down into hell, to see whether he really be there or not, and to decide the question at once.” The seventh general council has quoted a book, and by quoting it “has declared it to be of sufficient authority, to furnish us with good and lawful proofs to support the determination of the council with regard to images. Why should not we, after the example of that council, make use of the same book to determine this controversy, which besides is already but too much cleared up and decided? It is said there, that a man, being in great perplexity about the salvation of Origen, after the fervent prayers of an holy old man, saw plainly, as it were, a kind of hell open; and looking in, observed the heresiarchs, who were all named to him, one after another, by their own names: and in the midst of them he saw Origen, who was there damned among the others, loaded with horror, flames, and confusion.”

, an eminent cardinal, was born in 1692, in Tuscany. He entered the Dominican order, in which he taught theology, was afterwards master of the sacred palace, and honoured with the purple by Clement XIII. in 1759. He wrote “Infallabilitas act. Rom. Pont.” 1741, 3 vols. 4to; “An Ecclesiastical History of the first six ages of the Church,” 20 vols 4 to, or 8vo; the last volume was published in 1761, in which year he died. His history is useful as a collection of records and facts, but is too prolix for general reading.

, a celebrated orator, born July 12, 1587, at Milan, taught the languages and belles lettres, became eminent for his eloquence, and was a long time professor of rhetoric at Padua, where he died July 24, 1631. He left several works in prose and verse: the principal are, 1. “Rornano-Graecia;” 2. “Tractatus de Sepuichris et Epitaphiis Ethnicorum et Christianorum;” 3. “Elogia Scriptorum illustrium” 4. “Orationes” 5, “Epistolarum Libri duo;” 6. Notes and corrections to the “History of the time of Frederic Barbarossa,” written by Morenas, in torn. III. of the Thesaurus Italiae, and to Albert Mussato’s “History of the Emperor Henry VII.” Venice, 1635, fol.; 7. A collection of authors of the history of Padua, &c. Tbeodatus Osius, his brother, also wrote various tracts. This family, which has produced many other distinguished men, boasted of having been eminent from the time of St. Ambrose; and that being driven from Milan for joining the Turriani against the Visconti, they were dispersed over several countries of Europe, even Poland, whither they followed queen Bona Sforza. From this branch, according to their account, descended cardinal Stanislaus Osius, or more properly Hozros, an account of whom may be found under the article Sosius.

, a learned Portuguese divine, descended from an illustrious family, was born at Lisbon in 1506. Discovering an extraordinary inclination for literature, he was sent, at thirteen, to the university of Salamanca; where having studied Greek and Latin, and law, he removed at nineteen to Paris, to be instructed in Aristotle’s philosophy, which was then the vogue. From Paris he went to Bologna, where he devoted himself to the study of the sacred Scriptures, and the Hebrew language; and he acquired such reputation, as a theologist, that, on his return home, John III. king of Portugal appointed him professor of divinity at Coimbra, Taking priest’s orders, the care of the church of Tavora was given him by Don Lewis infant of Portugal; and, soon after, the archdeaconry of Evora by cardinal Henry, archbishop of that province, and brother to king John; and at last he was nominated to the bishopric of Sylves in Algarva, by Catharine of Austria, that king’s widow, who was regent of the kingdom during the minority of her grandson Sebastian. When this prince became of age to take the administration of the kingdom into his own hands, he resolved upon an expedition against the Moors in Africa, much against the persuasions of Osorio who, to avoid being an eye-witness of the calamities he dreaded, made various pretences to go to Rome. Here pope Gregory XIII. gave him many testimonies of his esteem: but he had not been absent above a year, when the king recalled him home; and not long after, Sebastian was killed in the battle of Alcazer, against the Moors, Aug. 4, 1578. During the tumults in Portugal which succeeded this fatal event, Osorio took every means to prevent the people of his diocese from joining in them; but the miseries of his country at this juncture are said to have broke his heart, and he died of grief, Aug. 20, 1580, aged seventy-four.

