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

, a celebrated sage, or impostor, whose history has been the subject of much learned discussion. Jamblicus, in his credulous Life of Pythagoras, mentions Abaris as a disciple of that philosopher, and relates the wonders he performed by means of an arrow which he received from Apollo. He also gives the particulars of a conversation which he had with Pythagoras, whilst the latter was detained prisoner by Phalaris, the tyrant. But this narration is filled with so many marvellous circumstances, and chronological errors, that it deserves little credit. Brucker, whom we principally follow in this article, gives the following instance. It is said that, in the time of a general plague, Abaris was sent from the Scythians on an embassy to the Athenians. This plague happened in the third olympiad. Now, it appears, from the learned contest between Bentley and Boyle, on the subject of Phalaris, that this tyrant, in whose presence Abaris is said to have disputed with Pythagoras, did not exercise his tyranny, at the most, longer than twenty-eight-years, and that his death happened not earlier than the fourth year of the fifty-seventh olympiad, which is the opinion of Bentley, nor later than the first year of the sixty-ninth olympiad, which is the date fixed by Dodwell. It is evident, therefore, that Abaris could not have lived, both at the time of the general plague mentioned above, and during the reign of Phalaris. The time when he flourished may, with some degree of probability, be fixed about the third olympiad; and there seems little reason to doubt, that he went from place to place imposing upon the vulgar by false pretensions to supernatural powers. He passed through Greece, Italy, and many other countries, giving forth oracular predictions, pretending to heal diseases by incantation, and practising other arts of imposture. Hence the fabulous tales concerning Abaris grew up into an entire history, written by Heraclides. Some of the later Platonists, in their zeal against Christianity, collected these and other fables, and exhibited them, not without large additions from their own fertile imaginations, in opposition to the miracles of Christ

William III. invited Abauzit to settle in England, and ordered Michael le Vassor to offer some advantageous proposals; which, however, were not accepted. Filial aflectioil, or attachment to the country in which he had obtained a refuge, recalled him to Geneva; where, in 1723, the University offered him the chair of philosophy, which he declined, ple‘ading the weakness of his constitution, and his inability to do credit to the appointment. Jn 1726, he lost his mother, to whom he had ever been most affectionately attached. In the same year he was admitted a citizen of Geneva, and appointed librarian to the city. He profited by such a favourable opportunity to improve in useful literature. Principally attached to antiquities, he now dedicated to his newly-adopted country the fruit of his labours and his talents. In 1730, he published a newedition of the History and State of Geneva, which had been originally written by David Spon, and printed in two vols. 12mo. The work having already passed through three editions, was committed to Abauzit. Not contented with the mere republication, he corrected the errors, gave two dissertations on the subject, and annexed the public acts and memorials, that were necessary as proofs and illustrations. To these were added a copious variety of learned and useful notes, in which he gave an ample detail of facts which were but imperfectly related in the text. Modest himself, he was not ambitious of fame, but assisted others by his labours. Among those who derived benefit from his learning and researches, M. de Meiran alone had the gratitude to acknowledge his obligation. The labours of Abauzit were assiduous, and his knowledge was extensive. While he declined public notice his name was known, and his communications were frequent to most of the celebrated mathematicians, philosophers, and divines in Europe. Notwithstanding the simplicity of his manners, thismoclestphilosopher was not, perhaps, without a small share of vanity. For he employed himself in discovering what to his apprehension seemed errors in the different translations of the Bible. He could believe nothing but what he saw, or was suggested by his own ideas, or could be reduced to mathematical demonstration, and, becoming sceptical, wished to divest’ the scriptures of several miracles. He even made some efforts in poetry; but they were soon forgotten. He is acknowledged to have excelled more in diligence, accuracy, and precision, than in taste or genius. Voltaire, who had as great an aversion to miracles as Abauzit, esteemed and consulted him. As a citizen of Geneva, the philosopher was active in the dissensions of 1734. He exerted himself in support of the aristocratic party, though he had much of republican zeal. His industry was indefatigable, and he seemed to have written and acted from the conviction of his own mind. In religion he adopted and supported the doctrines of Arianism. Though declining praise, he acquired the esteem of many of the most eminent characters in Europe, and received an elegant compliment from Rousseau: “No,” says he, “this age of philosophy will not pass without having produced one true philosopher. I know one, and I freely own, but one; but what I regard as my supreme felicity is, that he resides in my native country, it is in my own Country that he resides: shall I presume to name him, whose real glorv it is to remain almost in obscurity? Yes, modest and learned Abauzit, forgive a zeal which seeks not to promote your fame. I would not celebrate your name in an age that is unworthy to admire you. I would honour Geneva by distinguishing it as the place of your residence: my fellowcitizens are honoured by your presence. Happy is the country where the merit that seeks concealment is the more revealed.” The reader will appreciate the merit of Abauzit, in proportion to the value he sets on the esteem of Voltaire or the praises of Rousseau. He, however, who could gain the approbation of two such opposite characters, could have been no ordinary person. He died on the 20th of March 1767.

, an eminent Persian historian and philosopher, was born at Bagdad, in the 557th year of the Hegira, or the 1161st of the Christian aera. Having been educated with the greatest care by his father, who was himself a man of learning, and resided in a capital which abounded with the best opportunities of instruction, he distinguished himself by an early proficiency, not only in rhetoric, history, and poetry, but also in the more severe studies of Mahommedan theology. To the acquisition of medical knowledge he applied with peculiar diligence; and it was chiefly with this view that he left Bagdad, in his 28th year, in order to visit other countries. At Mosul, in Mesopotamia, whither he first directed his course, he found the attention of the students entirely confined to the chemistry of that day, with which he was already sufficiently acquainted. He therefore removed to Damascus, where the grammarian Al Kindi then enjoyed the highest reputation; and with him Abdcllatiph is said to have engaged in a controversy on some subjects of grammar and philology, which was ably conducted on both sides, but terminated in favour or our author.

, the son of Berenger, of noble descent, was born at Palais, near Nantes, in Bretagne, in 1079. Such was the state of learning at that time, that he had no other field for the exercise of his talents, which were exceedingly promising, than the scholastic philosophy, of which he afterwards became one of the most celebrated masters. After the usual grammatical preparation, he was placed under the tuition of Rosceline, an eminent metaphysician, and the founder of the sect of the Nominalists. By his instructions, before the age of sixteen, he acquired considerable knowledge, accompanied with a subtlety of thought and fluency of speech, which throughout life gave him great advantage in his scholastic contests. His avidity to learn, however, soon induced him to leave the preceptor of his early days, and to visit the schools of several neighbouring provinces. In his 20th year, he fixed hist residence in the university of Paris, at that time the first seat of learning in Europe. His master there was William de Champeaux, an eminent philosopher, and skilful in the dialectic art. At first he was submissive and humbly attentive to de Champeaux, who repaid his assiduity by the intimacy of friendship; but the scholar soon began to contradict the opinions of the master, and obtained some victories in contending with him, which so hurt the superior feelings of the one, and inflamed the vanity of the other, that a separation became unavoidable; and Abelard, confident in his powers, opened a public school of his own, at the age of 22, at Melun, a town about ten leagues from Paris, and occasionally the residence of the court.

While Abelard confesses the ambition which induced him to take this step, it must at the same time be allowed that he had not overrated the qualifications he could bring into this new office. Notwithstanding every kind of obstacle which the jealous de Champeaux contrived to throw in his way, his school was no sooner opened than it was attended by crowded and admiring auditories; and, as this farther advanced his fame, he determined to remove his school to Corbeil, near Paris, where he could maintain an open contest with his old rival. This was accordingly executed; the disputations were frequent and animated; Abelard proved victorious, and de Champeaux was compelled to retire with considerable loss of popular reputation. After an absence of two years spent in his native country for the recovery of his health, which had been impaired by the intenseness of his studious preparations, and the vehemence and agitation incident to such disputes, Abelarjl found, on his return to Corbeil, that de Champeaux had taken the monastic habit among the regular canons in the convent of St. Victor, but that he still taught rhetoric and logic, and held public disputations in theology. On this he immediately renewed his contests, and with such success, that the scholars of his antagonist came over in crowds to him, and even the new professor, who had taken the former school of de Champeaux, voluntarily surrendered the chair to our young philosopher, and even requested to be enrolled among his disciples. De Champeaux, irritated at a mortification so public and so decisive, employed his interest to obtain the appointment of a new professor, and to drive Abelard back to Melun. Means like these, however, even in an age not remarkable for liberality, were not likely to serve de Champeaux’s cause; and the consequence was, that even his friends were ashamed of his conduct, and he was under the necessity of retiring from the convent into the country. Abelard then returned to Paris, took a new station at the abbey on Mount Genevieve, and soon attracted to his school the pupils of the new professor. De Champeaux, returning to his monastery, made another feeble attempt, which ended in another victory on the part of his rival, but being soon after made bishop of Chalons, a termination was put to their contests.

An incident now occurred in his life, which has given him more popular renown than his abilities as a philosopher, a theologian, or a writer, could have conferred, but which has thrown a melancholy shade on his moral character. About this time, there was resident in Paris, Heloise, the niece of Fulbert, one of the canons of the cathedral church, a lady about eighteen years of age, of great personal beauty, and highly celebrated for her literary attainments. Abelard, who was now at the sober age of 40, conceived an illicit passion for this young lady, flattering himself that his personal attractions were yet irresistible. Fulbert, who thought himself honoured by the visits of so eminent a scholar and philosopher, while he had any reason to place them to his own account, welcomed him to his house, as a learned friend whose conversation might be instructive to his niece, and was therefore easily prevailed upon, by a handsome payment which Abelard offered for his board, to admit him into his family as an inmate. When this was -concluded upon, as he apprehended no danger from one of Abelard’s age and gravity, he requested him to devote some portion of his leisure to the instruction of Heloise, at the same time granting him full permission to treat her in all respects as his pupil. Abelard accepted the trust, and, we gather from his own evidence, with no other intention than to betray it. “I was no less surprized,” he says, “than if the canon had delivered up a tender lamb to a famished wolf,” &c. In this infamous design he succeeded but too well, and appears to have corrupted her mind, as, amidst the rage of her uncle, and the reflections which would naturally be made on such a transaction, every other sentiment in her breast was absorbed in a romantic and indecent passion for her seducer. Upon her pregnancy being discovered, it was thought necessary for her to quit her uncle’s house, and Abelard conveyed her to Bretagne, where she was delivered of a son, to whom they gave the name of Astrolabus, or Astrolabius. Abelard now proposed to Fulbert to marry his niece, provided the marriage might be kept secret, and Fulbert consented; but Heloise, partly out of regard to the interest of Abelard, whose profession bound him to celibacy, and partly from a less honourable notion, that love like hers ought not to submit to ordinary restraints, at first gave a peremptory refusal. Abelard, however, at last prevailed, and they were privately married at Paris; but in this state they did not experience the happy effects of mutual reconciliation. The uncle wished to disclose the marriage, but Heloise denied it; and from tbis time he treated her with such unkindness as furnished Abelard with a sufficient plea for removing her from his house, and placing her in the abbey of Benedictine nuns, in which she had been originally educated. Fulbert, while he gave the provocation, pretended that Abelard had taken this step in order to rid himself of an incumbrance which obstructed his future prospects. Deep resentment took possession of his soul, and he meditated revenge; in the pursuit of which he employed some ruffians to enter Abelard’s chamber by night, and inflict upon his person a disgraceful and cruel mutilation, which was accordingly perpetrated. The ruffians, however, were apprehended, and punished according to the law of retaliation; and Fulbert was deprived of his benefice, and his goods confiscated.

“To erase these unfavourable impressions which the mind has conceived of Abelard, we must view him in distress, smarting from oppression and unprovoked malevolence. There was in his character something which irritated opposition, whether it was a love of singularity, an asperity of manners, or a consciousness of superior talents r which he did not disguise. However this might be, the behaviour of his enemies was always harsh, and sometimes cruel; and him we pity. He now became a religious, a benevolent, and a virtuous man; and thousands reaped benefit from his instructions, as they were tutored by his example. The close of his unhappy life was to the eye of the Christian spectator its most brilliant period. In his death he was the great and good man, the philosopher and the Christian.”

, a native of Biroun, in the province of Khovarezme, who flourished about the beginning of the eleventh century, attained the title of Ai-Mohakapad, or the subtle philosopher, on account of his knowledge of the sciences, and particularly his skill in astrology. He was contemporary and rival to Avicenna, a more celebrated Arabian writer. Abou-rihan wrote some treatises oa Geography, the fixed stars, and the sphere.

, a native of Bologna, where he was born Oct. 29, 1463, was a philosopher and physician, and professed both those sciences with great reputation. He had scholars from all parts of Europe. He died in his own country, August 2, 1512, at the age of 40, with the surname of The great philosopher, after having published various pieces in anatomy and medicine. To him is ascribed the discovery of the little bones in the organ of hearing'. He adopted the sentiments of Averroes, and was the rival of Pomponacius. These two philosophers mutually decried each other, and Pomponacius had generally the advantage, as he had the talent of mixing witticisms with his arguments, for the entertainment of the by-standers, while Achillini lowered himself with the public by his singular and slovenly dress. His philosophical works were printed in one vol. folio, at Venice, in 1508, and reprinted with considerable additions in 1545, 1551, and 1568. His principal medical works are: 1. “Annotationes Anatomies,” Bonon. 1520, 4to, and Venice, 1521, 8vo. 2. “De humani corporis Anatomia,” Venice, 1521, 4to. 3. “In Mundini anatomiam annotationes,” printed with Katham’s “Fasciculus Medicine,” Venice, 1522, fol. 4. “De subjecto Medicinæ, cum annotationibus Pamphili Montii,” Venice, 1568. 5. “De Chiromantiæ principiis et Physiognomiæ,” fol. without place or year. 6. “De Universalibus,” Bonon. 1501, fol. 7. “De subjecto Chiromantiæ et Physiognomiæ,” Bonon. 1503, fol. & Pavia, 1515, fol. Achillini also cultivated poetry; but if we may judge from some verses in the collection published on the death of the poet Seraphin dall' Aquila, not with much success.

, a divine, philosopher, and civilian of the sixteenth century, was born at Trent, where he was afterwards in orders; but, being disposed to a liberality of sentiment not tolerated there, he went to Switzerland in 1557, and made profession of the Protestant religion on the principles of Calvin. From thence he went to Strasburgh, and lastly to England, where he was hospitably received. Queen Elizabeth gave him a pension, not as a divine, but as an engineer. In gratitude, he addressed to her his book on the “Stratagems of Satan,” a work in which are unquestionably many sentiments of greater liberality than the times allowed, but, at the same time, a laxity of principle which would reduceill religions into one, or rather create an indifference about the choice of any. It was first printed at Basle, in 1565, under the title of “De stratagematibus Satanae in religionis negotio, per superstitionem, errorem, heresim, odium, calumniam, schisma, &c. libri VIII.” It was afterwards often reprinted and translated into most European languages. His latest biographer says, that this work may be considered as the precursor of Lord Herbert of Cherbury, and thoso other English philosophers who have reduced the articles of religion to a very small number, and maintain that all sects hold its essential principles. Acontius, however, had his enemies and his supporters; and even the former could allow that, in many respects, he anticipated the freedom and liberality of more enlightened times, although he was, in many points, fanciful and unguarded. A better work of his is entitled “De methodo sive recta investigandarum, tradendarumque artium, ac scientiarum ratione, libellus,” Basle, 1558, 8 vo. This has often been reprinted, and is inserted in the collection “De Studiis bene instituejulis,” Utrecht, 1658. His “Ars muniendorum oppidorum,” in Italian and Latin, was published at Geneva in 1585. In one of the editions of his “Stratagemata,” is an excellent epistle by him, on the method of editing books. He had also made some progress in a treatise on logic, as he mentions in the above epistle, and predicts the improvements of after-times.

, of Cappadocia, an eclectic philosopher of the fourth century, was of a family originally noble, but reduced to poverty. His parents sent him into Greece to learn some means of subsistence, but he returned with only a love of philosophy. On this his father turned him out of doors; but at length was prevailed upon to forgive him, and even to let him pursue his studies, in which he soon surpassed the ablest masters of his country. In order to increase his knowledge, he went to Syria, and became the disciple of Jamblicus, and after the dispersion of that school by Constantine the Great, he settled at Pergamos, where he had a-very flourishing school. What he taught, however, was a composition of mysticism and imposture, and he even pretended to immediate communication with the deities, and to obtain the revelation of future events. The time of his birth or death is not ascertained.

, a Grecian physician and philosopher, who flourished in the eighth century, under the emperor Tiberius II. He turned Benedictine at last, and left a great many tracts behind, some of which have been in so much credit as to be read in the schools. The principal are “De Pulsibus,” and “De Venenis.” Some think there is another of tnis name and profession, a Benedictine also, and physician to Philip Augustus king of France, to whom they attribute a work in Latin hexameters, on the same subject, Paris, 1528, in 4to; but this is perhaps only another version. Being accidentally wounded with an arrow, he would not suffer the wound to be dressed, that he might have an opportunity of exercising his fortitude in pain.

, a Platonic philosopher in the fifth century, embraced Christianity, and wrote a dialogue entitled “Theophrastus,” from the principal speaker, in which he treats of the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the body. He appears to have been extremely credulous in miracles. This was printed, with a Latin translation, and the notes of Gaspard Barthius, by Bower, Leipsic, 1655, 4to. John George Justiniani published another edition at Genoa, 164-5, “cum variorum epistolis Andreolo Justiniano scriptis.” A translation, with other pieces, was published by Wolfius, Basle, 1558, 2 vols. 8vo, and 1561, fol. It is also printed in Gesner’s “Libri Græci Theologorum Græcorum,” Zurich, 1559 1560,fol. Cave says, that the first Latin translation was published at Basle in 1516, by Ambrosius Camaldulensis.

, a Socratic philosopher, in the fourth century B. C. was an Athenian of mean birth, but discovered an early thirst after knowledge, and, though oppressed by poverty, devoted himself to the pursuit of wisdom, under the tuition of Socrates. When he first became his disciple, he told Socrates, that the only thing which it was in his power to present him, in acknowledgment of his kind instructions, was himself. Socrates replied, that he accepted and valued the present, but that he hoped to render it more valuable by culture. Æschines adhered to this master with unalterable fidelity and perseverance, and enjoyed his particular friendship. Having spent many years in Athens, without being able to rise above the poverty of his birth, he determined, after the example of Plato and others, to visit the court of Dionysius, the tyrant of Sicily, who at this time had the reputation of being a general patron of philosophers. On his arrival at Syracuse, though slighted on account of his poverty by Plato, he was introduced to the prince by Aristippus, and was liberally rewarded for his Socratic dialogues. He remained in Sicily till the expulsion of the tyrant, and then returned to Athens. Here, not daring to become a public rival of Plato or Aristippus, he taught philosophy in private, and received payment for his instructions. Afterwards, in order to provide himself with a more plentiful subsistence, he appeared as a public orator; and Demosthenes, probably because he was jealous of his abilities (for he excelled in eloquence), became his opponent. The time when he died is not known. He wrote seven Socratic dialogues, in the true spirit of his master, on temperance, moderation, humanity, integrity, and other virtues, under the titles, Miltiades, Callias, Rhinon, Aspasia, Alcis, Axiochus, and Telauges. Of these only three are extant, the best edition of which is by Le Clerc, Amsterdam, 1711, 8vo. There is another valuable edition, with the notes of Horneus, Leovard. 1788, 8vo.

, the fabulist. Of this man, the reputed author of many fables, it is very doubtful whether we are in possession of any authentic biography. The life by Planudes, a monk of the fourteenth century, is universally considered as a series of fictions; and the notices of him in writers of better authority, are not sufficiently consistent to form a narrative. The particulars usually given, however, are as follow. He was born at Amorium, a small town in Phrygia, in the beginning of the sixth century before the Christian aera, and was a slave to two philosophers, Xanthus and Idmon, the latter of whom gave him his liberty, on account of his good behaviour and pleasantry. The philosophers of Greece gained a name by their lofty sentences, clothed in lofty words; Æop assumed a more simple and familiar style, and became not less celeb rated. He taught virtue and ridiculed vice, by giving a language to animals and inanimate things; and composed those fables, which under the mask of allegory, and with all the interest of fable, convey the most useful lessons in morality. The fame of his wisdom spreading over Greece and the adjoining countries, Croesus, the king of Lydia, sent for him, and was his generous benefactor. There he found Solon, whom he soon equalled in favour, however different his mode of conducting himself. Solon preserved his austerity in the midst of a corrupt court, was a philosopher among courtiers, and often offended Croesus by obtruding his advice, who at last dismissed him. “Solon,” said Æsop, “let us not address kings, or let us say what is agreeable.” “By no means,” replied the philosopher, “let us either say nothing, or tell them what is profitable.” Æsop made frequent excursions from the court of Lydia into Greece. When Pisistratus assumed the chief power at Athens, Æsop, who witnessed the dissatisfaction of the people, repeated to them his fable of the frogs petitioning Jupiter for a king. He afterwards travelled through Persia and Egypt, everywhere inculcating morality by his fables. The kings of Babylon and Memphis received him with distinguished honour; and on his return to Lydia, Croesus sent him with a sum of money to Delphi, where he was to offer a magnificent sacrifice to the god of the place, and distribute a certain sum of money to each of the inhabitants. But being offended by the people, he offered his sacrifice, and sent the rest of the money to Sardis, representing the Delphians as unworthy of his master’s bounty. In revenge, they threw him from the top of a rock. All Greece was interested in his fate, and at Athens a statue was erected to his memory. Lurcher, in his notes on Herodotus, fixes his death in the 560th year before the Christian aera, under the reign of Pisistratus. Planudes, who, as already observed, wrote his life, represents him as exceedingly deformed in person, and defective in his speech, for which there seems no authority. It is to this monk, however, that we owe the first collection of Æsop’s Fables, such as we now have them, mixed with many by other writers, some older, and some more modern than the time of Æsop. He wrote in prose; and Socrates, when in prison, is said to have amused himself by turning some of them into verse. Plato, who banished Homer and the other poets from his republic, as the corruptors of mankind, retained Æsop as being their preceptor. Some are of opinion, that Lockman, so famous among the orientals, and Pilpay among the Indians, were one and the same with Æsop. Whatever may be in this, or in the many other conjectures and reports, to be found in the authorities cited below, the fables of Æsop may surely be considered as the best models of a species of instructive composition, that has been since attempted by certain men of learning and fancy in all nations, and particularly our own; nor will it be easy to invent a mode of arresting and engaging the attention of the young to moral truths, more pleasant or more successful. The best editions of Æsop are those of Plantin, Antwerp, 1565, 16mo; of Aldus, with other fabulists, Venice, 1505, fol. and Franckfort, 1610; that called Barlow’s, or “Æsopi Fabularum, cum Vita,” London, 1666, fol. in Latin, French, and English; the French and Latin by Rob. Codrington, with plates by Barlow, now very rare, as a great part of the edition was burnt in the fire of London; Hudson’s, published under the name of Marianus (a member of St. Mary Hall), Oxford, 1718, 8vo. They have been translated into all modern languages; and CroxalPs and Dodsley’s editions deserve praise, on account of the life of Æsop prefixed to each.

, son of the preceding, was born at Krempen in 1600, and first studied there and at Harhburgh. At the age of nineteen, he went to the academy of Leipsic, where he entered on a course of theology and political science. In 1624, he had acquired much reputation both as a philosopher and a poet. When he returned to Krempen, he was made dean of the college, and held that station during five years. After this, the king of Denmark appointed him inspector of the schools at Brunswick, and assessor of the council of Meldorf, In 1643, by order of the emperor, he was created master of arts, and not being able, on account of the war, to go into Saxony, he was made a licentiate in divinity by diploma, or bull, which was sent to him. He died May 29, 1672. His works are, 1. “Delicia? Atticae,” Leips. 1624, 12mo. 2. “Heraclius Saxonicus, &c.” ibid. 1624, 12mo. 3. “Græcia in nuce, seu lexicon novurn omnium Græcae lingua primogeniarum,” Leips. 1628, 1632, 12mo. 4. “Promptuarium pathologicum Novi Testamenti,” Leips. 1635, 1636, 12mo. 5. “Laurifolia, sive poematum juvenilium apparatus,” 1627, 12mo, and some other works both in prose and verse, particularly a commentary on the Argonauticon of Valerius Flaccus, which is very little esteemed.

Alasco was twice married: his first wife died in 1552, and the second survived him; he appears to have had children by both. It was probably a descendant of his, Albertus Alasco, who was most magnificently entertained by the university of Oxford in 1583, by special command of queen Elizabeth. “Such an entertainment it was,” says Wood, “that the like before or since was never made for one of his degree, costing the university, with the colleges, about c350. And, indeed, considering the worthiness of the person for whom it was chiefly made, could not be less. He was one tarn Marti quam Mercuric: a very good soldier, and a very good scholar, an admirable linguist, philosopher, and mathematician.”

In 1274, after he had preached the crusades in Germany and Bohemia, by order of the pope, he assisted at a general council held at Lyons, and returned thence to his favourite residence at Cologn, where he died in 1280, leaving a greater number of works than any philosopher before his time had ever written. Peter Jammi, a dominican, collected as many as he could procure, and published them in 1651, Lyons, 21 vols. fol. We have nowhere a complete catalogue of his works. The largest is in the first volume of the “Scriptores ordinis Priedicatorum,” by Quetif and Echard, and extends to twelve folio pages. Many pieces which have been erroneously attributed to him, have no doubt swelled this catalogue, but when these are deducted, enough remains to prove the vast fertility or his pen. In the greater part of his works he is merely a commentator on Aristotle, and a compiler from the Arabian writers, yet he every where introduces original discussions and observations, some of which may yet be thought judicious. He treats on philosophy in all its branches, and although he does not erect a system of his own, a very complete body of the Aristotelian doctrines maybe found in his writings, which of late have been studied and analysed by Brucker, in his “History of Philosophy;” by Buhle in his “Lehrbuch der Gesch. der Philosophic,” vol. V.; and especially by Tiedman, who gives a very luminous and complete analysis of Albert’s system, in his “History of Speculative Philosophy,” vol. V. Albert was a very bad Greek scholar, and read Aristotle, &c. only in the Latin translations, but he was better acquainted with the Arabian writers and rabbis. In divinity, Peter Lombard was his guide and model. His wish was to reconcile the Nominalists with the Realists, but he had not the good fortune to please either. His treatises on speculative science are written in the abstract and subtle manner of the age, but those on natural subjects contain some gems, which would perhaps, even in the present age, repay the trouble of searching for them. It is remarked by Brucker, that the second age of the scholastic philosophy, in which Aristotelian metaphysics, obscured by passing through the Arabian channel, were applied with wonderful subtlety to the elucidation of Christian doctrine, began with Albert and ended with Durand.

, or Albricius, a philosopher and physician, born in London in the eleventh century; but of whom our accounts are very imperfect and doubtful. He is said to have studied both at Oxford and Cambridge, and to have afterwards travelled for improvement. He had the reputation of a great philosopher, an able physician, and well versed in all the branches of polite literature. Of his works, Bale, in his third century, has enumerated only the following: “De origine Deorum;” “De Ratione Veneni;” “Virtutes Antiquorum;” “Canones Speculative.” He adds, that in his book concerning the virtues of the ancients, he gives us the character of several philosophers and governors of provinces. But the full title of this work, which is extant in the library of Worcester cathedral, is “Summa de virtutibus Antiquorum Principum, et Philosophorum.” The same library contains a work by Albricius, entitled “Mythologia.” None of these have been printed. In the “Mythographi Latini,” Amsterdam, 1681, 2 vols. 12tno, is a small treatise “De Deorum imaginibus,” written by a person of the same name; but it is doubtful whether this was not Albricus, bishop of Utrecht in the eighth century. The abbé de Bceuf attributes it to the bishop; but D. Rivet in his literary history thinks it was of older date than either.

, or Abou-Machar, a noted Arabian astrologer and philosopher, was born at Balkh in the Khorasan, about the year 805 or 806. For a long time he was addicted to the Mahometan traditions, and a determined enemy to philosophy; but in his forty-seventh year he began to study the sciences, and acquired the reputation of an astronomer and astrologer; and, although he is now principally known by his writings on astrology, he cannot be refused a place among the most distinguished easterns, who have made astronomical observations. The table called Zydj Abou-Machar was calculated from his observations; but the work from which he derives his principal reputation, is his treatise on astrology, entitled “Thousands of years;” in which, among other singular positions, he maintains that the world was created when the seven planets were in conjunction in the first degree of Aries, and will end when they shall assemble in the last degree or Pisces. He died in 885. His astrological work was published at Venice, 1506, 8vo; with the title “De magnis conjunctionibus, annorum revolutionibus, ac eorum perfectionibus;” but his “Introductio ad Astronomiam” was printed before this in 4to,. Augsburgh, 1489; and reprinted at Venice, 1490, 1506, and 1515, 4to.

, a Platonic philosopher, is supposed to have lived about the beginning of the second century. We have no account of his life, nor is he known but by his “Introduction to the doctrine of Plato,” with which he appears to have been very well acquainted. Marsilius Ficinus translated it into Latin, and it was published, for the first time, with various pieces by Jamblicus, Proclus, Porphyry, Synesius, and other Platonists, Venice, by Aldus, 1497, fol. It has often been reprinted, and Charpentier wrote a commentary on it, which was published at Paris, 1575, 4to. Dennis Lambin gave an edition in Gr. and Lat. with scholia, Paris, 1567, 4to; and Michael Vascosan another, ibid. 1532, 8vo. Daniel Heinsius has inserted it in his editions of Maximus Tyrius, Leyden, 1608, 1617, and Oxford, 1667, 8vo. It is also, in Latin, in the first editions of Apuleius, Rome, 1469, and 1472; Venice, 1521, &c.; and our countryman, Stanley, printed it in his “History of Philosophy.” It was very recently translated into French, and published by M. Combes Dounous, Paris, 1800, 12mo. There is another Alcinous, mentioned by Philostratus in his lives of the Greek sophists.

, a philosopher of Crotona, the son of Perithus, was one of the disciples of Pythagoras, and flourished probably about 500 B. C. He acquired a high degree of reputatjon in the Italian school by his knowledge of nature, and his skill in medicine. He is said to have been the first person who attempted the dissection of a dead body; and in the course of his operations, he made some discoveries in the structure of the eye. The sura of his philosophical tenets, as far as they can be collected from scattered fragments, is this Natural objects, which appear multiform to men, are in reality two-fold intelligent natures, which are immutable; and material forms, which are infinitely variable. The sun, moon, and stars are eternal, and are inhabited by portions of that divine fire, which is the first principle in nature. The moon is in the form of a boat, and when the bottom of the boat is turned towards the earth, it is invisible. The brain is the chief seat of the soul. Health consists in preserving a due mean between the extremes of heat and cold, dryness and moisture.

Charlemagne often solicited him to return to court, but he excused himself, and remained at Tours until his death, May 19, 804. He was buried in the church of St. Martin, where a Latin epitaph of twenty-four verses, of his own, composition, was inscribed upon his tomb. This epitaph is preserved by father Labbe, in his Thesaurus Epitaphiorum, printed at Paris 1686. He understood the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages extremely well; was an excellent orator, philosopher, mathematician, and, according to William of Malmesbury, the best English divine alter Bede and Adhelme. How greatly France was indebted to him for her flourishing state of learning in that and the following ages, we learn from a German poet, cited by Camden in his Britannia:

, an eminent French philosopher, was born at Paris, Nov. 17, 1717. He derived the name of John le Rond from that of the church near which, after his birth, he was exposed as a foundling; being the illicit son of Destouches-Canon and Madame de Tencin. His father, informed of this circumstance, listened to the voice of nature and duty, took measures for the proper education of his child, and for his future subsistence in a state of ease and independence.

At his leaving the college, he found himself alone and unconnected in the world; and sought an asylum in the house of his nurse. He comforted himself with the hope, that his fortune, though not ample, would better the condition and subsistence of that family, which was the only one that he could consider as his own: here, therefore, he took up his residence, resolving to apply himself entirely to the study of geometry. And here he lived, during the space of forty years, with the greatest simplicity, discovering the augmentation of his means only by increasing displays of his beneficence, concealing his growing reputation and celebrity from these honest people, and making their plain and uncouth manners the subject of good-natured pleasantry and philosophical observation. His good nurse perceived his ardent activity; heard him mentioned as the writer of many books; but never took it into her head that he was a great man, and rather beheld him with a kind of compassion. “You will never,” said she to him one day, “be any thing but a philosopher—and what is a philosopher?—a fool, who toils and plagues himself during his life, that people may talk of him when he is no more.”

Alexander, now twenty years of age, succeeded his father as king of Macedon: he was also chosen, in room of his father, generalissimo in the projected expedition against the Persians; but the Greeks, agreeably to their usual Jickleness, deserted from him, taking the advantage of his absence in Thrace and lllyricum, where he began his military enterprises. He hastened immediately to Greece, and the Athenians and other states returned to him once; but the Thebans resisting, he directed his arms against them, slew a prodigious number of them, and destroyed their city; sparing nothing but the descendants and the house of Pindar, out of respect to the memory of that poet. This happened in the second year of tue third olympiad. It was about this time that he went to consult the oracle at Delphi; when, the priestess pretending that it was not, on some account, lawful for her to enter the temple, he being impatient, hauled her along, and occasioned her to cry out, “Ah, my son, there is no resisting thee” upon which, Alexander, seizing the words as ominous, replied, “I desire nothing farther: this oracle suffices.” It was also probably at tnis time that the remarkable interview passed between our hero and Diogenes the cynic. Alexander had the curiosity to visit this philosopher in his tub, and complimented him with asking “if he Could do any thing to serve nim” “Nothing,” said the cynic, “but to stand from betwixt me and the sun.” The attendants were expecting what resentment would be shewn to this rude behaviour; when Alexander surprised them by saying, “Positively, if I was not Alexander, I would he Diogenes.” Having settled the affairs of Greece, and left Antipater as nis viceroy in Macedonia, he passed the Hellespont, in uie taird year of his reign, with an army of no more than 30,000 foot and 4,500 horse; and with these brave and veteran forces he overturned the Persian empire. His first battle was at the Granicus, a river of Phrygia, in which the Persians were routed. His second was at Issus, a city of Cilicia, where he was also victorious in an eminent degree; for the camp of Darius, with his mother, wife, and children, fell into his hands; and the humane and generous treatment which he shewed them is justly reckoned the noblest and most amiable passage of his life. While he was in this country, he caught a violent fever by battling, when hot, in the cold waters of the river Cydnus; and this fever was made more violent from his impatience at being detained by it. The army was under the utmost consternation; and no physician durst undertake the cure. At length one Philip of Acarnania desired time to prepare a potion, which he was sure would cure him; and while the potion was preparing, Alexander received a letter from his most intimate confident Parmenio, informing him, that his physician was a traitor, and employed by Darius to poison him, at the price of a thousand talents and his sister in marriage. The same fortitude, however, which accompanied him upon all occasions, did not forsake him here. He carefully concealed from his physician every symptom of apprehension; but, after receiving the cup into his hands, delivered the letter to the Acarnanian, and with eyes fixed upon him, drank it off. The medicine at first acted so powerfully, as to deprive him of his senses, and then, without doubt, all concluded him poisoned: however, he soon recovered, and, by a cure so speedy that it might almost be deemed miraculous, was restored to his army in perfect health.

It was at Anchyala, a town of Cilicia, that he was shewn a monument of Sardanapalus, with this inscription “Sardanapalus built Anchyala and Tarsus in a day Passenger, eat, drink, and enjoy thyself all else is nothing.” This, probably, moved his contempt very strongly, when he compared such petty acquisitions to what he projected. From Cilicia he marched forwards to Phoenicia, which all surrendered to him, except Tyre; and it cost him a siege of seven months to reduce this city. The vexation of Alexander, atbeing unseasonably detained by this obstinacy of the Tyrians, occasioned a vast destruction and carnage; and the cruelty he exercised here is among the deepest stains on his character. After besieging and taking Gaza, he went to Jerusalem, where he was received by the high priest; and, making many presents to the Jews, sacrificed in their temple. He told Jadduas (for that was the priest’s name), that he had seen in Macedonia a god, in appearance exactly resembling him, who had exhorted him to this expedition against the Persians, and given him the firmest assurance of success. Afterwards, entering Ægypt, he went to the oracle of Jupiter Ammon, and upon his return built the city of Alexandria. It was now that he took it into his head to assume divinity, and to pretend himself the son of the said Jupiter Ammon, for which his mother Olympias would sometimes rally him, not unpleasantly, “Pray,” she would say, “cease to be called the son of Jupiter: thou wilt certainly embroil me in quarrels with Juno.” Policy, however, was at the bottom of this: it was impossible that any such belief should be really rooted in his breast, but he found by experience that this opinion inclined the barbarous nations to submit to him; and therefore he was content to pass for a god, and to admit, as he did, of divine adoration. So far, indeed, was he from believing this of himself, that he used among his friends to make a jest of it. Thus, afterwards, when he was bleeding from a wound he had received, “See here,” says he, “this is your true genuine blood, and not that ixpp, or thin fine liquor, which issues, according to Homer, from the wounds of the immortals.” Nay, even his friends sometimes made free with this opinion, which shews that he did not hold it sacred: for once, when it thundered horridly loud, and somewhat terrified the company, the philosopher Anaxarchus, who was present, said to Alexander, “And when wilt thou, son of Jupiter, do the like” “Oh,” said Alexander, “I would not frighten my friends.”

The character of this hero is so familiar, that it is almost needless to draw it. It was equally composed of very great virtues and very great vices. He had no mediocrity in any thing but his stature: in his other properties, whether good or bad, he was all extremes. His ambition rose even to madness. His father was not at all mistaken in supposing the bounds of Macedon too small for his son: for how could Macedon bound the ambition of a man, who reckoned the whole world too small a dominion He wept at hearing the philosopher Anaxarchus say, that there was an infinite number of worlds: his tears were owing to his despair of conquering them all, since he had not yet been able to conquer one. Livy, in a short digression, has attempted to inquire into the events which might have happened, if Alexander, after the conquest of Asia, had brought his arms into Italy Doubtless things might have taken a very different turn with him; and all the grand projects, which succeeded so well against an effeminate Persian monarch, might easily have miscarried if he had had to do with hardy Roman armies. And yet the vast aims of this mighty conqueror, if seen under another point of view, may appear to have been confined within a very narrow compass; since, as we are told, the utmost wish of that great heart, for which the whole earth was not enough, was, after all, to be praised by the Athenians. It is related, that the difficulties which he encountered in order to pass the Hydaspes, forced him to cry out, “O Athenians, could you believe to what dangers I expose myself for the sake of being celebrated by you?” But Bayle affirms, that this was quite consistent with the vast unbounded extent of his ambition, as he wanted to make all future time his own, and be an object of admiration to the latest posterity; yet did not expect this from the conquest of worlds, but from books. And he was right, continues that author, “for if Greece had not furnished him with good writers, he would long ago have been as much forgotten as the kings who reigned in Macedon before Amphitryon.”

, surnamed Polyhistor, on account of his great learning, and Cornelius, because he had been the slave of Cornelius Lentulus, was eminent as a philosopher, geographer, and historian. According to Suidas, he was originally of Miletum, but Stephen of Byzantium thinks he was a native of Coup, a town in Phrygia. He was taken prisoner in one of the battles of Mithridates, and purchased by Cornelius Lentulus, who employed him to educate his children, but afterwards gave him his liberty. He lived in the time of Sylla, about the year 85 B. C. He lost his life by an accidental fire; and his wife Helen, shocked at the catastrophe, committed suicide. Few men, according to Eusebius, were at that time possessed of so much learning and genius as Alexander Polyhistor. He wrote forty-two works on different subjects, particularly on the history of the nations of the East, of which a few fragments are extant. Stephen of Byzantium quotes his works on the history of Bithynia, Caria, Syria, and other places. Athenaeus mentions his description of the island of Crete, and Plutarch his history of the musicians of Phrygia. Diogenes Laertius ascribes to him a work on the succession of philosophers, and another, commentaries of Pythagoras. But all these have perished, and his memory lives only in the pages of Suidas, Eusebius, Athenæus, and Pliny.

, a learned physician and philosopher, of the 6th century, was born at Tralles, in Asia Minor. His father, also a physician, had five sons distinguished for their talents: the two most celebrated were Anthemius, an architect, and Alexander. The latter, after travelling for improvement into France, Spain, and Italy, took up his residence at Rome, where he acquired great reputation. He and Aretatæus may be considered as the best Greek physicians after Hippocrates. Alexander describes diseases with great exactness, and his style is elegant; but he partook of the credulity of his times, and trusted too much to amulets and nostrums. He added something, however, to the more judicious practice of the art, having been the first who prescribed opening the jugular, and the first who administered steel in substance. He is much fuller, and more exact than his predecessors in Therapeutics, and collected those remedies principally which he had found to be most effectual. Dr. Freind has given an elaborate analysis of his practice. There are various editions of his works; one in Greek, Paris, 1548, fol. corrected by Goupil, from a manuscript furnished by Duchatel, bishop of Macon and grand almoner of France. There is also an old and bad Latin translation, which Fabricius thinks must have been taken from some Arabic original, published under the title of “Alexandri iatros practica, cum expositione glossae interlinearis Jacobi de Partibus, et Simonis Januensis,” Leyden, 1504, 4to. This was retrenched by Albanus Taurinus, but without the Greek being consulted, and published at Basil, fol. 1533. Another translation, by Gouthier d'Andernac, was improved from the Greek, and has often been reprinted. Among the works of Mercurialis is a small treatise in verse, attributed to Alexander. Haller published a Latin edition of all his works, in 1772, 2 vols. 8vo, with Freind’s account of his practice. In 1734, an abridgement was published at London by Edward MiUvard, M. D. entitled “Trallianus Redivivus, or an account of Trallianus one of the Greek authors who flourished after Galen; showing that these authors are far from deserving the imputation of mere tforrtpilators,” 8vo. This was intended as a supplement to Dr. Freind’s History.

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

, an Arabian philosopher, was born at Thous in 1058, studied in the college of the celebrated Iman-Al-Haremein, and became a man of great learning. On the death of his preceptor he presented himself to the vizir Neddham El-mulk, who bestowed many gifts and honours upon him, and gave him, the superintendance of a college which he had founded at Bagdad. Algazeli, after retaining this office four years, embraced a solitary life, travelled into Syria and Palestine, and employed himself in the composition of his works, until his death in 1111. Among his papers was a treatise censuring with great freedom some articles of the Mahometan faith; this was of course immediately committed to the flames. He left, however, many other works, some of which have been translated either into Latin or Hebrew. His treatise on “Religious Sciences” is highly celebrated in the East. In 1506 was published at Cologn, another of his works under the title of “Philosophica et logica Algazeli,” 4to. Averroes, who lived after him, wrote against his philosophical opinions, in a piece entitled “Destructio destructionum philosophise Algazeli,” and which is printed in the 9th vol. of his Aristotle. In all, except the first mentioned work, Algazeli is a strenuous supporter of the Mahometan religion.

, caliph of Bagdat, a philosopher and astronomer in the beginning of the ninth century, ascended the throne in the year 814. He was the son of Harun-AlRashid, and the grandson of Almanzor. His name is otherwise written Mamon, Almaon, Almamun, Alamoun, or Al-Maimon. Having been educated with great care, and with a love for the liberal sciences, he applied himself to cultivate and encourage them in his own country. For this purpose he requested the Greek emperors to supply him with such books on philosophy as they had among them; and he collected skilful interpreters to translate them into the Arabic language. He also encouraged his subjects to study them; frequenting the meetings of the learned, and assisting in their exercises and deliberations. He caused Ptolemy’s Almagest to be translated in the year 827; and in his reign, and doubtless by his encouragement, an astronomer of Bagdat, named Habash, composed three sets of astronomical tables. Almamon himself, however, made many astronomical observations, concerning the obliquity of the ecliptic, and caused skilful observers to procure proper instruments to be made, and to exercise themselves in such observations. Under his auspices also a degree of the meridian was measured; and he revived the sciences in the East so successfully that many learned men were found, not only in his own time, but after him, in a country where the study of the sciences had long been forgotten. This learned king died near Tarsus in Cilicia, by having eaten too freely of dates, on his return from a military expedition, in the year 833, in the 48th or 49th year of his age.

, an eminent Neapolitan philosopher, physician, and professor of medicine of the sixteenth century, was born at Naples, was one of the most learned medical writers of his time, and enjoyed very high reputation, it being only objected to him that he was too servile a copyist of Galen. We know little else of his history, unless that he had certain enemies who obliged him to take refuge in Rome, and that he did not venture to return to Naples until he had obtained the protection of pope Paul IV. to whom he had dedicated one of his works. Most of them were published separately, as appears by a catalogue in Man get and Haller; but the whole were collected and published in folio at Lyons, 1565 and 1597; at Naples in 1573; Venice, 1561, 1574, and 1600. So many editions of so large a volume are no inconsiderable testimony of the esteem in which this writer was held. He is said to have died in 1556.

, a philosopher of Alexandria, flourished in the fifth century, and was contemporary with Jamblicus. He was one of the most subtle dialecticians of his time, was much followed, and drew away the hearers of Jamblicus. This occasioned some conferences between them, but no animosity, as Jamblicus wrote his life, in which he praised his virtue and steadiness of mind. Alypius died very old, in the city of Alexandria. In stature he was so remarkably diminutive as to be called a dwarf.

, an eclectic philosopher of the third century, was a native of Tuscany, and the contemporary of Porphyry, and studied the principles of the Stoic philosophy under Lysimachus. He became afterwards acquainted with the writings of Numenius, and from him learned and adopted the dogmas of Plato, but at last, about the year 246, became the disciple of Plotinus. For twenty-four years he associated with this master, and probably never would have quitted him, if Plotinus, on account of his health, had not been obliged to go to Campania. Amelius then settled at Apamea in Syria, and it was no doubt his long residence here which led Suidas into the mistake that he was a native of the place. The word Amelius in Greek signifies negligent, but no epithet could ever be worse applied than to him. Porphyry therefore tells us that he preferred being called Amerius, and he is accordingly recorded under this name by Eunapius in his lives of the Greek sophists. His disciples also bestowed on him the title of noble. He wrote nearly an hundred treatises, none of which have descended to our times. One of them was a discussion on the difference between the doctrines of Numenius and Plotinus. Eusebius, Theodoret, and St. Cyril, quote a passage from Amelius in which he brings the beginning of the Gospel of St. John in confirmation of the doctrine of Plato on the divine nature. He had an adopted son, Justin Hesychius, to whom he left his writings. The time of his death is not known.

His next communication was, 4. “On the music of the Chinese, ancient and modern,” which fills the greater part of vol. VI. of the “Memoires sur les Chinois.” 5. “The Life of Confucius,” the most accurate history of that philosopher, and taken from the most authentic sources, with a long account both of his ancestors and descendants, who yet exist in China, a genealogy which embraces four centuries. This life, which is illustrated with plates from Chinese designs, occupies the greater part of vol. XII. of the “Memoires, &c.” 6. “Dictionnaire Tatarmantcheou-Français,” Paris, 1789, 3 vols. 4to, a work of great value, as this language was before unknown in Europe. The publication of it was owing to the spirit and liberality of the deceased minister of state, M. Bertin, who bore the expence of the types necessary, and employed M. Langles, a learned orientalist, to superintend the press. Amiot also sent over a grammar of that language, which is printed in the XIIIth volume of the “Memoires.” He published in the same work, a great many letters, observations, and papers, on the history, arts, und sciences of the Chinese, some of which are noticed in the Monthly Review (see Index), and in the index to the “Memoires,” in which his contributions fill many columns. He died at Pekin, in 1794, aged seventy-seven.

, son of Hermias the peripatetic philosopher, flourished at the beginning of the sixth century, and was the disciple of Proclus. He is said to have excelled in mathematical learning, and wrote a “Commentary on Aristotle De Interpretatione,” which was printed by Aldus at Venice, 1503; and a “Commentary In Isagogen Porphyrii,” first printed in 1500, and often reprinted. He has been sometimes confounded with Ammonius the grammarian, but the latter flourished in the fourth century, and wrote a valuable work on Greek Synonymes, which may be seen in Stephens’s Thesaurus and Scapula’s Lexicon.

, surnamed Saccas, one of the most celebrated philosophers of his age, was born in Alexandria, and flourished about the beginning of the third century. His history and his opinions have been the subject of much dispute among modern writers, to some of whom we shall refer at the close of this article, after stating what appears to be the probable account. In the third century, Alexandria was the most renowned seminary of learning. A set of philosophers appeared there who called themselves Eclectics, because, without tying themselves down to any one set of rules, they chose what they thought most agreeable to truth from different masters and sects. Their pretensions were specious, and they preserved the appearance of candour, moderation, and dispassionate inquiry, in words and declarations, as their successors, the modern free-thinkers, have since done. Ammonius Saccas seems to have reduced the opinions of these Eclectics to a system. Plato was his principal guide; but he invented many things of which Plato never dreamed. What his religious profession was, is disputed among the learned. Undoubtedly he was educated a Christian; and although Porphyry, in his enmity against Christianity, observes that he forsook the Gospel, and returned to Gentilism, yet the testimony of Eusebius, who must have known the fact, proves that he continued a Christian all his days. His tracts on the agreement of Moses and Jesus, and his harmony of the four gospels, demonstrate that he desired to be considered as a Christian. His opinion, however, was, that all religions, vulgar and philosophical, Grecian and barbarous, Jewish and Gentile, meant the same thing at bottom. He undertook, by allegorizing and subtilizing various fables and systems, to make up a coalition of all sects and religions; and from his labours, continued by his disciples, some of whose works still remain, his followers were taught to look on Jew, philosopher, vulgar Pagan, and Christian, as all of the same creed. Longinus and Plotinus appear to have been the disciples of Ammonius, who is supposed to have died about the year 243. His history and principles are discussed by Dr. Lardner, in his Credibility, and by Mosheim in his history, the translator of which differs from Dr. Lardner in toto, and has been in this respect followed by Milner in his Church History recently published.

, a peripatetic philosopher, of the fifteenth century, and a native of Trebizond, was at first in great esteem at the court of the emperor David his master, and signalized himself by writing in favour of the Greeks against the decisions of the council of Florence; but at last forfeited, by his apostacy, all the reputation he had gained. He was one of those who accompanied the emperor Davicl to Constantinople, whither that prince was carried by order of Mahomet II. after the reduction of Trebizond, in 1461, and there, seduced by the promises of the Sultan, he renounced the Christian religion, and embraced Mahometism, together with his children, one of which, under the name of Mehemet-Beg, translated many hooks of the Christians into Arabic, by the order of Mahomet II. That prince honoured Amyrutzes with considerable employments in the seraglio, and used sometimes to-discourse with him and his son about points of learning and religion. By the manner Allatius expresses himself, it would appear that this philosopher had borne the employ^ ment of protovestiarius in the court of the emperor of Trebizond, but this emperor was not the first prince that shewed a particular value for Amyrutzes, as he had been greatly esteemed at the court of Constantinople long before. He was one of the learned men, with whom the emperor John Paleologus advised about his journey into Italy, and he attended him in that journey. Of his death we haveno account, and Bayle seems to think there were two of the name.

, a famous philosopher, was born in Scythia. He was brother to Cadovides king of Scythia, and the son of Gnurus by a Greek woman, which gave him the opportunity of learning both languages to perfection. Sosicrates, according to Laertius, affirmed, that he came to Athens in the forty-seventh olympiad, or 592 B.C. under Eucrates the Archon, And Hermippus tells us, that as soon as he arrived there, he went to Solon’s house, and knocked at his door, and bid the servant, who opened it, go and tell his master, that Anacharsis was there, and was come on purpose to see him, and continue with him for $ome time. Solon returned him an answer, that it was better to contract friendship at home. Anacharsis went in upon this, and said to Solon, that since he was then in his own country and in his own house, it was his duty to entertain him as his guest, and therefore he desired him to enter into an intimate friendship with hi;n. Solon, surprized at the vivacity of his repartee, immediately engaged in a friendship with him, which lasted as long as they lived. Solon instructed him in the best discipline, recommended him to the favour of the noblest per ons, and sought all means of giving him respect and honour. Anacharsis was kindly received by every one for his sake, and, as Theoxenus attests, was the only stranger whom they incorporated into their city. He was a man of a very quick and lively genius, and of a strong and masterly eloquence, and was resolute in whatever he undertook. He constantly wore a coarse double garment. He was very temperate, and his diet was nothing but milk and cheese. His speeches were delivered in a concise and pathetic style, and as he was inflexible in the pursuit of his point, he never failed to gain it, and his resolute and eloquent manner of speaking passed into a proverb; and those who imitated him were said to speak in the Scythian phrase. He was extremely fond of poetry, and wrote the laws of the Scythians, and of those things-which he had observed among the Greeks, and a poem of 900 verses upon war. Crœsus, having heard of his reputation, sent to offer him money, and to desire him to come to see him at Sardis; but the philosopher answered, that he was come to Greece in order to learn the language, manners, and laws of that country, that he had no occasion for gold or silver, and that it would be sufficient for him to return to Scythia a better man and more intelligent than when he came from thence. He told the king, however, that he would take an opportunity of seeing him, since he had a strong desire of being ranked in the number of his friends. After he had continued a long while in Greece, he prepared to return home, and passing through Cyricum, he found the people of that city celebrating in a very solemn manner the feast of Cybele. This excited him to make a vow to that goddess, that he would perform the same sacrifices, and establish the same feast in honour of her in his own country, if he should return thither in safety. Upon his arrival in Scythia he attempted to change the ancient customs of that country, and to establish those of Greece, but this proved extremely displeasing to the Scythians, and fatal to himself. As he had one day entered into a thick wood called Hylaea, in order to accomplish his vow to Cybele in the most secret manner possible, and was performing the whole ceremony before an image of that goddess, he was discovered by a Scytman, who went and informed king Saulius of it. The king came immediately, and surprised Anaenarsis in the midst of the solemnity, and shot him dead with an arrow. Laertius tells us, that he was killed by his brother with an arrow as he was hunting, and that he expired with these words: “I lived in peace and safety in Greece, whither I went to inform myself of its language and manners, and envy has destroyed me in my native country.” Great respect, however, was paid to him after his death by the erection of statues. He is said to have invented the potter’s wheel, but this is mentioned by Homer long before he lived, yet he probably introduced it into his country.

After his banishment, Anaxagoras passed the remainder of his days at Lampsacus, where he employed himself in instructing youth, and obtained great respect and influence among the magistrates and citizens. Through his whole life he appears to have supported the character of a true philosopher. Superior to motives of avarice and ambition, he devoted himself to the pursuits of science, and in the midst of the vicissitudes of fortune, preserved an equal mind. When one of his friends expressed regret on account of his banishment from Athens, he said, “It is not I who have lost the Athenians, but the Athenians who have lost me.” Being asked, just before his death, whether he wished to be carried for interment to Clazomene, his native city, he said, “It is unnecessary; the way to the regions below is every where alike open.” In reply to a message sent him, at that time, by the senate of Lampsacus, requesting him to inform them in what manner they might most acceptably express their respect for his memory after his decease, he said, “By ordaining that the day of my death may be annually kept as a holiday in all the schools of Lampsacus.” His request was complied with, and the custom remained for many centuries. He died about the age of seventy-two years. The inhabitants of Lampsacus expressed their high opinion of his wisdom, by erecting a tomb, with an inscription signifying that his mind explored the paths of truth; and two altars were raised in honour of his memory, one dedicated to Truth, the other to Mind, which latter appellation was given him on account of the doctrine which he taught concerning the origin and formation of nature.

, a philosopher of Abdera, in the 110th olympiad, B. C. 340, was the favourite of Alexander the Great, and used a liberty, in speaking to him, that was worthy of the philosophy of Diogenes. That prince being. wounded, Anaxarchus put his finger to the wound, and looking him in the face, said, “This is human blood; and not of that kind which animates the gods.” Once this prince asked him at table, what he thought of the feast? He answered, “that there was but one thing wanting, the head of a great nobleman, which ought to have been served in a dish:” and in saying this, fixed his eyes on Nicocreon, tyrant of Cyprus. After the death of Alexander, this Nicocreon, in his turn, caused him to be put in a mortar, and beat with iron pestles. The philosopher told the tyrant to pound his body as much as he pleased, but he had no power over his soul. Nicocreon then threatened to have his tongue cut out. “Thou shalt not do it, wretch!” said Anaxarchus; and immediately spit it in his face, after having bit it in two with his teeth. Anaxarchus was of the sect of the Sceptics. Such is the common account of this philosopher, but it is wholly inconsistent with his character, which was that of a man softened by effeminate pleasure, and a flatterer of kings. The same story is told of Zeno.

, an ancient philosopher, was the first who taught philosophy in a public school, and is therefore often spoken of as the founder of the Ionic sect. He was born in the third year of the 42d olympiad, or B. C. 610. Cicero calls him the friend and companion of Thales; whence it is probable, that he was a native of Miletus. That he was employed in instructing youth, may be inferred from an anecdote related concerning him; that, being laughed at for singing (that is, probably, reciting his verses) ill, he said, “We must endeavour to sing better, for the sake of the boys.” Anaximander was the first who laid aside the defective method of oral tradition, and committed the principles of natural science to writing. It is related of him, which, however, is totally improbable, that he predicted an earthquake. He lived sixty-four years.

The general doctrine of Anaximander, concerning nature and the origin of things, was, that infinity is the first principle of all things; that the universe, though variable in its parts, as one whole is immutable; and that all things are produced from infinity, and terminate in it. What this philosopher meant by infinity, has been a subject of a dispute productive of many ingenious conjectures, which are, however, too feebly supported to merit particular notice. The most material question is, whether Anaximander understood by infinity the material subject, or the efficient cause, of nature. Plutarch asserts, the infinity of Anaximander to be nothing but matter. Aristotle explains it in the same manner, and several modern writers adopt the same idea. But neither Aristotle nor Plutarch could have any better ground for their opinion than conjecture. It is more probable, that Anaximander, who was a disciple of Thales, would attempt to improve, than that he would entirely reject, the doctrine of his master. If, therefore, the explanation, given above, of the system of Thales be admitted, there will appear some ground for supposing, that Anaximander made use of the term infinity to denote the humid mass of Thales, whence all things arose, together with the divine principle by which he supposed it to be animated. This opinion is supported by the authority of Hermias, who asserts, that Anaximander supposed an eternal mover or first cause of motion, prior to the humid mass of Thales. And Aristotle himself speaks of the infinity of Anaximander as comprehending and directing all things. After all, nothing can be determined, with certainty, upon this subject.

, an eminent civilian of the fourteenth century, was born at Bologna in Italy, and descended from the illustrious family of the Farneses. Besides his uncommon knowledge in the civil law, he was a philosopher and politician and an eloquent speaker. These qualifications raised his reputation, and gave him a great authority among his countrymen. He was likewise in high esteem with the princes of Italy, and applied to by many cities and universities. He studied chiefly under Baldus, whose intimate friendship he gained, and who instructed him in the most abstruse parts of the civil law. He read public lectures upon the law at first in Padua, and afterwards at Bologna, in conjunction with Bartholomew Salicetus, with the greatest applause of his auditors. He flourished about 1380, and the following years; for in May, 1382, Salicetus, who was his contemporary, began his commentaries in IX Libros Codic. at Bologna. Our author died there about the year 1410, and was buried in the church of St. Benedict; though some writers pretend, that he lived till 1497, which they infer from his epitaph, which was only repaired in that year. But the manuscript of his lecture upon the Clementines and Rescripts, which is preserved in the library at Augsburg, appears to have been written in 1397; and another manuscript of his lecture upon the second book of the Decretals, which is likewise in that library, shews that it was finished at Venice in 1392. He wrote, 1. “Commentaria in sex Libros Decretalium;” with the Scholia of Codecha and John de Monteferrato, at Bononia, 1581, fol. 2. “Lectura super Clementinas,” with the additions of Cathar. Panel and others, Lyons, 1549 and 1553, fol. 3. “Seleetae Quaestiones omnium praestantissimorum Jurisconsultorum in tres tomos digestae,” Francfort, 1581, fol. 4. “Consilia sive Responsa Juris,” with the additions of Jerom Z'anchius, Venice, 1568, 1585, 1589, 1599, folio. 5. “Repetitiones in C. Canonum Statuta, de Constit.” Venice, 1587.

, professor of history and Greek at Groningen, was born at Braunfels, in the county of Solras, August 10th, 1604. His father was minister to count de Solms-Braunfels, and Inspector of the churches which belong to that county, and his mother, daughter to John Piscator, a famous professor of divinity at Herborn, in the county of Nassau. He performed his humanity-studies at Herborn, and then studied philosophy at the same place, under Alstedius and Piscator, after which he went to Bremen, where he lived seven years. He was one of the most constant auditors of Gerard de Neuville, a physician and a philosopher; and, as he had a desire to attain a public professorship, he prepared himself for it by several lectures which he read in philosophy. He returned to his own country in 1628, where he did not continue long, but went to Groningen, on the invitation of his kind patron, Henry Alting. He read there, for some time, lectures upon all parts of philosophy, after which Alting made him tutor to his sons, and wheo they had no longer occasion for his instruction, he procured him the same employment with a prince Palatine, which lasted for three years; part of which he spent at Leyden, and part at the Hague, at the court of the prince of Orange. He was called to Groningen in 1634, to succeed Janus Gebhardus, who had been professor of history and Greek. He filled that chair with great assiduity and reputation till his death, which happened October 17, 1676. He was library -keeper to the university, and a great frierAi to Mr. Des Cartes, which he shewed both during the life and after the death of that illustrious philosopher. He married the daughter of a Swede, famous, among other things, for charity towards those who suffered for the sake of religion.

, of Rhodes, a peripatetic philosopher, lived at Rome in the time of Cicero, 69 years before the Christian aera. He was the first who made the works of Aristotle known at Rome, which Sylla had brought thither. He had formerly been a professor of philosophy at Athens, but quitted it when the taste for philosophy departed from that city. There is a workj of doubtful authority, ascribed to him, entitled “Andronici Rhodii et Ethicorum Nichomacheorum Paraphrasis,” Greek and Latin, Cambridge, 1679, 8vo, a very scarce book, and one of the authors “cum notis variorum.” There is, however, a Leyden edition of 1617, which is reckoned more correct. St. Croix, in his “Examen des Historiens d'Alexandre,” says that there is a manuscript in the imperial library of Paris, which ascribes this work to Heliodorus of Pruza.

, a Greek philosopher of the Cyrenaic sect, and who gave the name of Annicerians to his disciples, was born at Gyrene, and scholar to Paroebates. When Plato, by the command of Dionysius the tyrant of Sicily, was sold as a slave at Ægina, our philosopher happened to be present, and redeemed him for twenty, or, according to others, thirty minoe, and sent him to Athens to his friends, who immediately returned the money to Anniceris; but he refused it, saying, that they were not the only persons who deserved to take care of Plato. He was particularly eminent for his skill in chariot-racing, of which he one day gave a proof before Plato, and drove many courses round the academy so exactly, that his wheels never went out of the track, to the admiration of all who were present, except Plato, who reproved him for his too great attention to such affairs, telling him, that it was not possible but that he, who employed so much pains about things of no value, must neglect those of greater importance. He had a brother who was named Nicoteles, a philosopher, and the famous Posidonius was his scholar. The Annicerians, as well as the rest of the Cyrenaic philosophers, placed all good in pleasure, and conceived virtue to be only commendable so far as it produced pleasure. They agreed in all respects with the Hegesians, except that they did not abolish friendship, benevolence, duty to parents, and love to one’s country. They held, that though a wise man suffer trouble for those thinsrs. yet he will lead a life not the less happy, though he enjoy but few pleasures. That the felicity of a friend is not desirable in itself; for to agree in judgment with another, or to be raised above and fortified against the general opinion, is not sufficient to satisfy reason; but we must accustom ourselves to the best things, on account of our innate vicious inclinations. That a friend is not to be entertained only for useful or necessary ends, nor when such ends fail, to be cast off, but out of an intrinsic good will; for which we ought likewise to expose ourselves to trouble and inconvenience. Although these philosophers, like the rest of that sect, placed the chief end and good of mankind in pleasure, and professed that they were grieved at the loss of it, yet they affirmed, that we ought voluntarily to subject ourselves to pain and trouble out of regard to our friends.

, a philosopher and historian, who flourished under the reign of the two Ptolemies, became famous for his writings. He wrote a history of philosophers, of which Diogenes Laertius made much use, and which is quoted by Eusebius. Athenaeus speaks, of another work of his, entitled “Historical Commentaries,” and Hesychius makes mention of two others, the first oil animals, the second on the voice, but we have no remains of any of his works, except a collection of remarkable and not very probable stories, “Historiarum mirabilium colJectio,” quoted by Stephanus of Byzantium. It was printed by Meursius in 1619, and an excellent edition by Beckmann, with learned notes by himself and others, Leipsic, 1791, 4to, Greek and Latin. But it is thought rather to belong to some grammarian of the lower empire, than to a writer of the age of the Ptolemies. There are two other Antigonus’s, who were writers of a description, of Macedonia, and of a history of Italy, but it is uncertain who they were, or what their share in these works.

, of Sidon, a Stoic philosopher, who wrote poems that were much praised by Cicero, according to whose account he appears to have possessed the talents of the impromsatori. Valerius Maximus and Pliny record of him that he had every year a return of fever on the day which was that of his birth, and happened to be that of his death. He flourished about one hundred and forty years. B. C. Some of his epigrams are in the Anthology.

, a Greek philosopher, and founder of the sect of the Cynics, was born at Athens in 423 B. C. His father was of the same name with him, and his mother was either a Thracian or a Phrygian, but he appears to have despised the honours of family, and made them the topics of ridicule, a practice not uncommon with those whose origin is mean or doubtful. He appears to have served in the army, and behaved with great courage in the battle of Tanagra. His first preceptor was Gorgias the orator, from whom he imbibed a florid and showy manner, but attained afterwards much eminence under Socrates, and advised his scholars to become his fellow-disciples in the school of that celebrated philosopher. Laertius informs us that there were ten volumes of his works; but a collection of apophthegms only remain, some of which are excellent. Modern wit perhaps affords few better hits than what he bestowed on the Athenians, when he advised them to elect asses to be horses. This they said was absurd; “and yet,” he replied, “you chuse those for generals who have nothing to recommend them but your votes.” Antisthencs is said to have been a man of great austerity, and a most rigid disciplinarian. Some of his contemporaries give him a very high character in other respects, and his life, upon the whole, appears to have escaped the imputation of the sensual vices practised by many of the ancient philosophers.

, a celebrated grammarian of Athens, flourished in the 169th Olympiad, or about 104 years before the Christian aera, under the reign of Plotemy Euergetes, king of Egypt. He was the son of Asclepiades, and the disciple of Aristarchus the grammarian, and of the philosopher Panaetius. He composed a very voluminous work on the origin of the gods, of which Harpocration has quoted the sixth book, Macrobius the fourteenth, and Hermolaus the seventeenth. Besides this work he wrote a “Chronicle,” a “Treatise on legislators,” another “on the philosophical sects,” and others which we find mentioned in the writings of the ancients. There is, however, only now extant, an abridgement of his book on the origin of the gods, Rome, 1555, and Antwerp, 1565, of which M. le Fevre of Saumur (Tanaquil Faber), published a Latin ' translation, under the title of “Apollodori Atheniensis bibliothecse, sive de Diis, libri tres,” Imperfect as this abridgement is, it is very useful in illustrating fabulous history. It commences with Inachus, and comes down to Theseus, prince of Athens, consequently comprising the space of 622 years, from A. M. 2177 to A. M. 2799. But we owe a very superior edition to the labours of that eminent classical scholar and critic, Heyne, who published in 1782, “Apollodori Atheniensis Bibliothecae Libri tres. Ad codd. Mss. fidem recensiti,” Gottingen, 8vo, and the following year, “Ad Apollodori Atheniensis Bibliothecam Notae, cum commentatione de Apollodoro argumento et consilio operis et cum Apollodori fragmentis,” ibid. 2 vols. 8vo. Four years before the first of these publications, Mr. Heyne gave a course of lectures on Apollodorus, which became very popular and interesting to young scholars. At the commencement of this undertaking, he found that the editions of Apollodorus were very scarce, and Gale’s, although the best, yet very inaccurate. He determined therefore to publish one himself, in executing which he was assisted by three manuscripts, one formerly belonging to Dorville, a second prepared for the press by Gerard James Vanswinden, and a third in the king’s library at Paris. None of his works do Heyne more credit, and his notes are highly valuable and entertaining to students of mythology.

As to the eighth book, some mention is made of it in a book of Golius’s, where he had written that it had not been translated into Arabic, because it was wanting in the Greek copies, from whence the Arabians translated the others. But the learned Mersenne, in the preface to Apollonius’s Conies, printed in his Synopsis of the mathematics, quotes the Arabic philosopher Aben Nedin for a work of his about the year 400 of Mahomet, in which is part of that eio-hth book, and who asserts that all the books of Apollonius are extant in his language, and even more than are enumerated by Pappus; and Vossius says he has read the same; De Scientiis Mathematicis, p. 55. A neat edition of the first four books in Latin was published by Dr. Barrow, at London 1675, in 4to. A magnificent edition of all the eight books, was published in folio, by Dr. Halley, at Oxford in 1710; together with the lemmas of Pappus, and the commentaries of Eutocius. The first four int Greek and Latin, but the latter four in Latin only, the eighth book being restored by himself.

, a noted impostor, was a native of Tyana, in Cappadocia, and born some years before the Christian sera. He studied the philosophy of Pythagoras in his infancy, and professed it during his whole life. He practised every rigid precept of abstinence, gave his property to the poor, lived in the temples, quelled seditions, and instructed the people with persuasive force and suavity. He affected a preciseness and mystery when he spoke, which made a wonderful impression on the vulgar; all the world, we are told, followed him: artizans quitted their employments; cities sent deputations to him, and even the oracles chaunted his praises. He made disciples even-where: he conversed with the brachmans of India, the magi of Persia, and the gymnosophists of Egypt, compelling all to admire him. At Nineveh, at Ephesus, at Smyrna, at Athens, at Corinth, and other cities of Greece, he preached his doctrines, condemning amusements, visiting the temples, correcting the public morals, and recommending the reformation of all abuses. At Rome, wfcere he said he came to see what sort of an animal a tyrant was, he inveighed against the bagnios with great severity. Having accidentally met the funeral of a young lady of consular family, he approached the bier, and after speaking some words in a low voice, the dead arose and went back to her father’s house. Her parents offered him a large sum, which he refused. Here also he pretended to utter prophecies. The emperor Vespasian was so much his dupe, as to ask his advice, which he gave in his usual imposing manner. This he had done at. other courts, and most absurd stones are told of his wisdom, and prophetic gifts. Domitian, however, confined him for some time in prison, and after his release he died, about the end of the first century. Statues were erected, and divine honours paid to him. One Datnis, the partner in his impositions, wrote his life, but it was more fully written by Philostratus, who lived 200 years after. It is among Philostratns’s works, with some letters attributed to Apollonius. The heathens were fond of opposing the pretended miracles of this man to those of our Saviour: and by a treatise which Eusebius wrote against one Hierocles, we find that the drift of the latter, in the treatise which Eusebius refutes, had been to draw a parallel betwixt Jesus Christ and Apollonius, in which he gives the preference to this philosopher.

Mr. Du Pin has written a confutation of “Pbilostratus’s Life of Apollonius,” in which he proves, 1. That the history of this philosopher is destitute of such proofs as can be credited. 2. That Philostratus has not written a history, but a romance. 3. That the miracles ascribed tier Apollonius carry strong marks of falsehood; and that there is not one which may not be imputed to chance or artifice. 4. That the doctrine of this philosopher is in many particulars opposite to right sense and reason.

Apollonius is said to have written four books on judicial astrology, and a treatise upon sacrifices, which are now lost. His general character seems to have been that he added the arts of an impostor to the learning of a philosopher. Those who are curious, however, in his history, may meet with copious information in his Life by Philostratus, in Bayle, Brucker, Lardner, and Du Pin. A new edition of his life was recently published by the rev. Dr Edward Berwick of Ireland, 1810, 8vo.

, a Platonic philosopher, who lived in the second century, under the Antonines, was born at Madaura, a Roman colony in Africa. With ability he united indefatigable industry, whence he became acquainted with almost the whole circle of sciences and literature. His own account of himself is, that he not only tasted of the cup of literature under grammarians and rhetoricians at Carthage, but at Athens drank freely of the sacred fountain of poesy, the clear stream of geometry, the sweet waters of music, the rough current of dialectics, and the nectarious but unfathomable deep of philosophy; and in short, that, with more good will indeed than genius, he paid equal homage to every muse. He was certainly a man of a curious and inquisitive disposition, especially in religious matters, which prompted him to take several journies, and to enter into several societies of religion. |ie had a strong desire to be acquainted with their pretended mysteries, and for this reason got himself initiated into them. He spent almost his whole fortune, in travelling; so that, at his return to Rome, when he was about to dedicate himself to the service of Osiris, he had not money enough to defray the expence attending the ceremonies of his reception, and was obliged to pawn his clothes to raise the necessary sum. He supported himself afterwards by pleading causes, and, as he was both eloquent and acute, many considerable causes were trusted to him. But he benefited himself more by a good marriage, than by his pleadings: a widow, named Pudentilla, who was neither young nor handsome, but very rich, accepted his hand. This marriage drew upon him a troublesome law-suit; the relations of the lady pretended he made use of sorcery to gain her heart and money, and accordingly accused him of being a magician, before Claudius Maximus, proconsul of Africa. Apuleius was under no great difficulty in making his defence; for as Pudentilla was determined, from considerations of health, to enter upon a second marriage, even before she had seen this pretended magician, the youth, d portment, pleasing conversation, vivacity, and othrr agreeable qualities of Apuleius, were charms sufficient to engage her heart. He had the most favourable opportunities too of gaining her friendship, for he lodged some time at her house, and was greatly beloved by Pudentilla’s eldest son, who was very desirous of the match, and solicited him in favour of his mother. Apuleius also offered to prove, by his marriage-contract, that he would gain but a moderate sum by it. His apology is siill extant; it is reckoned a performance of considerable merit, and contains examples of the shameless artifices which the falshood of an impudent calumniator is capable of practising. There were many persons who took for a true history all that he relates in his famous work, the “Golden Ass.” St. Augustin was even doubtful upon this head, nor did he certainly know that Apuleius had only given this book as a romance. Some of the ancients have spoken of this performance with great contempt. In the letter which the emperor Severus wrote to the senate, wherein he complains of the honours that had been paid to Claudius Albinus, amongst which they had given him the title of Learned, he expresses great indignation, that it should be bestowed on a man, who had only stuffed his head with idle tales and rhapsodies taken from Apuleius. Macrobius has allotted the “Golden Ass,” and all such romances, to the perusal of nurses. Bishop Warburton, in the second edition of his “Divine Legation,” supposes that the “Golden Ass” is an allegory, intended not only as a satire upon the vices of the times, but as a laboured attempt to recommend the mysteries of the Pagan religion, in opposition to Christianity, to which he represents him as an inveterate enemy. In confirmation of this opinion, he points out the resemblance between the several parts of the story and the rites of initiation, both in the greater and lesser mysteries; and explains the allegory of Cupid and Psyche, which makes a long episode in Apuleius, upon the same principles. This opinion, however, has been contested by Dr. Lardner (Works, vol. VII. p. 462.)

, a Greek poet, celebrated for his poem entitled the Phenomena, flourished about the 127th olympiad, or near 300 years before Christ, while Ptolemy Philadelphus reigned in Egypt. Being educated under Dionysius Heracleotes, a Stoic philosopher, he espoused the principles of that sect, and became physician to Antigonus Gonatus, the son of Demetrius Poliorcetes, king of Macedon. The Phenomena of Aratus gives him a title to the character of an astronomer, as well as a poet. In this work he describes the nature and motion of the stars, and shews their various dispositions and relations; he describes the figures of the constellations, their situations in the sphere, the origin of the names which they bear in Greece and in Egypt, the fables which have given rise to them, the rising and setting of the stars, and he indicates the manner of knowing the constellations by their respective situations.

, a celebrated Greek philosopher, about 300 years before the Christian sera, was born at Pitane, in Eolis. He founded what in the history of ancient philosophy is denominated the Second Academy. He was a man of great learning, and versed in the writings of the ancients, remarkable for the severity of his criticisms; but, in his private character, no enemy to the utmost licentiousness of his age. He had, however, a great number of disciples. His doctrines were different in many respects from what his predecessors had taught; but, instead of reforming their errors, he plunged into as great and perhaps more pernicious absurdities. It was the opinion of his school that we could know nothing, nor even assure ourselves of the certainty of this position: thence they inferred that we should affirm nothing, but always suspend our judgment. They advanced, however, that a philosopher was able to dispute upon every subject, and force conviction whichever side of the question he chose to adopt; and that there were always reasons of equal force, both in the affirmative and negative of every argument. Neither our senses nor our reason were to have any credit. Stanley and Brucker, in their Histories of Philosophy, may be consulted for a detail of the reveries of Arcesilaus; and Bayle has an elaborate article on the same subject, Arcesilaus is said to have died of excess, in his 75th year, in the fourth year of the 134th olympiad. He appears to have been a man of good taste, as he studied Homer with a relish approaching to reverence.

, a Greek philosopher, the disciple of Anaxagoras, flourished ahout 440 years before the Christian icra. He read lectures at Athens, not dissimilar from, those of his master. He taught that there was a double principle of all things, namely, the expansion and condensation of the air, which he regarded as infinite. Heat, according to him, was in continual motion; but cold was ever at rest. The earth, which was placed in the midst of the universe, had no motion. It originally resembled a wet marsh, but was afterwards dried up; and its figure, he said, resembled that of an egg. Animals, including man, were produced from the heat of the earth; he held also, that all animals have a soul, which was born with them; -but the capacities of which vary according to the structure of the organs of the body in which it resides. His principles of morals were very pernicious, but gave way to the purer opinions of Socrates, who was the most illustrious of his disciples, and his successor.

, of Tarentum, a celebrated mathematician, cosmographer, and Pythagorean philosopher, flourished about 400 years before Christ, and was the master of Plato, Eudoxus, and Philolaus. He gave a method of finding two mean proportionals between two given lines; and thence the duplication of the cube, by means of the conic sections. His skill in mechanics was such, that he was said to be the inventor of the crane and the screw: and he made a wooden pigeon that could fly about, when it was once set off, but it could not rise again of itself, after it rested. He wrote several works, though few are now extant. It is said'he invented the ten categories. He acquired great reputation both in his legislative and military capacity, having commanded an army seven times without ever being defeated. He was at last shipwrecked, and drowned in the Adriatic sea. His philosophy as well as his moral character was more pure than that of many of the ancient philosophers. The sum of his moral doctrine was, that virtue is to be pursued for its own sake in every condition of life; that all excess is inconsistent with virtue; that the mind is more injured by prosperity than by adversity, and that there is no pestilence so destructive to human happiness as pleasure. Brucker thinks that Aristotle was indebted to Archytas for many of his moral ideas, particularly for the notion which runs through his ethical pieces, that virtue consists in avoiding extremes. With respect to his personal character, it is said of him that he never chastised a servant, or punished an inferior, in wrath. To one of his dependants who had offended him, he said, “It is well for you that I am angry; otherwise, I know not what you might expect.” We have only a metaphysic work by Archytas, “On the nature of the Universe,” published in Greek by Camerarius, Leipsic, 1564, 8vo; Venice, 1571, 4to. Gr. and Lat. and sundry fragments on “Wisdom,” and “Of the good and happy man,” preserved by Stobseus, and edited from him by Gale.