, a celebrated cardinal, and one of the greatest men of his time, was born at a small village in the county of Almagnac, Aug. 23, 1526. He was descended of indigent parents, and left an orphan at nine years of age, in very hopeless circumstances; but Thomas de Marca, a neighbouring gentleman, having observed his promising genius, took the care of his education, and placed him under the tutors of the young lord of Castlenau de Mugnone, his nephew and ward. D'Ossat made such a quick progress, that he became preceptor to his companion; and was sent in that character with the young nobleman and two other youths to Paris, where they arrived in May 1559. He discharged this trust with fidelity and care, till they had completed their course of study; and then sent them back to Gascony, in 1562. During this time he had made himself master of rhetoric and philosophy, and became a good mathematician; and being now at leisure to improve himself, he repaired to Bourges, where he studied the law under Cujacius. About this time he wrote a defence of Peter Rarnus, under whom he had studied philosophy, against James Charpentier, entitled “Expositio in disputationem Jacobi Carpenterii de Methodo,” Parisi 1564, to which Charpentier published a scurrilous reply, “Ad expositionem disputationis de methodo, contra Thessalum Ossatum responsio.” D'Ossat, having obtained his diploma at Bourges, returned to Paris in 1568, and applied himself to the bar. In this station his merit procured him the acquaintance and esteem of many distinguished persons; and, among the rest, of Paul de Foix, then counsellor to the parliament of Paris, took him in his company to Rome, in 1574.

This was the first step towards making his fortune; for the same friend being afterwards made archbishop of Thoulouse, and appointed by Henry III. ambassador in ordinary at the court of Rome in 1580, engaged D‘Ossat to be secretary to the embassy; and the archbishop dying in 1581, his secretary was employed in the same character by cardinal d’Este, protector of the French affairs at Rome. He continued in this service till the death of the cardinal protector, in 1586; who by will left him 4000 crowns, and offered him a diamond worth 20,000 crowns, to keep as a security till the legacy should be paid; but D‘Ossat generously refused the pledge, though he had no hopes of ever receiving the legacy. Before this time he had entered into the church, and been ordained priest; and during his residence with the cardinal, acquired a knowledge of the intrigues of the court of Rome, and displayed so much political ability, that he was -continued in the secretaryship under cardinal de Joyeuse, who succeeded d’Este. This was done by the express command of Henry ill. that he might be a kind of political tutor to that cardinal, who, being then only twenty-six years of age, had not gained sufficient experience; and he conducted himself so agreeably to Joyeuse, that he presented him in 1588 to the priory of St. Martyn du Vieux Bellesme; and the same year he was a second time invested with the post of counsellor to the praesidial court of Melun, which he had obtained before he left Paris.

Upon Henry the Fourth’s abjuring the Protestant religion in 1593, the papal absolution for him was obtained by D‘Ossat; which was deemed a master-stroke of his abilities. The favour was strongly opposed both by the Spaniards and the princes of the house of Lorrain, and also by the Hugonots, who were naturally averse to their beloved prince’s being reconciled to the see of Rome; but every difficulty was removed by the artful management of D’Ossat, who dissipated all the scruples of Clement VIII. a pope by nature extremely diffident; so that the affair was resolved on before the arrival of James Davy, afterwards cardinal Du Perron, who, indeed, by the figure that he made, quickened the execution . The king, in consideration of this service, nominated D‘Ossat, in 1596, to the bishopric of Rennes, to which the bull was signed gratuitously by the pope. Sept. 1597, he was appointed counsellor of state, on which occasion he took the oath before the duke of Luxemburg, then the French ambassador at Rome; who, having leave to return home in 1598, the superintendency of the French affairs was committed to D’Ossat, till another ambassador should be appointed; and, May the following year, he was created a cardinal. The king had solicited this favour for some time, his low birth being made an objection. Nor indeed was his fortune even now equal to this high station; but he resolved not to lay aside the modesty and temperance he had hitherto observed, and in that spirit refused an equipage and some fine furniture which were sent him three weeks after his promotion, by cardinal de Joyeuse, in whose house he had received the compliments of the cardinals upon his election. The legacy, however, already mentioned, of cardinal d'Este, happened unexpectedly to be paid to him the following year, 1600; and so seasonably, that, as he himself declared, he should otherwise have been almost ruined. Some time after, the pope gave him the abbey of Nant, in Rouerge. Upon cardinal de Joyeuse returning to France this year, he was appointed vice-protector of the French nation; and in that quality was affable, easily accessible, and kind to those who had occasion to apply to him. All these preferments were highly agreeable to Henry IV. who the same year added to them the bishopric of Bayeux, the revenues of which were richer than those of Rennes. This, however, he resigned in 1603, finding the affairs of the court would not permit him to reside in his diocese; and he had scarcely made this sacrifice when he died, March 13, 1604, in his 68th year. His corpse was interred in the church of St. Lewis, at Rome, where there is a monument erected to his memory.