, an English writer, was the third son of Thomas Argall by Margaret his wife, daughter of John Talkarne of the county of Cornwall. He was born in London, and entered a student in Christ-church in Oxford towards the latter end of queen Mary’s reign. He took the degree of master of arts in 1565, and was senior of the act celebrated the eighteenth of February the same year. Afterwards he applied himself to the study of divinity, and, having taken holy orders, obtained the living of Halesvvorth in Suffolk. Being at a feast at Cheston, a mile distant from that town, he died suddenly at the table, and was buried at Halesworth, Octobers, 1606. During his stay at the university, he was a noted disputant, and a great actor of plays at Christ-church, particularly when the queen was entertained there in 1566. He was esteemed a very good scholar, and was so much devoted to his studies that he lived and died like a philosopher, with a thorough contempt for the things of this world. He wrote “De veva Pctnitentia,” Lond. 1604, 8vo, and “Introductio ad artem Dialecticam,” ibid. 1605, 8vo. In this book, which Mr. Wood calls “very facete and pleasant,” the author says of himself, that “whereas God had raised many of his companions and contemporaries to high dignities in the church, as Dr. Thomas Bilson to the see of Winchester, Dr. Martin Heton to that of Ely, Dr. Henry Robinson to that of Carlisle, Dr. Tobias Mathews to that of Durham, &c. yet he, an unworthy and poor old man, was still detained in the chains of poverty for his great and innumerable sins, that he might repent with the prodigal son, and at length by God’s favour obtain salvation.”

His Italian biographers inform us, that in his conversation he was modest and affable to every body, demeaning himself in such a manner, as if altogether unconscious of that great superiority which Nature had given him; he was close in argument and ready in repartees, but was seldom observed to laugh more than became the dignity of a philosopher; yet, though his temper was rather inclined to melancholy, he was very remote from a rigid disposition; being particularly open and sprightly in his conversation with women, by whom his company was much coveted. He was an avowed enemy to ceremony, though always ready to pay due respect to place and rank. He abhorred all those dignities that could only be acquired by servility; he was a sincere lover of his country, loyal to his prince, and steady in his friendships. In his diet he was abstemious, making only one meal a day, 'and that generally towards the evening, and was neither curious for variety or luxuries, being indeed a contemner of luxury in general. While he was composing his Orlando, he would frequently rise in the middle of the night, and cause his servant Gianni to bring him pen, ink, and paper, when he wrote down what had immediately occurred to his imagination, which in the day he communicated to his friends. His integrity was incorruptible, as appears by what he says to his brother Galasso of the old man, who, being possessed of great wealth, was fearful of being poisoned by his relations, and therefore would trust himself in no hands but Ariosto. He took great delight in building, but was an economist in his expences that way: a friend once expressing an astonishment, that he, who had described such magnificent edifices in his poem, should be contented with so poor a dwelling, Ariosto answered very aptly, that “words were much easier put together than bricks;” and leading him to the door of his house, pointed to this distich which he had caused to be engraved on the portico:

, a celebrated Greek philosopher and astronomer, was a native of the city of Samos; but of what date is not exactly known; it must have been, however, before the time of Archimedes, as some parts of his writings and opinions are cited by that author, in his Arenarius: he probably, therefore, flourished about 420 years B. C. He held the opinion of Pythagoras as to the system of the world, but whether before or after him, is uncertain, teaching that the sun and stars were fixed in the heavens, and that the earth is moved in a circle about the sun, at the same time that it revolved about its own centre or axis. He taught also, that the annual orbit of the earth, compared with the distance of the fixed stars, is but as a point. On this head Archimedes says, “Aristarchus the Samian, confuting the notions of astrologers, laid down certain positions, from whence it follows, that the world is much larger than is generally imagined; for he lays it down, that the fixed stars and the sun are immoveable, and that the earth is carried round the sun in the circumference of a circle.” On which account, although he did not suffer persecution and imprisonment, like Galileo, yet he did not escape censure for his supposed impiety; for it is said Cleanthus was of opinion, that Aristarchus ought to have been tried for his opinions respecting the heavenly bodies and the earth. Aristarchus invented a peculiar kind of sun-dial, mentioned by Vitruvius. There is extant of his works only a treatise upon the magnitude and distance of the sun and moon; this was translated into Latin, and commented upon by Commandine, who first published it with Pappus’s explanations, in 1572, Pisaur, 4to. Dr. Wallis afterwards published it in Greek, with Commandine’s Latin version, in 1688, at Oxford, and which he inserted again in the third volume of his mathematical works, printed in folio at Oxford, in 1699. In 1644 was published, at Paris, a work entitled “De Mundi Systemate, cum notis Bl. P. Roberval,” 8vo, which goes under the name of Aristarchus; but it has been supposed to be a fiction.

, the sophist, was a native of Adriani, a small town in Mysia, and was disciple of Polemon the rhetorician of Smyrna, son of Eudaimon, a philosopher and priest of Jupiter in his own country. He also heard Herod at Athens, and Aristocles at Pergamus. He is supposed to have flourished about the year 176 of the Christian era. He appears to have been a good writer and an able orator. He is credulous, indeed, and superstitious, but there are many excellent passages in his writings in favour of truth and virtue, and he seems to have considered private virtue as indispensable to public character. A man of such eminence was no doubt an ornament to the heathen religion; and his eloquent hymns to the gods, and his other orations, must have had powerful attractions. To the city of Smyrna he was a great benefactor, for when, it was almost destroyed by an earthquake, he so pathetically represented their calamities, in a letter to the emperor Marcus, that this prince could not forbear weeping at some parts of it, and presently promised to restore the city. Besides this letter, he published a monody, bewailing the unhappy circumstances of the people of Smyrna, and after that wrote an oration, or epistle, in the year 173, congratulating tjiem on their restoration. In this last he celebrates not only the favour and liberality of the emperor, but likewise the generous compassion of many others, among whom Tillemont thinks he glanced at the Christians. Lardner has produced several passages from him, among his “Testimonies of ancient Heathens.” Aristides’s constitution was infirm, yet it is supposed he reached his sixtieth or seventieth year. The best edition of his works was published by Dr. Jebb, 2vols. 4to, Oxford, 1722—30.

, an Athenian philosopher, became a convert to Christianity in the second century, and wrote “An Apology for the Christian faith,” which, at the same time with Quadratus, he presented to the emperor Adrian. It is not now extant, but is mentioned by Jerom and by Eusebius who had probably seen it. Jerom adds, that after he was converted he continued to wear the habit of a philosopher. He speaks very highly of the learning displayed in the “Apology,” which Justin imitated in the book he presented to Antoninus Pius, and his sons, and the Roman senate.

, of Cyrene in Africa, disciple of Socrates, founder of the Cyrenaic sect, quitted Libya, the seat of his family, that he might go and hear Socrates at Athens; but he differed widely from the plan of wisdom laid down by that great man. The basis of his doctrine was, that pleasure is the sovereign good of man, and he made no distinction between the pleasures of the soul and those of the senses. He admitted of no certain knowledge, but that which we owe to the inward sentiment. “We have,” said he, “distinct ideas of pleasure and pain; but that which causes the sensations of it is unknown, because we are perpetually deceived by the outward senses. The same person judges differently of an outward object, according as he is differently affected. Of two persons who taste of the same dish, the one shall find it insipid, and the other agreeable. Consequently there is nothing certain in outward things, but only in what touches us internally. Of the different internal sentiments, some are agreeable, others disagreeable, while others again are indifferent. Nature abhors those which cause pain, and seeks the sovereign' good in those which occasion pleasure.” Aristippus, however, did not reject virtue; but regarded it only as a good, inasmuch as it produces pleasure. He held that it was not to be sought after for itself, but only upon account of the pleasures and advantages it may procure. In consonance with his principles, he denied himself nothing that could render life agreeable; and, as he was of a pliant and insinuating temper, and his philosophy easy and accommodating, he had a great number of followers. The nobles were fond of him; Dionysius the tyrant courted him, and at his court he covered the cloak of the philosopher with the mantle of the courtier. He danced and drank with him, regulated the banquets; and the cooks took his orders for the preparation and the delicacy of the viands. His conversation was rendered agreeable by continued flashes of wit. Dionysius the tyrant having asked him, how it happened that the philosophers were always besieging the doors of the great, whereas they never went to the philosophers?“It is,” replied Aristippus, “because the philosophers know their wants, and the great are ignorant of theirs.” According to others, his answer was more concise: “Because the pnysicians usually go to the sick.” One day that prince gave him the choice of three courtesans. The philosopher took them allthree, saying: “That Paris did not fare the better for having pronounced in favour of one goddess against two others.” He then conducted them to the door of his house, and there took leave of them. Being rallied one day on his intercourse with the wanton Lais: “It is true,” said he, “that I possess her, but she possesses not me.” On being reproached with living in too much splendour, he said, “If indulgence in good living were blameable, would such great feasts be made on the festivals of the gods?” “If Aristippus could be content to live upon vegetables (said Diogenes the cynic to him), he would not stoop so low as to pay his court to princes.” “If he who condemns me (replied Aristippus) was qualified to pay his court to princes, he would not be obliged to be content with vegetables.” On being asked, “What philosophy had taught him?” “To live well with all the world, and to fear nothing.” In what respect are philosophers superior to other men?“In this,” said he, “that though there were 110 laws, they would live as they do.” On being rallied, he used gently to withdraw. One day, however, he by whom he was attacked pursued him, and asked him why he went away?“Because, as you have a right to throw jests at me, I have also a right not to stay till they reach me.” It was one of his maxims, that it was better to be poor than ignorant, because the poor man Wants only to be assisted with a little money, whereas the ignorant man wants to be humanized. One bragging that he had read a great deal, Aristippus told him that it was no sign of good health to eat more than one can digest. It is said that he was the first who took payment of his disciples. Having asked 50 drachmas of a father for the instruction of his son: “How, fifty drachmas!” exclaimed the man, “I can buy a slave for that money.” “Well,” replied the philosopher, (who could assume the cynic as well as the courtier) “buy one, and then thou wilt have two.” Aristippus flourished about the year 400 B. C. He died at Gyrene, on his return from the court of Syracuse. He composed books of history and ethics, which have not reached our times. One on ancient luxury, mentioned by Diogenes Laertius, is certainly not his. He left a daughter named Arete, whom he carefully instructed in all the parts of philosophy, who was of extraordinary virtue as well as beauty, and obtained a place among the class of philosophers.

, a Greek philosopher of the Stoic sect, was a native of the island of Chios, and a disciple of Zeno, from whom, however, he differed, and set up a new sect. He rejected logic and natural philosophy, the one as useless^ and the other as above the human comprehension. He departed after some time from the precepts of morality, and would have no relative duties taught, but merely general ideas of wisdom. He held that the nature of God was not intelligible, and hence it has been thought that he respected the contemplation of divine things. He became very voluptuous in his old age, as indeed he had begun to be in his youth. His death is said to have been occasioned by the sun scorching his bald head. He flourished about 260 B. C.

, of Coos, a peripatetic philosopher, about 250 years B. C. has been praised by Cicero for the graces of his oratory, while he objects to him a, want of philosophic dignity. Athcnaeus quotes a work of his, entitled “Amatory Similes,” which is not otherwise known.

, an Alexandrian Jew, and peripatetic philosopher, who lived about 120 B. C. composed a commentary in Greek on the Pentateuch, which he dedicated to Ptolomy Philometor. His object in this voluminous work was to prove that the ancient Greek poets and philosophers had availed themselves of the books of Moses, and that the Jews and their history were not unknown to the ancient Greek historians. To prove this, he forged a number of quotations from these poets and historians, and that so artfully as not only to impose on the fathers of the church, but on many p-ofane writers. Brucker informs us that he was an admirer of the Greek philosophy, and united with the study of the Mosaic law, in the mystical and allegorical method introduced in his time, some knowledge of the Aristotelian philosophy.

Aristophanes was greatly admired among the ancients, especially for the true attic elegance of his style: “It is,” says madam Dacier, “as agreeable as his wit; for besides its purity, force, and sweetness, it has a certain harmony, which sounds extremely pleasant to the ear: when he has occasion to use the common ordinary style, he does it without using any expression that is base and vulgar; and when he has a mind to express himself loftily, in his highest flight he is never obscure.” “Let no man,” says Scaliger, “pretend to understand the Attic dialect, who has not read Aristophanes: in him are to be found all the Attic ornaments, which made St. Chrysostom so much admire him, that he always laid him under his pillow when he went to bed.” Mr. Frischlin observes, that Plautus has a great affinity to Aristophanes in his manner of writing, and has imitated him in many parts of his plays. Frischlin has written a vindication of our poet, in answer to the objections urged against him by Plutarch. How great an opinion Plato had of Aristophanes, is evident even from Plutarch’s acknowledgement, who tells us, that this poet’s Discoure upon Love was inserted by that philosopher in his Symposium: and Cicero, in his first book “De legibus,” styles him “the most witty poet of the old comedy.” The time of his death is unknown; but it is certain he was living after the expulsion of the tyrants by Thrasybulus, whom he mentions in his Plutus and other comedies.

, the chief of the peripatetic philosophers, and one of the most illustrious characters of ancient Greece, was born in the first year of the ninety-ninth olympiad, or 384 years before the Christian sera, at Stagyra, a town of Thrace, whence he is usually called the Stagyrite. His father was a physician, named Nicomachus: his mother’s name was Phaestias. He received the first rudiments of learning from Proxenus, of Atarna in Mysia, and at the age of 17 went to Athens, and studied in the school of Plato, where his acuteness and proficiency so attracted the notice of his master, that he used to call him “The mind of the school;” and said, when Aristotle happened to be absent, “Intellect is not here.” His works, indeed, prove that he had an extensive acquaintance with books; and Strabo says, he was the first person who formed a library. At this academy he continued until the death of Plato, whose memory he honoured by a monument, an oration, and elegies, which contradicts the report of his having had a difference with Plato, and erecting a school in opposition to him, as related by Aristoxenus. At the time of the death of Plato, Aristotle was in his thirty-seventh year; and when Speusippus, the nephew of Plato, succeeded him in the academy, our philosopher was so much displeased, that he left Athens, and paid a visit to Hermias, king of the Atarnenses, who had been his fellow-disciple, and now received him with every expression of regard. Here he remained three years, prosecuting his philosophical researches; and when Hermias was taken prisoner and put to death, he placed a statue of him in the temple at Delphos, and married his sister, who was now reduced to poverty and distress, by the revolution which had dethroned her brother. After these events, Aristotle removed to Mitelene, where, after he had resided two years, he received a respectful letter from Philip, king of Macedon, who had heard of his great fame, requesting him to undertake the education of his son, Alexander, then in his fifteenth year. Aristotle accepted the charge, and in 343 B. C. went to reside in the court of Philip.

The character of Aristotle appears to be justly appreciated by Brucker, who observes, that some of Aristotle’s panegyrists, not contented with ascribing to him the virtues of a philosopher, or rather, perhaps, jealous of the credit which heathen philosophy might acquire from so illustrious a name, have ascribed his wisdom to divine revelation. The Jews have said that he gained his philosophy in Judea, and borrowed his moral doctrine from Solomon, and have even asserted, that he was of the seed of Israel, and the tribe of Benjamin. Christians have assigned him a place amongst those who were supeniaturally ordained to prepare the way for divine revelation, and have acknowledged themselves indebted to the assistance of the Peripatetic philosophy, for the depth and accuracy of their acquaintance with the sublime mysteries of religion. Others, who have confined their encomiums within the limits of probability, have said, that Aristotle was an illustrious pattern of gratitude, moderation, and the love of truth; and in confirmation of this general praise, have referred to his behaviour to his preceptor, his friends, and his countrymen, and to the celebrated apophthegm which has been commonly ascribed to him: Amicus Plato, amicus Socrates, magis tamen arnica veritas; “I respect Plato, and I respect Socrates, but I respect truth still more.” On the other hand, there have not been wanting writers who have represented Aristotle as the most infamous of human beings, and charged him with every kind of impiety and wickedness. Many of the calumnies against his memory, which have been transmitted to posterity, doubtless originated in the jealousy and envy of the rival sects, which were contemporaries with the Peripatetic school. To this source may be fairly referred the abuse of Timaeus, the Tauromenite, who says, that Aristotle, when he was a young man, after wasting his patrimony in prodigality, opened a shop for medicine in Athens, and that he was a pretender to learning, a vile parasite, and addicted to gluttony and debauchery.

To this general character by Brucker, it may be added, that no philosopher ever enjoyed so long a reign in the schools, or came nearer to our own times in the extent of his doctrine. The charm is, indeed, now broken: Christianity, the revival of letters and of sound learning since the reformation, and especially the introduction of experimental philosophy, have tended to lessen the value of the labours of this distinguished philosopher. Much praise, however, may be yet attributed to him, on permanent ground. His Dialectics show how the reasoning faculties may be employed with skill and effect; his ten celebrated Categories have not yet been convicted of great error, and his political and critical writings have very recently obtained the attention and approbation of some of our most eminent scholars and critics. “Whoever surveys,” says Dr. Warton, “the variety and perfection of his productions, all delivered in the chastest style, in the clearest order, and the most pregnant brevity, is amazed at the immensity of his genius. His Logic, however neglected for those redundant and verbose systems, which took rise from Locke’s Essay on the Human Understanding, is a mighty effort of the mind; in which are discovered the principal sources of art and reasoning, and the dependences of one thought on another; and where, by the different combinations he hath made of all the forms the understanding can assume in reasoning', which he hath traced for it, he hath so closely confined it, that it cannot depart from them, without arguing inconsequentially. His Physics contain many useful observations, particularly his History of Animals. His Morals are perhaps the purest system in antiquity. His Politics are a most valuable monument of the civil wisdom of the ancients, as they preserve to us the descriptions of several governments, and particularly of Crete and Carthage, that otherwise would have been unknown. But of all his compositions, his Rhetoric and Poetics are most complete: no writer has shewn a greater penetration into the recesses of the human heart than this philosopher, in the second book of his Rhetoric, where he treats of the different manners and passions that distinguish each different age and condition of man; and from whence Horace plainly took his famous description in the Art of Poetry. La Brnyere, Rochefoucalt, and Montaigne himself, are not to be compared to him in this respect. No succeeding writer on eloquence, not even Tully, has added any thing new or important on this subject. His Poetics seem to have been written for the use of that prince, with whose education Aristotle was honoured, to give him a just taste in reading Homer and the tragedians; to judge properly of which was then thought no unnecessary accomplishment in the character of a prince. To attempt to understand poetry without having diligently digested this treatise, would be as absurd and impossible, us to pretend to a skill in geometry without having studied Euclid. The fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth chapters, wherein he has pointed out the properest methods of exciting terror and pity, convince us that he was intimately acquainted with these objects, which most forcibly affect the heart. The prime excellence of this precious treatise is the scholastic precision, and philosophical closeness, with which the subject is handled, without any address to the passions or imagination. It is to be lamented that the part of the Poetics, in which he had given precepts for comedy, did not likewise descend to posterity.”

, a celebrated historian and philosopher, lived under the emperor Adrian and the two Antonines, in the second century. He was born at Nicomedia in Bithynia, was styled the second Xenophorj, and raised to the most considerable dignities of Rome. Tillemont takes him to be the same person with that Flaccus Arrianus, who, being governor of Cappadocia, stopped the incursions of the Alani, and sent an account of his voyage round the Euxine to Adrian. He is also said to have been preceptor to the philosopher and emperor Marcus Antoninus. There are extant four books of his Diatribas, or Dissertations upon Epictetus, whose disciple he had been; and Photius tells us that he composed likewise twelve books of that philosopher’s discourses. We are told by another author, that he wrote the Life and death of Epictetus. The most celebrated of his works is his History, in Greek, of Alexander the Great, in seven books, a performance much esteemed for more aocuracy and fidelity than that of Q,uintus Curtius. Photius mentions also his History of Bithynia, another of the Alani, and a third of the Parthians, in seventeen books, which he brought down to the war carried on by Trajan against them. He gives us likewise an abridgement of Arrian’s ten books of the History of the successors of Alexander the Great and adds, that he wrote an account of the Indies in one book, which is still extant. The work which he first entered upon was his History of Bithynia; but wanting the proper ipemoirs and materials for it, he suspended the execution of this design till he had published some other things. This history consisted of eight books, and was carried down till the time when Nicomedes resigned Bithynia to the Romans; but there is nothing of it remaining except what is quoted in Photius and Stephanus Byzantmus. Arrian is said to have written several other works: Lucian tells us, that he wrote the Ijfe of a robber, whose name was Tiliborus, and when Lucian endeavours to excuse himself for writing the life of Alexander the impostor, he adds, “Let no person accuse me of having employed my labour upon too low and mean a subject, since Arrian, the worthy disciple of Epictetus, who is one of the greatest men amongst the Romans, and who has passed his whole life amongst the muses, condescended to write the Life of Tiliborus.” There is likewise, under the name of Arrian, a Periplus of the Red- sea, that is, of the eastern coasts of Africa and Asia,as far as the Indies; but Dr. Vincent thinks it was not his. There is likewise a book of Tactics under his name, the beginning of which is lost; to these is added the order which he gave for the marching of the Roman army against the Alani, and giving them battle, which may very properly be ascribed to our author, who was engaged in a war against that people.

, a hermetic philosopher, lived about 1130. Rewrote 1. “Clavis majoris sapientiae,” printed in the Chemical Theatre, Francfort, 1614, 8vo Strasburgh, 1699, and afterwards translated into French. 2. “Liber secretus.” 3. “De characteribus planetarum, cantu et motibus avium, rerum praeteritarum et futurarum, lapideque philosophic.” 4. “De vita propaganda,” a work, of the merit of which we may judge from being gravely told that he wrote it at the age of 1025 years. 5. “Speculum speculorum.” Artephius’ treatise on the philosopher’s stone, was translated into French by Peter Arnauld, and printed with those of Synesius and Flamel, Paris, 1612, 1659, and 1682, 4to, no inconsiderable proof of the attention bestowed on that delusion.

, an eminent philosopher, chemist, and antiquary, of the seventeenth century, and founder of the noble museum at Oxford, which still bears his name, was the only son of Mr. Simon Ashmole, of the city of Litchfield, in Staffordshire, sadler, by Anne, the daughter of Mr. Anthony Boyer, of Coventry, in Warwickshire, woollen-draper. He was born May 23, 1617, and during his early r education in grammar, was taught music, in which he made such proficiency as to become a chorister in the cathedral at Litchfield. When he had attained the age of sixteen he was taken into the family of James Paget, esq. a baron of the exchequer, who had married his mother’s sister, and as his father died in 1634, leaving little provision for him, he continued for some years in the Paget family, during which time he made considerable progress in the law, and spent his leisure hours in perfecting himself in music and other polite accomplishments. In March 1638, he married Eleanor, daughter of Mr. Peter Manwaring, of Smallwood, in the county Palatine of Chester, and in Michaelmas term the same year, became a solicitor in Chancery. On February 11, 1641, he was sworn an attorney of the court of common pleas, and on December 5th, in the same year, his wife died suddenly, of whom he has left us a very natural and affectionate memorial. The rebellion coming on, he retired from London, being always a zealous and steady loyalist, and on May 9, 1645, became one of the gentlemen of the ordnance in the garrison at Oxford, whence he removed to Worcester, where he was commissioner, receiver, and register of the excise, and soon after captain in the lord Ashley’s regiment, and comptroller of the ordnance. In the midst of all this business he entered himself of Brazen-Nose college, in Oxford, and applied himself vigorously to the sciences, but especially natural philosophy, mathematics, and astronomy; and his intimate acquaintance with Mr. (afterwards sir George) Wharton, seduced him into the absurd mysteries of astrology, which was in those days in great credit. In the month of July, 1646, he lost his mother, who had always been a kind parent to him, and for whom he had a very pious regard. On October 16th, the same year, be was elected a brother of the ancient and honourable society of Free and Accepted Masons, which he looked upon as a high honour, and has therefore given us a particular account of the lodge established at Warrington in Lancashire and in some of his manuscripts, there are very valuable collections relating to the history of the free masons. The king’s affairs being now grown desperate, Mr. Ashmole withdrew himself, after the surrender of the garrison of Worcester, into Cheshire, where he continued till the end of October, and then came up to London, where he became acquainted with Mr. (afterwards sir Jonas) Moore, William Lilly, and John Booker, esteemed the greatest astrologers in 'the world, by whom he was caressed, instructed, and received into their fraternity, which then made a very considerable figure, as appeared by the great resort of persons of distinction to their annual feast, of which Mr. Ashmole was afterwards elected steward. Jn 1647 he retired to Englefield, in Berkshire, where he pursued his studies very closely, and having so fair an opportunity, and the advantage of some very able masters, he cultivated the science of botany. Here, as appears from his own remarks, he enjoyed in privacy the sweetest moments of his life, the sensation of which perhaps was quickened, by his just idea of the melancholy state of the times. It was in this retreat that he became acquainted with Mary, sole daughter of sir William Forster, of Aldermarston, in the county of Berks, bart. who was first married to sir Edward Stafford, then to one Mr. Hamlyn, and lastly to sir Thomas Mainwaring, knt recorder of Reading, and one of the masters in chancery and an attachment took place but Mr. Humphrey Stafford, her second son, had such a dislike to the measure, that when Mr. Ashmole happened to be very ill, he broke into his chamber, and if not prevented, would have murdered him. In the latter end of 1648, lady Mainwaring conveyed to him her estate at Bradfield, which was soon after sequestered on account of Mr. Ashmole’s loyalty but the interest he had with William Lilly, and some others of that party, enabled him to get that sequestration taken off. On the sixteenth of November, 1649, he married lady Mainwaring, and settled in London, where his house became the receptacle of the most learned and ingenious persons that flourished at that time. It was by their conversation, that Mr. Ashmole, who hud been more fortunate in worldly affairs than most scholars are, and who had been always a curious collector of manuscripts, was induced to publish a treatise written by Dr. Arthur Dee, relating to the Philosopher’s stone, together with another tract on the same subject, by an unknown author. These accordingly appeared in the year following but Mr. Ashmole was so cautious, or rather modest, as to publish them by a fictitious name. He at the same time addressed himself to a work of greater consequence, a complete collection of the works of such English chemists, as had till then remained in ms. which cost him a great deal of labour, and for the embellishment of which he spared no expence, causing the cuts that were necessary, to be engraved at his own house in Black-Friars, by Mr. Vaughan, who was then the most eminent artist in that department in England. He imbibed this affection for chemistry from his intimate acquaintance with Mr. William Backhouse, of Swallowfield in the county of Berks, who was reputed an adept, and whom, from his free communication of chemical secrets, Mr. Ashmole was wont to call father, agreeably to the custom which had long prevailed among the lovers of that art, improperly, however, called chemistry for it really was the old superstition of alchemy. He likewise employed a part of his time in acquiring the art of engraving seuls, casting in sand, and the mystery of a working goldsmith. But all this time, his great work of publishing the ancient English writers in chemistry went on and finding that a competent knowlege of the Hebrew was absolutely necessary for understanding and explaining such authors as had written on the Hermetic science, he had recourse to rabbi Solomon Frank, by whom he was taught the rudiments of Hebrew, which he found very useful to him in his studies. At length, towards the close of the year 1652, his “Theatrum Chymicum Britannicum” appeared, which gained him great reputation in the learned world, as it shewed him to be a man of a most studious disposition, indefatigable application, and of wonderful accuracy in his compositions. It served also to extend his acquaintance considerably, and among others the celebrated Mr. Seiden took notice of him in the year 1653, encouraged his studies, and lived in great friendship with him to the day of his death. He was likewise very intimate with Mr. Oughtred, the mathematician, and with Dr. Wharton, a physician of great racter and experience. His marriage with lady -Main-waring, however, involved him in abundance of law-suits with other people, and at last produced a dispute between themselves, which came to a hearing on October 8, 1657, in the court of chancery, where serjeant Maynard having observed, that in eight hundred sheets of depositions taken on the part of the lady, there was not so much as a bad word proved against Mr. Ashrnole, her bill was dismissed, and she delivered back to her husband. He had now for some time addicted himself to the study of antiquity and records, which recommended him to the intimate acquaintance of Mr. (afterwards sir William) Dugdale, whom about this time he attended in his survey of the Fens, and was very useful to him in 'that excellent undertaking. Mr. Ashmole himself soon after took the pains to trace the Roman road, which in Antoninus’s Itinerary is called Bennevanna, from Weeden to Litchfield, of which he gave Mr. Dugdale an account, in a letter addressed to him upon that subject. It is very probable, that after his studies had thus taken a new turn, he lost somewhat of his relish for chemistry, since he discontinued the Theatrum Chemicum, which, according to his first design, was to have consisted of several volumes yet he still retained such a remembrance of it, as induced him to part civilly with the sons of art, by publishing a treatise in prose on the philosopher’s stone, to which he prefixed an admirable preface, in which he wishes to apologize for taking leave of these fooleries. In the spring of the year 1658, our author began to collect materials for his history of the order of the garter, which he afterwards lived to finish, and thereby rendered both the order and himself immortal, the just reward of the prodigious pains he took in searching records in the Tower, and elsewhere, comparing them with each other, and obtaining such lights as were requisite to render so perplexed a subject clear, and to reduce all the circumstances of such a vast body of history into their proper order. In September following he made a journey to Oxford, where he was extremely well received, and where he undertook to make a full and distinct description of the coins given to the public library by archbishop Laud, which was of great use to him in the works which he afterwards composed. He had lodged and boarded sometimes at a house in South Lambeth, kept by Mr. John Tradescant, whose father and himself hud been physic-gardeners there for many years, and had collected avast number of curiosities, which, after mature deliberation, Mr. Tradescant and his wife determined to bestow on Mr. Ashmole, and accordingly sealed and delivered a deed of gift for that purpose, on December 16, 1659. On the restoration of king Charles II. Mr. Ashmole was Dearly introduced into the presence and favour of his majesty, and on June 18, 1660, which was the second time he had the honour of discoursing with the king, he graciously bestowed upon him the place of Windsor herald. A few days after, he was appointed by the king to make a description of his medals, and had them delivered into his hands, and king Henry VHIth’s closet assigned for his use, being also allowed his diet at court. On August 21st, in the same year, he presented the three books which he had published, to his majesty, who, as he both loved and understood chemistry, received them very graciously. On September 3, he had a warrant signed for the office of commissioner of the excise, in consequence of a letter written by his majesty’s express command, to the earl of Southampton, then lord high-treasurer, by Mr. Se^ cretary Morris. About this time, a commission was granted to him as incidental to the care of the king’s medals, to examine the famous, or rather infamous, Hugh Peters, about the contents of the royal library which had fallen into his hands, and which was very carefully and punctually executed, but to very little purpose. On November 2d, he was called to the bar in Middle-Temple hall, and January 15, 1661, he was admitted a fellow of the Royal Society. On February 9th following, the king signed a warrant for constituting him secretary of Surinam in the West Indies. In the beginning of the year 1662, he was appointed one of the commissioners for recovering the king’s goods, and about the same time he sent a set of services and anthems to the cathedral church of Litchfield, in memory of his having been once a chorister there, and he gave afterwards twenty pounds towards repairing the cathedral. On June 27, 1664, the White Office was opened, of which he was appointed a commissioner. On Feb. 17, 1665, sir Edward By she sealed his deputation for visiting Berkshire, which visitation he began on the llth of March following, and on June 9, 1668, he was appointed by the lords commissioners of the treasury, accomptant-general, and country accomptant in the excise. His second wife, lady Main waring, dying, April 1, in the same year, he soon after married Mrs. Elizabeth Dugdale, daughter to his good friend sir William Dugdale, kht. garter king at arms, in Lincoln’s-inn chapel, on Novembers. The university of Oxford, in consideration of the many favours they had received from Mr. Ashmole, created him doctor of physic by diploma, July 19, 1669, which was presented to him on the 3d of November following, by Dr. Yates, principal of Brazen-Nose college, in the name of the university. He was now courted and esteemed by the greatest people in the kingdom, both in point of title and merit, who frequently did him the honour to visit him at his chambers in the Temple, and whenever he went his summer progress, he had the same respect paid him in the country, especially at his 'native town of Litchfield, to which when he came, he was splendidly entertained by the corporation. On May 8, 1672, he presented his laborious work on the most noble order of the garter, to his most gracious master king Charles II. who not only received it with great civility and kindness, but soon after granted to our author, as a mark of his approbation of the work, and of his personal esteem for him, a privy seal for 400 pounds out of the custom of paper. This was his greatest undertaking, and had he published nothing else, would have preserved his memory, as it certainly is in its kind one of the most valuable books in our language. On January 29, 1675, he resigned his office of Windsor herald, which by his procurement, was bestowed on his brother Dugdale, It was with great reluctancy that the earl marshal parted with him, and it was not long after, that he bestowed on him the character of being the best officer in his office. On the death of sir Edward Walker, garter king at arms, Feb_ 20, 1677, the king and the duke of Norfolk, as earl marshal, contested the right of disposing of his place, on which Mr. Ashmole was consulted, who declared in favour of the king, but with so much prudence and discretion as not to give any umbrage to the earl marshal. He afterwards himself refused this high office, which was conferred on his father-in-law sir -William Dugdale, for whom he employed his utmost interest. About the close of 1677, a proposal was made to Mr. Ashmole to become a candidate for the city of Litchfield, but finding himself poorly supported by the very persons who would have encouraged him to stand, he withdrew his pretensions. On the 26th of January, 1679, about ten in the morning, a fire began in the Middle Temple, in the next chambers to Mr. Aslimole’s,- by which he lost a library he had been collecting thirty-three years; but his Mss. escaped, by their being at his house in South Lambeth. He likewise lost a collection of 9000 coins, ancient and modern but his more valuable collection of gold medals were likewise preserved by being at Lambeth his vast repository of seals, charters, and other antiquities and curiosities, perished also in the flames. In 1683, the university of Oxford having finished a noble repository near the theatre, Mr. Ashmole sent thither that great collection of rarities which he had received from the Tradescants before-mentioned, together with such additions as he had made to them; and to this valuable benefaction he afterwards added that of his Mss. and library, which still remain a monument of his generous love to learning in general, and to the university of Oxford in particular. In the beginning of the year 1685, he was invited by the magistrates, and by the dean of Litchfield, to represent that corporation in parliament but upon king James’s intimating to him, by the lord Dartmouth, that he would take it kindly if he would resign his interest to Mr. Levvson, he instantly complied.

2. “Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum, containing several poetical pieces of our famous English philosophers, who have written the Hermetique mysteries, in their own ancient language. Faithfully collected into one volume, with annotations thereon, by Elias Ashmole, esq. qui est Mercuriophilus Anglicus,” London, 1652, 4to. The authors published in this collection are, Thomas Norton’s ordinal of Alchemic~ George Rrpley’s compound of Alchemic; Pater Sapientice, i.e. the father of wisdom, by an anonymous writer; Hermes’ s Bird, written originally in Latin, by Raymund Lully, and done into English verse by Abbot Cremer, of Westminster; Sir Geoffrey Chaucer’s Chanons Yeoman’s tale Dastin’s Dream, which seems to be a version of the Latin poem of John Dastm, entitled his Vision Pearce, the black monk, on the Elixir Richard Carpenter’s work, which some think, and not without reason, ought rather to be ascribed to John Carpenter, bishop of Worcester, who was one of the best chemists of his time Hunting of the Green Lion, by Abraham Andrews but there is also a spurious piece with the same title Breviary of Natural Philosophy, by Thomas* Charnock Ænigmas, by the same person Bloomfield' s Blossoms, which is likewise entitled the Camp of Philosophy, by William Bloomfield Sir Edward Kelle’s work his letter to G. S. Gent. (It is somewhat strange that this gentleman’s name, even by Mr. Ashmole, is written Keiley, though sir Edward himself wrote it Kelle.) Dr. John Dee’s Testament, which appears to be an epistle to one John Gwin, written A. D. 1568, and a third letter, the first two being wanting; Thomas Robinson, of the Philosopher’s Stone Experience and Philosophy, by an anonymous author the Magistery, by W. B. i. e. William Bloomfield John Gower, on the Philosopher’s Stone George Ripley’s Vision verses belonging to Ripley’s Scrowle Mystery of Alchymists preface to the Medulla of George Ripley; Secreta Secretorum, by John Lydgate Hermit’s Tale, anonymous description of the Stone the Standing of the Glass, for the time of the putrefaction and congelation of the medicine Ænigma Philosophicum, by William Bedman Fragments by various authors. 3. “The Way to Bliss, in three books, made public by Elias Ashmole, esq; qui est Mercuriophilus Anglicus,” London, 1658, 4to. This was the work in which he took his leave of the astrologers and aichymists, and bestowed his attention on the studies which produced, 4. “The Institution, Laws, and Ceremonies of the most noble Order of the Garter. Collected and digested into one body by Elias Ashmole, of the Middle Temple, esq. Windesore herald at arms. A work furnished with variety of matter relating to honour and noblesse” London, 1672, folio. He was not only so happy as to receive those extraordinary marks of the sovereign’s favour, mentioned above, but was complimented in an obliging manner by his royal highness the duke of York; who, though then at sea against the Dutch, sent for his book by the earl of Peterborough, and afterwards told our author he was extremely pleased with it. The rest of the knights-companions of the most noble order received him and his book with much respect and civility, and the regard shown him abroad was more singular. It was reposited, by the then pope, in the library of the Vatican. King Christie of Denmark, sent him, in 1674, a gold chain and- medal, which, with the king’s leave, he wore on certain high festivals. FredericWilliam, elector of Brandenburg!), sent him the like present, and ordered his boot to be translated into High Dutch. He was afterwards visited by the elector Palatine’s, the grand duke of Tuscany’s, and other foreign princes’ ministers, to return him thanks for this book, which he took care should be presented them, and thereby spread the fame of the garter, the nation, and himself, all over Europe. Yet it does not appear that this laborious and exquisite performance advanced at all the design he had formed some years before, of being appointed historiographer to the order, to which proposal some objections were made, and by our author fully answered, although we find no mention of this circumstance in any memoirs of Mr. Ashmole hitherto extant. 5, “The Arms, Epitaphs,. Feuestral Inscriptions, with the draughts of the Tombs, &c. in all the churches in Berkshire.” It was penned in 1666, and the original visitation taken in the two preceding years, in virtue of his deputatien from sir Edward Byshe, elariencieux king at arms, and published under the title of “The Antiquities of Berkshire,” 3 vols. 8vo, 1717, 1723, and at Reading in 1736, fol. 6. “Familiarum iilustrium Imperatorumque Romanorum Numismata Oxonire in Bodleianae Bibliotbecoe Archivis descripta et explanata.” This work was finished by the author in 1659, and given by him to the public library in Oxford, in 1666, in 3 vols, folio, as it was fitted for the press. 7. “A description and explanation of the Coins and Medals belonging to king Charles II.” a folio ms. in the king’s cabinet. 8. “A brief ceremonial of the Feast of St. George, held at Whitehall 1661, with other papers relating to the Order.” 9. “Remarkable Passages in the year 1660, set down by Mr. Elias Ashmole.” 10. “An account of the Coronation of our Kings, transcribed from a ms. in the king’s private closet.” 11 “The proceedings on the day of the Coronation of king Charles II.” mentioned by Anthony Wood, as printed in 1672, but he owns he never saw it. 12. “The Arms, Epitaphs, &c. in some churches and houses in Staffordshire,” taken when he accompanied sir William Dugdale in his visitation. 13. “The Arms, Epitaphs, Inscriptions, &c. in Cheshire, Shropshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, &c.” taken at the same time. Bishop Nicolson mentions his intention to write the history and antiquities of his native town of Litchfield. 14. “Answers to the objections urged.against Mr. Ashmole’s being made historiographer to the order of the Garter,” A. D. 1662. 15. “A Translation of John Francis Spina’s book of th Catastrophe of the World; to which was subjoined, Ambrose Merlin’s Prophecy.” It is doubtful whether this was ever published. What, indeed, he printed, was but a very small part of what he wrote, there being scarcely any branch of our English history and antiquities, on which he has not left us something valuable, of his own composing, in that vast repository of papers, which make several folios in his collection of Mss. under the title of, 16. CoU lections, Remarks, Notes on Books, and Mss. a wonderful proof of industry and application. 17. “The Diary of his Life,” written by himself, which was published at London, 1717, in 12mo, with the following title “Memoirs of the life of that learned antiquary, Elias Ashmole, esq. drawn up by himself by way of diary, with an appendix of original letters. Published by Charles Burman, esquire.” The copy from whence these papers were published, was in the hand-writing of Dr. Robert Plott, chief keeper of the Ashmolean museum at Oxford, and secretary of the Royal Society, and was transcribed by him for the use of a near relation of Mr. Ashmole’s, a private gentleman in Staffordshire. They had been collated a few years before, by David Perry, M. A. of Jesus’ college in Oxford. The appendix* contains a letter of thanks, dated January 26, 1666, from the corporation at Litchfield, upon the receipt of a silver bowl presented to them by Mr. Ashmole a preface to the catalogue of archbishop Laud’s medals, drawn up by Mr. Ashmole, and preserved in the public library at Oxford a letter from Dr. Thomas Barlow, afterwards bishop of Lincoln, to Mr. Ashmole, dated December 23, 1668, on the present of his books, describing archbishop Laud’s cabinet of medals a letter from John Evelyn, esq. to recommend Dr. Plott to him for reader in natural philosophy, and another from Mr. Joshua Barnes, dated from Emanuel college, Cambridge, October 15, 1688, wherein he desires Mr. Ashmole’s pardon, for having reflected upon his Order of the Garter, in his own history of king Edward III. with Mr. Ashmole’s answer to that letter, dated October 23 following. It is from this diary, which abounds in whimsical and absurd memoranda, that the dates and facts in his life have been principally taken.