Father Tarquinio Galucci made his funeral oration, or panegyric; the sum of which is, that he united the most exact probity with the most consummate policy, and therefore was universally esteemed. He was a man, says Perrault, of an incredible penetration and he laid his measures with such true discernment, and executed them with such diligence, that it is scarce possible to mark a single false step in the numerous affairs which he negociated. Wicquefort, speaking of his abilities, observes, that he had given proofs of his skill in negociations in that which he transacted, with the grand duke of Tuscany, for the restitution of the island of If; in that with pope Clement VIII. in order to reconcile Henty IV. to the church of Rome; in that of the invalidity of the said king’s marriage with queen Margaret of Valois, which had been valid near thirty years; in that of the dispensation with regard to the marriage between Catharine of Bourbon, sister to Henry, with the duke of Bar, a papist, then a protestant; and in several other very important and delicate affairs. His dispatches, continues this writer, are as useful to an ambassador, who hopes to succeed in his employment, as the Bible and the “Corpus Juris” to such lawyers and divines as would succeed in their respective professions. These letters of our minister were first published under the title of “Lettres du Cardinal D'Ossat,” at Paris, 1624, folio, and have been enlarged and published at several times and places since. They were published at Paris in 1697, 4to, with his life, and notes by Amelot de la Houssaye ; and, lastly, in 1708, at Amsterdam, 12mo, five volumes. This is the best and most ample edition. Several of his original letters were formerly in Colbert’s library. In 1771, a life of him was published at Paris, in 2 vols. 12mo, which is said to be extremely partial to the character of the cardinal, but to contain much valuable information as to the history of the events in which he was concerned. 1

, an eminent English physician, was born in the diocese of Worcester, and educated at Mertoncollege, Oxford, of which he became probationer-fellow in 1519. Having studied physic, he took his doctor’s degree in that faculty in 1527, and soon after was appointed physician to Henry VIII. and held the same office in the two succeeding reigns. In 1544 he was constituted a fellow of the college of physicians, and appears to have attained high consequence in his profession. He was a witness to the will of Henry VIII. who left him a legacy of 100l. It is reported that Edward VI. was brought into the world by Dr. Owen’s means, who performed the Caesarian operation on his mother, queen Jane Seymour. From this circumstance, whether truly or falsely related, we may conclude him to have been a practitioner in midwifery, as well as in physic. In the first year of queen Mary he was very instrumental in obtaining an act for the confirmation and enlargement of the powers granted to the college of physicians. Some time after, in the same reign, when a difference took place between the college of physicians and the university of Oxford, concerning the admission of an illiterate person to a degree, who was rejected by the college upon their examination; cardinal Pole, then chancellor of the university, was appealed to, and obliged the university to consult Dr. Owen and Dr. Thomas Huys, the queen’s physician, “de instituendis rationibus quibus Oxoniensis academia in admittendis Medicis uteretur.” An agreement was accordingly made, which the chancellor approved and ratified by his authority. Dr. Owen died Oct. 10, 1558, of an epidemic intermittent, and was buried in St. Stephen’s, Walbrook. Leland intimates that he had written several pieces on medical subjects, but none of them were preserved. Tanner mentions that he wrote a work entitled " A meet Diet for the new ague set forth by Mr. Dr. Owen, Lond. 1558, fol. In 1553, Edward VI. granted Durham-college, in Oxford, to our George Owen and William Martyn, which the following year they sold to sir Thomas Pope, who founded Trinity -college on the scite. Previous to this, Dr. Owen received a grant of Godstowe nunnery, with its adjoining estates, and this nunnery he converted into a dwelling-house with some alterations and improvements.

, a learned Englishman, was born about 1432, at or near Winchester, as is generally supposed, and was educated at the charge of Thomas Langton, bishop of that diocese, who employed him, while a youth, as his amanuensis. The bishop, pleased with his proficiency, and particularly delighted with his early turn for music, which he thought an earnest of greater attainments, bestowed a pension on him sufficient to defray the expences of his education at Padua, at that time one of the most flourishing universities in Europe. Accordingly he studied there for some time, and met with Cuthbert Tonstall, afterwards bishop of Durham, and William Latimer, whom he called his preceptors. On his return, he studied for some time at Queen’s-college, Oxford, of which his patron Langton had been provost; and was soon after taken into the service of Dr. Christopher Bambridge, who succeeded Langton in the office of provost, and became afterwards a cardinal. He attended him to Rome, about the beginning of the sixteenth' century, and continued there until the cardinal’s death in 1514. He appears, before this, to have entered into holy orders, for in the beginning of this year, and while abroad, he was made prebendary of Bugthorp, in the church of York, in the room of Wolsey, afterwards the celebrated cardinal; and in May of the same year, was promoted to the archdeaconry of Dorset, on the resignation of his friend Langton, at which time, as Willis supposes, he resigned the prebend of Bugthorp.

On his return to. England, he was sent for to court, probably in consequence of the character given of him by his deceased patron, cardinal Bambridge; and became such a favourite with Henry VIII. that he appointed him, as some say, secretary of state, which Mr. Lodge doubts; but it seems certain, that he either held that, or the office of private secretary, or some confidential situation, under Henry, who employed him in affairs of high political importance. In 1515, he was sent to the court of Vienna, where the object of his embassy was to engage the emperor Maximilian to dispossess the French king Francis 1. of the duchy of Milan, his royal master being alarmed at the progress of the French arms in Italy. Pace succeeded in his negociation, so far as to persuade the emperor to undertake this expedition; and he also engaged some of the Swiss cantons to furnish him with troops; but the scheme was ultimately so unsuccessful that Maximilian was obliged to make peace with France. Pace, however, profited so much by his acquaintance with this emperor, as to acquire a/very useful knowledge of his character; and when he afterwards offered to resign his crown in favour of Henry VIII. he was enabled to give his sovereign the best advice, and to assure him, that Maximilian had no other design, by this apparently liberal offer, than to obtain another subsidy, and that, in other respects, very little credit was due to his word. In this opinion cardinal Wolsey, at home, seems to have concurred.

On the death of pope Leo X. when cardinal Wolsey’s ambition aimed at the papal throne, he sent Pace to Rome to promote his interest; but before his arrival there, Adrian, bishop of Tortosa, had been chosen: and on his death, in 1523, Pace was again employed to negotiate for Wolsey, but with no better success, Clement VII. being elected. He obtained, however, from the pope, an enlargement of Wolsey’s powers as legate, which the latter was at this time desirous to obtain. Pace was soon afterwards sent on an embassy to Venice, where he carried with him the. learned Lupset as his secretary. Wood declares that on this occasion “it is hard to say whether he procured more commendation or admiration among the Venetians; both for the dexterity of his wit, and especially for his singular promptness in the Italian tongue; wherein he seemed nothing inferior, neither to P. Vannes here in England, the king’s secretary for the Italian tongue, nor yet to any other, which were the best for that tongue in all Venice.”