, an Athenian philosopher, who became a convert to Christianity. He was remarkable for his zeal, and also for his great learning, as appears from the Apology which he addressed to the emperors Aurelius and Commodus, about the year 180. Bayle thinks that this Apology was not actually presented, but only published. Besides the Apology, there is also remaining of Athenagoras, a piece upon the Resurrection, both written in a style truly Attic. They have been printed often, but the best edition is that of Dechair, Gr. and Lat. Oxon. 1706, 8vo. His works are also to be found in the Bibliotheca Patrum. Dr. Waterland gives an account of him in his “Importance of the doctrine of the Trinity,” which, Athenagoras held. In 1599, a romance, pretendedly translated from Athenagoras, was printed at Paris by Daniel Guillemot in 1612, with the following title: “Du vrai et parfait Amour, escrit en Grec par Athenagoras, philosophe Athenien, contenant les Amours honestes de Theogone et de Charide, de Pherecides et de Melangenie” i. t. “Of true and perfect Love, written in Greek by Athenagoras, an Athenian philosopher; containing the chaste loves of Theogonus and Charidea, of Pherecides and Melangenia.” Martin Fumee, lord of Genille, had made this translation, and sent it, in 1569, to Mr. de Larnane, secretary to cardinal d'Armagnac. It was found in the papers of Bernard de San- Jorry, who published it in 1612. Huetius speaks very largely of this book, and conjectures that Philander was the real author of it. He tells us that this Fumee boasted that he had the original Greek by means of Lamane, protonotary to cardinal d'Armagnac. There is no doubt, however, that it was not the production of Athenagoras but Cave, from whom we borrow the preceding account, does not appear to have seen the first edition, which was published at Paris, 1599.

, a Stoic philosopher, was probably of Pergamus, where he lived till he was very much advanced in years. He constantly refused to accept the favours which kings and generals would have bestowed upon him. Cato the younger, being in Asia at the head of an army, and knowing the merit of this eminent character, was very desirous of having him with him; but thinking that a letter would not prevail upon him to leave his retirement, he resolved to go himself to Pergamus, and by his intreaties and prayeVs he prevailed upon Athenodo, rus to follow him to the camp, whither he returned in a triumphant manner, being more remarkable for his new acquisition than Lucullus or Pompey could be for the conquests they had made. Athenodorus continued with Cato till his death, which happened about fifty before the Christian era. He is perhaps the same who is mentioned by Diogenes Laertius, in the life of Zeno Citticus.

, the son of Sandon, was another celebrated Stoic philosopher. He was born at Tarsus, or perhaps at Cana, a village near it, whence he was surnamed Cananita. He lived at Rome and on account of his learning, wisdom, and moderation, was highly esteemed by Augustus. His opinion and advice bad great weight with the emperor, and are said to have led him into a milder plan of government than he had at first adopted. He obtained, for his fellow-citizens, the inhabitants of Tarsus, relief from a part of the burthen of taxes which had been imposed upon them, and was on this account honoured with an annual festival. Athenodorus was intrusted by Augustus with the education of the young prince Claudius and that he might the more successfully execute his charge, his illustrious pupil became for a while resident in his house. This philosopher retired in his old age to Tarsus, where he died in his eighty-second year. Other particulars of him are given in the General Dictionary, and in the authorities cited by Brucker, but there appear to have been two of the name (besides the one of whom we have before given an account), or there is much confusion in all the writers we have had an opportunity of consulting respecting this one.

, a French philosopher, was born at Lyons in 1714, was brought up to the church, and became a professor of philosophy in his native country. In conjunction with the intendant Michaudiere, he drew up a state of the population of the district of Lyons, which was published under the name of Mezence, who was secretary to the intendant. In 1769, the abbe Audra was appointed professor of history in the college of Toulouse, and, we are told, filled that chair with distinction. It was here he wrote the first volume of his “General History,” which proved thecause of his death. The archbishop of Toulouse issued a mandate in which he condemned the work as being replete with dangerous principles; and the author’s mortification on hearing of this affected his brain to such a degree, as to carry hinj off in twenty- four hours, Sept. 17, 1770. Voltaire and D'Alembert praise this history, as likely to give offence only to bigots and fanatics, from which we may safely infer that the archbishop’s opinion of it was not ill founded.

, a very celebrated Arabian philosopher, and whom Christians as well as Arabians esteemed equal, if not superior to Aristotle himself, was born about the middle of the 12th centufy, of a noble family at Corduba, the capital of the Saracen dominions in Spain. He was early instructed in the Islamitic law, and, after the usual manner of the Arabian schools, united with the study of Mahometan theology that of the Aristotelian philosophy. These studies he pursued under Thophail, and became a follower of the sect of the Asharites. Under Avenzoar he studied the science of medicine, and under Ibnu-Saig he made himself master of the mathematical sciences. Thus qualified, he was chosen, upon his father’s demise, to the chief magistracy of Corduba. The fame of his extraordinary erudition and talents soon afterwards reached the caliph Jacob Al-Mansor, king of Mauritania, the third of the Almohadean dynasty, who had built a magnificent school at Morocco and that prince appointed him supreme magistrate and priest of Morocco and all Mauritania, allowing him still to retain his former honours. Having left a temporary substitute at Corduba, he went to Morocco, and remained there till he had appointed, through the kingdom, judges well skilled in the Mahometan law, and settled the whole plan of administration after which he returned home, and resumed his offices.

This rapid advancement of Averroes brought upon him the envy of his rivals at Corduba who conspired to lodge an accusation against him, for an heretical desertion of the true Mahometan faith. For this purpose, they engaged several young persons among their dependants, to apply to him for instruction in philosophy. Averroes, who was easy of access, and always desirous of communicating knowledge, complied with their request, and thus fell into the snare that had been laid for him. His new pupils were very industrious in taking minutes of every tenet or opinion advanced by their preceptor, which appeared to contradict the established system of Mahometan theology. These minutes they framed into a charge of heresy, and attested upon oath, that they had been fairly taken from his lips. The charge was signed by an hundred witnesses. The caliph listened to the accusation, and punished Averroes, by declaring him heterodox, confiscating his goods, and commanding him for the future to reside among the Jews, who inhabited the precincts of Corduba where he remained an object of general persecution and obloquy. Even the boys in the streets pelted him with stones, when he went up to the mosque in the city to perform his devotions. His pupil, Maimonides, that he might not be under the necessity of violating the laws of friendship and gratitude, by joining the general cry against Averroes, left Corduba. From this unpleasant situation Averroes at last found means to escape. He fled to Fez, but had been there only a few days, when he was discovered by the magistrate, and committed to prison. The report of his flight from Corduba was soon carried to the king, who immediately called a council of divines and lawyers, to determine in what manner this heretic should be treated. The members of the council were not agreed in opinion. Some strenuously maintained, that a man who held opinions so contrary to the law of the prophet deserved death. Others thought that much mischief, arising from the dissatisfaction of those among the infidels who were inclined to favour him, might be avoided, by only requiring from the culprit a public penance, and recantation of his errors. The milder opinion prevailed and Averroes was brought out of prison to the gate of the mosque, and placed upon the upper step, with his head bare, at the time of public prayers and every one, as he passed into the mosque, was allowed to spit upon his face. At the close of the service, the judge, with his attendants, came to the philosopher, and asked him whether he repented of his heresies. He acknowledged his penitence, and was dismissed without further punishment, with the permission of the king. Averroes returned to Corduba, where he experienced all the miseries of poverty and contempt. In process of time the people became dissatisfied with the regent who had succeeded Averroes, and petitioned the king that their former governor might be restored. Jacob Al-Mansor, not dar.ng to show sucli indulgence to one who had been infamous for heresy, without the consent of the priesthood, called a general assembly, in which it was debated, whether it would be consistent with the safety of religion, and the honour of the law, that Averroes should be restored to the government of Corduba. The deliberation terminated in favour of the penitent heretic, and he was restored, by the royal mandate, to all his former honours. Upon this fortunate change in his affairs, Averroes removed to Morocco, where he remained till his death, which happened, as some say, in 1195, or according to others in 1206.

Avicenna pretended to obey, but, instead of repairing to Gazna, he took the road to Giorgian. Mahmoud, who had gloried in the thought of keeping him at his palace, was greatly irritated at his flight, and dispatched portraits of this philosopher to all the princes of Asia, with orders to have him conducted to Gazna, if he appeared in their courts. But Avicenna eluded the most diligent search, and arrived in the capital of Giorgian, where, under a disguised name, he performed many admirable cures. Cabous then reigned in that country, and a favourite nephew having fallen sick, he consulted the most able physicians, none of whom were able to discover his disorder, or to give him any relief. Avicenna was at last consulted, who discovered, as soon as he felt the young prince’s pulse, that his disorder was concealed love, and he commanded the person, who had the care of the different apartments in the palace, to name them all in their respective order. A more lively motion in the prince’s pulse, at hearing mentioned one of those apartments, betrayed a part of his secret. The keeper then had orders to name all the slaves that inhabited that apartment. At the name of one of those beauties, the young prince, by the extraordinary beating of his pulse, completed the discovery of what he in vain desired to keep concealed. Avicenna, now fully assured that this slave was the cause of his illness, declared that she alone had the power to cure him. The Sultan’s consent being necessary, he expressed a desire to see his nephew’s physician, and had scarcely looked at him when he knew in his features those of the portrait sent to him by Mahmoud but Cabous, far from forcing Avicenna to repair to Gazna, retained him for some time with him, and heaped honours and presents on him.

, a philosopher who flourished about 340 years before the Christian oera. He was the preceptor of Arcesilas, the son of Seuthes. He wrote several treatises on astronomy, of which Joseph Auria, of Naples, translated into Latin the only ones extant, on the sphere, and the stars.

, Viscount St. Alban'S, and highchancellor of England in the reign of James I. justly styled the glory and ornament of his age and nation, was the son of sir Nicholas Bacon, and Anne, the subject of the preceding article, and was born at York House, in the Strand, on the 22d of January 1560-1. He gave early proofs of a surprizing strength and pregnancy of genius, and when a mere boy, was distinguished by persons of worth and dignity for something far beyond his years. Queen Elizabeth, a very acute discerner of merit, was so charmed with the solidity of his sense and the gravity of fais behaviour, that she would often call him “her young lord keeper,” an office which he eventually reached, although not in her reign. When qualified for academicalstudies, he was sent to the university of Cambridge, where,. June 10, 1573, he was entered of Trinity college, under Dr. John Whitgift, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, Such was his progress under this able tutor, and such the vigour of his intellect, that before he had completed his sixteenth year, he had not only run through the whole circle of the liberal arts, as they were then taught, but began, to perceive the imperfections of the reigning philosophy, and meditated that change of system which has since immortalized his name, and has placed knowledge upon its most firm foundation. Extraordinary as this may -appear, he was heard even at that early age, to object to the Aristotelian system, the only one then in repute, and to say, that his “exceptions against that great philosopher were not founded upon the worthlessness of the author, to whom he would ever ascribe all high attributes, but for the unfruitfulness of the way being a philosophy only for disputations and contentions, but barren in the production of works for the benefit of the life of man.”

Such early judgment determined his father to send him to France, that he might improve himself under that able and honest statesman, sir Amias Powlet, then the queen’s ambassador at Paris, and his behaviour while tinder the roof of that minister, was so prudent as to induce sir Amias to intrust him with a commission of importance to the queen, which required both secrecy and dispatch and this he executed so as to gain much credit both to the ambassador and to himself. He afterwards returned to Paris, but made occasional excursions into the provinces, where his attention appears to have been principally directed towards men and manners. He applied also with great assiduity to such studies as he conceived came within his father’s intention, and when he was but nineteen, wrote a very ingenious work, entitled, “A succinct view of the state of Europe,” which, it is plain, he had surveyed not only with the eye of a politician, but also of a philosopher. This work, it is probable, he improved on his return, when he was settled in Gray’s Inn. While thus employed abroad, the death of his father obliged him to return, and apply to some profession for his maintenance, as the money he inherited formed a very narrow provision. Accordingly, on his return, he resolved on the study of the common law, and for that purpose entered himself of the honourable society of Gray’s Inn, where his superior talents rendered him the ornament of the house, and the gentleness and affability of his deportment procured him the affection of all its members. The place itself was so agreeable to him, that he erected there a very elegant structure, which many years after was known by the name of “Lord Bacon’s Lodgings,” which he inhabited occasionally through the greatest part of his life. During the first years of his residence here, he did not confine his studies entirely to law, but indulged his excursive genius in a survey of the whole circle of science. It was here, and at that early age, where he formed, at least, if he did not mature, the plan of that great philosophical work, which has distinguished his name with such superior honour. Whether this first plan, or outlines, have descended to us, is a point upon which his biographers are not agreed. It was probably, however, the “Temporis Partus Masculus,” some part of which is preserved by Gruter in the Latin works of Bacon, which he published. The curious reader may receive much satisfaction on this subject from note D. of the Life of Bacon in the “Biographia Britannica.”

, surnamed the Resolute Doctor, and one of the most learned men of his time, was born about the end of the 13th century, at Baconthorp, an obscure village in Norfolk, from which he took his name. In his youth, he was a monk in the convent of Blackney, a small town in Norfolk, about five miles from Walsingham. After some years dedicated to learning and piety, he removed to Oxford, and from thence to Paris, where he was honoured with the degrees in divinity and laws, and acquired a great reputation for learning, being esteemed the head of the followers of the philosopher Averroes. Upon his return into England, he was unanimously chosen the twelfth provincial of the English Carmelites, in a general assembly of that order held at London, in the year 1329. Four years after he was invited by letters to Rome where, in several disputations on the subject of marriage, he gave no little offence, by carrying the papal authority too high in the case of divorces; but he thought fit afterwards to retract his opinion, and was held in great esteem at Rome, and other parts of Italy. His biographers report that he was of small stature, but of a great and lofty genius, and besides the encomiums bestowed upon him by his own countrymen, he has had the praises, not less high, of Baptista Mantuanus, and Paulus Panza. Bale seems to think that he anticipated the better opinions of more enlightened times. Of his works, which are numerous, the following have been published “Commentaria, seu Questiones per quatuor libros sententiarum,” which has undergone six editions; “Compendium iegis Chris ti,- et Quodlibeta,” Venice, 1527. Leiand, Bale, and Pitts give a catalogue of his manuscripts. He died at London in 1346.

When the king arrived at Paris, on the 25th of July, after the capture of the Bastile, Bailly was chosen by public acclamation, chief magistrate of the city, under the name of Mayor of Paris. It is not our intention to follow him through the whole of his political career his eulogist, however, affirms that in his situation as deputy, president, and mayor, he exhibited the wisdom, the firmness, and the moderation of a philosopher. He is accused by some of having endeavoured to debase the royal dignity, and by others of having wished unreasonably to exalt it. The validity of these contradictory charges can only be ascertained by some future generation. He might possibly be mistaken, but the rectitude of his conduct as a magistrate, his ardent desire to promote the welfare of his countfy, and his entire devotedness of his time, his life, his favourite studies, and his happiness, to this great object, are unquestionable. The public bodies to which Baiily belonged, bore distinguished evidence to his worth; his bust was placed in the municipality, and in the academy of sciences, where that of any of its living members had never been deposited. His honours now rose to their futl height. Placed between the people and the king, though responsible to both, he protected them from each other his influence was of infinite service to them, and he maintained the equilibrium of a philosopher, amid the sohcitations of both parties.

Mr. Baker was a constant and useful attendant at the meetings of the royal and antiquary societies, and in both was frequently chosen one of the council. He was peculiarly attentive to all the new improvements which were made in natural science, and very solicitous for the prosecution of them. Several of his communications are printed in the Philosophical Transactions and, besides the papers written by himself, he was the means, by his extensive correspondence, of conveying to the society the intelligence and observations of other inquisitive and philosophical men. His correspondence was not confined to his own country. To him we are obliged for a true history of the coccus polonicus, transmitted by Dr. Wolfe. It is to Mr. Baker’s communications that we owe the larger alpine strawberry, of late so much cultivated and approved of in England. The seeds of it were sent in a letter from professor Bruns of Turin to our philosopher, who gave them to several of his friends^ by whose care they furnished an abundant increase. The seeds likewise of the true rhubarb, or rheum palmatum, now to be met with in almost every garden in this country, were first transmitted to Mr. Baker by Dr. Mounsey, physician to the empress of Russia. These, like the former, were distributed to his various acquaintance, and some of the seeds vegetated very kindly. It is apprehended that all the plants of the rhubarb now in Great Britain were propagated from this source. Two or three of Mr. Baker’s papers, which relate to antiquities, may be found in the Philosophical Transactions. The society for the encouragement of arts, manufactures, and commerce, is under singular obligations to our worthy naturalist. As he was one of the earliest members of it, so he contributed in no small degree to its rise and establishment. At its first institution, he officiated for some time gratis, as secretary. He was many years chairman ^of the committee of accounts and he took an active part in the general deliberations of the society. In his attendance he was almost unfailing, and there were few questions of any moment upon which he did not deliver his opinion. Though, fronl the lowness of his voice, his manner of speaking was not powerful, it was clear, sensible, and convincing; what he said, being usually much to the purpose, and always proceeding from the best intentions, had often the good effect of contributing to bring the society to rational determinations, when many of the members seemed to have lost themselves in the intricacies of debate. He drew up a short account of the original of this society, and of the concern he himself had in forming it; which was read before the society of antiquaries, and would be a pleasing present to the public. Mr*. Baker was a poetical writer in the early part of his life. His “Invocation of Health” got abroad without his knowledge; but was reprinted by himself in his “Original Poems, serious and humourous,” Part the first, 8vo, 1725. The second part came out iri 1726. He was the author, likewise, of “The Universe^ a poem, intended to restrain the pride of man,” which has been several times reprinted. His account of the water polype, which was originally published in the Philosophical Transactions, was afterwards enlarged into a separate treatise, and hath gone through several editions. In 1728 he began, and for five years conducted the “Universal Spectator,” a periodical paper, under the assumed name of Henry Stonecastle a selection of these papers was afterwards printed in 4 vols. 12mo. In 1737 he published “Medulla Poetarum Romanorum,” 2 vols. 8vo, a selection from the Roman poets, with translations. But his principal publications are, “The Microscope made easy,” and “Employment for the Microscope.” The first of these, which was originally published in 1742, or 1743, has gone through six editions. The second edition of the other, which, to say the least of it, is equally pleasing and instructive, appearedin 1764. These treatises, and especially the latter, contain the most curious and important of the observations and experiments which Mr. Baker either laid before the royal society, or published separately. It has been said of Mr. Baker, “that he was a philosopher in little things.” If it was intended by this language to lessen his reputation, there is no propriety in the stricture. He was an intelligent, upright and benevolent man, much respected by those who knew him best. His friends were the friends of science and virtue and it will always be remembered by his contemporaries, that no one was more ready than himself to assist those with whom he was conversant in their various researches and endeavours for the advancement of knowledge and the benefit of society. His eldest son, David Erskine Baker, was a young man of genius and learning, and, like his father, a philosopher, an antiquary, and a poet. Being very partial to mathematical and geometrical studies, the duke of Montague, then master of the ordnance, placed him in the drawing-room in the Tower, to qualify him for the royal engineers. In a letter to Dr. Doddridge, dated 1747, his father speaks of him in these terms: “He has been somewhat forwarder than boys usually are, from a constant conversation with men. At twelve years old he had translated the whole twenty-four books of Telemachus from the French before he was fifteen, he translated from the Italian, and published, a treatise on physic, of Dr. Cocchi, of Florence, concerning the diet and doctrines of Pythagoras and last year, before he was seventeen, he likewise published a treatise of sir Isaac Newton’s Metaphysics, compared with those of Dr. Leibnitz, from the French of M. Voltaire. He is a pretty good master of the Latin, understands some Greek, is reckoned no bad mathematician for his years, and knows a great deal of natural history, both from reading and observation, so that, by the grace of God, I hope he will become a virtuous and useful man.” In another letter he mentions a singular commission given to his son, that of making drawings of all the machines, designs, and operations employed in the grand fire- works to be exhibited on occasion of the peace of 1748. It is to be regretted, however, that his father’s expectations were disappointed by a reverse of conduct in this son, occasioned by his turn for dramatic performances, and his marrying the daughter of a Mr. Clendon, a clerical empiric, who had, like himself, a similar turn. In consequence of this unhappy taste, he repeatedly engaged with the lowest strolling companies, in spite of every effort of his father to reclaim him. The public was, however, indebted to him for “The Companion to the Playhouse,” 1764, 2 vols. 12mo; a work which, though imperfect, had considerable merit, and shewed that he possessed a very extensive knowledge of our dramatic authors and which has since (under the title of “Biographia Dramatica”) been considerably improved, first in 1782, by the late Mr. Isaac Reed, 2 vols. 8vo, and more recently, in 1812, enlarged and improved by Mr. Stephen Jones, so as to form 4 vols. 8vo. He died Feb. 16, 1767. Mr. Baker’s other son, Henry, followed the profession of a lawyer, and occasionally appeared as a poet and miscellaneous writer. In 1756 he published te Essays Pastoral and Elegiac,“2 vols. 8vo, and left ready for the press an arranged collection of all the statutes relating to bankruptcy, with cases, precedents, &c. entitled” The Clerk to the Commission," a work which is supposed to have been published under another title in 1768.

, a learned Italian antiquary and philosopher, was born at Brescia in 1677, and died at Tivoli in 1765. He entered early into the congregation of the regular clerks, and arrived at their highest dignities. His works, all in ItaHan, were, 1. “Sopra le forze moventi.” 2. “Relazione dell' Aurora Boreale, veduta in Roma,” 1737, both inserted in “Calogerae opusculis philologis.” 3. “Dissertazione sopra certi Vasetti di creta trovati in una camera sepolcrale nella Vigna di S. Cesario, in Roma.” 4. “Dissertazione sopra un‘ antica piastra di bronzo, che si suppone un’ Orologie da sole:” these two are inserted in “Saggi de Dissertation! di Cortona,” vol. II. and III. He published an edition of Vaillant’s Numismata Imp. Romanorum, Rome, 1743, 4to, to which Khella published a supplement in 1767, Vienna. He was also author of remarks on Anastasius Bibliothecarius’s lives of the popes.

, a learned French Jesuit, was born at Metz, June 3, 1667, and received into the society of Jesuits, at Nancy, in Nov. 1682. In 1700, when he took the four vows, he was professor of Hebrew in the college of Strasburgh, and before that, when much younger, he taught the lower classes at Dijon, and gave essons on rhetoric at Pont-a-Mousson. In his youth he studied Greek and Latin with ardour, and afterwards applied with equal zeal to Hebrew and Christian antiquities, until his continued study had injured his health. With a view of restoring it by travelling, he was sent from Strasburgh to Dijon, where he had the care of the public library. In 1717 he was called to Rome, and for some time was censor of the press but the air of Rome disagreeing with him, he returned to France, where he was successively rector of the Jesuits colleges at Dijon, at Pont-a-Mousson, and other places. His last employment was that of librarian, at Rheims, where he died, March 9, 1743. He was in very high esteem among his brethren, and acquired considerable reputation by his works, which are, 1. “Oraison funebre de M. Pierre Creagh,” archbishop of Dublin, Strasburgh, 1705, 4to. 2. “Reponse a l'histoire des Onicles de M. de Fontenelle,” Strasburgh, 1707, and 1709, 8vo. It was the general sentiment of the church that the pagan oracles were the work of demons, and that they were silenced by the power of Jesus Christ, until Van Dale, an Anabaptist physician at Haerlem, endeavoured to prove, that these oracles were merely the quackish contrivances of the heathen priests, and that instead of attributing their silence to the power of Christ, we ought to refer it to the destruction of their temples by the Christian emperors. Fontenelle, when writing on this subject, adopted the opinion of Van Dale, and gave it to the public in his own polished and popular style, which induced Baltus to answer him as the chief propagator of this new doctrine, and to address his book to him. Fontenelle made no reply but Le Clerc, in his Bibiiotheque Choisie, for 1707, criticised Baltus’ work in such a manner as to draw from him, 3. “Suite de la Reponse, &c.” Strasburgh, 1708, 8vo, and both the answer and continuation were translated into English by Hickes, and printed 'at London, the first in 1708, and the other in 1709. At the conclusion of the preface to the continuation, he announced another work, in which he promised to examine more closely the platonism attributed to the fathers of the church, and the custom of referring the greatest mysteries of our religion to certain ideas and opinions invented by a pagan philosopher. This he published accordingly under the title 4. “Defense ties Ss. Peres accuses de Platonisme,” Paris, 1711, 4to. Dupin has given a good analysis of this learned work in the second volume of his ecclesiastical authors of the eighteenth century. 5. “Jugement des Ss. Peres sur la morale de la philosophic paienne,” Strasburgh, 1719, 4to. 6. “Reflexions spirituelles et sentimens de piete ciu II. P. Charles de Lorraine,” a trans^ hition from the Italian, Dijon, 1720, 12 mo. 7. “La Vie de Sainte Fabronie,” from the Greek, ib. 1721, 12mo. 8. “Les actes de S. Barlaam,” from the Greek, ib. 1720, 12mo. 9. < Sentimens du R. P. Baltus, sur le traite de la foiblesse de l'esprit humain.“These remarks on M. Huet’s work were addressed to the abbe Olivet, and were printed in the literary and historical memoirs of father Molets. 10. ct La religion Chretienne, prouvee par l‘accomplisserncnt des propheties de l’ancien et du nonveau Testament, suivant la methode des Ss. Peres,” Paris, 1728, 4to. 11. “Defense des propheties de la religion Chretienne,” Paris, 1737, 3 vols. 12mo. In this he examines and refutes the opinions of Grotius at great length, and shews that the most ancient fathers of the church, as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, &c. never thought of interpreting the prophecies of the old Testament in a double sense but applied them in their literal meaning to the Messiah. The same sentiments he defended in a letter inserted in the Memoires deTrevoux, for March, 1738.

, a Barnabite monk, born at Serravalle, in the environs of Verceil in Piemont, in 1590, was chosen professor of philosophy and mathematics at Anneci, where he was much distinguished by the acuteness of his genius. The general of his order having sent him into France to form some establishments, he proceeded to Paris, where he acquired reputation both as a philosopher and as a preacher. He was one of the first that had the courage to abandon the trammels of Aristotle. He died at Montargis the 23d of December, 1622, aged only thirtythree. La Mothe le Vayer classes him among the foremost of the learned in his time. He adds, that Baranzano had several times assured him that he would appear to him, if he should depart the first out of this world, but that he did not keep his word. Lord chancellor Bacon had as great an esteem for him as la Mothe le Vayer, as appears by a letter he wrote to him in June 1622, which Niceron has printed. His works are, 1. “Campus Philosophicus,” Lyons, 1620, 8vo. 2. “Uranoscopia, seu universa doctrina de Coelo,” 1617, folio. 3. “Novae Opiuiones Physicx,” Lyons, 1617, 8vo.

Barclay’s Latin style, in his Argenis, has been much praised, and much censured but upon the whole it is elegant. It is said, that cardinal Richelieu was extremely fond of reading this work, and that from thence he derived many of his political maxims. It is observed in the preface to the last English translation, that “Barclay’s Argenis affords such variety of entertainment, that every kind of reader may find in it something suitable to his own taste and disposition the statesman, the philosopher, the soldier, the lover, the citizen, the friend of mankind, each may gratify his favourite propensity while the reader, who comes for his amusement only, will not go away disappointed.” It is also remarked of this work in the same preface, that “it is a romance, an allegory, and a system of politics. In it the various forms of government are investigated, the causes of faction detected, and the remedies pointed out for most of the evils that can arise in a state.” Cowper, the celebrated poet, pronounced it the most amusing romance ever written. “It is,” he adds in a letter to Sam. Rose, esq. “interesting in a high degree; richer'trt incident than can be imagined, full of surprizes, which the reader never forestalls, and yet free from all entanglement and confusion. The style too appears to me to be such as would not dishonour Tacitus himself.” In this political allegory, “by the kingdom of Sicily, France is described during the time of the civil wars under Henry the Third. and until the fixing the crown upon the head of Henry the Fourth. By the country over-against Sicily, and frequently her competitor, England is signified. By the country, formerly united under one head, but now divided into several principalities, the author means Germany; i. e. Mergania. Several names are disguised in the same manner, by transposing the letters.” As to the principal persons designed, “by Aquilius is meant the emperor of Germany, Calvin is Usinulca, and the Hugenots are called Hyperephanii, Under the person and character of Poliarchus, Barclay undoubtedly intended to describe that real hero, Henry of Navarre, as he has preserved the likeness even to his features and complexion. By his rivals are meant the leaders of the different factions’; by Lycogenes and his friends, the Lorrain party, with the duke of Guise at their head. Some features of Hyanisbe’s character are supposed to resemble queen Elizabeth of England Radirobanes is the king of Spain, and his fruitless expedition against Mauritania is pointed at the ambitious designs of Philip the Second, and his invincible armada. Under Meleander, the character of Henry the Third of France seems intended though the resemblance is very flattering to him.”

“The person of Baretti,” says one who appears to have known him, “was athletic, his countenance by no means attractive, his manners apparently rough, but not unsocial his eye, when he was inclined to please or be pleased, when he was conversing with young people, and especially young women, cheerful and engaging he was fond of conversing with them, and his conversation almost constantly turned upon subjects of instruction: he had the art of drawing them into correspondence, and wished by these means to give them the power of expression and facility of language, while he himself conveyed to them lessons on the conduct of life and the best answer that can be given to all those accounts which have represented him as a man of a brutal and ferocious temper, is the attachment which many of his young friends felt while he was living, and preserve to his memory now he is no more. He was not impatient of contradiction, unless where contempt was implied but alive in every feeling where he thought himself traduced, or his conduct impeached. In his general intercourse with the world he was social, easy, and conversible his talents were neither great nor splendid but hvs knowledge of mankind was extensive, and his acquaintance with books in all modern languages which are valuable, except the German, was universal his conduct in every family, where he became an inmate, was correct and irreproachable; neither prying, nor inquisitive, nor intermeddling, but affable to the inferiors, and conciliatory between the principals in others which he visited only, he was neither intrusive nor unwelcome; ever ready to accept an invitation when it was cordial, and never seeking it where it was cold and affected. In point of morals he was irreproachable with regard to faith, he was rather without religion than irreligious the fact was, possibly, that he had been disgusted with the religion of Italy before he left it, and was too old when he came to England to take an attachment to the purer doctrines of the protestant church but his scepticism was never offensive to those who had settled principles, never held out or defended in company, never proposed to mislead or corrupt the minds of young people. He ridiculed the libertine publications of Voltaire, and the reveries of Rousseau he detested the philosophy of the French pour lesfemmes de cJiambre^ and though too much a philosopher (in his own opinion) to subscribe to any church, he was a friend to church establishments. If this was the least favourable part of his character, the best was his integrity, which was, in every period of his distresses, constant and unimpeached. His regularity in every claim was conspicuous his wants he never made known but in the last extremity and his last illness, if it was caused by vexation, would doubtless have been prevented by the intervention of many friends who were ready to supply him, if his own scruples, strengthened by the hopes of receiving his due from day to day, had not induced him to conceal his immediate distress till it was too late to assist him.”

, more commonly known by the name of Basingstochius, or de Basingstoke, was born at Basingstoke, a town in the north part of Hampshire, and thence took his surname. He was a person highly eminent for virtue and learning; a perfect master of the Latin and Greek languages; and also an eloquent orator, an able mathematician and philosopher, and a sound divine. The foundation of his great learning he laid in the university of Oxford, and, for his farther improvement, went to Paris, where he resided some years. He afterwards travelled to Athens, where he made many curious observations, and perfected himself in his studies, particularly in the knowledge of the Greek tongue. At his return to England, he brought over with him several curious Greek manuscripts, and introduced the use of the Greek numeral figures in to this kingdom. He became also a very great promoter and encourager of the study of that language, which was much neglected in these western parts of the world: and to facilitate it, he translated from Greek into Latin a grammar, which he entitled “The Donatus of the Greeks.” Our author’s merit and learning recommended him to the esteem of all lovers of literature: particularly to the favour of Robert Grosteste, bishop of Lincoln, by whom he was preferred to the archdeaconry of Leicester, as he had been some time before to that of London. He died in 1252. The rest of his works are, 1. A Latin translation of a Harmony of the Gospels. 2. A volume of sermons. 3. “Particulue sententiarum per distinctiones,” or a Commentary upon part of Lombard’s Sentences, &c. It was he also that informed Robert, bishop of Lincoln, that he had seen at Athens a book called “The Testament of the XII Patriarchs.” Upon which the bishop sent for it, and translated it into Latin, and it was printed among the “Orthodoxographa,” Basilero, 1555, fol. and afterwards translated into English, and often reprinted, 12mo.

, prior of the monastery of Carmelites at York in the fifteenth century, uas born in Northumberland, and educated at York in the study of the liberal arts, in which he was much encouraged by the favour of some persons his patrons, who were at the expence of sending him to Oxford, to finish his studies in that university. Bate abundantly answered the hopes conceived of him, and became an eminent philosopher and divine, and particularly remarkable for his skill in the Greek tongue. He took the degree of D. D. at Oxford, and afterwards distinguished himself as an author. The Carmelites of York were so sensible of his merit, that, upon a vacancy, they offered him the government of their house, which he accepted, and discharged that office with great prudence and success. He died the 26th of January 1429, in the beginning of the reign of Henry VI. Bale, who cannot refuse him the character of a learned man, asserts that he adulterated the word of God with false doctrines, to support the blasphemies of antichrist, and defiled his own writings with the filth of Paganism. These writings, as enumerated by Leland, Bale, and Pits, consist of the following treatises, 1. “On the construction of the Parts of Speech.” 2. “On Porphyry’s Universalia.” 3. “On Aristotle’s Predicaments.” 4. “On Poretanus’s Six Principles.” 5. “Questions concerning the Soul.” 6. “Of the Assumption of the Virgin.” 7. “An introduction to the Sentences.” 8. “The praise of Divinity.” 9. “A compendium of Logic.” 10. “An address to the clergy or' Oxford.” 11. “Synodical conferences.” 12. “Determinations on several questions.” 13. “A course of Sermons for the whole year.” 14. “A preface to the Bible.”

, a philosopher of the German school, was born at Berlin, June 17, 1714. He studied divinity at Halle, at a time when it was a crime to read the writings of the celebrated Wolff, but these he perused with avidity, and cultivated the friendship of their author. Mathematics became afterwards his favourite study, and he conceived at the same time the idea of elevating the belles-lettres to a rank among the sciences, and the science according to which he explained his principles on this subject, he called Esthetics. At Halle, he was professor of logic, metaphysics, the law of nature and moral philosophy. He died at Francfort on the Oder, May 26, 1762. His principal works are: 1. “Disputa-io de nonnullis ad poema pertinentibus,” Halle, 1735, 4to, in which he discloses the principles of his Esthetics. 2. “Metaphysica,” Halle, 1739, 1743, and 1763, 8vo, a work highly praised by his countrymen. 3. “Etica philosophica,” ibid. 1740, 1751, 1762. 4. “JEsthetica,” Francfort, 1750, 1758, 2 vols. 8vo, but not completed. 5. “Initia philosophise practicae primae,” ibid. 1760, 8vo. His brother Siegmond, was a Lutheran divine, and a most voluminous writer. He died in 1757. One of the best of his works which we have seen, is a supplement to the English Universal History, printed about 1760.

, a very ingenious metaphysician and natural philosopher, was born in 1686, or 1687, at Old Aberdeen, in Scotland, of which city his father was a merchant, and educated in king’s college there. His principal employment was that of a private tutor to young gentlemen; and among other of his pupils were lord Grey, lord Blantyre, and Mr. Hay of Drummeizier. About 1724, he married the daughter of Mr. Mebane, a clergyman in the shire of Berwick. A few years after he published in 4to, “An Enquiry into the nature of the human Soul, wherein its immateriality is evinced from the principles of reason and philosophy;” without date. In 1741, he went abroad with Mr. Hay, and resided some years at Utrecht; having there also lord Blantyre under his care. He made excursions from thence into Flanders, France, and Germany; his wife and 'family residing in the mean time chiefly at Berwick upon Tweed. He returned to Scotland in 1747, and resided till his death at Whittingham, in the shire of East Lothian. He drew up, for the use of his pupils, and his son, a piece entitled “Matho: sive, Cosmotheoria puerilis, Dialogus. In quo prima elementa de mundi ordine et ornatu proponuntur, &c.” This was afterwards greatly enlarged, and published in English, in two volumes, 8vo. In 1750 was published, “An Appendix to his Enquiry into the nature of the human Soul” wherein he endeavours to remove some difficulties, which had been started against his notions of the “vis inertias” of matter, by Maclaurin, in his “Account of Sir Isaac Newton’s Philosophical Discoveries.” To this piece Mr. Baxter prefixed a dedication to Mr. John Wilkes, afterwards so well known in the political world, with whom he had commenced an acquaintance abroad. He died this year, April the 23d, after suffering for some months under, a complication of disorders, of which the gout was the chief, and was buried in the family vault of Mr. Hay, at Whittingham.

Bishop Warburton has characterised Mr. Baxter’s treatise on the Soul, as “containing the justest and most'precise notions of God and the soul, and as altogether one of the most finished of its kind,” an encomium too unqualified, although it certainly discovers great metaphysical acuteness. The great principle on which Baxter builds his reasoning, is the vis inertia of matter. The arguments he hath founded upon this principle, and the consequences he hath drawn from it, have, in the opinion of several persons, been carried too far. Mr. Hume made some objections to Mr. Baxter’s system, though without naming him, in his Enquiry concerning Human Understanding. It is probable that Mr. Baxter did not think Mr. Hume to be enough of a natural philosopher to merit particular notice; or he might not have seen Mr. Hume’s Philosophical Essays, which were first published only two years before our author’s death. He had a much more formidable antagonist in Mr. Colin Maclaurin. This ingenious gentleman, in his account of sir Isaac Newton’s philosophical discoveries, had started various difficulties with regard to what had been urged concerning the vis inertia of matter; and it was to remove these difficulties, and still farther to confirm his own principles, that Mr. Baxter wrote the Appendix.