It was at this time, however, that Pace fell under cardinal Wolsey’s displeasure; the effects of which are said to have been very serious. The cardinal is thought to have been enraged against him, first, because he had shewn a readiness to assist Charles duke of Bourbon with money, for whom the cardinal had no great affection: and, secondly, because he had not forwarded the cardinal’s design of obtaining the papal chair with so much zeal as Wblsey expected. Such are the reasons assigned by some historians for Wolsey’s displeasure, who is said to have ordered matters in such a manner, that for nearly the space of two years, Pace received no instructions from his court as to his proceedings at Venice; his allowance for expences was also withdrawn, and no answer returned to his letters. On one occasion, when the Venetian ambassador residing in London asked Wolsey whether he had any commands for the English ambassador at Venice, he answered Paceus decipit Begem: and this singular treatment, we are told, so affected Pace that he became insane. As soon as the king was informed of this, Pace was ordered home; and, being carefully attended by physicians at the king’s command, was restored in a short time to his senses, and amused himself by studying the Hebrew language, with the assistance of Robert Wakefield. In the interval, he was introduced to the king at Richmond, who expressed much satisfaction at his recovery; and admitted him to a private audience, in which he remonstrated against the cardinal’s cruelty to him. But the cardinal was too powerful at this time, and when urged by the king to answer the charge against him, he summoned Pace before him, and sat in judgment, with the duke of Norfolk and others, who condemned Pace, and sent him to the Tower of London; where he was confined for two years, till discharged at length by the king’s command. Pace, thus degraded, and depressed in body and mind, resigned his deanries of St. Paul and Exeter, a little before his death; and, retiring to Stepney for his health, died there, in 1532, when not quite fifty years of age.

There is an elegant and just character of him by Leland, written upon his return from Venice; and he certainly was much esteemed by the learned men of his time, especially by sir Thomas More and Erasmus. The latter admired Pace for his candour and sweetness of temper; and was so much afflicted at his misfortunes,that he could never forgive the man that caused them. He styles him utriusque literature calentissimus; and wrote more letters to him than to any one of his learned friends and correspondents. Stow gives him the character of a right worthy man, and one that gave in council faithful advice: learned he was also, says that antiquary, “and endowed with many excellent parts and gifts of nature; courteous, pleasant, and delighting ia music; highly in the king’s favour, and well heard in matters of weight.” There is extant a remarkable letter of his to the king, written in 1527, in which he very honestly gives his opinion concerning the divorce; and Fiddes observes, that he always used a faithful liberty to the cardinal, which brought him at last to confinement and distraction.

, a famous Cordelier, and one of the ablest critics of his time, was born at Rognes, a small town in Provence, March 31, 1624. He took the monk’s habit in the convent of the Cordeliers at Aries, and professed himself there in 1641. After he had finished the usual course of studies in philosophy and divinity, he preached some time, and was at length made four times provincial of his order. These occupations did not hinder him from applying to chronology and ecclesiastical history, in which he excelled. He printed in the Journal des Savans, Nov. 11, 1686, a learned “Dissertation upon the Consular Office,” in which he pretends to have discovered the rules, according to which the Roman emperors took the dignity of consul at some certain times more than others, but in this he is not thought to have been successful. His most considerable work is “A Critique upon the Annals of Baronius;” in which he has rectified an infinite number of mistakes, both in chronology and in facts. He published the first volume of this work, containing the first four centuries, at Paris, in 1689; with a dedication to the clergy of France, who allowed him a pension. The whole work was printed after his death, in four volumes, folio, at Geneva, in 1705, by the care of his nephew, father Francis Pagi, of the same order. It is carried to the year 1198, where Baronius ends. Pagi was greatly assisted in it by the abbe* Longuerue, who also wrote the eloge of our author, which is prefixed to the Geneva edition. Another edition was published at Geneva in 1727. It is a work of great utility, but the author’s chronology of the popes of the first three centuries is not approved by the learned. He has also prefixed a piece concerning a new chronological period, which he calls “Graeco-Romana,” and uses for adjusting all the different epochas, which is not without its inconveniences. Our author wrote some other works of inferior note before his death, at Aix, in Provence, June 7, 1699. His character is that of 'a very able historian, and a learned and candid critic. His style has all the simplicity and plainness which suits a chronological narration. He held a correspondence with several learned men, as Stillingfleet, Spanheim, Cuper, Dodwell, the cardinal Noris, &c.

, a learned Italian cardinal, descended from an illustrious family, was born at Bologna, Oct. 4, 1524. He was intended for the profession of the civil and canon law, in which some of his family had acquired fame, and he made great progress in that and other studies. His talents very early procured him a canonry of Bologna; after which he was appointed professor of civil law, and obtained the title of the new Alciatus from his emulating the judgment and taste of that learned writer. Some business requiring his presence at Rome, he was appointed by ca'rdinal Alexander Farnese, who had been his fellow-student at Bologna, and who was then perpetual legate of Avignon, governor of Vaisson, in the county of Venaissin, but hearing of the death of his mother, he made that a pretence for declining the office, and therefore returned to his professorship at Bologna. The Farnese family were, however, determined to serve him in spite of his modesty, and in 1557 obtained for him the post of auditor of the rota. When Pope Pius IV. opened the council of Trent, Paleotti was made proctor and counsellor to his legates, who, in truth, did nothing of importance without his advice. Of this council Paleotti wrote a history, which still remains in ms. and of which Pallavicini is said to have availed himself in his history. After this council broke up he resumed his functions at Rome, where in 1565 he was raised to the dignity of the purple by Pius IV. and by Pius V. he was created bishop of Bologna, but the see upon this occasion was erected into an archbishopric to do honour both to Paleotti and his native country. Being a conscientious man, he was always so assiduous in the duties of his diocese, that it was with the greatest reluctance the popes summoned him to attend the consistories and other business at Rome. He died at Rome, July 23, 1597, aged seventy-three. He was author of several works of considerable merit, on subjects in antiquities, jurisprudence, and morals. Of these the most considerable are the following: “Archiepiscopale Bonnoniense” “De imagiriibus Sacris, et Profanis,” 1582, 4to, in Italian; and in Latin, 1594; “De Sacri Consistorii Consultationibus” “De Nothis, Spuriisque Filiis,” Francfort, 1573, 8vo; “De Bono Senectutis” Pastoral Letters, &c.