, a learped French physician and medical writer, was royal professor of philosophy in the university of Toulouse, where he died, Sept. 24, 1709, in the eighty-seventh year of his age. He was a member of the Floreal academy, and a man of integrity, always more ready to discern merit in others than in himself, a strict disciplinarian, and, through many unpleasant vicissitudes, a truly Christian philosopher. As to his profession, it appears from his works that he was a good theorist, as well as a successful practitioner. Haller pronounces him “latromechanicus, sed ex cautioribus.” His works, which are partly in Latin and partly in French, were, 1. “Systema generale philosophise,” Toulouse, 1669, 8vo. 2. “Tractatus de Apoplexia,” ib. 1676, 12mo; Hague, 1678. 3. “Dissertationes Medicae tres,” Toulouse, 1678, fol. 4. “Dissertationes Physicae,” Hague, 1678, 12mo. 5. “Dissertationes de experientia et ratione conjnngenda in Physica, Medicina, et Chirurgia,” Paris, 1675; Hague, 1678. 6. “Problemata Physica et Medica,' 7 ib. 1678, 12mo. 7.” Histoire Anatomique d'une grossesse de 25 ans,“Toulouse, 1678, 12mo. 8.” Instructiones Physicee ad usum scholarum accommodate,“ibid. 1700, 3 vols. 4to. 9.” Dissertatio quaestiones nonnullas PhysicasetMedicasexplanans,“ibid. 1688, 12mo. 10.” Opuscula," ibid. 1701, 4to.

, a learned English lady, the only daughter of Dr. Edward Baynard, a gentleman of an ancient family, and an eminent physician in London, was born at Preston, in Lancashire, in 1672. Her father, who discovered her early capacity, bestowed great care on her education, and was rewarded by the extraordinary proficiency she made in various branches of learning not usual with her sex^ She? was well acquainted with philosophy, mathematics, and physics. She was also familiar with the writings of the ancients in their original languages. At the age of twentythree she had the knowledge of a profound philosopher, and in metaphysical learning was a nervous and subtle disputant. She took great pains with the Greek language, that she might read in their native purity the works of St. Chrysostom. Her Latin compositions, which were various, were written in a pure and elegant style. She possessed an acute and comprehensive mind, an ardent thirst of knowledge, and a retentive memory. She was accustomed to declare, “that it was a sin to be content with a little knowledge.” To theendowments of the mind she added the virtues of the heart she was modest, humble, and benevolent, exemplary in her whole conduct, and in every relative duty. She was pious and constant in her devotions, both public and private; beneficent to the poor; simple in her manners; retired, and rigid in her notions and habits. It was her custom to lay aside a certain portion of her income, which was not large, for charitable uses; to this she added an ardent desire and strenuous efforts for the mental and moral improvement of those within her circle and influence. About two years previous to her death, she seems to have been impressed with an idea of her early dissolution which first suggested itself to her mind while walking alone among the tombs, in a church-yard and which she indulged with much complacency. On her death-bed she earnestly entreated the minister who attended her, that he would exhort all the young people of his congregation to the study of wisdom and knowledge, as the means of moral improvement and real happiness. “I could wish,” says she, “that all young persons might be exhorted to the practice of virtue, and to increase their knowledge by the study of philosophy; and especially to read the great book of nature, therein they may see the wisdom and power of the Creator, in the order of the universe, and in the production and preservation of all things.” “That vr omen are capably of such improvements, which will better their judgments and understandings, in past all doubt, would they but set sjbout it in earnest, and spend but half of that time in study thinking) which they do in visits, vanity, and folly. It would introduce a composure of mind, and lay a solid basis for wisdom and knowledge, by which they would be better enabled to serve God, and to help their neighbours.” These particulars are taken from her funeral sermon, preached at Barnes, where she died in her 25th year, June 12, 1697, by the rev. John Prade, and reprinted in that useful collection of such documents, “Wilford’s Memorials.” She was interred at the East end of the churchyard of Barnes, with a monument and inscription, of which no traces are now to be found, but the inscription is preserved in Aubrey.

, LL. D. an eminent philosopher, critic, and poet, was born at Laurencekirk, in the county of Kincardine, Scotland, on the 25th day of October, 1735. His father, who was a farmer of no considerable rank, is said to have had a turn for reading and fur versifying; but, as he died in 1742, when his son was only seven years of age, could have had no great share in forming his mind. James was sent early to the only school his birth-place afforded, where he passed his time under the instructions of a tutor named Milne, whoin he used to represent as a “good grammarian, and tolerably skilled in the Latin language, but destitute of taste, as well as of some other qualifications essential to a good teacher.” He is said to have preferred Ovid as a school-author, whom Mr. Beattie afterwards gladly exchanged for Virgil. Virgil he had been accustomed to read with great delight in Ogi ivy’s and Dryden'g translations, as he did Homer in that of Pope; and these, with Thomson’s Seasons, and Milton’s Paradise Lost, of all which he was very early fond, probably gave him that taste for poetry which he afterwards cultivated with so much success. He was already, according to his biographer, inclined to making verses, and among his schoolfellows went by the name of The Poet.

, one of the French academy, and professor of grammar in the military school, was born at Verdun, May 9, 1717, and died at Paris, Jan. 25, 1789. Of his early life we have no account, but he appears to have been selected by the encyclopedists to furnish the articles on grammar in their celebrated undertaking. The abbe BarrueL who says he was a layman much to be respected for his piety, once asked him, how a man of his principles came to be associated with the encyclopedists, who were notoriously infidels. “The very same question,” answered Beauzee, “have I put to d‘Alembert. At one of the sittings, seeing that I was almost the only person who believed in God, 1 asked him how he possibly could ever have thought of me for a member, when he -knew that my sentiments and opinions differed so widely from those of his brethren? D’Aiembert without hesitation answered,” I am sensible of your amazement, but we were in want of a skilful grammarian, and among our party not one had acquired a reputation in that study. We knew that you believed in God, but being a good sort of a man, we cast our eyes on you, for want of a philosopher to supply your place.“About the same time, probably, Beauzee published his” Grammaire generate, ou exposition raisonnee des elemens necessaires du Langage, pour servir de fondement a l'etude de toutes les Langues,“Paris, 1767, 2 vols. a work which, although it falls short of its title, contains much valuable instruction, especially respecting the French language. The chief fault is, that the author wants precision, and is frequently too metaphysical to be intelligible. He published also a new edition of the abbe” Girard’s “Synonymes,” with great additions, 2 vols. 12mo; translations of Sallust, often reprinted, and much admired of Quintus Curtius, which likewise became popular; and of Thomas a Kempis. He promoted the publication of the translation of sir Isaac Newton’s Optics by Marat, 2 vols. 8vo, 1787, which is thought to be very correct. The Dict. Hist, mentions another work by Beauzee, but without date, “Exposition abregee des preuves historique de le religion,” 12mo.

, cardinal, was born in 1492, and made early proficiency in learning. Francis I. who highly esteemed him, bestowed many preferments on him. He owed this favour to an accidental circumstance: The night before the pope made his public entrance into Marseilles, to meet the French king, it was discovered that the president of the parliament, who had been appointed to receive him with a Latin oration, had unluckily chosen a subject which would certainly give the pontiff offence; and yet there was no tune for a new composition. In this extremity, when the whole business of the ceremonial was deranged, Bellay offered his services to speak extempore, and did it with such uncommon propriety and elegance, that he was marked, from that time, as a man of the first genius in France. He was first bishop of Bayonne, and afterwards of Paris in 1532. The year following, Henry VIII. of England having raised just apprehensions of a schism on account of a quarrel with his queen, du Bellay, who had been sent to him in 1527, in quality of ambassador, and who is said to have managed his boisterous temper with great address, was dispatched to him a second time. He obtained of that prince that he would not yet break with Rome, provided time was granted him to make his defence by proxy. Du Bellay set out immediately, to ask a respite of pope Clement VII. which he obtained, and sent a courier to the king of England for his procuration, but the courier not returning, Clement VII. fulminated the bull of excommunication against Henry VIII. and laid an interdict on his dominions. It was this bull that furnished Henry with an opportunity, fortunately for England, of withdrawing that nation from the church of Rome, and a great source of revenue from the coffers of the pope. Du Bellay continued to be entrusted with the affairs of France under the pontificate of Paul III. who made him cardinal in 1535. The year afterwards, Charles V. having entered Provence with a numerous army, Francis I. in order to appose so formidable an enemy, quitted Paris, whither du Bellay was just returned, and the king appointed him his lieutenant-general, that he might have a watchful eye over Picardy and Champagne. The cardinal, no less intelligent in matters of war than in the intrigues of the cabinet, undertook to defend Paris, which was then in confusion, and fortified it accordingly with a rampart and boulevards, which are still to be seen. He provided with equal promptitude for the security of the other towns, which important services procured him new benefices, and the friendship and confidence of Francis I. After the death of that prince, the cardinal de Lorraine became the channel of favour at the court of Henry II., but du Bellay, too little of a philosopher, and too much affected by the loss of his influence, could no longer endure to remain at Paris. He chose rather to retire to Rome, where the quality of bishop of Ostia procured him, under Paul IV. the title of dean of the sacred college, and where his riches enabled him to build a sumptuous palace; but by some means he took care to keep the bishopric of Paris in his family, obtaining that see for Eustache du Bellay, his cousin, who was already provided with several benefices, and president of the parliament. The cardinal lived nine years after his demission; and, whether from patriotism or from the habit of business, he continued to make himself necessary to the king. He died at Rome, Feb. 16, 1560, at the age of 68, with the reputation of a dexterous courtier, an able negociator, and a great wit. Literature owed much to him. He concurred with his friend Budæus in engaging Francis I. to institute the college royal. Rabelais had been his physician. Of his writing are Several harangues, An apology for Francis I. Elegies, epigrams, and odes, collected in 8vo, and printed by Robert Stephens in 1546.

, was a native of Sienna, which circumstance has procured him to be recorded in some biographical works under the name of Hugo Senensis, and Freher, otherwise a correct biographer, has given these as distinct persons. He became one of the most celebrated physicians of the fifteenth century, and not less esteemed as a philosopher and divine. In such admiration was he held, that his contemporaries hailed him as another Aristotle and a new Hippocrates; and such was his memory, that he could readily and promptly give answers to any questions or doubts that were propounded from the works of Plato or Aristotle. He was, according to Ghilini, professor of medicine at Ferrara, and was a member of the council called to adjust the religious disputes between the Greeks and Latins. Castellanus informs us, that when Nicholas of Este founded the university of Parma, Bencius was appointed one of its first professors, and this Bencius himself confirms in the introduction to his commentary on Galen. He died at Rome in 1438, according to Castellanus, or in 1448, according to Ghilini. tjis principal works are, 1, “In aphorismos Hippocratis,” &c. expositio,“ Venice, 1498, folio, reprinted 1.517, 1523. 2.” Consilia saluberrima ad omnes Ægritudines,“Venice, 1518, folio. 3.” In tres libros Microtechni Galeni luculentissimi expositio,“ibid. 1523, fol. 4.” In primi canonis Avicennufc Fen primam expositio,“ibid. 1523, fol. 5.” Supra quarta Fen primi Avicennae expositio,“ib. 1717. 6.” In quarti canonis Avicennse Fen primam expositio," ibid. 1523. There is an edition of his works, Venice, 2 vols, folio, 1518, but whether it includes the above is not mentioned in our authorities.

Henry, his son, second earl, was created duke of Portland, 1716, and having incurred great loss of fortune by the South Sea bubble, went over as governor to Jamaica, 1722, and died there 1726, aged forty-five. William his son, second duke, who died in 1762, married lady Margaret Cavendish Harley, only child of the second earl of Oxford, and heiress to the vast estates of the Cavendishes, formerly dukes of Newcastle. This lady, after the duke’s death, lived with splendid hospitality at Bulstrode, which was the resort not only of persons of the highest rank, but of those most distinguished for talents and eminence in the literary world. To her, posterity will ever be indebted, for securing to the public the inestimable treasures of learning contained in the noble manuscript library of her father and grandfather, earls of Oxford, now deposited in the British museum, by the authority of parliament, under the guardianship of the most distinguished persons of the realm, easy of access, and consequently of real use to the philosopher, the statesman, the historian, and the scholar. She died July 17, 1785, and the following year her own museum, collected at vast expence to herself', and increased by some valuable presents from her friends, was disposed of by auction, by the late Mr. Alderman Skinner. The sale lasted thirty-seven days. Among the books was the fine Missal, known by the name of the Bedford Missal, of which Mr. Gough published an account, as will be noticed in his life. This splendid volume was purchased by, and is now in the very curious and valuable library of James Edwards, esq. of Harrow-on-the-hill.

, a learned divine, was born at Bremen, September 3, 1737, and died atDuisbourg, March 3, 1800. He was distinguished as a theologian and philosopher, and a man of very extensive learning. He was eminently skilled in the Oriental languages, particularly the Arabic, and for many years acquired much fame by his lectures on the holy scriptures, in the university of Duisbourg. He published, 1. “Specimen animadversionum philologkarum ad selecta Veteris Testamenti loca,” Leyden, 1761, 8vo. 2. “Symbolse litterariae Duisburgenses ad incrementum scientiarum a. variis amicis amice collatae, ex Haganis factre Duisburgenses,” vol. I. 1783; vol. II. 1784 6. If this be the same work with his “Museum Duisburgense,” it is a sequel to the “Musaeum Haganum,” by the learned professor Barkey, minister of the German church at the Hague.

, a celebrated chemist and natural philosopher, was born March 20, 1735, at Catharineberg in Westgothland. His father was receiver-gene^ ral of the finances, and had destined him to the same employment but nature had designed him for the sciences, to which he had an irresistible inclination from his earliest years. His first studies were confined to mathematics and physics, and all efforts that were made to divert him from science having proved ineffectual, he was sent to Upsal with permission to follow the bet of his inclination. Linnaeus at that time filled the whole kingdom with his fame. Instigated by his example, the Swedish youth flocked around him; and accomplished disciples leaving his school, carried the name and the system of their master to the most distant parts of the globe. Bergman, struck with the splendour of this renown, attached himself to the man whose merit had procured it, and by whom he was very soon distinguished. He applied himself at first to the study of insects, and made several ingenious researches into their history; among others into that of the genus of tenthredo, so often and so cruelly preyed on by the larvae of the ichneumons, that nestle in their bowels and devour them. He discovered that the leech is oviparous, and that the coccus aquaticus is the egg of this animal, from whence issue ten or twelve young. Linnæus, who had at first denied this fact, was struck with astonishment when he saw it proved. “Vidi et obstupui” were the words he pronounced, and which he wrote at the foot of the memoir when he gave it his sanction. Mr. Bergman soon distinguished himself as an astronomer, naturalist, and geometrician; but these are not the titles by which he acquired his fame. The chair of chemistry and mineralogy, which had been filled by the celebrated Wallerius, becoming vacant by his resignation, Mr. Bergman was among the number of the competitors and without having before this period discovered any particular attention to chemistry, he published a memoir on the preparation of alum, that astonished his friends as well av his adversaries but it was warmly attacked in the periodi­^cal publications, and Wallerius himself criticised it without reserve. The dispute, we may suppose, was deemed of high importance, since the prince Gustavus, afterwards king of Sweden, and then chancellor of the university, took cognizance of the affair, and after having consulted two persons, the most able to give him advice, and whose testimony went in favour of Bergman, he addressed a memorial, written with his own hand, in answer to all the objections urged against the candidate, to the consistory of the university and to the senate, who elected him agreeably to his highness’s wishes.

In 1710 appeared “The Principles of human knowledge;” and, in 1713, “Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous” but to them the same praise has not been given, and to this day their real tendency is a disputed point. The object of both pieces is to prove that the commonly received notion of the existence of matter is false that sensible material objects, as they are called, are not external to the mind, but exist in it, and are nothing more than impressions made upon it by the immediate act of God, according to certain rules termed laws of nature, from which, in the ordinary course of his government, he never deviates and that the steady adherence of the Supreme Spirit to these rules is what constitutes the reality of things to his creatures. These works are declared to. Lave been written in opposition to sceptics and atheists and the author’s inquiry is into the chief cause of error and difficulty in the sciences, with the grounds of scepticism, atheism, and irreligion which cause and grounds are found to be the doctrines of the existence of matter. He seems persuaded that men never could have been deluded into a false opinion of the existence of matter, if they had not fancied themselves invested with a power of abstracting substance from the qualities under which it is perceived and hence, as the general foundation of his argument, he is led to combat and explode a doctrine maintained by Locke and others, of there being a power in the mind of abstracting general ideas. Mr. Hume says, that these works “form the best lessons of scepticism, which are to be found either among the ancient or modern philosophers, Bayle not excepted.” Dr. Beattie also considers them as having a sceptical tendency. He adds, that if Berkeley’s argument be conclusive, it proves that to b false which every man must necessarily believe, every moment of his life, to be true, and that to be true which no man since the foundation of the world was ever capable of believing for a single moment. Berkeley’s doctrine attacks the most incontestable dictates of common sense, and pretends to demonstrate that the clearest principles of human conviction, and those which have determined the judgment of men in all ages, and by which the judgment of all reasonable men must be determined, are certainly fallacious. It may just be observed, that Berkeley had not reached his 27th year when he published this singular system. The author of his life in the Biog. Brit, asserts that “the airy visions of romances, to the reading of which he was much addicted, disgust at the books of metaphysics then received in the university, and that inquisitive attention to the operations of the mind which about this time was excited by the writings of Locke and Malebranche, probably gave birth to his disbelief of the existence of matter.” Whatever influenre the oth^r causes here assigned might have had, we have the authority of his relict, Mrs. Berkeley, that he had a very great dislike to romances, and indeed it would be difficult to discover in any of these volumes of absurd fiction the grounds of such a work as Berkeley’s. In 1712 he published three sermons in favour of passive obedience and non-resistance, which underwent at least three editions, and afterwards had nearly done him sonic injury in. his fortune. They caused him to be represented as ajlacobite, and stood in his way with the house of Hanover, till Mr. Molineux, above-mentioned, took off the impression, and first made him known to queen Caroline, whose secretary, when princess, Mr. -Molineux had been. Acuteness of parts and beauty of imagination were so conspicuous in his writings, that his reputation was now established, and his company courted even where his opinions did not find admission. Men of opposite parties concurred in recommending him sir Richard Steele, for instance, and Dr. Swift. For the former he wrote several papers in the Guardian, and at his house became acquainted with Pope, with whom he afterwards lived in friendship. It is said he had a guinea and a dinner with Steele for every paper he wrote in the Guardian. Swift recommended him to the celebrated earl of Peterborough, who being appointed ambassador to the king of Sicily and the Italian states, took Berkeley with him as chaplain and secretary in November 1713. He returned to England with this nobleman in August 1714, and towards the close of the year had a fever, which gave occasion to Dr. Arbuthnot to indulge a little pleasantry on Berkeley’s system. “Poor philosopher Berkeley,” says he to his friend Swift, “has now the idea of health, which was very hard to produce in him; for he had an idea of a strange fever on him so strong, that it was very hard to destroy it by introducing a contrary one.”

In 1732, he published “The Minute Philosopher,” in f vols. 8vo. This masterly work is written in a series of dialogues on the model of Plato, a philosopher of whom he is said to have been very fond; and in it he pursues the freethinker through the various characters of atheist, libertine, enthusiast, scorner, critic, metaphysician, fatalist, and sceptic.

We have already related by what means, and upon what occasion, Dr. Berkeley had first the honour of being known to queen Caroline. This princess delighted much in attending to philosophical conversations between learned and ingenious men for which purpose she had, when princess of Wales, appointed a particular day in the week, when the most eminent for literary abilities at that time in England were invited to attend her royal highness in the evening a practice which she continued after her accession to the throne. Of this company were doctors Clarke,­Hoadly, Berkeley, and Sherlock.- Clarke and Berkeley were generally considered as principals in the debates that arose upon those occasions; and Hoadly adhered to the former, as Sherlock did to the latter. Hoadly was no friend to our author: he affected to consider his philosophy and his Bermuda project as the reveries of a visionary. Sherlock (who was afterwards bishop of London) on the other hand warmly espoused his cause and particularly, when the “Minute Philosopher” came out, he carried a copy of it to the queen, and left it to her majesty to determine, whether such a work could be the production of a disordered understanding. After dean Berkeley’s return from Rhode Island, the queen often commanded his attendance to discourse with him on what he had observed worthy of notice in America. His agreeable and instructive conversation, engaged that discerning princess so much in his favour, that the rich deanery of Down in Ireland falling vacant, he was at her desire named to it, and the king’s letter actually came over fqr his appointment. But his friend lord Burlington having neglected to notify the royal intentions in proper time to the duke of Dorset, then lord lieutenant of Ireland, his excellency was so offended at this disposal of the richest deanery in Ireland, without his concurrence, that it was thought proper not to press the matter any farther. Her -majesty upon this declared, that since they would not suffer Dr. Berkeley to be a dean in Ireland, he should be a bishop and accordingly, in 1733,­the bishopric of Cioyne becoming vacant, he was by letters patent, dated March 17, promoted to that see, and was consecrated at St. Paul’s church in Dublin, on the 19th of May following, byTheophilus archbishop of Cashel, assisted by the bishops of Raphoe and Killaloe. His lordship repaired immediately to his manse-house at Cioyne, where he constantly resided (except one winter that he attended the business of parliament in Dublin) and applied himself with vigour to the faithful discharge of all episcopal duties. He revived in his diocese the useful office of rural dean, which had gone into disuse visited frequently parochially and confirmed in several parts of his see.

, a lawyer, philosopher, orator, and poet, of Ferrara, was born in 1610. After having pursued his studies with great success, and taken his law degrees, in the university of his native city, he was chosen professor of the belles lettres, then first secretary, and in that quality was sent to compliment pope Innocent X. on his election to the papal chair. He lived in considerable favour with that pope, as well as with Alexander VII. and Clement IX. his successors, and the dukes of Mantua, Charles I. and II. who conferred upon him the title of Count. His poetical talents were principally devoted to the drama and one of his plays “Gli Sforzi del Desiderio,” represented at Ferrara in 1652, was so successful, that the archduke Ferdinand Charles, struck with its popularity, no sooner returned home than he sent for the author and some architects from Ferrara, to build two theatres for similar representations. Berni was married seven times, and had, as might be expected, a numerous family, of whom nine sons and daughters survived him. He died Oct. 13, 1673. Eleven of his dramas, formerly published separately, were printed in one volume, at Ferrara, 1666, 12mo. He published also a miscellany of discourses, problems, &c. entitled “Accademia,” Ferrara, 2 vols. 4to, without date, and reprinted in 1658. Many of his lyric poems are in the collections.

was distinguished in the brilliant age of Louis XIV. as a philosopher and traveller, and his merit, in both respects, was enhanced by his personal accomplishments, which procured him a degree of celebrity when living, that has not yet perished. His treatises on philosophy, it is true, are no longer read, for which the progress of science since the seventeenth century may account, but his voyages and travels are still in high estimation. They made the world acquainted with countries which no European had before visited, and none have since described so well, and threw light on the revolutions of India at a very interesting period, the time of AurengZeb. George Forster places Bernier in the first class of Indian historians, praises his simple and engaging style, his judgment and his accuracy; and the letter in which Forster bestows this encomium was written from Cachemire, which Bernier has so well described. Bernier lived in intimacy with the most illustrious characters of his time, and was particularly intimate with the celebrated Ninon de Lenclos, madame de la Sabliere, Chapelle, whose eloge he wrote, and St. Evremont, who represents him as deserving, by his fine figure, manners and conversation, the title of the Genteel Philosopher. He assisted Boiieau in fabricating a burlesque decree in favour of Aristotle, which the president Lamoignon had almost signed, when he saw through the joke, and candidly confessed that it had prevented him from signing a decree that would have been fully as ridiculous.

, a celebrated physician and philosopher, and son of John Bernoulli last mentioned, was born at Groningen Eeb. the 9th, 1700, where his father was then professor of mathematics. He was intended by his father for trade, but his genius led him to other pursuits. He passed some time in Italy; and at twenty -four years of age he declined the honour offered Rim of becoming president of an academy intended to have been established at Genoa. He spent several years with great credit at Petersburgh; and in 1733 returned to Basil, where his father was then professor of mathematics and here our author successively filled the chair of physic, of natural and of speculative philosophy. In his work “Exercitationes Mathematics?,” 1724, he took the only title he then had, viz, “Son of John Bernoulli,” and never would suffer any other to be added to it. This work was published in Italy, while he was there on his travels and it classed him in the rank of inventors. In his work, “Hydrodyriamica,” published in 4to at Strasbourg, in 1738, to the same title was also added that of Med. Prof. Basil.

, was born at St. Denis near Paris, and was educated at the college of the cardinal Lemoine, where he made great proficiency in the learned languages, and became an able theologian, mathematician, philosopher, and historian. In 1550 he was at Agen as preceptor to Hector Fregosa, afterwards bishop of that city, and here he was converted to the Protestant religion along with Scaliger and other learned men. When he arrived at Paris in 1558, he was chosen preceptor to Theodore Agrippa d' Aubigne“but the persecution arising, he was arrested at Constance and condemned to be burnt, a fate from which he was preserved by the kindness of an officer who favoured his escape. He then went to Orleans, Rochelle, and Sancerre, and distinguished himself by his courage during the siege of this latter place by the marshal de Lachatre. In 1574 we find him at Geneva, officiating as minister and professor of philosophy. His death is supposed to have taken place in 1576. He wrote a curious book entitled” Chronicon, sacrse Scripture auctoritate constitutnm,“Geneva, 1575, fol. In this he maintains that all chronological authorities must be sought in the holy scriptures Vossius and Scaliger speak highly of his talents. Draudius, in his” Bibliotheca Classica,“mentions another work in which he was concerned,” G. Mercatoris et Matthei Beroaldi chronologia, ab initio mundi ex eclipsis et observationibus astronomicis demonstrata," Basil, 1577, Cologne, 1568, fol. We have some doubts whether this is not the same as the work mentioned above.

, son to the preceding, was born at Paris, April 28, 1558, and educated in the principles of the reformed religion, but after his father’s death, returned to those of the church of Rome, and became an ecclesiastic, having in 1593 obtained a canonry of St. Gatien of Tours. From his youth he applied with enthusiasm to scientific pursuits, and was scarcely twenty years old when he published in Latin and French, Besson’s “Theatre of mathematical and mechanical instruments,” with explanations. At that time, if he may be credited, he had made many discoveries in mathematics, was an expert watchmaker and goldsmith, and his knowledge of the classics would have recommended him to the place of tutor to the son of a person of rank: but he was extremely vain, and perpetually flattering himself that he possessed invaluable secrets, and had discovered the philosopher’s stone, perpetual motion, and the quadrature of the circle. His works certainly show that he had accumulated a considerable stock of various knowledge, but he was very deficient in judgment His style is diffuse, and so perplexed even in his poems, that his works have had but few readers, and are in request only by the collectors of curiosities. The greater part of these were collected and published under the title of “Apprehensions spirituelles,” Paris, 1583, 12mo: among them is a poem in imitation of sir Thomas More’s Utopia. His translation of Columna’s Hypnerotomachia is only that of John Martin altered and disfigured. Niceron has given a list of his other works (vol. XXXIV.) among which are, 1. “Histoire veritable, ou Le Voyage des Princes fortunes,” Paris, 1610, 8vo. 2. “Le Cabinet de Minerve, &c.” Rouen, 1601, 12mo. 3. “Moyen de parvenir,” printed under the title of “Salrnigondis,” and that of “Coup-cu de la Melancholic,” a collection of licentious tales, in much request with a certain description of collectors. Beroaide’s death is conjectured to have happened in 1612.

, a French philosopher, a native of Lyons, who died in 1799, was first distinguished at Montpelier, as professor of natural philosophy, an office established by the states of Languedoc, and afterwards as professor of history at Lyons. He was a man of mild manner, communicative and accommodating, and, of great industry. He was the friend of Dr. Franklin, and according to his plan, was employed to erect a great number of conductors, to preserve buildings from lightning, in Paris and at Lyons. Few writers on subjects of natural philosophy, &c. have been so successful, scarce a year passing without two or three prizes being adjudged to him by the academy, for the best dissertation on the subject proposed. The month of August, in which the prizes are usually distributed, he used familiarly to call his harvest. His principal works are, 1. “Moyen de determiner ie moment ou le vin en fermentation a acquis toute sa force,” 1781, 4to, a prize essay at Montpelier. 2. “De l'electricité du corps humain en etat de sauté et de maladie,” 1781, 8vo, a prize dissertation at Lyons. 3. “De I'electricité des vegetaux,” Paris, 1783, 8vo whicii the Monthly Reviewer terms “a new conquest added to the empire which electricity is assuming over the natural world.” 4. “Preuves de l'efficacité des paratonneres,” 1783, 4to. 5. “Des avantages que la physique et les arts peuvent retirer des aerostats,” 1784, 8vo. 6. “Memoires sur les moyens qui ont fait prosperer les manufactures de Lyon,” c. 1782, 8vo. 7. “De l'electricité” des meteores,“1787. 8. Theorie des incendies, &c.” 1787, 4io. 9. “De l'eau la plus propre a la vegetation,” 1786, 4to. Bertholon was also for some years editor of the Journal of natural history, begun in 1787, and of the “Journal de sciences miles,” begun in 1791.

, one of the revivers of literature in the fifteenth century, was born, not at Constantinople, as some writers assert, but at Trebisond, in 1389, a date which is ascertained by his epitaph written by himself, but as all the copies of this epitaph do not agree, Bandini, one of his biographers, gives 1395, as the time of his birth. He entered into the order of St. Basil, and passed twentyone years in a monastery of Peloponnesus, employed in the study of divinity and polite literature. The philosopher Gemistus Pletho was one of his masters. In 1438, when the emperor John Paleologus formed the design of going to the council of Ferrara, to re-unite the Greek with the Latin church, he drew Bessarion from his retirement, made him bishop of Nice, and engaged him to accompany him into Italy with Pletho, Marcus Eugenius, archbishop of Ephesus, the patriarch of Constantinople, and several other Greeks eminent for talents or rank. In the sittings of this council, the archbishop of Ephesus distinguished himself by his powers of reasoning, and Bessarion by the charms of his eloquence, but unfortunately from being rivals in talents, they soon became enemies. Eugenius was not favourable to the scheme of uniting the Greek and Latin churches; and Bessarioii, after having been of a contrary opinion, declared for the Latins, which was the side the emperor took. The union was accordingly announced, and in December 1439, pope Eugenius IV. to reward the zeal of Bessarion, created him a cardinal priest. ‘ Being now, in consequence of his new dignity, fixed in, Italy, a step which was at the same time rendered necessary by the commotions in Greece, where he was very unpopular, and the union universally rejected, Bessarion returned to the studious and simple life he had led in his convent in the Peloponnesus. His house became the resort of the learned, and when he appeared abroad, his train was composed of such men as Argyropulus, Philelphus, Valla, Theodore Gaza, George of Trebisonde, and Calderino. He obtained the confidence and friendship of several popes. Nicholas V. appointed him archbishop of S’ponto, and cardinal-bishop; and Pius II. in 1463, conferred upon him the title of Patriarch of Constantinople. On the death of Nicholas V. the college of cardinals would have elected him his successor, but this purpose was defeated by the intrigues of cardinal Alain. Some years after, Bessarion, was likely to have succeeded Paul II. but to accomplish this, it was necessary to secure the vote of the cardinal Orsini by an act of injustice, which he refused. Orsini, however, tendered his vote on the same terms to the cardinal de Rovere, who had none of Bessarion’s scruples, and was elected. Paul Jovius tells a foolish story of Bessarion’s having lost this election, by the blundering reply of his servant; and Gibbon, credulous enough when the object of belief is worth nothing, has repeated it after him, nor knowing that our countryman Hody had amply refuted it.

Bessarion’s writings are numerous. Almost all those on theological subjects remain in manuscript, except some that are inserted in the acts of the council of Florence, in vol. XIII. of Labbe’s collection, and in vol. IX. of Hardouin’s. Complete catalogues of his philosophical treatises, discourses, an,d letters, may be consulted inFabricius’sBibl. Grace, and in Body. His most celebrated works were his Latin translations of Xenophon’s Memorabilia, and Aristotle’s Metaphysics, and his treatise “Contra calumniatorem Platonis.” That calumniator was George of Trebisond, and Bessarion composed the work during the heat of the violent contest supported about the middle of the fifteenth century, between the followers of Plato and those of Aristotle, of wHich Boivin wrote the history in the second volume of the Academy of Belles Lettres. Gemistus Pletho, an enthusiastic admirer of Plato, wrote a small tract in which he attacked the Peripatetic philosophy with virulent invective. Three learned Greeks of the age, Gennadius, George of Trebisond, and Theodore Gaza, had taken up their pens in vindication of Aristotle. Bessarion endeavoured to reconcile the parties by shewing that Plato and Aristotle were not so far removed from each other in opinion as was usually thought and having a great respect for these two sages, he rebuked, in strong terms, the inconsiderate zeal of young Apostoiius, who, without understanding the question, had written a violent and unreasonable declamation against Aristotle. George, however, far from following the example of this moderation, published, in Latin, under the title of “Comparatio Platonis et Aristotelis,” a long dissertation, in which he endeavoured to demonstrate the vast superiority of Aristotle, and inveighed, with great violence, against Plato and his followers. Bessarion then wrote the treatise above-mentioned against this calumniator of Plato, in which he endeavours to prove that the doctrine of Plato is conformable to that of the Scriptures, and that his morals were as pure and irreproachable as his doctrine. Having thus defended Plato, he attacks George of Trebisond, proving that he had mistaken the sense of a great many passages, and that he had no right to give his opinion of a philosopher whose works he did not understand. Of this book there have been three editions, all of which are scarce the first was printed at Rome in 1469, and the others at Venice by Aldus, 1503 and 1516.

, a celebrated English actor, was born in Tothill-street, Westminster, 1635; and, after having left school, is said to have been put apprentice to a bookseller. The particulars, however, relating to the early part of his life, are not ascertained. It is generally thought that he made his first appearance on the stage in 1656, at the opera-house in Charter-house-yard, under the direction of sir William Davenant, and continued to perform here till the restoration, when king Charles grained patents to two companies, the one called the king’s cornpa ly, and the other the duke’s. The former acted at the theatre royal in Drury-lane, and the latter at the theatre in Lincoln’s-Inn-fields. Betterton went over to Paris, at the command of king Charles II. to take a view of the French scenery, and at his return made such improvements as added greatly to the lustre of the English stage. For several years both companies acted with the highest applause, and the taste for dramatic entertainments was never stronger than whilst these two companies played . The two companies were however at length united; though the time of this union is not precisely known, Gildon placing it in 1682, and Cibber in 1684. But however this may be, it was in this united company that Mr. 'Betterton first shone forth with the greatest degree of lustre for, having survived the famous actors upon whose model he had formed himself, he was now at liberty to display his genius in its full extent. His merit as an actor cannot now be very accurately displayed, and much of the following passage from Gibber’s Apology, seems to be mere stage-cant and declamation. Cibber says, “Betterton was an actor, as Shakspeare was an author, both without competitors, formed for the mutual assistance and illustration of each other’s genius! How Shakspeare wrote, all men who have a taste for nature may read and know; but with what higher rapture would he still be read, could they conceive how Betterton played him! Then might they know the one was born alone to speak what the other only knew to write! Pity it is that the momentary beauties, flowing from an harmonious elocution, cannot, like those of poetry, be their own record! that the animated graces of the player can live no longer than the instant breath and motion that present them, or at best can but faintly glimmer through the memory or imperfect attestation of a few surviving spectators! Could how Betterton spoke be as easily known as what he spoke, then might you see the muse of Shakspeare in her triumph, with all her beauties in her best array, rising into real life, and charming her beholders. But alas! since all this is so far out of the reach of description, how shall I shew you Betterton? Should I therefore tell you that all the Othellos, Hamlets, Hotspurs, Macbeths, and Brutuses, you have seen since his time, have fallen short of him, this still would give you no idea of his particular excellence. Let us see then what a particular comparison may do, whether that may yet draw him nearer to you? You have seen a Hamlet perhaps, who, on the first appearance of his father’s spirit, has thrown himself into all the straining vociferation requisite to express rage and fury; and the house has thundered with applause, though the misguided actor was all the while (as Shakspeare terms it) tearing a passion into rags. I am the more bold to offer you this particular instance, because the late Mr. Addison, while I sat by him to see this scene acted, made the same observation asking me, with some surprise, if I thought Hamlet should be in so violent a passion with the ghost, which, though it might have astonished, had not provoked him? For you may observe, that in this beautiful speech, the passion never rises beyond an almost breathless astonishment, or an impatience, limited by a filial reverence, to inquire into the suspected wrongs that may have raised nim from his peaceful tomb and a desire to know what a spirit so seemingly distrest might wish or enjoin a sorrowful son to execute towards his future quiet in the grave. This was the light into which Betterton threw this scene; which he opened with a pause of mute amazement! Then rising slowly to a solemn, trembling voice, he made the ghost equally terrible to the spectator as to himself. And in the descriptive part of the natural emotions which the ghastlyvision gave him, the boldness tit‘ his expostulation was still governed by decency manly, but not braving his voice never rising into that seeming outrage, or wild deli an ce, of what he naturally revered. But, alas to preserve this medium between mouthing, and meaning too little, to keep the attention more pleasingly awake by a ’tempered spirit, than by mere vehemence of voice, is, of all the master strokes of an actor, the most difficult to reach. In. this none have equalled Betterton. He that feels not himself the passion he would raise, will talk to a sleeping audience. But this was” never the fault of Be item n. A farther excellence in him was, that he could vary iiis spirit to the different characters he acted. Those wild impatient starts, that fierce and flashing fire which he threw into Hotspur, never came from the unruffled temper of his Brutus (for I have more than once seen a Brutus as warm as Hotspur): when the Betterton Brutus was provoked in his dispute with Cassius, his spirits flew out of his eyes his steady looks alone supplied that terror which he disdained an intemperance in his voice should rise to. Thus, with a settled dignity of contempt, like an unheeding rock, he repelled upon himself the foam of Cassius; not but in some part of this scene, where he reproaches Cassius, his temper is not under this suppression, but opens into that warmth which becomes a man of virtue; yet this is that hasty spark of anger, which Brutus himself endeavours to excuse. But with whatever strength of nature we see the poet shew at once the philosopher and the hero, yet the image of the actor’s excellence will be still imperfect to you, unless language could put colours in our words to paint the voice with. The most that a Vandyck can arrive at is, to make his portraits of great persons seem to think a Shakspeare goes farther yet, and tells you what his pictures thought; a BetU-rton steps beyond them both, and calls them from the grave to breathe, and be themselves again in feature, speech, and motion, at once united and gratifies at once-your eye, your ear, your understanding. From these various excel lenci s, Betterton had so full a possession of the esteem and regard of his auditors, that, upon his entrance into every scene, he seemed to seize upon the eyes and ears of the giddy and inadvertent. To have talked or looked another way, would have been thought insensibility or ignorance. In all his soliloquies of moment, the strongest intelligence of attitude and aspect drew you into such an impatient gaze and eager expectation, that you almost imbibed the sentiment with your eye,' before the er could reach it."