, one of the wits of Italy, the son of Jerome Pallavicino, was born at Placentia about 1615, or from that to 1620. Less from inclination, than from some family reasons, he entered the congregation of the regular canons of Latran, and took the habit, with the name of Mark Anthony, in their house at Milan. After commencing his studies here with much success, he went to Padua for further proficiency. He then settled at Venice, where he was chosen a member of the academy of the Incogniti. Here he became captivated by a courtezan, whoso charms proved irresistible; and, in order to have the lull enjoyment of them without restraint, he obtained leave from his general to make the tour of France, but in fact continued privately at Venice, while he had the art to impose upon his friends, by sending them frequently, in letters, feigned accounts of his travels through France. He afterwards went to Germany, about 1639, with duke Amalfi in the character of his chaplain. During this residence in Germany, which lasted about sixteen months, he addicted himself to every species of debauchery; and having a turn for satire, employed his pen in repeated attacks on the court of Rome in general, and on the Barbarini family in particular. The chief vehicle of his satire was a publication called “The Courier robbed of his mail,” and this as well as his other works contained so many just censures of the abuses of the court of Rome, that he might have been ranked among those honourable men who had contributed to enlighten his countrymen, had he not been as remarkable for his indecencies, which were so gross that many of his works were obliged to be published under concealed names. His personal attacks on the pope, and the Barbarini family, naturally roused their indignation; and after much search for him, one Charles Morfu, a Frenchman of a vile character, engaged to ensnare him, and having insinuated himself into his friendship, at length exhorted him to go with him to France. He flattered him with the extraordinary encouragement which was given to men of letters by cardinal Richelieu; and, to deceive him the more, even produced feigned letters from the cardinal, inviting our author to France, and expressing a desire he had to establish in Paris an academy for the Italian tongue, under the direction of Pallavicino. Pallavicino, young, thoughtless, and desperate, and now fascinated by the prospect of gain, left Venice much against the advice of his friends, and went first to Bergamo, where he spent a few days with some of his relations, who entertained his betrayer. They then set out for Geneva, to the great satisfaction of our author, who proposed to get some of his works printed there, which he had not been able to do in Italy. But Morfu, instead of conducting him to Paris, took the road to Avignon; where, crossing the bridge of Soraces, in the county of Venaissin (in the pope’s territories), they were seized by officers on pretence of carrying contraband goods, and confined. Morfu was soon discharged, and liberally rewarded; but Pallavicini, being carried to Avignon, was thrown into prison; and, after being kept there for some months, was brought to trial, and was beheaded in 1643 or 1644. Those who are desirous of farther information respecting this young man’s unfortunate history, may be amply gratified in the prolix: articles drawn up by Bayle, and particularly Marclmnd. His works were first published collectively at Venice, in 1655, 4 vols. 12mo. This edition, according to Marchand, contains only such of his works as had been permitted to beprinted in his life-time. Those which had been prohibited were afterwards printed in 2 vols. 12 mo, at Villafranca, a fictitious name for Geneva, 1660. Among these is a piece called “II divortio Celeste,” which some deny to be his. It is a very coarse satire on the abuses of the Romish church, and was translated and published in English in 1679, under the title of “Ciirist divorced from the church of Rome because of their lewdness,” Lond. 8vo.

, an eminent cardinal, was the son of the marquis Alexander Pallavicini and Frances Sforza, and born at Rome in 1607. Although the eldest son of his family, yet he chose the ecclesiastical life, and was very early made a bishop by pope Urban VIII. to whom his conduct was so acceptable, that he was appointed one of those prelates who assist in the assemblies called congregations at Rome. He was also received into the famous academy of the Humoristi, among whom he often sat in quality of president. He was likewise governor of Jesi, and afterwards of Orvietto and Camerino, under the above pontiff. But all these honours and preferments were insufficient to divert him from a design he had for some time formed of renouncing the world, and entering into the society of the Jesuits, where he was admitted in 1638. As soon as he had completed his noviciate he taught philosophy, and then theology. At length Innocent X. nominated him to examine into divers matters relating to the pontificate; and Alexander VII. created him a cardinal in 1657. This pope was an old friend of Pallavicino, who had been serviceable to him when he came to Rome with the name of Fabio Chigi. Pallavicino had even contributed to advance his temporal fortune, and had received him into the academy of the Humoristi; in gratitude for which, Chigi addressed to him some verses, printed in his book entitled “Philomathi Museb juveniles.” When Pallavicino obtained a place in the sacred college, he was also appointed at the same time examiner of the bishops; and he was afterwards a member of the congregation of the holy office, i. e. the inquisition, and of that of the council, &c. His promotion to the cardinalate wrought no change in his manner of life, which was devoted to study or to the duties of his office. He died in 1667, in his sixtieth year.