, one of the most eminent Italian scholars of the last century, was born at Mantua, July 18, 1718. After having studied among the Jesuits in his own country and at Bologna, he entered that society as a noviciate in 1736. He then commenced a new course of studies, including the belles lettres, from 1739 to 1744, at Brescia, where cardinal Quirini, count Mazzuchelli, count Duranti, and other learned men, formed an illustrious academy, and there he became first noticed by some poetical compositions for scholastic exercises. When sent to Bologna to pursue his theological course, he continued to court his muse, and wrote for the theatre of the college, his tragedy of “Jonathas.” The number of literary characters in this city surpashed that which he had found at Brescia. The Institute recently founded by count Marsigli, the Clementine academy of design, the school of the astronomical poet Manfredi, and the growing reputation of his learned and ingenious pupils Zanotti, Algarotti, &c. contributed to fix the attention of the literary world on Bologna. In this society Bettinelli completed his education, and attained the age of thirty. In 1748, he went to Venice to teach rhetoric, and was frequently employed in a similar manner in other places. His superiors intended him for a display of his oratorical talents, but the weakness of his lungs obliged him to decline this. In 1751, he was appointed director of the college of nobles at Parma, and remained here superintending "their poetical and historical studies for eight years, occasionally visiting the principal vines of Italy, on business, or for health. In 1755, ne travelled through part of Germany, to Strasburgh and Nancy, and returned through Germany to Italy, bringing with him two young princes, the sons or nephews of the prince of Hohenlohe, who had intrusted him with their education. The following year he took a trip to France with the eldest of these princes, and resided at Paris, in the college of Louis-le-Grand. It was during this trip that he wrote the celebrated letters of Virgil which were printed at Venice with those of Frugoni and Algarotti. The opinions, and we may add, the literary heresies, very ingeniously urged in these letters against the reputation of the two great luminaries of Italian poetry, and especially against Dante, created him many enemies, and what gave him most uneasiness, involved him with Algarotti. (See Algarotii). From Paris he made several excursions into Normandy, Lorraine, &c. and paid a visit to Voltaire. From Geneva he went to Marseilles, &c. and arrived at Parma in 1759. The same year he went to Verona, where he resided until 1767, and resumed his offices of preaching and education. He was afterwards for some years at Modena, and when the order of the Jesuits was suppressed, he was appointed professor of rhetoric. On his return to his own country, he applied to his literary pursuits with fresh ardour, and published many works, and having regretted that he had published so much without writing any thing to please the fair sex, doubtless owing to his ecclesiastical character, he afterwards endeavoured to make up for this. in some respect by publishing his correspondence between two ladies, his letters to Lesbia, and lastly, his twenty-four dialogues on love. These he published in 1796, when the war raged in all parts of Italy, and when the siege of Mantua by the French obliged him to leave it. He then removed to Verona, but in 1797, after the surrender of Mantua, he returned again, and although now almost in his eightieth year, resumed his literary labours with his accustomed spirit. In 1799, he began a new edition of his works, which was completed at Venice in 1801, in 24 vols. 12mo. He still preserved his usual gaiety and health at the age of ninety, until Sept. 13, 1805, when he died after fifteen days illness, with the firmness, says his biographer, of a philosopher and a Christian.

, a very learned Italian astronomer and philosopher, was born at Verona, Dec. 13, 1662. After being instructed in the elements of education in his own country, he removed to Bologna, where he went through a course of rhetoric and three years of philosophy, in the Jesuits’ college. He afterwards studied mathematics and design, and made a great progress in both. In 1680 he removed to Padua, where he studied divinity, and was admitted to the degree of doctor. His master in mathematics and natural philosophy was the learned Montanari, who became much attached to him, and bequeathed to him his collection of mathematical instruments. At Padua Bianchini learned also anatomy, and, with rather more pleasure, botany. His inclination being for the church, he went next to Rome, where he was kindly received by cardinal Peter Ottoboni, who knew his family, and appointed him his librarian. Here, as was usual for persons with his views, he went through a course of law, but without losing sight of his favourite studies, experimental philosophy, mathematics, and astronomy. He was admitted a member of the physico-mathematical academy, established by Ciampini, and read many learned papers at their sittings.

, an Italian philosopher and physician of considerable reputation in the last century, was born, in 1720, at Chieti in the kingdom of Naples, where he studied, took his degrees, and for some years practised physic. He then went to Venice, but his growing reputation procured him the place of, first physician at Udina, where he resided from 1759 to 1777, and was then appointed first professor of the practice of physic in the university of Padua, and was admitted a member of the academy, as he had been of that of Udina. He was likewise one of the pensionaries of the academy of Padua, but did not enjoy these situations long, dying Sept. 2, 1779. He wrote many treatises on professional subjects, electricity, the force' of imagination in pregnant women, putrid fevers, worms, &c. a list of which may be seen in our authority.

, a celebrated Italian philosopher and physician, was born at Bologna, Sept. 30, 1717. After having studied physic with great diligence and success, he was in his nineteenth year appointed medical assistant in one of the hospitals, and after four years, was, in 1742, admitted to the degree of doctor. In 1743 and 1744 he published a valuable translation into Italian of Winslow’s Anatomy, 6 vols. 8vo. In the last mentioned year, his reputation induced the landgrave of Hesse-Darmstadt, prince and bishop of Augsburgh, to give him an invitation to reside with him, which Bianconi accepted, and remained there for six years. During this time he published “Due lettere di Fisica,” &c. Venice, 1746, 4to, addressed to the celebrated marquis MafFei, and wrote in French an “Essay on Electricity,” addressed to another learned friend, count Algarotti. He also began, in French, “Journal des nouveautes litteraires d' Italic,” printed at Leipsie, but with Amsterdam on the title, 1748, 1749, 8vo, which he continued to the end of a third volume. In 1730, he went to the court of Dresden, with a strong recommendation from pope Benedict XIV. to Augustus III. king of Poland, who received him into his confidence, and appointed him his aulic counsellor, and in 1760 sent him to France on a political affair of considerable delicacy, which he transacted with skill and satisfaction to his employer. In 1764, his majesty appointed him his resident minister at the court of Rome, where he felt his literary taste revive with its usual keenness, and was a contributor to various literary Journals. That of the “Effemeridi letterarie di Roma” owed its rise principally to him, and for sometime, its fame to his contributions. It was in this he wrote his eloges on Lupacchini, Piranesi, and Mengs, which last was published separately, with additions, in 1780. In his twelve Italian letters on the history of Cornelius Celsus, printed at Rome in 1779, he restores that celebrated physician to the age of Augustus, contrary to the common opinion, and to that of Tirasboschi (to whom they were addressed), who places him in what is called the silver age. He was projecting a magnificent edition of Celsus, a life of Petrarch, and some other literary undertakings, when he died suddenly at Perugia, Jan. 1, 1781, universally regretted. He left ready for the press, a work in Italian and French, on the circus of Caracalla, which was magnificently printed at Rome in 1790, with nineteen beautiful engravings.

, an eminent German philosopher and statesman, was born at Camstadt in Wirtemberg, Jan. 23, 1693; his father was a Lutheran minister. By a singular hereditary constitution in this family, Biliinger was born with twelve fingers and eleven toes, which, in his case, is said to have been remedied by amputation when he was an infant. From his earliest years, he showed an uncommon capacity for study, joined to a retired and thinking turn of mind. Happening, when studying at Tubingen, to learn mathematics in the works of Wolf, he imbibed likewise a taste for the sceptical philosophy of that writer, and for the system of Leibnitz, which for a time took off his attention from his other studies. When entered on his theological course, he found himself disposed to connect it with his new ideas on philosophy, and with that view wrote a treatise, “De Deo, anima, et mundo,” which procured him considerable fame, and was the cause of his being chosen preacher at the castle of Tubingen, and repeater in the school of divinity. But fancying Tubingen a theatre too contracted, he obtained of one of his friends a supply of money, in 1719, which enabled him to go to Halle to study more particularly under Wolf himself. This, however, did not produce all the good consequences expected. When after two years he returned to Tubingen, the Wolfian philosophy was no longer in favour, his patrons were cold, his lessons deserted; himself unable to propagate his new doctrines, and his promotion in the church was likely to suffer. In this unpleasant state he remained about four years, when, by Wolf’s recommendation, he received an invitation from Peter I. to accept the professorship of logic and metaphysics in the new academy at St. Petersburgh. Thither accordingly he went in 1725, and was received with great respect, and the academical memoirs which he had occasion to publish increased his reputation in no small degree. The academy of sciences of Paris having about that time proposed for solution the famous problem, on the cause of gravity, Bilfinger carried off the prize, which was one thousand crowns. This made his name be known in every part of Europe, and the duke Charles of Wirtemberg having been reminded that he was one of his subjects, immediately recalled him home. The court of Russia, after in vain endeavouring to retain him, granted him a pension of four hundred florins, and two thousand as the reward of a discovery he had made in the art of fortification. He quitted Petersburgh accordingly in 1731, and being re-established at Tubingen, revived the reputation of that school not only by his lectures, but by many salutary changes introduced in the theological class, which he effected without introducing any new opinions. His greatest reputation, however, rests on his improvements in natural philosophy and mathematics, and his talents as an engineer seem to have recommended him to the promotion which the duke Charles Alexander conferred upon him. He had held many conversations with Bilfinger on the subject of fortifications, and wished to attach him to government by appointing him a privy-councillor in 1735, with unlimited credit. For some time he refused a situation which he thought himself not qualified to fill, but when he accepted it, his first care was to acquire the knowledge necessary for a member of administration, endeavouring to procure the most correct information respecting the political relations, constitution, and true interests of the country. By these means, he was enabled very essentially to promote the commerce and agriculture of his country, and in other respects to improve her natural resources, as well as her political connections, and he is still remembered as one of the ablest statesmen of Germany. The system of fortification which he invented is yet known by his name, and is now the chief means of preserving it, as he died unmarried, at Stuttgard, Feb. 18, 1750. He is said to have been warm in his friendships, but somewhat irascible; his whole time during his latter years was occupied in his official engagements, except an hour in the evening, when he received visits, and his only enjoyment, when he could find leisure, was in the cultivation of his garden. To his parents he was particularly affectionate, and gratefully rewarded all those who had assisted him in his dependent state. His principal works are 1. “Disputatio de harmonia praestabilita,” Tubinguen, 1721, 4to. 2. “De harmonia animi et corporis humani maxime prsestabilita commentatio hypothetica,” Francfort, 1723, 8vo. This was inserted among the prohibited books by the court of Rome in 1734. 3. “De origine et permissione Mali, &c.” ibid. 1724, 8vo. 4. “Specimen doctrinae veterum Sinarum moralis et politicae,” ibid. 1724, 8vo. 5. “Dissertatio historico-catoptrica de speculo Archimedis,” Tubingen, 1725, 4to. 6. “Dilucidationes philosophies; de Deo, anima, &c.” before mentioned, ibid. 1725, 4to. 7. “Bilfingeri et Holmanni epistolae de barmonia praestabilita,” 1728, 4to. 8. “Disputatio de natura et legibus studii in theologica Thetici,” ibid. 1731, 4to. 9. “Disputatio de cuku Dei rationali,” ibid. 1731. 10. “Notae breves in Spinosae methodum. explicandi scripturas,” ibid. 1732, 4to. 11. “De mysteriis Christianae fidei generatim spectatis sermo,” ibid. 1732, 4to. 12. “La Citadelle coupee,” Leipsic, 1756, 4to. 13. “Elementa physices,” Leipsic, 1742, 8vo; besides many papers in the memoirs of the Petersburgh academy, of which, as well as of that of Berlin, he was a member.

, an excellent mathematician, and lord-mayor of London in the reign of queen Elizabeth, was son to Roger Biilingsley of Canterbury. He spent near three years in his studies at the university of Oxford, during which time he contracted an acquaintance with an eminent mathematician, whose name was Whitehead, and who had been an Augustin friar at Oxford, but Biilingsley being removed from the university, and bound apprentice to an haberdasher in London, he afterwards raised himself so considerable a fortune by trade, that he was successively chosen sheriff, alderman, one of the commissioners of the customs for the port of London, and at last lord mayor of that city in 1597, and received the honour of knighthood. He made a great progress in the mathematics, by the assistance of his friend Mr. Whitehead, who being left destitute upon the dissolution of the monasteries in the reign of king Henry VIII. was received by Mr. Biilingsley into his family, and maintained by him in his old age in his house at London and when he died, he gave our author all the mathematical observations, which he had made and collected, with his notes upon Euclid’s Elements, which he had drawn up and digested with prodigious pains. He was one of the original society of antiquaries. Sir Henry Billingsley died very much advanced in years, Nov. 22, 1606, and was interred in the church of St. Catherine Coleman, London. He translated the Elements of Euclid into English, to which he added a great number of explanations, examples, scholia, annotations, and inventions, collected from the best mathematicians both of the former times, and those in which he lived, published under the title of “The Elements of Geometry of the most antient philosopher Euclid of Megara, faithfully translated into the English tongue. Whereunto are added certain scholia, annotations,” &c. London, 1570, fol. Dr. John Dee prefixed to this work a long preface, full of variety of learning relating to the mathematics.

, a Greek philosopher, who flourished 300 B.C. was born at Borysthenes, a Greek town on the borders of the river of that name, now the Dneiper. Of his family, he is said to have given the following account to king Antigonus, who had heard something of his mean birth, and thinking to embarrass him, demanded his name, his country, his origin, &c. Bion, without being in the least disconcerted, answered, “My father was a freed-man, whose employment was to sell salt-fish. He had been a Scythian, born on the banks of the Borysthenes. He got acquainted with my mother in a place of bad fame, and there the couple celebrated their hopeful marriage. My father afterwards committed some crime, with the precise nature of which I am unacquainted; and for this, he, his wife, and his children, were exposed to sale. I was then a sprightly boy. An orator purchased me and on his death, bequeathed to me all his effects. I instantly tore his will, threw it into the fire, and went to Athens, where I applied to the study of philosophy.” In this city he first attached himself to Crates, and became a cynic, and then embraced the opinions of Theodoras, the atheist, and Theophrastus, and at last became a philosopher in his own way, without belonging to any sect. The name of philosopher, however, seems ill applied to him. He uttered, indeed, some wise and moral sayings, but his general conduct was that of extreme profligacy. He died at Chalcis, and during his last illness, is said to have repented of his libertinism, for which he endeavoured to atone by superstitious observances. He wrote copiously on the subject of morals, and Stobeus has preserved a few fragments.

Having related the more personal and private circumstances of Dr. Birch’s history, we proceed to his various publications. The first great work he engaged in, was “The General Dictionary, historical and critical” wherein a new translation of that of the celebrated Mr. Bayle was included and which was interspersed with several thousand lives never before published. It was on the 29th of April, 1734, that Dr. Birch, in conjunction with the rev. Mr. John Peter Bernard, and Mr. John Lockman, agreed with the booksellers to carry on this important undertaking; and Mr. George Sale was employed to draw up the articles relating to oriental history. The whole design was completed in ten volumes, folio; the first of which appeared in 1734, and the last in 1741. It is universally allowed, that this work contains a very extensive and useful body of biographical knowledge. We are not told what were the particular articles written by Dr. Birch but there is no doubt of his having executed a great part of the dictionary neither is it, we suppose, any disparagement to his coadjutors, to say, that he was superior to them in abilities and reputation, with the exception of Mr. George Sale, who was, without controversy, eminently qualified for the department he had undertaken. The next great design in which Dr. Birch engaged, was the publication of “Thurloe’s State Papers.” This collection, which comprised seven volumes in folio, came out in 1742. It is dedicated to the late lord chancellor Hardwicke, and there is prefixed to it a life of Thurloe but whether it was written or not by our author, does not appear. The same life had been separately published not long before. The letters and papers in this collection throw the greatest light on the pe'riod to which they relate, and are accompanied with proper references, and a complete index to each volume, yet was a work by which the proprietors were great losers. In 1744, Dr. Birch published, in octavo, a “Life of the honourable Robert Boyle, esq” which hath since been prefixed to the quarto edition of the works of that philosopher. In the same year, our author began his assistance to Houbraken and Vertue, in their design of publishing, in folio, the “Heads of illustrious persons of Great Britain,” engraved by those two artists, but chiefly by Mr. Houbraken. To each head was annexed, by Dr, Birch, the life and character of the person represented. The first volume of this work, which came out in numbers, was completed in 1747, and the second in 1752. Our author’s concern in this undertaking did not hinder his prosecuting, at the same time, other historical disquisitions: for, in 1747, appeared, in octavo,“His inquiry into the share which king Charles the First had in the transactions of the earl of Glamorgan.” A second edition ef the Inquiry was published in 1756, and it was a work that excited no small degree of attention. In 1751, Dr. Birch was editor of the “Miscellaneous works of sir Walter Raleigh” to which was prefixed the life of that unfortunate and injured man. Previously to this, Dr. Birch published “An historical view of the negociations between the courts of England, France, and Brussels, from 1592 to 1617; extracted chiefly from the ms State Papers of sir Thomas Edmondes, knight, embassador in France, and at Brussels, and treasurer of the household to the kings James I. and Charles I. and of Anthony Bacon, esq. brother to the lord chancellor Bacon. To which is added, a relation of the state of France, with the character of Henry IV. and the principal persons of that court, drawn up by sir George Carew, upon his return from his embassy there in 1609, and addressed to king James I. never before printed.” This work, which consists of one volume, in octavo, appeared in 1749; and, in an introductory discourse to the honourable Philip Yorke, esq. (the late earl of Hardwicke), Dr. Birch makes some reflections on the utility of deducing history from its only true and unerring sources, the original letters and papers of those eminent men, who were the principal actors in the administration of affairs; after which he gives some account of the lives of sir Thomas Edmondes, sir George Carew, and Mr. Anthorry Bacon. The “Historical View” is undoubtedly a valuable performance, and hath brought to light a variety of particulars relative to the subjects and the period treated of, which before were either not at all, or not so fully known. In 17.51, was published by our author, an edition, in two volumes, 8vo, of the “Theological, moral, dramatic, and poetical works of Mrs. Catherine Cockburn” with an account of her life. In the next year came out his “Life of the most reverend Dr. John Tillotson, lord archbishop of Canterbury. Compiled chiefly from his original papers and letters.” A second edition, corrected and enlarged, appeared in 1753. This work, which was dedicated to archbishop Herring, is one of the most pleasing and popular of Dr. Birch’s performances; and he has done great justice to Dr. Tillotsou’s memory, character, and virtues. Our biographer hath likewise intermixed with his narrative of the good prelate’s transactions, short accounts of the persons occasionally mentioned; a method which he has pursued in some of his other publications. In 1753, he revised. the quarto edition, in two volumes, of Milton’s prose works, and added a new life of that great poet and writer. Dr. Birch gave to the world', in the following year, his “Memoirs of the reign of queen Elizabeth, from the year 1581, till her death. In which the secret intrigues of her court, and the conduct of her favourite, Robert earl of Essex, both at home and abroad, are particularly illustrated. From the original papers of his intimate friend, Anthony Bacon, esq. and other manuscripts never before published.” These memoirs, which are inscribed to the earl of Hardwicke, give a minute account of the letters and materials from which they are taken and the whole work undoubtedly forms a very valuable collection in which our author has shewn himself (as in his other writings) to be a faithfnl and accurate compiler and in which, besides a full display of the temper and actions of the earl of Essex, much light is thrown on the characters of the Cecils, Bacons, and many eminent persons of that period. The book is now becoming scarce, and, as it may not speedily be republished, is rising in its value. This is the case, likewise, with regard to the edition of sir Walter Raleigh’s miscellaneous works. Dr. Birch’s next publication was “The history of the Royal Society of London, for improving of natural knowledge, from its first rise. In which the most considerable of those papers, communicated to the society, which have hitherto not been published, are inserted in their proper order, as a supplement to the Philosophical Transactions.” The twq first volumes of this performance, which was dedicated to his late majesty, appeared in 1756, and the two other volumes in 1757. The history is carried on to the end of the year 1687 and if the work had been continued, and had been conducted with the same extent and minuteness, it would have been a very voluminous undertaking. But, though it may, perhaps, be justly blamed in this respect, it certainly contains many curious and entertaining anecdotes concerning the manner of the society’s proceedings at their first establishment. It is enriched, likewise, with a number of personal circumstances relative to the members, and with biographical accounts of such of the more considerable of them as died in the course of each year. In 1760, came out, in one volume, 8vo, our author’s “Life of Henry prince of Wales, eldest son of king James I. Compiled chiefly from his own papers, and other manuscripts, never before published.” It is dedicated to his present majesty, then prince of Wales. Some have objected to this work, that it abounds too much with trifling details, and that Dr. Birch has not given sufficient scope to such reflections and disquisitions as arose from his subject. It must, nevertheless, be acknowledged, that it affords a more exact and copious account than had hitherto appeared of a prince whose memory has always been remarkably popular; and that various facts, respecting several other eminent characters, are occasionally introduced. Another of his publications was, “Letters, speeches, charges, advices, &c. of Francis Bacon, lord viscount St. AJban, lord chancellor of England.” This collection, which is comprised in one volume, 8vo, and is dedicated to the honourable Charles Yorke, esq. appeared in 1763. It is taken from some papers which had been originally in the possession of Dr. Rawley, lord Bacon’s chaplain, whose executor, Mr. John Rawley, having put them into the hands of Dr. Tenison, they were, at length, deposited in the manuscript library at Lambeth. Dr. Birch, speaking of these papers of lord Bacon, says, that it can scarcely be imagined, but that the bringing to light, from obscurity and oblivion, the remains of so eminent a person, will be thought an acquisition not inferior to the discovery (if the ruins of Herculaneum should afford such a treasure) of a new set of the epistles of Cicero, whom our immortal countryman most remarkably resembled as an orator, a philosopher, a writer, a lawyer, and a statesman. Though this, perhaps, is speaking too highly of a collection, which contains many things in it seemingly not very material, it must, at the same time, be allowed, that nothing can be totally uninteresting which relates to so illustrious a man, or tends, in any degree, to give a farther insight into his character. To this catalogue we have still to add “Professor Greaves’s miscellaneous works,” 1737, in two vols. 8vo. Dr. Cud worth’s “Intellectual System,” (improved from the Latin edition of Mosheim) his discourse on the true notion of the Lord’s Supper, and two sermons, with an account of his life and writings, 1743, in two vols. 4to. An edition of Spenser’s “Fairy Queen,” 1751, in three Vols. 4to, with prints from designs by Kent. “Letters between col. Robert Hammond, governor of the Isle of Wight, and the committee of lords and commons at Derbyhouse, general Fairfax, lieut.-general Cromwell, commissary general Ireton, &c. relating to king Charles I. while he was confined in Carisbrooke-castle in that island. Now first published. To which is prefixed a letter from John Ashburnham, esq. to a friend, concerning his deportment towards the king, in his attendance on his majesty at Hampton-court, and in the Isle of Wight,” 1764, 8vo. Dr. Birch’s last essay, “The life of Dr. Ward,” which was finished but a week before his death, was published by Dr. Maty, in 1766.

, professor of canon law in the university of Bononia in Italy, in the sixteenth century, was descended from the earls of Fife in Scotland, and born in that county in the reign of James V. He was educated at St. Andrew’s, from whence he removed to Paris, and, having spent some time in that university, proceeded to Bononia, where he commenced doctor of laws, and was afterwards appointed professor of canon law. He continued in that office several years with great reputation, and died in 156S. He is said to have been not only a learned civilian, but an excellent poet, orator, and philosopher. He wrote “P. Bissarti opera omnia viz. poemata, orationes, lectiones feriales, &c.” Venice, 1565, 4to.

It was fortunately at this time that Dr. Cullen had just entered upon his great career, was become conscious of his strength, and saw the great unoccupied field of philosophical chemistry open before him. He quickly succeeded in taking chemistry out of the hands of mere artists, and exhibited it as a liberal science. His pupils became zealous chemists, as well as refined physiologists. Young Black was particularly delighted with the science, and his great bias to the study was soon perceived by Dr. Cullen, who delighted to encourage and assist the efforts of his students. He soon attached Mr. Black to himself so closely, that the latter was considered as his assistant in all his operations, and his experiments were frequently referred to as good authority. Our young philosopher had laid down a very comprehensive plan of study, as appears from his note-books, which are still preserved. In these he wrote down every thing that occurred to him, and they exhibit the first germs and progress of his ideas, till the completion of those great discoveries which produced so complete a revolution in chemical science.

The investigations of Lavoisier and Laplace concerning heat, published many years after, were obviously borrowed from Dr. Black, and indeed consisted in the repetition of the very experiments which he had suggested. Yet these philosophers never mention Dr. Black at all: every thing in their dissertation assumes the air of originality; and, indeed, they appear to have been at great pains to prevent the opinions and discoveries of Dr. Black from being known among their countrymen. But perhaps the most extraordinary procedure was that of Mr. Deluc this philosopher had expressed his admiration of Dr. Black’s theory of latent heat, and had offered to become his editor. Dr. Black, after much entreaty, at last consented, and the proper information was communicated to Mr. Deluc. At last the “Idées sur la Meteorologie” of that philosopher appeared in 1788. But what was the astonishment of Dr. Black and his friends, when they found the doctrine claimed by Deluc as his own, and an expression of satisfaction at the knowledge which he had acquired of Dr. Black’s coincidence with him in opinion!

Mr. Warton, in the life of his great ancestor, says very justly, that his “Voyage into the Levant” is the voyage of a sceptic it has more of the philosopher than the traveller, and would, probably, never have been written, but for the purpose of insinuating his religious sentiments. Yet his reflections are so striking and original, and so artfully interwoven with the thread of his adventures, that they enliven, instead of embarrassing the narrative. He had the art of colouring his paradoxes with the resemblance of truth, and so little penetration had the orthodox court of Charles I. that merely on the merit of this book, he was appointed one of the band of pensioners. For the first forty years of his life he was a boon companion, and much given to raillery; but in the other forty, of a serious temper, and a water drinker. He married in 1647, dame Hester Manwaring, relict of sir William Manwaring, of Cheshire, knight, daughter and coheiress of Christopher Wase, of Upper Holloway, in the county of Middlesex, esq. by whom he left three sons and one daughter.

, privy- counsellor of the landgrave of Hesse, and professor of mathematics and philosophy at Giessen, was born at Darmstadt, Nov. 17, 1720, and died July 6, 1790. As a philosopher, he adhered to the principles of Wolf, who had been his master, but in mathematics he followed and added to the improvement of the age, by many useful and experimental treatises. His “Magazine for engineers and artillery-men,” 1777 85, 12 vols. 8vo, procured him very considerable reputation. He also wrote, 1. “Logica, ordine scientifico in usum. auditorum conscripta,” Francfort, 1749 62 69, 8vo. 2. “Metaphysica,” Giessen, 1673, 8vo, and an improved edition, 1767, 8vo. He had a considerable hand in the “Francfort Encyclopaedia” and, along with F. K. Schleicher, wrote the “New Military Library,” Marbourg, 1789 90, 4 vols.

A great number of persons have been inveigled by the visions of this fanatic; among others the famous Quirinus Kahlman in Germany, who says, that he had learned more, being alone in his study, from Boehmen, than he could have learned from all the wise men of that age together: and that we may not be in the dark as to what sort of knowledge this was, he acquaints us, that amidst an infinite number of visions it happened, that being snatched out of his study, he saw thousands of thousands of lights rising round about him. But our author is better known among ou-rselves, where he has hundreds of admirers and no wonder, since, as Dr. Henry More observes, the sect of the Quakers have borrowed a great many of their doctrines from our Teutonic philosopher of whom we shall venture to say, from a perusal of some of his writings, that he possessed the grand arcanum of mysterizing plain truths by an inextricably oenigmatical expression. He has still many disciples in England and we are sorry to add, met with a warm advocate and industrious disciple in the late pious Mr. William Law, who employed many years in preparing an edition and translation of Bcehmen’s works, and which were published after his decease in 2 vols. 4to, to which two others were afterwards added. The titles of these writings will be perhaps sufficient, without entering farther into their merits, or that of their author. 1. Aurora, or the rising of the sun, 1612. 2. Of the three principles, together with an appendix of the threefold life of man, 1619. 3. Of the threefold life of man, 1620. 4. An answer to the forty questions of the soul, propounded by Dr. Walter, &c. ibid. 5. Three books; the first, of the incarnation of Jesus Christ; the second, of the suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ; the third, of the tree of faith, ibid. 6. Of six parts, ibid. 7. Of the heavenly and earthly mysterium, ibid. 8. Of the last times, to P. K. ibid. 9. De signatura rerum, or the signature of all things, 1621. 10. A consolatory book of the four complexions, ibid. 11. An apology to Balthazar Tilken, in two parts, ibid. 12. A consideration upon Esaias Steefel’s book, ibid. 13. Of true repentance, 1622. 14. Of true resignation, ibid. 15. Of regeneration, ibid. 16. Of predestination and election of God; at the end of which is a treatise, entitled, 17. A short compendium of repentance, 1623. 18. The mysterium magnum upon Genesis, ibid. 19. A table of the principles, or key of his writings, to G. F. and J. H. 20. Of the supersensual life, ibid. LM. Of the two testaments of Christ, viz. baptism and the supper of the Lord, ibid. 22. A dialogue between the enlightened and unenlightened soul, ibid. 23. An apology upon the book of true repentance, directed against a pasquil of the principal minister of Gorlitz, called Gregory Rickter, ibid. 24. An epitome of the mysterium magnum, ibid. 25. A table of the divine manifestation, or an exposition of the threefold world, to J. S. V. S. and A. V. F. ibid. The following are without date. 26. Of the errors of the sects of Ezekiel Meths, to A. P. A. or an apology to Esaias Steefel. 27. Of the last judgment. 28. Certain letters to diverse persons, written at diverse times, with certain keys for some hidden words. Besides these our author left unfinished, 29. A little book of divine contemplation. 30. A book of one hundred and seventy-seven theosophic questions. 3 1 The holy weeks, or the prayerbook.

His progress in physic hitherto was without any assistance from lectures, except those mentioned in anatomy, and a few by professor Drelincourt on the theory; nor had he yet any thoughts of declining the priesthood: amidst mathematical, philosophical, anatomical, chemical and medical researches, he still earnestly pursued divinity. He went to the university of Harderwick in Guelderland, and in July 1693 was created there M. D. Upon his return to Leyden, he still persisted in his design of engaging in the ministry, but found an invincible obstruction to his intention. In a passage-boat where he happened to be, some discourse was accidentally started about the doctrine of Spinosa, as subversive of all religion and one of the passengers, who exerted himself most, opposing to this philosopher’s pretended mathematical demonstrations only the loud invective of a blind zeal, Boerhaave asked him calmly, “Whether he had ever read the works of the author he decried” The orator was at once struck dumb, and fired with silent resentment. Another passenger whispered the person next him, to learn Boerhaave’s name, and took it down in his pocket-book; and as soon as he arrived at Leyden, gave it out every where, that Boerhaave was become a Spinosist. Boerhaave, finding that such prejudices gained ground, thought it imprudent to risque the refusal of a licence for the pulpit, when he had so fair a prospect of rising by physic. He now therefore applied wholly to physic, and joined practice with reading. In 1701, he took the office of lecturer upon the institutes of physic and delivered an oration the 18th of May, the subject of which was a recommendation of the study of Hippocrates: apprehending that, either through indolence or arrogance, this founder of physic had been shamefully neglected by those whose authority was likely to have too great weight with the students of medicine. He officiated as a professor, with the title of lecturer only, till 1709, when the professorship of medicine and botany was conferred on him: his inaugural oration was upon the simplicity of true medical science, wherein, exploding the fallacies and ostentation of alchemistical and metaphysical writers, he reinstates medicine on the ancient foundation of observation and experiments. In a few years he enriched the physic-garden with such a number of plants, that it was found necessary to enlarge it to twice its original extent. In 1714, he arrived to the highest dignity in the university, the rectorship; and, at its expiration, delivered an oration on the method of obtaining certainty in physics. Here, having asserted our ignorance of the first principles of things, and that all our knowledge of their qualities is derived from experiments, he was thence led to reprehend many systems of the philosophers, and in particular that of Des Cartes, the idol of the times. This drew upon him the outrageous invectives of Mr. R. Andala, a Cartesian, professor of divinity and philosophy at Franeker, who sounded the alarm, that the church was in danger; and that the introduction of scepticism, and even Spinosism, must be the consequence of undermining the Cartesian system by such a professed ignorance of the principles of things his virulence was carried to such a degree, that the governors of the university thought themselves in honour obliged (notwithstanding Boernaave’s remonstrances to the contrary) to insist upon his retracting his aspersions. He accordingly made a recantation, with offers of further satisfaction to which Boerhaave generously replied, that the most agreeable satisfaction he could receive was, that so eminent a divine should have no more trouble on his account. In 1728, he was elected of the academy of sciences at Paris; and, in 1730, of the royal society of London. In 1718, he succeeded Le Mort in the professorship of chemistry and made an oration on this subject, “That chemistry was capable of clearing itself from its own errors.” August 1722, he was taken ill and confined to his bed for six months, with exquisite arthritic pains; he suffered another violent illness in 1727; and being threatened with a relapse in 1729, he found himself under the necessity of resigning the professorships of botany and chemistry. This gave occasion to an elegant oration, in which he recounts many fortunate incidents of his life, and returns his grateful acknowledgements to those who contributed thereto. Yet he was not less assiduous in his private labours till the year 1737, when a difficulty of breathing first seized him, and afterwards gradually increased. In a letter to baron Bassand, he writes thus of himself “An imposthumation of the lungs, which has daily increased for these last three months, almost suffocates me upon the least motion if it should continue to increase without breaking, I must sink under it; if it should break, the event is still' dubious happen what may, why should I be concerned since it cannot be but according to the will of the Supreme Being, what else should 1 desire God be praised In th mean time, I am not wanting in the use of the most approved remedies, in order to mitigate the disease, by promoting maturation, but am no ways anxious about the success of them I have lived to upwards of sixty-eight years, and always cheerful.” Finding also unusual pulsations of the artery in the right side of the neck, and intermissions of the pulse, he concluded there were polypous concretions between the heart and lungs, with a dilatation of the vessels. Sept. 8, 1738, he wrote his case to Dr. Mortimer, secretary of the royal society and for some days there were flattering hopes of his recovery but they soon vanished, and he died the 23d, aged almost seventy.

It has been mentioned, to the honour of Boerhaave, by one of his biographers, that he received the visits of three crowned heads, the grand duke of Tuscany, William the Third, and Peter the Great, the last of whom slept in his barge all night, over against the house of our illustrious professor, that he might have two hours conversation with him before he gave his lectures. These visits most assuredly did more honour to the princes than to the philosopher, whose power, like that of the poets mentioned by Charles the Ninth in his epistle to Ronsard, is exercised upon the minds, while that of the sovereign is confined to the bodies of mankind.

, the most learned and almost the only Latin philosopher of his time, descended from an ancient and noble family, inauy of his ancestors having been senators and consuls, was born at Rome in the year 455. Though deprived of his father the year he was born by the cruelty of Valeutinian III. who caused him to be put to death, his relations took all proper care of his education, and inspired him with an early taste for philosophy and the belles-lettres. They sent him afterwards to Athens, where he remained eighteen years, and made surprising progress in every branch of literature, particularly philosophy and mathematics, in which Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, and Ptolemy, were his favourite authors. During this course of education, he was not less distinguished for probity and humanity, than for genius and learning. On his return to Rome, he attracted the public attention, as one born to promote the happiness of society. The most eminent men in the city sought his friendship, foreseeing that his merit would soon advance him to the first employments of the state. His alliance, too, was consequently courted by many, but Elpis, descended from one of the most considerable families of Messina, was the lady on whom Boethius fixed his choice. This lady was learned, highly accomplished, and virtuous. She bore him two sons, Patricius and Hypatius. Boethius, as was expected, obtained the highest honour hiscountry could bestow. He was made consul in the year 487, at the age of thirty-two. Odoacer, king of the Heruli, reigned at that time in Italy, who, after having put to death Orestes, and deposed his son Augustulus, the last emperor of the West, assumed the title of king of that country. Two years after Boethius’s advancement to the dignity of consul, Theodoric, king of the Goths, invaded Italy and, having conquered Odoacer and put him to death, he in a short time made himself master of that country, and fixed the seat of his government at Ravenna, as Odoacer and several of the later western emperors had done before him. The Romans and the inhabitants of Italy were pleased with the government of Theodoric, because he wisely ruled them by the same laws, the same polity, and the same magistrates they were accustomed to under the emperors. In the eighth year of this prince’s reign, Boethius had the singular felicity of beholding his two sons, Patricius and Hypatius, raised to the consular dignity. During their continuance in office, Theodoric came to Rome, where he had been long expected, and was received by the senate and people with the greatest demonstrations of joy. Boethius made him an eloquent panegyric in the senate; which the king answered in the most obliging terms, declaring that he should ever have the greatest respect for that august assembly, and would never encroach upon any of their privileges.

Boethius was advanced a second time to the dignity of consul, in the eighteenth year of the reign of king Theodoric. Power and honour could not have been conferred upon a person more worthy of them for he was both an excellent magistrate and statesman, as he faithfully and assiduously executed the duties of his office and employed, upon every occasion, the great influence he had at court, in protecting the innocent, relieving the needy, and in procuring the redress of such grievances as gave just cause of complaint. The care of public affairs did not however engross his whole attention. This year, as he informs us himself, he wrote his commentary upon the Predicaments, or the Ten Categories of Aristotle. In imitation of Cato, Cicero, and Brutus, he devoted the whole of his time to the service of the commonwealth, and to the cultivation of the sciences. He published a variety of writings, in which he treated upon almost every branch of literature. Besides the commentary upon Aristotle’s Categories, he wrote an explanation of that philosopher’s Topics, in eight books; another, of his Sophisms, in two books; and commentaries upon many other parts of his writings. He translated the whole of Plato’s works: he wrote a commentary, in six books, upon Cicero’s Topics: he commented also upon Porphyry’s writings he published a discourse on Rhetoric, in one book a treatise on Arithmetic, in two books and another, in five books, upon Music he wrote three books upon Geometry, the last of which is lost he translated Euclid and wrote a treatise upon the quadrature of the circle neither of which performances are now extant he published also translations of Ptolomy of Alexandria’s works and of the writings of the celebrated Archimedes: and several treatises upon theological and metaphysical subjects, which are still preserved.

The learning displayed in these works procured Boethius such reputation that he was frequently visited by persons of the first rank. Among these Gondebald, king of the Burgundians, who had married a daughter of Theodoric, came to Rome for the purpose of conversing with so eminent a philosopher. Boethius shewed him several curious mechanical works of his own invention, particularly two watches or time-keepers, one of which pointed out the sun’s di'irnal and annual motion in the ecliptic, upon a moveable sphere and the other indicated the hours of the day, by the expedient of water dropping out of one vessel into another: and so fond was Gondebald of these pieces of mechanism, that upon his return to his own country, be dispatched ambassadors to Theodoric, praying that he would procure for him the two wonderful time-keepers he had seen at Rome.

During the course of these transactions, Boethius lost his beloved wife Elpis, but married a second time Rusticiana, the daughter of Symmachus, and was elected consul with his father in law, in the thirtieth year of Theodoric’s reign and it was during this consulship that he fell under the displeasure of king Theodoric. Rich in health, affluence, domestic happiness, and the love of his fellow citizens, and the highest reputation, all these circumstances probably contributed in some degree to accelerate his ruin. King Theodoric, who had long held him in the highest esteem, was an Arian and Boethius, who was a catholic, published about this time a book upon the unity of the Trinity, in opposition to the three famous sects of Arians, Nestorians, and Eutychians. This treatise was universally read, and created our author a great many enemies at court; who insinuated to the prince, that Boethius wanted not only to destroy Arianism, but to effectuate a change of government, and deliver Italy from the dominion of the Goths and that, from his great credit and influence, he was the most likely person to bring about such a revolution. Whilst his enemies were thus busied at Ravenna, they employed emissaries to sow the seeds of discontent at Rome, and to excite factious people openly to oppose him in the exercise of his office as consul. Boethius, in the mean while, wanting no other reward than a sense of his integrity, laboured both by his eloquence and his authority to defeat their wicked attempts and persisted resolutely in his endeavours to promote the public welfare, by supporting the oppressed, and bringing offenders to justice. But his integrity and steadiness tended only to hasten his fall. King Theodoric, corrupted probably by a long series of good fortune, began now to throw off the mask. Though an Arian, he had hitherto preserved sentiments of moderation and equity with regard to the catholics; but fearing, perhaps, that they had a view of overturning his government, he began now to treat them with seventy, and Boethius was one of the first, that fell a victim to his rigour. He had continued long in favour with his prince, and was more beloved by him than any other person but neither the remembrance of former affection, nor the absolute certainty the king had of his innocence, prevented him from prosecuting our philosopher, upon the evidence of three abandoned profligates, infamous for all manner of crimes. The offences laid to his charge, as we are informed in the first book of the Consolation of Philosophy, were, “That he wished to preserve the senate and its authority that he hindered an informer from producing proofs, which would have convicted that assembly oftreason and that he formed a scheme for the restoration of tha Roman liberty.” In proof of the last article, the above mentioned profligates produced letters forged by themselves, which they falsely averred were written by Boethius. For these supposed crimes, as we learn from the same authority, he was, unheard and undefended, at the distance of five hundred miles, proscribed and condemned to death. Theodoric, conscious that his severity would be universally blamed, did not at this time carry his sentence fully into execution but contented himself with confiscating Boethius’s effects, with banishing him to Pavia, and confining him to prison. Soon after this, Justin, the catholic emperor of the East, finding himself thoroughly established upon the throne, published an edict against the Arians, depriving them of all their churches. Theodoric was highly offended at this edict. He obliged pope John I. together with four of the principal senators of Rome (one of whom was Symmachus, father-in-law to Boethius), to go on an embassy to Constantinople and commanded them to threaten that he would abolish the catholic religion throughout Italy, if the emperor did not immediately revoke his edict against the Arians. John was received at Constantinople with extraordinary pomp, but being able to produce no effect as to the object of his embassy, on his return, Theodoric threw him and his colleagues into prison at Ravenna, and Boethius was ordered to be more strictly confined at Pavia. It was here that he wrote his five books of the “Consolation of Philosophy,” on which his fame chiefly rests. He had scarcely concluded his work, when pope John being famished to death in prison, and Symmachus and the other senators, put to death, Theodoric ordered Boethius to be beheaded in prison, which was accordingly executed Oct. 23, 526. His body was interred by the inhabitants of Pavia, in the church of St. Augustine, near to the steps of the chancel, where his monument was to be seen until the last century, when that church was destroyed.

Boileau knew how to procure a still more powerful protection at court than the duke de Montausier’s, that of Lewis XIV. himself. He lavished upon this monarch praises the more flattering, as they appeared dictated by the public voice, and merely the sincere and warm expression of the nation’s intoxication with respect to its king. To add value to his homage, the artful satirist had the address to make his advantage of the reputation of frankness he had acquired, which served as a passport to those applauses which the poet seemed to bestow in spite of his nature; and he was particularly attentive, while bestowing praises on all those whose interest might either support or injure him, to reserve the first place, beyond comparison, for the monarch. Among other instances, he valued himself, as upon a great stroke of policy, for having contrived to place Monsieur, the king’s brother, by the side of the king himself, in his verses, without hazard of wounding the jealousy of majesty; and for having celebrated the conqueror of Cassel more feebly than the subduer of Flanders. He had however the art, or more properly the merit, along with his inundation of praises, to convey some useful lessons to the sovereign. Lewis XIV. as yet young and greedy of renown, which he mistook for real glory, was making preparations for war with Holland. Colbert, who knew how fatal to the people is the most glorious war, wished to divert the king from his design. He engaged Boileau to second his persuasions, by addressing to Lewis his first epistle, in which te proves that a king’s true greatness consists in rendering his subjects happy, by securing them the blessings of peace. But although this epistle did not answer the intentions of the minister or the poet, yet so much attention to please the monarch, joined to such excellence, did not remain unrecompensed. Boileau was loaded with the king’s favour, admitted at court, and named, in conjunction with Racine, royal historiographer. The two poets seemed closely occupied in writing the history of their patron; they even read several passages of it to the king; but they abstained from giving any of it to the public, in the persuasion that the history of sovereigns, even the most worthy of eulogy, cannot be written during their lives, without running the risk either of losing reputation by flattery, or incurring hazard by truth. It was with repugnance that Boileau had undertaken an office so little suited to his talents and his taste. “When I exercised,” said he, “the trade of a satirist, which I understood pretty well, I was overwhelmed with insults and menaces, and I am now dearly paid for exercising that of historiographer, which I do not understand at all/' Indeed,” far from being dazzled by the favour he enjoyed, he rather felt it as an incumbrance. He often said, that the first sensation his fortune at court inspired in him, was a feeling of melancholy. He thought the bounty of his sovereign purchased too dearly by the Joss of liberty a blessing so intrinsically valuable, which all the empty and fugitive enjoyments of vanity are unable to compensate in the eyes of a philosopher. Boileau endeavoured by degrees to recover this darling liberty, in proportion as age seemed to permit the attempt; and for the last ten or twelve years of his life he entirely dropped his visits to court. “What should I do there?” said he, “I can praise no longer.” He might, however, have found as much matter for his applauses as when he lavished them without the least reserve. While he attended at court^ he maintained a freedom and frankness of speech, especially on topics of literature, which are not common among courtiers. When Lewis asked his opinion of some verses which he had written, he replied, “Nothing, sire, is impossible to your majesty; you wished to make bad verses, and you have succeeded.” He also took part with the persecuted members of the Port-royal; and when one of the courtiers declared that the king was making diligent search after the celebrated Arnauld, in order to put him in the Bastile, Boileau observed, “His majesty is too fortunate; he will not find him:” and when the king asked him, what was the reason why the whole world was running after a preacher named le Tourneux, a disciple of Arnauld, “Your majesty,” he replied, “knows how fond people are of novelty: this is a minister who preaches the gospel.” Boileau appears from various circumstances, to have been no great friend to the Jesuits, whom he offended by his “Epistle on the Love of God,” and by many free speeches. By royal favour, he was admitted unanimously, in 1684, into the French academy, with which he had made very free in his epigrams; and he was also associated to the new academy of inscriptions and belles-lettres, of which he appeared to be a fit rnember, by his “Translation of Longinus on the Sublime.” To science, with which he had little acquaintance, he rendered, however, important service by his burlesque “Arret in favour of the university, against an unknown personage called Reason,” which was the means of preventing the establishment of a plan of intolerance in matters of philosophy. His attachment to the ancients, as the true models of literary taste and excellence, occasioned a controversy between him and Perrault concerning the comparative merit of the ancients and moderns, which was prosecuted for some time by epigrams and mutual reproaches, till at length the public began to be tired with their disputes, and a reconciliation was effected by the good offices of their common friends. This controversy laid the foundation of a lasting enmity between Boileau and Fontenelle, who inclined to the party of Perrault. Boileau, however, did not maintain his opinion with the pedantic extravagance of the Daciers; but he happily exercised his wit on the misrepresentations of the noted characters of antiquity, by the fashionable romances of the time, in his dialogue entitled “The Heroes of Romance,” composed in the manner of Lucian. In opposition to the absurd opinions of father Hardouin, that most of the classical productions of ancient Rome had been written by the monks of the thirteenth century, Boileau pleasantly remarks, “I know nothing of all that; but though I am not very partial to the monks, I should not have been sorry to have lived with friar Tibullus, friar Juvenal, Dom Virgil, Dom Cicero, and such kind of folk.” After the death of Racine, Boileau very much retired from court; induced partly by his love of liberty and independence, and partly by his dislike of that adulation which was expected, and for which the dose of Lewis’s reign afforded more scanty materials than its commencement. Separated in a great degree from society, he indulged that austere and misanthropical disposition, from which he was never wholly exempt. His conversation, however, was more mild and gentle than his writings; and, as he used to say of himself, without “nails or claws,” it was enlivened by occasional sallies of pleasantry, and rendered instructive by judicious opinions of authors and their works. He was religious without bigotry; and he abhorred fanaticism and hypocrisy. His circumstances were easy; and his prudent economy has been charged by some with degenerating into avarice. Instances, however, occur of his liberality and beneficence. At the death of Colbert, the pension which he had given to the poet Corneille was suppressed, though he was poor, old, infirm, and dying. Boileau interceded with the king for the restoration of it, and offered to transfer his own to Corneille, telling the monarch that he should be ashamed to receive his bounty while such a man was in want of it. He also bought, at an advanced price, the library of Patru, reduced in his circumstances, and left him in the possession of it till his death. He gave to the poor all the revenues he had received for eight years from a benefice he had enjoyed without performing the duties of it. To indigent men of letters his purse was always open; and at his death he bequeathed almost all his possessions to the poor. Upon the whole, his temper, though naturally austere, was on many occasions kind and benevolent, so that it has been said of him, that he was “cruel only in verse;” and his general character was distinguished by worth and integrity, with some alloys of literary jealousy and injustice. Boileau died of a dropsy in the breast, March 11, 1711, and by his will left almost all his property to the poor. His funeral was attended by a very numerous company, which gave a woman of the lower class occasion to say, “He had many friends then I yet they say that he spoke ill of every body.”

, the eldest brother of Boileau Despreaux, was born in 1631, and had a place in the king’s household. He was a man of wit and learning, and published a translation of Arrian’s Epictetus, with a life of the philosopher, Paris, 1655, 8vo. He also published a translation of Diogenes Laertius, 1668, in 2 vols. 12mo; and two dissertations against Menage and Costar. His “Posthumous Works” were published in 1670. He also wrote verses, in no high estimation.

, born at Paris in 1676, the son of an attorney in the office of the finances, entered into the regiment of musqueteers in 1696. The weakness of his constitution, unable to resist the fatigues of the service, obliged him to lay down his arms and take to his studies. He was received in 1706 into the academy of inscriptions and belles-lettres, and would have been of the French academy, if the public profession he made of atheism had not determined his exclusion. He was afflicted towards the latter end of his days with a fistula, which carried him off the 30th of Nov. 1751, at the age of 75. He was denied the honours of sepulture; being inhumed the day following without ceremony at three o clock in the morning. M. Parfait the elder, who inherited the works of Boindin, gave them to the public in 1753, in 2 vols. 12mo. In the first we have four comedies in prose: and a memoir on his life and writings, composed by himself. This man, who plumed himself on being a philosopher, here gives himself, without scruple, all the praises that a dull panegyrist would have found some difficulty in affording him. There is also by him a memoir, very circumstantial and very slanderous, in which he accuses, after a lapse of forty years, la Motte, Saurin, and Malaffaire a merchant, of having plotted the stratagem that caused the celebrated and unhappy Rousseau to be condemned. Boindin, though an atheist, escaped the punishment due to his arrogance, because, in the disputes between the Jesuits and their adversaries, he used frequently to declaim in the coffeehouses against the latter. M. de la Place relates, that he said to a man who thought like him, and who was threatened for his opinions, “They plague you, because you are a Jansenistic atheist; but they let me alone, because I am a Molinistic atheist.” Not that he inclined more to Molina than to Jansenius; but he fouiul that he should get more by speaking in behalf of those that were then in favour.

, was born December 25, 1563, at Urbino, of one of the most ancient and noble families in the city of Ancona, and was sent into France at the age of fifteen, to be educated suitably to his birth and the customs of that time. Bonarelli was but nineteen when he was offered a philosophical professorship of the Sorbonne, in the college of Calvi; but, his father having sent for him home, he was satisfied with having merited that honour, and declined accepting it. He attached himself, for some time, to cardinal Frederick Borromeo (nephew of St. Charles Borromeo) who had a regard for men of letters, and who founded the famous Ambrosian library at Milan. He went afterwards to Modena, to which place his father had removed. After his death, the duke Alphonso, knowing the merit of Bonarelli, employed him in several important embassies, and the success of these negociations proved how well they had been carried on. Bonarelli went to Rome with the hope of recovering the marquisate of Orciano, of which his father had been deprived; but an attack of the gout obliged him to stop at Fano, where he died January 8, 1608, aged forty-five, with the character of an able politician, a distinguished bel esprit, and a good philosopher for the age he lived in. The pastoral poem for which he is best known is entitled “Filli di Sciro,” and was printed first at Ferrara, 1607, 4to, with plates; there have been many editions since, the best of which are that of the Elzevirs, 1678, 4to, those of London, 1725, or 1728, and of Glasgow, 1763, 8vo; but with all its merit it is full of unnatural characters and distorted conceits. His shepherds are courtiers, and his shepherdesses are frequently prudes, whose conversation savours of the toilette. The author was censured for having made Celia, who has so great a share in the piece, nothing more than an episodical personage, but still more for giving her an equally ardent love for two shepherds at once. He attempted to excuse this defect in a tract written on purpose; “Discorsi in difesa del doppio amore della sua Celia,” but this was rather ingenious than conclusive. We have likewise some academical discourses of his.

, an eminent natural philosopher, was born at Geneva, on the 13th of March, 1720. His ancestors, who were compelled to emigrate from France, in 1572, after the dreadful slaughter of St. Bartholomew’s day, established themselves at Geneva, where his grandfather was advanced to the magistracy. His father, who preferred the station of a private citizen, paid unremitted attention to the education of his son, which the latter recompensed, at a very early period, by the amiableness of his disposition, and the rapid progress he made in general literature. When about sixteen years of age, he applied himself, with great eagerness, to the perusal of “Le Spectacle de la Nature,” and this work made such a deep impression on his mind, that it may be said to have directed the taste and the studies of his future life. What that publication had commenced, was confirmed by the work of La Pluche; but having accidentally seen the treatise of Reaumur upon insects, he was in a transport of joy. He was very impatient to procure the book, but, as the only copy in Geneva belonged to a public library, and as the librarian was reluctant to entrust it in the hands of a youth, it was with the utmost difficulty that he could obtain his end. By the possession of this treasure, our assiduous youth was enabled to make several new and curious experiments, which he communicated to Reaumur himself; and the high applause he gained, from so great a naturalist, added fresh vigour to his assiduity.

The “Contemplations of Nature” appeared in 1764. In this work, the author first enlarged upon the common conceptions entertained concerning the existence and perfections of God; and of the order and uniformity observable in the universe. He next descends to man, examines the parts of his composition, and the various capacities with which he is endowed. He next proceeds to the plants: assembles and describes the laws of their Œconomy; and finally, he examines the insects, indicates the principal circumstances in which they differ from large animals, and points out the philosophical inferences that may legitimately be deduced from these differences; and he concludes with observations respecting the industry of insects. This work being of a popular nature, the author spared no pains in bestowing upon it those ornaments of which it was susceptible. The principles which he thus discovered and explained, induced him to plan a system of moral philosophy; which, according to his ideas, consisted solely in the observance of that relation in which man is placed, respecting all the beings that surround him. The first branch would have comprehended various means, which philosophy and the medical science have discovered, for the prevention of disease, the preservation and augmentation of the corporeal powers, and the better exertion of their force: in the second, he proposed to show, that natural philosophy has a powerful tendency to embellish and improve our mind, and augment the number of our rational amusements, while it is replete with beneficial effects respecting the society at large. To manifest the invalidity of opinions, merely hypothetical, he undertook, in the third place, to examine, whether there were not truths within the compass of human knowledge, to which the most sceptical philosopher must be compelled to yield his consent, and which might serve as the basis of all our reasonings concerning man and his various relations. He then would have directed his attention to a first cause, and have manifested how greatly the idea of a deity, and supreme law-giver, favoured the conclusions which reason had drawn from the nature and properties of things; but his ill health, impaired by incessant labour, would not permit him to complete the design. His last publication was the “Palingenesis,” which treats of the prior existence and future state of living beings.

In 1783, he was elected honorary member of the academy of sciences at Paris, and of the academy of sciences and the belles lettres at Berlin. Much of his time was employed in a very extensive correspondence with some of the most celebrated natural philosophers and others. Of this number were Reaumur; De Geer, the Reaumur of Sweden; Du Hamel; the learned Haller; the experimental philosopher Spallanzani; Van Swieten; Merian; and that ornament of Switzerland, the great Lambert. He entertained, however, the utmost aversion to controversy. He thought that no advantage to be obtained by it could compensate for the lo ss of that repose which he valued, with Newton, as the rem prarsus substantiakm. He never answered remarks that were made to the prejudice of his writings, but left the decision with the public: yet, ever ready to acknowledge his errors, he was sincerely thankful to every one who contributed to the perfection of his works. He was used to say, that one confession, “I was in the wrong,” is of more value than a thousand ingenious confutations. His literary occupations, and the care he was obliged to take of his health, prevented him from travelling. He delighted in retirement, and every hour was occupied in the improvement of his mind. The last twenty-five years of his life were spent in the same rural situation where he had passed the greater part of his early days; yet, notwithstanding the pursuit of literature was his supreme delight, he never refused to suspend his studies, when the good of his country seemed to demand his services.

, a celebrated French mathematician and natural philosopher, was born at Dax, in the department of the Landes, May 4, 1733. His mother was Maria Theresa de Lacroix, and his father John Anthony Borda, whose ancestors had acquired considerable distinction in the French army. He began his studies in the college of the Barnabites at Dax, where he gave early indications of his future genius. He was a considerable time after put under the charge of the Jesuits of La Fleche, and by his ardour for study and superior talents, frequently carried off the prizes which were held out as the reward of youthful genius. This induced the Jesuits to endeavour to press him into their order, but his attachment to geometry was too powerful to be weakened by their persuasions. He encountered afterwards a more formidable opposition from his father, who was hostile to the prosecution of what he called unprofitable studies, and endeavoured to please him by proposing to enter into the engineer service of the army, where the objects of his profession would necessarily require a knowledge of geometry and physics. His father, however, having eleven children, and being obliged to support two of his sons who were already in the army, was anxious that Charles should look forward to some situation in the magistracy, which might be obtained without much expence and trouble. To these views Borda reluctantly submitted; but after having thus lost some of the most precious years of his youth, a friar, who was a particular friend of his father, obtained, by earnest solicitation, that he should be allowed to devote himself to his favourite science; and, every restraint being now removed, he was in 1753, when only twenty years of age, introduced to D'Alembert, who advised him to remain in the capital, and look forward to a situation in the academy. Borda accordingly entered the light horse, and continuing his mathematical studies, he became professor to his comrades.

, a celebrated philosopher and mathematician, was born at Naples the 28th of January, 1608. He was professor of philosophy and mathematics in some of the most celebrated universities of Italy, particularly at Florence and Pisa, where he became highly in favour with the princes of the house of Medici. But having been concerned in the revolt of Messina, he was obliged to retire to Rome, where he spent the remainder of his life under the protection of Christina queen of Sweden, who honoured him with her friendship, and by her liberality towards him softened the rigour of his hard fortune. He continued two years in the convent of the regular clergy of St. Pantaleon, called the Pious Schools, where he instructed the youth in mathematical studies. And thi’s study he prosecuted with great diligence for many years afterward, as appears by his correspondence with several ingenious mathematicians of his time, and the frequent mention that has been made of him by others, who have endeavoured to do justice to his memory. He wrote a letter to Mr. John Collins, in which he discovers his great desire and endeavours to promote the improvement of those sciences: he also speaks of his correspondence with, and great affection for, Mr. Henry Oldenburgh, secretary of the royal society; of Dr. Wallis; of the then late learned Mr. Boyle, and lamented the loss sustained by his death to the commonwealth of learning. Mr. Baxter, in his “Enquiry into the Nature of the Human Soul 3” makes frequent use of our author’s book “De Motu Animalium,” and tells us, that he was the first who discovered that the force exerted within the body prodigiously exceeds the weight to be moved without, or that nature employs an immense power to move a small weight. But he acknowledges that Dr. James Keil had shewn that Borelli was mistaken in his calculation of the force of the muscle of the heart; but that he nevertheless ranks him with the most authentic writers, and says he is seldom mistaken: and, having remarked that it is so far from being true, that great things are brought about by small powers, on the contrary, a stupendous power is manifest in the most ordinary operations of nature, he observes that the ingenious Borelli first remarked this in animal motion; and that Dr. Stephen Hales, by a course of experiments in his “Vegetable Statics,” had shewn the same in the force of the ascending sap in vegetables. After a course of unceasing labours, Borelli died at Pantaleon of a pleurisy, the 31st of December 1679, at 72 years of age, leaving the following works: 1. “Delle cagioni dellefebri maligni,” 1649, 12mo. 2. “Euclides restitutus,” &c. Pisa, 1658, 4to. 3. “Apollonii Pergaei conicorum, libri v. vi. & vii. paraphraste Abalphato Aspahanensi nunc primum editi,” &c. Floren. 1661, fol. 4. “Theoriæ Medicorum Planetarum ex causis physicis deductae,” Flor. 1666, 4to. 5. “De Vi Percussionis,” Bologna, 1667, 4to. This piece was reprinted, with his famous treatise “De Motu Animalium,” and that “De Motionibus Naturalibus,” in 1686. 6. “Osservazione intorno alia virtu ineguali degli occhi.” This piece was inserted in the Journal of Rome for the year 1669. 7. “De motionibus naturalibus e gravitate pemlentibus,” Regio Julio, 1670, 4to. 8. “Meteorologia Ætnea,” &c. Regio Julio, 1670, 4to. 9. “Osservazione dell' ecclissi lunare, fatta in Roma,” 1675. Inserted in the Journal of Rome, 1675, p. 34. 10. “Elementaconica Apollonii Pergoei et Archimedis opera nova et breviori methodo demonstrata,” Rome, 1679, 12mo, at the end of the 3d edition, of his Euclides restitutus. 11. “De Motu Animaiium: pars prima, et pars altera,” Romae, 1681, 4to. This was reprinted at Leyden, revised and corrected; to which was added John Bernouilli’s mathematical meditations concerning the motion of the muscles. “12. At Leyden, 1686, in 4to, a more correct and accurate edition, revised by J. Broen, M. D. of Leyden, of his two pieces” De vi percussionis, et de motionibus de gravitate pendentibus,“&c. 13.” De renum usu judicium:“this had been published with Bellini’s book” De structura renum," at Strasburgh, 1664, 8vo.

, a famous chemist, quack, and heretic, was a Milanese, and born in the beginning of the seventeenth century. He finished his studies in the seminary at Rome, where the Jesuits admired him as a prodigy for his parts and memory. He applied himself to chemistry, and made some discoveries; but, plunging himself into the most extravagant debaucheries, was obliged at last, in 1654, to take refuge in a church. He then set up for a pietist; and, affecting an appearance of great zeal, lamented the corruption of manners which prevailed at Rome, saying, that the distemper was come to the height, and that the time of recovery drew near: a happy time, wherein there would be but one sheepfold on the earth, whereof the pope was to be the only shepherd. “Whosoever shall refuse, said he, to enter into that sheepfold, shall be destroyed by the pope’s armies. God has predestinated me to be the general of those armies: I am sure, that they shall want nothing. I shall quickly finish my chemical labours by the happy production of the philosopher’s stone; and by that means I sball have as much gold as is necessary for the business. I am sure of the assistance of the angels, and particularly of that of Michael the archangel. When I began to walk in the spiritual life, I had a vision in the night, attended with an angelical voice, which assured me, that I should become a prophet. The sign that was given me for it was a palm, that seemed to me surrounded with the light of paradise.”

Borri staid some time in the city of Strasburgh, to which he had fled; and where he found some assistance and support, as well because he was persecuted by the inquisition, as because he was reputed a great chemist. But this was not a theatre large enough for Borri: he went therefore to Amsterdam, where he appeared in a stately and splendid equipage, and took upon him the title of Excellency: people flocked to him, as to the physician who could cure all diseases; and proposals were concerted for marrying him to great fortunes, &c. But his reputation began to sink, as his impostures became better understood, and he fled in the night from Amsterdam, with a great many jewels and sums of money, which he had pilfered. He then went to Hamburgh, where queen Christina was, and put himself under her protection: persuading her to venture a great sum of money, in order to find out the philosopher’s stone. Afterwards he went to Copenhagen, and inspired his Danish majesty to search for the same secret; by which means he acquired that prince’s favour so far, as to become very odious to all the great persons of the kingdom. Immediately after the death of the king, whom he had cheated out of large sums of money, he left Denmark for fear of being imprisoned, and resolved to go into Turkey. Being come to the frontiers at a time when the conspiracy of Nadasti, Serini, and Frangipani, was discovered, he was secured, and his name sent to his Imperial majesty, to see if he was one of the conspirators. The pope’s nuncio, who happened to be present, as soon as he heard Borri mentioned, demanded, in the pope’s name, that the prisoner should be delivered to him. The emperor consented to it, and ordered that Borri should be sent to Vienna; and afterwards, having first obtained from the pope a promise that he should not be put to death, he sent him to Rome; where he was tried, and condemned to perpetual confinement in the prison of the inquisition. He made abjuration of his errors in the month of October, 1672. Some years after he obtained leave to attend the duke d‘Estree, whom all the physicians had given over; and the unexpected cure he wrought upon him occasioned it to be said, that an arch-heretic had done a great miracle in Rome. It is said also, that the queen of Sweden sent for him sometimes in a coach; but that, after the death of that princess, he went no more abroad, and that none could speak with him without special leave from the pope. The Utrecht gazette, as Mr. Bayle relates, of the 9th of September, 1695, informed the public, that Borri was lately dead in the castle of St. Arigelo, being 79 years of age. It seems that the duke d’ Estre*e, as a recompence for recovering him, had procured Borri’s prisou to be changed, from that of the inquisition to the castle of St. Angelo.

Some pieces were printed at Geneva in 1681, which are ascribed to him; as, 1. “Letters concerning Chemistry;” and 2. “Political reflections.” The first of these works is entitled, “La chiave del gabinetto;” the second, “Istruzioni politichi.” We learn from the life of Borri, that when he was at Strasburg, he published a letter, which went all over the world. Two other of his letters are said to have been printed at Copenhagen in 1699, and inscribed to Bartholinus; one of them, “De ortu cerebri, et usu medico;” the other, “De artificio oculorum humores restituendi.” The Journal des Savans, of the 2d of September, 1669, speaks fully of these two letters. Konig ascribes also another piece to him, entitled, “Notitia gentis Burrhorum.” Sorbiere saw Borri at Amsterdam, and has left us a description and character of him. He says, that “he was a tall black man, well shaped, who wore good clothes, and spent a good deal of money: that he did not want parts, and had some learning, was without doubt somewhat skilled in chemical preparations, had some knowledge in metals, some methods of imitating pearls or jewels, and some purgative and stomachic remedies: but that he was a quack, an artful impostor, who practised upon the credulity of those whom he stood most in need of; of merchants, as well as princes, whom he deluded out of great sums of money, under a pretence of discovering the philosopher’s stone, and other secrets of equal importance: and that, the better to carry on this scheme of knavery, he had assumed the mask of religion.”

Benedict XIV. who was a great encourager of learning, and a beneficent patron of learned men, gave Boscovich many proofs of the esteem he had for him; and both he and his enlightened minister, cardinal Valenti, consulted Boscovich on various important objects of public economy, the clearing of harbours, and the constructing of roads and canals. On one occasion, he was joined in a commission with other mathematicians and architects, invited from different parts of Italy, to inspect the cupola of St. Peter’s, in which a crack had been discovered. They were divided in opinion; but the sentiments of Boscovich, and of the marquis Poleni, prevailed. In stating, however, the result of the consultation, which was to apply a circle of iron round the building, Poleni forgot to refer the idea to its real author, and this omission grievously offended Boscovich, who was tenacious of fame, and somewhat irritable“in temper. About the same time other incidents had concurred to mortify his pride; and he became at last disgusted with his situation, and only looked for a convenient opportunity of quitting Rome. While in this temper of mind, an application was made by the court of Portugal to the general of the Jesuits, for ten mathematicians of the society to go out to Brazil, for the purpose of surveying that settlement, and ascertaining the boundaries which divide it from the Spanish dominions in America. Wishing to combine with that object the mensuration of a degree of latitude, Boscovich offered to embark in the expedition, and his proposition was readily accepted. But cardinal Valenti, unwilling to lose his services, commanded him, in the name of the pope, to dismiss the project, and persuaded him to undertake the same service at home in the Papal territory. In this fatiguing, and often perilous operation, he was assisted by the English Jesuit, Mayer, an excellent mathematician, and was amply provided with the requisite instruments and attendants. They began the work about the close of the year 1750, in the neighbourhood of Rome, and extended the meridian line northwards, across the chain of the Appennines as far as Rimini. Two whole years were spent in completing the various measurements, which were performed with the most scrupulous accuracy. The whole is elaborately described by Boscovich in a quarto volume, full of illustration and minute details’, and with several opuscules, or detached essays, which display great ingenuity, conjoined with the finest geometric taste. We may instance, in particular, the discourse on the rectification of instruments, the elegant synthetical investigation of the figure of the earth, deduce^ both from the law of attraction, and from the actual measurement of degrees, and the nice remarks concerning the curve and the conditions of permanent stability. This last tract gave occasion, however, to some strictures from D'Alembert, to which Boscovich replied, in a note annexed to the French edition of his works. The arduous service which Boscovich had now performed was but poorly rewarded. From the pope he received only a hundred sequins, or about forty-five pounds sterling, a gold box, and” abundance of praise." He now resumed the charge of the mathematical school, and besides discharged faithfully the public duties of religion, which are enjoined by his order. A trifling circumstance will mark the warmth of his temper, and his love of precedence. He had recourse to the authority of cardinal Valenti, to obtain admission into the oratory of Caravita, from which his absence excluded him, and which yet afforded only the bent-fit of a free, but frugal supper. In presiding at that social repast, the philosopher relaxed from the severity of his studies, and shone by his varied, his lively, and fluent conversation.

The expulsion of the Jesuits from the dominions of Spain prevented Boscovich from going to California, to observe the second transit of Venus, in 1769, and which expedition the royal society of London had strongly solicited him to undertake. And as his rivals began now to stir themselves again, he sought to dispel the chagrin, by a second journey into France and the Netherlands. At Brussels he met with a peasant, famous for curing the gout, and from whose singular skill he received most essential benefit. On his return to Italy in 1770, he was transferred from the university of Pavia to the Palatine schools at Milan, and resided with those of his order, at the college of Brera, where he furnished, mostly at his own expence, an observatory, of which he got the direction. But he was still doomed to experience mortification. Some young Jesuits, who acted as his assistants, formed a conspiracy, and, by their artful representations, prevailed with the government to exclude his favourite pupil and friend from holding a charge of trust. This intelligence was communicated to him at the baths of Albano, and filled him with grief and indignation. He complained to prince Kaunitz, but implored his protection in vain. To the governor of Milan he wrote, that he would not return, unless things were restored to their former footing. He retired to Venice, where, having staid ten months in fruitless expectation of obtaining redress, he meditated spending the remainder of his days in honourable retirement at his native city of Ragnsa. But while he waited for the opportunity of a vessel to convey him thither, he received the afflicting news of the suppression of his order in Italy. He now renounced his scheme, and seemed quite uncertain what step he should take. Having come into the Tuscan territory, he listened to the counsels and solicitation of Fabroni, who held forth the prospect of a handsome appointment in the Lyceum of Pisa. In the mean time he accepted the invitation of La Bord, chamberlain to Louis XV. accompanied him to Paris in 1773, and through his influence obtained the most liberal patronage from the French monarch; he was naturalized, received two pensions, amounting to 8000 livres, or 333l. and had an office expressly created for him, with the title of “Director of optics for the marine.” “Boscovich might now appear to have attained the pinnacle of fortune and glory; but Paris was no longer for him the theatre of applause, and his ardent temper became soured by the malign breath of jealousy and neglect. Such extraordinary favour bestowed on a foreigner could not fail to excite the envy of the sgavans, who considered him as rewarded greatly beyond his true merit The freedom of his language gave offence, his perpetual egotism became disgusting, and his repetition of barbarous Latin epigrams was most grating to Parisian ears. Besides, the name of a priest and a Jesuit did not now command respect; and the sentiments of austere devotion, which he publicly professed, had grown unfashionable, and were regarded as scarcely befitting the character of a philosopher”.

, the son of Nicholas Bottom, a celebrated philosopher and physician of Leontini, in Sicily, was born the 6th of October 1641, and received his education under Peter Castello. In 1658, he was admitted to the degree of doctor, and was soon after made physician to the marquis De Villa Franca, viceroy of Sicily, physician to the royal hospital of Messina, and superintendant of the physicians there, with a pension of 50 crowns per month. He afterwards enjoyed a similar situation under the viceroy of Naples. In 1697, he was made corresponding jor honorary member of the royal society of London, to which he had previously sent his “Idea historico-physica tie magno trinacrisc terras motu,” which is published in their transactions. He was the first Sicilian physician who had received that honour. He wrote also “Pyrologia topograpuica, id est, de igne dissertatio, juxta loca, cum eorun. doscriptione,” Neapoli, 1692, 4to. “Febris rheumaticse malignae, historia medica,” Messina, 1712, 8vo. “Preserve salutari contro il contagioso malore,” Messina, 1621, 4to. He died about the year 1731.

In 1588, Boyd fixed his residence at Toulouse, and again applied himself to the study of the civil law under Fr. Rouldes, a celebrated professor. It appears that, about this time, he wrote some tracts on that science, and projected others; and that he even had it in view to compose a system of the law of nations. Toulouse having, about this time, by means of a popular insurrection, fallen into the hands of the faction of the league, Boyd, who had assisted the royal cause, was thrown into prison and, from the hatred of the Jesuits, was in great danger of his life. When he had obtained his liberty, which was granted him at the solicitations of the learned men of Toulouse, he went first to Bourdeaux, and thence to Rochelle. In this last journey he was attacked by robbers, and with difficulty escaped being assassinated by them, after having lost all the property he had with him. Disliking the air of Rochelle, he retreated to the borders of Poictou, where he enjoyed an agreeable rural retirement; devoting his time partly to polite literature, and partly to the aid of his friends, when they were occasionally exposed to the incursions of their enemies. He so equally applied himself te the study of learning and war, that it was not easy to say which he most preferred; but his character appears now to have been more decided than when in youth. Among men of the sword he appeared to be the accomplished soldier, and as eminently the scholar among those of the gown. In his person he was tall, compact, and well proportioned; his countenance was beautiful, sprightly, and engaging; and there was a singularly noble air in his discourse, aspect, voice, aud gesture. He was polite, pleasant, acute, courteous, a ready speaker, and entirely free from envy and avarice. He could easily bear with the boasting of the ignorant, but extremely disliked the abusive manner of writing which prevailed so much among the learned of his time. He thought it unworthy of a Christian, in a literary controversy, to throw out any thing, either in speech or writing, which should hurt the reputation of an adversary. In injuries of an atrocious nature, he chose to do himself justice by having recourse to the laws of arms. Among the ancients, Xenophon was his favourite as a philosopher, Cæsar as an historian, and Virgil as a poet. So admirably was he skilled in the Greek language, that he could write, dictate, and converse in it, with copiousness and elegance. He despised the centos, which were then not a little in fashion; and said, that however learned the authors of them might be, they were dull and ignorant men. Besides his epistles after the manner of Ovid, and his hymns, he wrote a variety of Latin poems, which have not been printed. He was the author of notes upon Pliny, and published an excellent little book, addressed to Lipsius, in defence of cardinal Bembo and the ancient eloquence. He translated, likewise, Cæsar’s Commentaries into Greek, in the style of Herodotus; but would not permit his translation to appear in public. He afterwards applied himself to the cultivation of poetry in his native Ianguage, and arrived at considerable excellence in it. In all his compositions, genius was more apparent than labour.

, the most illustrious philosopher of modern times, was the seventh son, and the fourteenth child of Richard earl of Cork, and born at Lismore, in the province of Munster, in Ireland, the 25th of Jan. 1626-7. He was committed to the care of a country nurse, with instructions to bring him up as hardy as if he had been her own son; for his father, he tells us, “had a perfect aversion for the fondness of those parents which made them breed their children so nice and tenderly, that a hot sun or a good shower of rain as much endangers them as if they were made of butter or of sugar.” By this he gained a strong and vigorous constitution, which, however, he afterwards lost, by its being treated too tenderly. He acquaints us with several misfortunes which happened to him in his youth. When he was about three years old, he lost his mother, who was a most accomplished woman, and whom he regrets on that account, because he did not know her. A second misfortune was, that he learned to stutter, by mocking some children of his own age; of which, though no endeavours were spared, he could never perfectly be cured. A third, that in a journey to Dublin, he had like to have been drowned, if one of his father’s gentlemen had not taken him out of a coach, which, in passing a brook raised by some sudden showers, was overturned and carried away with the stream.

In the midst of all these studies and labours for the public, he was attacked by a severe paralytic distemper, of which, though not without great difficulty, he got the better, by strictly adhering to a proper regimen; and returning to his pursuits, in 1671, he published, 14. “Considerations on the usefulness of experimental and natural philosophy, the second part,” 4to. And, 15. “A collection of tracts upon several useful and important points of practical philosophy,” 4to; both which works were received as new and valuable gifts to the learned world. 16. “An essay about the origin and virtue of Gems,” 1672, 8vo. 17. “A collection of tracts upon the relation between flame and air; and several other useful and curious subjeccs;” besides furnishing, in this and in the former year, a great number of short dissertations upon a vast variety of topics, addressed to the royal society, and inserted in their Transactions. 13. “Essays on the strange subtlety, great elficacy, and determinate nature of Effluvia;” to which were added variety of experiments on other subjects, 1673, 8vo. The same year Anthony le Grand, the famous Cartesian philosopher, printed his “Historia Naturae,” &c. at London, and dedicated it to Mr. Boyle. He does justice to Mr. Boyle’s universal reputation for extensive learning and amazing sagacity in every branch of experimental philosophy; and says of him, what Averroes said of Aristotle, that nature had formed him as an exemplar or pattern of the highest perfection to which humanity can attain. 19. “A collection of tracts upon the saltness of the sea, the moisture of the air, the natural and preternatural state of bodies; to which is prefixed a dialogue concerning cold,” 1674, 8vo. 20. “The excellency of theology compared with natural philosophy,” 1673, 8vo. 21. “A collection of tracts, containing suspicions about hidden qualities of the air; with an appendix touching celestial magnets; animadversions upon Mr. Hobbes’s problem about a vacuum; a discourse of the cause of attraction and suction,” 1674, 8vo. 22. “Some considerations about the reconeileableness of reason and religion. By T. E. a layman. To which is annexed, a discourse about the possibility of the Resurrection by Mr. Boyle,” 1675, 8vo; both these pieces were of his writing; only he thought fit to mark the former with the final letters of his name. Among other papers that he communicated this year to the royal society, there were two discourses, connected into one, that deserve particular notice. The former was entitled “An experimental discourse of quicksilver growing hot with gold;” the other related to the same subject; and both of them contained discoveries of the utmost importance. In 1676, he pub. lished, 23. “Experiments and notes about the mechanical origin or production of particular qualities, in several discourses on a great variety of subjects, and, among the rest, of Electricity.”