, was of the same family with the preceding cardinal, and merits a brief notice here, as being in some degree connected with our history, although the figure he makes in it has not been thought the most reputable. The family of Pallavicino, or, as sometimes spelt, Palavicini, is one of the most noble and ancient in Italy, and its branches have extended to Rome, Genoa, and Lombardy. Many of them appear to have attained the highest ranks in church, state, and commerce. Sir Horatio, the subject of this article, belonged to the Genoese branch, and was born in that city, but leaving Italy, went to reside in the Low Countries, whence, after marrying two wives, one a person of low birth, whom he did not acknowledge, and the other a lady of distinction, he came over to England, with a recommendation to queen Mary, probably from a relation, one Rango Pallavicino, who belonged to Edward Vlth’s household. Mary, who had then restored the Roman catholic religion, appointed Horatio collector of the papal taxes to be gathered in this kingdom; but at her death, having a large sum of money in his hands, he abjured the religion of Rome, and thought it no harm to keep the money. This transaction, however, does not appear to have much injured his character, or perhaps time had effaced the remembrance of it, for in 1586 queen Elizabeth gave him a. patent of denization, and in the following year honoured him with knighthood. He appears to have been a man of courage, and warmly espoused the interests of the nation at a most critical period. In 1588 he fitted out and commanded a ship against the Spanish armada, and must have rendered himself conspicuous on that occasion, as his portrait is given in the tapestry in the House of Lords, among the patriots and skilful commanders who assisted in defeating that memorable attack on the liberty of England. The queen also employed him in negociations with the German princes, and in raising loans, by which he very opportunely assisted her, and improved his own fortune. He died immensely rich, July 6, 1600, and was buried in the church of Baberham, in Cambridgeshire, near which, at Little Shelford, he had built a seat, in the Italian style, with piazzas. He had likewise two considerable manors in Essex, and provbably. landed property in other counties. His widow, about a year after his death, married sir Oliver Cromwell, K. B. and his only daughter, Baptina, was married to Henry Cromwell, esq. son to this sir Oliver, who was uncle to the usurper. He left three sons, but the family is now unknown in England.

, a learned scholar of the sixteenth century, was born at Verona in 1529. He discovered an attachment to history and antiquities in his earliest years, and entered into the order of the Augustins. As soon as he had made profession, the general of his order sent him to Rome to complete his studies, and in 1553 he was appointed to instruct the novices. He then taught scholastic theology at Florence for some time, but his chief residence was at Rome, where he was patronized by cardinal Marcello Cervini, afterwards pope Marcel 1 us II. From thence he passed into the court of cardinal Alexander Farnese, with whom he travelled into Sicily in 1568, where he died in his thirty-ninth year. One of his first labours was an edition of the “Fasti Consulares,” first brought to light by Sigonius, which he published, illustrated with notes, at Venice in 1557. He published treatises also, “De Antiquis Romanorum Nominibus;” “De Principibus Romanis;” “De Republica;” “De Triumphis et Ludis Circensibus;” and “Topographia Romae.” These valuable works are founded in a great measure upon ancient inscriptions, of which he had collected and copied nearly three thousand. Some time after, this collection, which had come into the hands of cardinal Savelli, disappeared, and Maffei is of opinion that the collection published at Antwerp by Martin Sanctius, in 1588, and which served as a foundation for Gruterus’s great work, was in reality that of Panvinius. Panvinius was also a profound investigator of sacred or Christian antiquities, as appears by his works, “. De Ritu sepeliendi mortuos apud veteres Christianos” “De antiquo Ritu baptizandi Catechumenos;” “DePrimatu Pein;” “Chronicon Ecclesiasticum;” “De Episcopatibus Titulis, et Diaconis Cardinalium” “Annotationes et Supplementa ad Platinam de Vitis Pontificnm;” “De Septem pnrcipuis Urbis Romse Basilicis;” “De Bibliotheca Vaticana.” He had undertaken a general ecclesiastical history, for which he collected matter sufficient to fill six large -manuscript volumes, which are preserved in the Vatican. He wrote a chronicle of his own order, and a history of his native city, Verona, including an account of its antiquities, printed many years after his death.