The regard which the great Newton had for Mr. Boyle, appears from a very curious letter, which the former wrote to him, at the latter end of this year, for the sake of laying before him his sentiments upon that ethereal medium, which he afterwards proposed, in his Optics, as the mechanical cause of gravitation. This letter is to be found in the life of our author by Dr. Birch. In 1680, Mr. Boyle published, 25. “The Aerial Noctiluca; or some new phsenomena, and a process of a factitious self-shining substance,” 8vo. 26. “Discourse of things above reason inquiring whether a philosopher should admit there are any such” 1681, 8vo. 27. “New experiments and observations made Upon the Icy Noctiluca; to which is added a chemical paradox, grounded upon new experiments, making it probable, that chemical principles are transmutable, so that out of one of them others may be produced,” 1682, 8vo. 28. “A continuation of new experiments physico-mechanical, touching the spring and weight of the Air, and their effects,”

But that part of his discourse which concerns us most, is, the copious and eloquent account he has given of this great man’s abilities. “His knowledge,” says he, “was of so vast an extent, that if it were not for the variety of vouchers in their several sorts, I should be afraid to say all I know. He carried the study of the Hebrew very far into the rabbinical writings, and the other oriental tongues, He had read so much of the fathers, that he had formed a clear judgment of all the eminent ones. He had read a vast deal on the scriptures, had gone very nicely through the various controversies in religion, tind was a true master of the whole body of divinity. He read the whole compass of the mathematical sciences; and, though he did not set himself to spring any new game, yet he knew the abstrusest parts of geometry. Geography, in the several parts of it that related to navigation or travelling; history and books of novels, were his diversions. He went very nicely through all the parts of physic; only the tenderness of his nature made him less able to endure the exactness of anatomical dissections, especially of living animals, though he knew these to be most instructing. But for the history of nature, ancient and modern, of the productions of allcountries, of the virtues and improvements of plants, of ores, and minerals, and all the varieties that are in them jn different climates, he was by much, by very much, the readiest and' the perfectest I ever knew, in the greatest compass, and with the nicest exactness. This put him in the way of making all that vast variety of experiments beyond any man, as far as we know, that ever lived. And in these, as he made a great progress in new discoveries, so he used so nice a strictness, and delivered them with so scrupulous a truth, that all who have examined them have found how safely the world may depend upon them. But his peculiar and favourite study was chemistry, in which he was engaged with none of those ravenous and ambitious designs that drew many into it. His design was only to find out nature, to see into what principles things might be resolved, and of what they were compounded, and to prepare good medicaments for the bodies of men. He spent neither his time nor fortune upon the vain pursuits of high promises and pretensions. He always kept himself within the compass that his estate might well bear and, as he made chemistry much the better for his dealing in it, so he never made himself either worse or the poorer for it. It was a charity to others, as well as an entertainment to himself; for the produce of it was distributed by his sister and others, into whose hands he put it.” To thiseulogium of the bishop, we will only add that of the celebrated physician, philosopher, and chemist, Dr. Herman Boerhaave; who, after having declared lord Bacon to be the father of experimental philosophy, asserts, that “Mr. Boyle, the ornament of his age and country, succeeded to the genius and enquiries of the great chancellor Verulam. Which,” says he, “of all Mr. Boyle’s writings shall I recommend? All of them. To him we owe the secrets of fire, air, water, animals, vegetables, fossils: so that from his works may be deduced the whole system of natural knowledge.” The reader perhaps recollects, that Mr. Boyle was born the same year in which lord Bacon died. “Sol occubuitj nox nulla secuta est.”

As to the person of this great man, we are told that he was tall, but slender; and his countenance pale and emaciated. His constitution was so tender and delicate, that he had divers sorts of cloaks to put on when he went abroad, according to the temperature of the air; and in this he governed himself by his thermometer. He escaped indeed the small-pox during his life; but for almost forty years he laboured under such a feebleness of body, and such lowness of strength and spirits, that it was astonishing how he could read, meditate, make experiments, and write as he did. He had likewise a weakness in his eyes, which made him very tender of them, and extremely apprehensive of such distempers as might affect them. He imagined also, that if sickness should confine him to his bed, it might raise the pains of the stone to a degree which might be above his strength to support; so that he feared lest his last minutes should be too hard for him. This was the ground of all the caution and apprehension with which he was observed to live: but as to life itself, he had that just indifference for it, which became a philosopher and a Christian. However, his sight began to grow dim, not above four hours before he died; and, when death came upon him, it was with so little pain, that the flame appeared to go out merely for want of oil to maintain it. The reader may wonder that Mr. Boyle was never made a peer; especially when it is remembered, that his four elder brothers were all peers. A peerage was, however, often offered him, and as often refused by him. It is easy to imagine, that he might have had any thing he should express an inclination for. He was always a favourite at court: and king Charles II. James II. and king William, were so highly pleased with his conversation, that they often used to discourse with him in the most familiar manner. Not that Mr. Boyle was at any time a courtier; he spake freely of the government, even in times which he disliked, and upon occasions when he was ohliged to condemn it; but then he always did it, as indeed he did every thing of that nature, with an exactness of respect.

From Rostoc Tycho continued his travels, and prosecuted his studies in the principal towns of Germany and Italy, and particularly at Ausburgh, where he formed an acquaintance with the celebrated Peter Ramus; invented and improved various mathematical instruments, superintended the building of an observatory at the expence of the burgomaster Paul Hainzell, after a plan communicated by himself, and formed a series of astronomical observations and discoveries, which astonished and surpassed all who had hitherto been considered as the greasest proficients in that science. On his return to Copenhagen, in 1570, he was soon disgusted with the necessity of going to court; and meeting with innumerable interruptions of his studies, he removed to Herritzvold, near Knudstorp, the seat of his maternal uncle, Steno Bille, who alone of all his relations encouraged him to persevere in his astronomical labours. Steno consigned to his nephew a commodious apartment, and a convenient place for the construction of his observatory and laboratory. Here Tycho, besides his astronomical researches, seems to have followed with no less zeal the study of chemistry, or rather of alchemy, from the chimerical view of obtaining the philosopher’s stone, that he might amass sufficient riches to settle in some foreign country, but neither his philosophy, or the unwearied zeal with which he prosecuted his studies, could exempt him from the passion of love. Being a great admirer of the fair sex, he conceived a violent inclination for Christina, a beautiful country girl, the daughter of a neighbouring peasant, and alienated his family, who conceived themselves disgraced by the alliance, and refused to hold any intercourse with him, until Frederick II. commanded them to be reconciled. Tycho, who chose her because she might be more grateful and subservient than a lady of higher birth, never seems to have repented, but ever found his Christina an agreeable companion and an obedient wife. About this period, he first appeared as a public teacher, and read lectures on astronomy at the express desire of the king. He explained the theory of the planets, and preceded his explanation by a very learned oration concerning the history and excellency of astronomy and its sister sciences, with some remarks in favour of judicial astrology, a study as congenial to the time as to the inclinations of our philosopher.

Mr. Walpole, in his Anecdotes, says, that “Woolaston the painter, who was a good performer on the violin and flute, had played at the concert held at the house of that extraordinary person, Thomas Britton the small-coal man, whose picture he twice drew, one of which was purchased ]by sir Hans Sloane, and is now in the British museum: there is a mezzotinto from it. T. Britton, who made much noise in his time, considering his low station and trade, was a collector of all sorts of curiosities, particularly drawings, prints, books, manuscripts on uncommon subjects, as mystic divinity, the philosopher’s stone, judicial astrology, and magic; and musical instruments, both in and out of vogue. Various were the opinions concerning him; some thought his musical assembly only a cover for seditious meetings; others, for magical purposes. He was taken for an atheist, a presbyterian, a Jesuit But Woolaston the painter, and the son of a gentleman who had likewise been a member of that club, averred it as their opinions, that Britton was a plain, simple, honest man, who only meant to amuse himself. The subscription was but ten shillings a year; Britton found the instruments, and they had coffee at a penny a dish. Sir Hans Sloane bought many of his books and Mss. now in the Museum, when they were sold by auction at Tom’s coffeehouse, near Ludgate.”

, a French writer of great learning, was born at Dijon, in 1709, and became a counsellor of parliament, in 1730, and president a worker in 1742. During the leisure which his public employments afforded, he cultivated most of the sciences, and was allowed to be well acquainted with all. Voltaire only has attacked his literary reputation, and this his countrymen ascribe to the malice which that writer was seldom anxious to conceal. Buffon, on the contrary, regarded him as a scholar of the first rank, an acute philosopher, and an original and valuable writer; nor was he less estimable in private life. In 1774 he was appointed president of the parliament of Burgundy, but died soon after, at Paris, in 1777, whither he had come to visit his married daughter. He was a member of the academy of Dijon, of the inscriptions and belles lettres, and other learned societies. He wrote: 1. “Lettres sur la Decouverte de la ville d'Herculaneum,” 1750, 8vo. 2. “Histoire des Navigations aux Terres Australes,” 1756, 2 vols. 4to, in which he endeavoured to prove the existence of a southern continent, which subsequent navigators have disproved. 3. “Du culte des dieux Fetiches, ou parallele de l'ancienne idolatrie avec celle des peuples de Nigritie,” 1760, 12mo, a piece which has been improperly attributed to Voltaire. 4. “Traite de la formation mecanique des Langues,” 1765, 2 vols. 12mo, in which he attempts a general etymological system founded on the mechanical formation of articulate sounds; but his countrymen allow that he leans too much to paradox, which certainly has long been an extensive branch of French philosophy. 5. “Histoire de la Republique Romaine dans la cours du VII siecle, par Salluste,” Dijon, 3 vols. 4to. This may be accounted his principal work, and was long his principal employment. He was so sensible of the loss of Sal lust’s principal work, that he resolved to collect his fragments with greater care than had ever been employed before; and by the most accurate arrangement to trace out as near as possible the plan and chief features of that work, and then to connect these fragments in the manner of Freinshemius in his “Fragmenta Livii.” But as De Brosses soon became sensible of the difficulty of assimilating his Latin diction to that of Sallust, he changed his first design, and resolved on translating both the fragments and his author’s histories of the Catilinarian and Jugurthine wars into French, and to attempt to supply the lost work from other ancient writers. The first volume opens with a preface containing remarks on the various methods of writing history, and some information concerning Roman names, ranks, magistracies, and elections. The body of the work itself begins with a translation of, and commentary on, Sallust’s Jugurthine war. The notes subjoined to this part treat chiefly of the geography and population of Africa, and the text is illustrated by a map of Africa, a plan of Meteilus’s march against Jugurtha, and its illustration by a military connoisseur. After this follows the restoration of Sallust’s five books, continued in vol. II. comprizing the war with Mithridates: a description of the Pontus Euxinus, with the adjacent countries; the Gladiatorian war, raised by Spartacus, and the war of Greta. The third volume contains a translation of the Catilinarian war, with its sequel, illustrated with historical and political notes; Sallust’s two letters to Caesar, commonly styled “Orat. de Rep. ordinanda,” which De Brosses considers as genuine; a very minute collection of all the notices of Sallust’s life, writings, gardens, buildings, and even of the remains discovered in later times. The whole concludes with the abb Cassagne’s “Essay on the Art of composing History, and on the works of Sailust.‘-’ Industrious as M. de Brosses has been in this work, we believe that in the life of Sailust, at least, he has been improved upon by Henry Stuart, esq. in his late elaborate publication,” The works of Sailust,“1806, 2 vols. 4to, Besides these, De Brosses contributed many learned papers to the Paris and Dijon memoirs, but his family disown 3 vols. of” Lettres historiques et critiques sur l'Italie," published in 1799 in his name.

Mr. Brown was not only known as an exquisite drafts.­man, he was also a good philosopher, a sound scholar, and endowed with a just and refined taste in all the liberal and polite arts, and a man of consummate worth and integrity. Soon after his death his “Letters on the Poetry and Music of the Italian Opera,” 12mo, were published. They were originally written to his friend lord Monboddo, who wished to have Mr. Brown’s opinion on those subjects, which have so intimate a connection with his work on the Origin and Progress of Language; and who was so pleased with the style and observations contained in them, that he wrote an introduction, which was published with them, in one volume, 12mo, 1789, for the benefit of his widow. The letters, written with great elegance and perspicuity, are certainly the production of a strong and fervid mind, acquainted with the subject; and must be useful to most of the frequenters of the Italian opera, by enabling them to understand the reasons on which the pleasure they receive at that musical performance is founded, a knowledge in which they are generally very deficient. Not being written for publication, they have that spirit and simplicity which every man of genius diffuses through any subject which he communicates in confidence, and which he is but too apt to refine away when he sits down to compose a work for the public. Lord Monboddo, in the fourth volume of the Origin and Progress of Language, speaking of Mr. Brown, says, “The account that I have given of the Italian language is taken from one who resided above ten years in Italy; and who, besides understanding the language perfectly, is more learned in the Italian arts of painting, sculpture, music, and poetry, than any man I ever met with. His natural good taste he has improved by the study of the monuments of ancient art, to be seen at Rome and Florence; and as beauty in all the arts is pretty much the same, consisting of grandeur and simplicity, variety, decorum, and a suitableness to the subject, I think he is a good judge of language, and of writing, as well as of painting, sculpture, and music.” A very well-written character in Latin, by an advocate of Edinburgh, is appended to the Letters. Mr. Brown left behind him several very highly-finished portraits in pencil, and many very exquisite sketches in pencil and in pen and ink, which he had taken of persons and of places in Italy; particularly a book of studies of heads, taken from the life, an inestimable treasure to any history painter, as a common-place book for his pictures, the heads it contained being all of them Italian ones, of great expression, or of high character. He was so enraptured with his art, and so assiduous in the pursuit of it, that he suffered no countenance of beauty, grace, dignity, or expression, to pass him unnoticed; and to be enabled to possess merely a sketch for himself, of any subject that struck his fancy, he would make a present of a high-finished drawing to the person who permitted his head to be taken by him. The characteristics of his hancl were delicacy, correctness, and taste, as the drawings he made from many of Mr. Townley’s best statues very plainly evince. Of his mind, the leading features were acuteness, liberality, and sensibility, joined to a character firm, vigorous, and energetic. The last efforts of this ingenious artist were employed in making two very exquisite drawings, the one from Mr. Townley’s celebrated bust of Homer, the other from a fine original bust of Pope, supposed to have been the work of Rysbrac. From these drawings two very beautiful engravings have been made by Mr. Bartolozzi and his pupil Mr. Bovi. After some stay in London, his health, which had never been robust, yielded to extraordinary application, and he was forced to try a seavoyage, and return on a visit to Edinburgh, to settle his father’s affairs, who was then dead, having been some time before in a state of imbecility. On the passage from London to Leith, he was somehow neglected as he lay sick on his hammock, and was on the point of death when he arrived at Leith. With much difficulty he was brought up to Edinburgh, and laid in the bed of his friend Runciman, the artist, who had died not long before in the same place. Here he died, Sept. 5, 1787. His portrait with Runciman, disputing about a passage in Shakspeare’s Tempest, is in the gallery at Dryburgh abbey. This was the joint production of Brown and Runciman before the death of the latter in 1784.

M. de la Bruyere was an ingenious philosopher, devoid of all ambition, content to enjoy in tranquillity his friends andhis books, and selecting both with judgment. Pleasure he neither sought, nor endeavoured to avoid. Ever disposed to the indulgence of a modest and placid joy, with a happy talent of exciting it, he was polite in his manners, and wise in his conversation; an enemy to every kind of affectation, and even to that of displaying the brilliancy of wit. The work by which he was distinguished was “The Characters of Theophrastus, translated from the Greek, with the Manners of the present age.” “These characters,” says Voltaire, “may be justly ranked among the extraordinary productions of the age. Antiquity furnishes no examples of such a work. A rapid, concise, and nervous style; animated and picturesque expressions; a use of language altogether new, without offending against its established rules, struck the public at first; and the allusions to living persons, which are crowded in almost every page, completed its success. When the author showed his work in manuscript to Malesieux, the latter told him that the book would have many readers, and its author many enemies . It somewhat sunk in the opinion of men, when that whole generation, whose follies it attacked, were passed away; yet, as it contains many things applicable to all times and places, it is more than probable that it will never be forgotten.”

Dr. Lettice concludes a well-written life of him by remarking, that Buchanan, with regard to his person, is said to have been slovenly, inattentive to dress, and almost to have bordered upon rusticity in his manners and appearance. The character of his countenance was manly but austere, and the portraits remaining of him bear testimony to this observation. But he was highly polished in his language and style of conversation, which was generally much seasoned with wit and humour. On every subject he possessed a peculiar facility of illustration by lively anecdotes and short moral examples; and when his knowledge and recollection failed in suggesting these, his invention immediately supplied him. He has been too justly reproached with instances of revenge, and forgetfulness of obligations. These seem not, however, to have been characteristic qualities, but occasional failures of his nobler nature, and arising from too violent an attachment to party, and an affection too partial towards individuals. To the same source, perhaps, may be traced that easiness of belief to which he is found too frequently to resign his better judgment. His freedom from anxieties relative to fortune, and indifference to outward and accidental circumstances, gained him, with some, the reputation of a Stoic philosopher; but as a state of mind undisturbed by the vicissitudes of life, and a disposition to leave the morrow to take care of itself, are enjoined by one far better than Zeno, let us not forget that Buchanan is affirmed moreover to have been religious and devout, nor unjustly place so illustrious a figure in the niche of an Athenian portico, which claims no inferior station in the Christian temple.

, a civilian of Oxford, the son of John Budden of Canford, in Dorsetshire, was born in that county in 1566, and entered Merton college in 1582, but was admitted scholar of Trinity college in May of the fol lowing year, where he took his bachelor’s degree. He was soon after ivmoved to Gloucester hall, where he took his master’s degree, but chiefly studied civil law. He was at length made philosophy reader of Magdalen college, and took his bachelor and doctor’s degrees in civil law in 1602. In 1609 he was made principal of New-inn, and soon after king’s professor of civil law, and principal of Broadgate’s hall, where he died June 11, 1620, and was buried in the chancel of St. Aldate’s church. Wood says he was a person of great eloquence, an excellent rhetorician, philosopher, and civilian. He wrote the lives of “William of Wainflete,” founder of Magdalen college, in Latin, Oxon, 1602, 4to, reprinted in “Batesii Vitæ” and of “Archbishop Morton,” London, 1607, 8vo. He also made the Latin translation of sir Thomas Bodley’s statutes for his library; and sir Thomas Smith’s “Common Wealth of England;” and from the French of P. Frodius, a civilian, “A Discourse for Parents’ Honour and Authority over their Children,” Loud. 1614, 8vo.

, a celebrated astronomer and scholar, was born of protestant parents, at Houdun in France, September the 28th, 1605; and having finished his studies in philosophy at Paris, and in civil law at Poictiers, he applied to mathematics, theology, sacred and profane history, and civil law, with such assiduity, that he became eminent in each of these departments, and acquired the reputation of an universal genius. As he had travelled for his improvement into Italy, Germany, Poland, and the Levant, he formed an extensive acquaintance with men of letters, and maintained a correspondence with the most distinguished persons of his time. Although he had been educated a protestant, he changed his profession at the age of 27 years, and became a catholic priest. His life was prolonged to his 89th year; and having retired to the abbey of St. Victor at Paris in 1689, he died there November the 25th, 1694. Besides his pieces concerning ecclesiastical rights, which excited attention, and the history of Ducas, printed at the Louvre, in 1649, in the original Greek, with a Latin version and notes, he was the author of several other works, chiefly mathematical and philosophical. His “Treatise on the Nature of Light” was published in 1638; and his work entitled, “Philolaus, sive de vero Systema Mundi,” or his true system of the world, according to Philolaus, an ancient philosopher and astronomer, in the same year, and republished in 1645, under the title of “Astronomia Philolaica,” grounded upon the hypothesis of the earth’s motion, and the elliptical orbit described by the planet’s motion about a cone. To which he added tables entitled “Tabulæ Philolaicæ:” a work which Riccioli says ought to be attentively read by all students of astronomy. He considered the hypothesis, or approximation of bishop Ward, and found it not to agree with the planet Mars; and shewed in his defence of the Philolaic astronomy against the bishop, that from four observations made by Tycho on the planet Mars, that planet in the first and third quarters of the mean anomaly, was more forward than it ought to be according to Ward’s hypothesis; but in the 2d and 4th quadrant of the same, the planet was not so far advanced as that hypothesis required. He therefore set about a correction of the bishop’s hypothesis, and made it to answer more exactly to the orbits of the planets, which were most eccentric, and introduced what is called by Street, in his “Caroline Tables,” the Variation: for these tables were calculated from this correction of Bullialdus, and exceeded all in exactness that went before. This correction is, in the judgment of Dr. Gregory, a very happy one, if it be not set above its due place; and be accounted no more than a correction of an approximation to the true system: For by this means we are enabled to gather the coequate anomaly a priori and directly from the mean, and the observations are well enough answered at the same time; which, in Mercator’s opinion, no one had effected before. It is remarkable that the ellipsis which he has chosen for a planet’s motion, is such a one as, if cut out of a cone, will have the axis of the cone passing through one of its foci, viz. that next the aphelion.

, a Frenchman, born at Bethune in Artois, was a renowned philosopher or schoolman of the fourteenth century. He discharged a professor’s place in the university of Paris with great reputation; and wrote commentaries on Aristotle’s logic, ethics, and metaphysics, which were much esteemed. Some say that he was rector of the university of Paris in 1320. Aventine relates, that he was a disciple of Ockam; and that, being expelled Paris by the power of the realists, which was superior to that of the nominalists, he went into Germany, where he founded the university of Vienna. “Buridan’s Ass,” has been a kind of proverb a long time in the schools; though nobody has ever pretended to explain it, or to determine with certainty what it meant. He supposed an ass, very hungry, standing betwixt two bushels of oats perfectly equal; or an ass, equally hungry and thirsty, placed betwixt a bushel of oats and a tub of water, both making an equal impression on his organs. After this supposition he used to ask, What will this ass do? If it was answered, He will remain there as he stands: Then, concluded he, he will die of hunger betwixt two bushels of oats; he will die of hunger and thirst with plenty of food and drink before him. This seemed absurd, and the laugh was wholly on his side: But, if it was answered, This ass will not be so stupid as to die of hunger and thirst with such good provision on each side of it: then, concluded he, this ass has free will, or of two weights in equilibre one may stir the other. Leibnitz, in his Theodicea, confutes this fable; he supposes the ass to be between two meadows, and equally inclining to both: concerning this he says, it is a fiction which, in the present course of nature, cannot subsist. Indeed, were the case possible, we must say, that the creature would suffer itself to die of hunger. But the question turns on an impossibility, unless God should purposely interfere to produce such a thing; for the universe cannot be so divided, by a plane drawn through the middle of the ass, cut vertically in its length, so that every thing on each side shall be alike and similar; for neither the parts of the universe, nor the animal’s viscera, are similar, nor in an equal situation on both sides of this vertical plane. Therefore will there always be many things, within and without the ass, which, though imperceptible to us, will determine it to take to one side more than the other. After all this, not very edifying discussion, the world must confess its obligations to Buridan for one of the most common proverbs, denoting hesitation in determining between two objects of equal or nearly equal value.

, the first upon record of a very learned family, and professor of divinity at Utrecht, was the son of Peter Burman, a Protestant minister at Frankendal, and was born at Leyden in 1632, where he pursued his studies. At the age of twenty-three he was invited by the Dutch congregation at Hanau, in Germany, to be their pastor, and thence he was recalled to Leyden, and chosen regent of the college in which he had been educated. Before he had been here a year, his high reputation occasioned his removal to Utrecht, where he was appointed professor of divinity, and one of the preachers; Here he acquired additional fame by his learning, and the flourishing state to which he advanced the university. He was reckoned an excellent philosopher, an eminent scholar in the learned languages, and a good preacher. He died Nov. 10, 1679. His principal works are Commentaries on some of the books of the Old Testament, in Dutch, besides which he wrote in Latin: 1. “An Abridgment of Divinity,” Utrecht, 1671, 2 vols. 4to, often reprinted. 2. “De Moralitate Sabbati,” 1665, which occasioned a controversy with Essenius. 3. “Narratio de controversiis nuperius in academia Ultrajectina motis, &c.” Utrecht, 1677, 4to. 4. “Exercitationes Academic^,” Rotterdam, 1683, 2 vols. 4to. 5. “Tractatus de Passione Christi,” 1695, 4to. 6. His “Academical discourses,” published by Grasvius, with some account of the author, Utrecht, 1700, 4to, and the same year they were translated and printed in Dutch.

Although our author at this time had no parochial cure, he did not refuse his attendance to any sick person who desired it, and was sent for, amongst others, to one wha had been engaged in a criminal amour with Wilmot, earl of Rochester. The manner he treated her, during her illness, gave that lord a great curiosity of being acquainted with him, and for a whole winter, in a conversation of at least one evening in a week, Burnet went over all those topics with him, upon which sceptics, and men of loose morals, are wont to attack the Christian religion. The effect of these conferences, in convincing the earl’s judgment, and leading him to a sincere repentance, became the subject of a well-known and interesting narrative which he published in 1680, entitled “An Account of the Life and Death of the Earl of Rochester.” This work has lately been reprinted more than once, perhaps owing to the character Dr. Johnson gave of it in his Life of Rochester: he there pronounces it a book “which the critic ought to read for its elegance, the philosopher for its arguments, and the saint for its piety.”

During his periods of leisure, the course of his studies led him to attempt the composition of a work, which should afford, to the confusion and astonishment of the moderns, a complete vindication of the wisdom and eloquence of his admired ancients. The volumes of his “Origin and Progress of Language,” were published about the year 1773, and were very variously treated by the critics. Those who were partial to modern literature, on account of their ignorance of that of antiquity, or who, though not unacquainted with the more popular of the ancient authors, were, however, strangers to the deeper mysteries of Greek erudition, condemned lord Monboddo’s work with bitter and contemptuous censure. Nothing, it was said, but the strange absurdity of his opinions, could have hindered his book from falling dead-born from the press. In the late Mr. Harris, however, (the philosopher of Malmesbury), he found an admirer and literary friend, who was himself deeply versant in Grecian learning and philosophy, and was exceedingly delighted to meet with one that had cultivated those studies with equal ardour, and worshipped the excellence of the ancient Greeks, as far above all other excellence. Lord Monboddo’s private life was spent in the practice of all the social virtues, and in the enjoyment of much domestic felicity; the latter, indeed, was for a time interrupted by the death of a wife and son whom he tenderly loved; but he endured the loss with a firmness fitted to do honour either to philosophy or religion.

But, notwithstanding these encomiums on Burnet, it cannot be Affirmed that his Theory is built upon principles of mathematics and sound philosophy; on the contrary, men of science were displeased at him for presuming to erect a theory, which he would have received as true, without proceeding on that foundation. Flamstead is reported to have told him, somewhat peevishly, that “there went more to the making of a world, than a fine-turned period,” and that “he was able to overthrow the Theory in one sheet of paper.” Others attacked it in form. Mr. Erasmus Warren, rector of Worlington, in Suffolk, published two pieces against it soon after its appearance in English, and Dr. Burnet answered them; which pieces, with their answers, have been printed at the end of the later editions of the Theory. Mr. John Keill, Savilian professor of geometry in Oxford, published also an Examination of it in 1698, to which Dr. Burnet replied; and then Mr. Keill defended himself. Burnet’s reply to Keill is subjoined to the later editions of his Theory; and KeilPs Examination and Defence, together with his “Remarks and Defence upon Whiston’s Theory,” were reprinted together in 1734, 8vo. It is universally allowed that Keill has solidly confuted the Theory; and it is to be lamented that he did it in the rough way of controversy; yet there are many passages in his confutation, which shew, that he at the same time entertained the highest opinion of the Author. “I acknowledge him (says he) to be an ingenious writer; and if he had taken a right method, and had made a considerable progress in those sciences that are introductory to the study of nature, I doubt not but he would have made a very acute philosopher. It was his unhappiness to begin at first with the Cartesian philosophy; and not having a sufficient stock of geometrical and mechanical principles to examine it rightly, he too easily believed it, and thought that there was but little skill required 'in those sciences to become a philosopher; and therefore, in imitation of Mons. Des Cartes, he would undertake to shew how the world was made; a task too great, even for a mathematician.”

, was born in 1525 at Montrichard in Touraine, of a poor family, and was at first a protestant divine, attached to Catherine of Bourbon, sister of Henry IV. but was deposed in a synod on a charge of practising the arts of magic, and for having written a book in favour of public stews. This sentence accelerated his abjuration, which he delivered at Paris in 1595, and died in 1610, at the age of eighty-five, doctor of Sorbonne, and professor of Hebrew in the college royal. Caiet was of a kind and officious disposition, and was so unfortunate as to have for his enemies all whom he had obliged. His slovenly dress, his manner of life, and his absurd attempts to discover the philosopher’s stone, drew upon him no less contempt than his learning brought him respect. Notwithstanding his humble and shabby exterior, Henry IV. continued to admit him to court, not without wishing, however, to avoid it, which he shewed by presenting him with a small estate in the country, a philosophical retreat sufficient to satisfy the ambition of a scholar. The Calvinists, whom he had deserted, endeavoured to expose his principles and conduct, and as after his abjuration he had had a conference with Du Moulin, this was a fresh reason for their animosity. Caiet did not remain silent, but published, in 1603, against Du Moulin, the book emphatically entitled “The fiery Furnace, and the reverberatory Furnace, for evaporating the pretended waters of Silofim (the title of Du Moulin’s work), and for strengthening the fire of purgatory.” The intimacy between the count de Soissons and the sister of Henry IV. proceeded such lengths, that they ordered Caiet to marry them immediately. On his refusal to do it, the prince threatened to kill him. “Kill me then,” replied Caiet; “I had much rather die by the hand of a prince than by that of the hangman.”

Sixtus Senensis tells us, that he was a most subtle logician, an admirable philosopher, and an incomparable divine. He wrote commentaries upon Aristotle’s philosophy, and upon Thomas Aquinas’ s theology; the latter, however, by no means calculated to give us a favourable idea of his logic, or his perspicuity, He gave a literal translation of all the books of the Old and New Testaments from the originals, excepting Solomon’s Song and the Pro-' phets, which he had begun, but did not live to proceed far in; and the Revelations of St. John, which he designedly omitted, saying, that to explain them, it was necessary for a man to be endued, not with parts and learning, but with the spirit of prophecy. Father Simon’s account of him, as a translator of the Bible, is critical and historical: “Cardinal Cajetan,” says he, “was very fond of translations of the Bible purely literal; being persuaded, that the Scripture could not be translated too literally, it being the word of God, to which it is expressly forbid either to add or diminish any thing. This cardinal, in his preface to the Psalms, largely explains the method he observed in his translation of that book; and he affirms, that although heknew nothing of the Hebrew, yet he had translated part of the Bible word for word from it. For this purpose he made use of two persons, who understood the language well, the one a Jew, the other a Christian, whom he desired to translate the Hebrew words exactly according to the letter and grammar, although their translation might appear to make no sense at all. I own, says he, that my interpreters were often saying to me, this Hebrew diction Is literally so; but then the sense will not be clear unless it is changed so: to whom I, when I heard all the different significations, constantly replied, Never trouble yourselves about the sense, if it does not appear to you; because is not your business to expound, but to interpret: do you interpret it exactly as it lies, and leave to the expositors the care of making sense of it.” Cardinal Pullavicini, who looked upon this as too bold, says, that Cajetan, “who has succeeded to the admiration of the whole world in his other works, got no reputation by what he did upon the Bible, because he followed the prejudices of those who stuck close to the Hebrew grammar.” But father Simon is of opinion that he “may in some measure be justified: for he did not, says he, pretend to condemn the ancient Latin translator, or the other translators of the Bible; but would only have translations of the Bible to be made from the original as literally as can be, because there are only these originals, which can be called the pure word of God; and because in translations, which are not literal, there are always some things which do not thoroughly express the original.” These “Commentaries on the Holy Scriptures,” if they deserve the name, were published at Lyons in 5 vols. fol. 1639.

was an Indian philosopher who followed Alexander the Great in his expedition to the Indies. Being tormented with the colic after passing eighty-three years in health, he petitioned the conqueror to cause a funeral pile to be erected whereon he might finish his days according to the custom of his country. That prince, who loved and esteemed him, reluctantly yielding to his entreaties, ordered his army to range itself in order of battle round the funeral pile. Calanus, crowned with flowers, and magnificently habited, ascended the pile with a tranquil and composed countenance, saying as he went up, that “having lost his health, and seen Alexander, life had nothing more to interest him.” He bore the action of the fire without discovering any signs of uneasiness or pain and, on being asked if he had nothing to say to Alexander “No,”returned the philosopher, “I reckon soon to receive him at Babylon.” The hero dying three months afterwards in that city, the brachman was thought to have been a prophet; a circumstance which added not a little of the marvellous to his history. Calanus’s death took place in the fourth year of the 113th Olympiad, or 325 B. C.

, a Greek philosopher and historian, was a native of Olinthus, and the disciple and relation of Aristotle, by whose advice he accompanied Alexander in his expeditions. Aristotle gave him to his scholar, that he might moderate the fury of his passions; but Callisthenes was too deficient in the arts of a courtier to render truth sufficiently palatable to the prince. His animadversions on him were probably conveyed in repulsive language, and he is said to have placed his writings far above the conquests of the king of Macedon, who ought, said he, “to look for immortality more from his books than from the madness of being the son of Jupiter/* He thus coarsely expostulated with Alexander on the absurdity of his expecting divine honours, and he became insupportable to the youthful hero. Callisthenes being accused, in the year 328 before the Christian aera, of conspiring against the life of Alexander, the prince eagerly seized that opportunity for getting rid of his censor.” This conqueror (says the historian Justin), irritated against the philosopher Callisthenes for boldly disapproving his resolution to make himself adored after the manner of the kings of Persia, pretended to believe that he had engaged in a conspiracy against him; and made use of this pretext for cruelly causing his lips, his nose, and his ears to be cut off. In this mutilated condition he had him drawn in his retinue, shut up with a dog in an iron cage, to make him an object of horror and affright to his army. Lysimachus, a disciple of this virtuous man, moved at beholding him languish in a misery he had brought on himself only by a laudable frankness, procured him poison, which at once delivered him from his exquisite torments and such unmerited indignity. Alexander, being informed of it, was so transported with rage, that he caused Lysimachus to be exposed to the fury of a hungry lion, The brave man, on seeing the beast approach to devour him, folded his cloak round his arm, plunged it down his throat, and, tearing out his tongue, stretched him dead upon the spot. An exploit so courageous struck the king with an admiration that disarmed his wrath, and made Lysimachus more dear to him than ever.“ There are, however, other accounts of his death, but all of them sufficiently shocking. It is reported that Alexander caused these words to be engraved on the tomb of Callisthenes:” Gdi Sophistam Qui Sibi Non Sapit." In the seventh volume of Memoirs of the academy of belles lettres of Paris may be seen some curious researches on the life and writings of this philosopher by the abbe Sevin. The philosophers that succeeded Callisthenes thought it their duty (says M. Hardion) to avenge their brother by launching out into furious declamations against the memory of Alexander, whose criminality, according to Seneca, was never to be effaced, because he was the murderer of Callisthenes.

, a celebrated French philosopher, was a native of Mesnil-Hubert, near Argenton, in the diocese of Seez. About 165.5, he studied philosophy at Caen, and afterwards divinity at Paris, but philosophy was his favourite pursuit, and the foundation of his fame. In 1660 he taught in the college du Bois, in Caen, and became there acquainted with Huet, afterwards bishop of Avranches, who acknowledged the assistance he derived from Cally in his studies. Their intimacy, however, was interrupted by Cally’s avowal of adherence to ttie Cartesian system. CaJly was the first in France who had the courage to profess himself a Cartesian, in defiance of the prejudices and numbers of those who adhered to the ancient philosophy. He first broached his Cartesianism in the way of hypothesis, but afterwards taught it more openly, which procured him many enemies. Huet, although then very young, ventured to censure him; and father Valois, the Jesuit, who was a contemporary professor of philosophy, attacked both Cally and his opinions in a work which he published under the name of Louis de la Ville, in 1680, entitled “Sentimens de M. Descartes, touchant Pessence et les proprietes des corps, opposes a la doctrine de Peglise, et conformesaux erreurs de Calvin sur I'eucharistie.” Cally, not thinking there was much in this, did not answer it until pressed by his friends, when he wrote an answer in Latin, which, however, was not at this time published. When the duke de Montausier was appointed by Louis XIV. to provide eminent classical scholars to write notes on the classics published for the use of the Dauphin, Cally was selected for the edition of “Boethius de Consolatione,” which he published, accordingly, in 1680, in 4to, now one of the scarce quarto Delphin editions. In 1674 he published a short introduction to philosophy, “Institutio philosophica,” 4to, which he afterwards greatly enlarged, and published in 1695 under the title “Universae philosophise institutio,” Caen, 4 vols. 4to. In 1675 he was appointed principal of the college of arts in Caen, on which he began a new course of philosophical lectures, and laid out ten or twelve thousand francs on rebuilding a part of the college which had fallen into ruin. In 1684 he was appointed curate of the parish of St. Martin, in Caen, and the Protestants who were then very numerous in that city, flocked to his sermons, and he held conferences once or twice a week in his vestry, which they attended with much pleasure, and we are told he 'made many converts to the Popish religion. But this success, for which every Catholic ought to have been thankful, excited the envy of those who had quarrelled with him before on account of his Cartesianism, and by false accusations, they procured him to be exiled to Moulins in 1686, where he remained for two years. Finding on his return that the Protestants were still numerous in Caen, and that they entertained the same respect for him as before, he wrote for their use a work entitled “Durand cornmente, ou Paccord de la philosophie avec la theologie, tonchaut la transubstantialion.” In this, which contained part of his answer to father Valois, mentioned above, he revives the opinion of the celebrated Durand, who said, if the church decided that there was a transubstantiation in the eucharist, there must remain something of what was bread, to make a difference between the creation and production of a thing which was not, and annihilation or a thing reduced to nothing. Cally sent this work in ms. to M. Basnage, who had been one of his scholars, but received no answer. la the mean time, unwilling to delay a work which he hoped would contribute to the conversion of the Protestants, “he engaged with a bookseller at Caen to print only sixty copies, which he purposed to send to his friends at Paris, and obtain their opinion as to a more extended publication. The bookseller, however, having an eye only to his own interest, undertook to assure Cally that the work would be approved by the doctors of the Sorbonne, and he therefore would print eight hundred. Cally unfortunately consented, and the work no sooner appeared, than he who fondly hoped it would convert heretics, was himself treated as a heretic. M. de Nesmond, then bishop of Bayeux, condemned the work in a pastoral letter March 30, 1701, and Cally in April following made his retractation, which he not only read in his own church, but it was read in all other churches; and he also destroyed the impression, so that it is now classed among rare books. It was a small vol. 12mo, 1700, printed at Cologne, under the name of Pierre Marteau. Cally also published some of his sermons, but they were too philosophical and dry for the closet, although he had contrived to give them a popular effect in the pulpit. A work entitled” Doctrine heretique, &c. touchant la primauté du pape, enseignee par les Jesuites dans leur college de Caen," is attributed to him, but as it bears date 1644, he must have then been too young. He died Dec. 31, 1709.

, one of the most famous divines of the seventeenth century, among the French Protestants, was born at Glasgow, in Scotland, about the year 1580, and educated at the university of his native city. After reading lectures on the Greek language for a year, he began his travels in 1600, and at Bourdeaux evinced so much ability and erudition, that the ministers of that city appointed him master of a college which they had established at Bergerac, for teaching Greek and Latin; and from this the duke de Bouillon removed him to the philosophical professorship at Sedan, where he remained for two years. He then went to Paris, and from Paris to Bourdeaux, where he arrived in 1604, and began his divinity studies, and in 1608 was appointed one of the ministers of Bourdeaux, and officiated there with such increasing reputation, that the university of Saumur judged him worthy to succeed Gomarus in the divinity chair. Having accepted this offer, he gave his lectures until 1620, when the university was almost dispersed by the civil war. He now came over to England with his family, and was recommended to king James, who appointed him professor of divinity at Glasgow, in the room of Robert Boyd, of Trochrig, (whom Bayle and his translators call Trochoregius), because he was supposed to be more attached to the episcopal form of church government. This situation, however, not suiting his taste, he returned to Saumur in less than a year; but even there he met with opposition, and the court having prohibited his public teaching, he was obliged to read lectures in private. After a year passed in this precarious state of toleration, he went in 1624 to Montauban, where he was chosen professor of divinity, but having declared himself too openly against the party which preached up the civil war, he created many enemies, and among the rest an unknown miscreant who assaulted him in the street, and wounded him so desperately as to occasion his death, which took place, after he had languished a considerable time, in 1625. Bayle says, he was a man of a great deal of wit and judgment, had a happy memory, was very learned, a good philosopher, of a chcarful temper, and ready to communicate not only his knowledge, but even his money: he was a great talker, a long preacher, little acquainted with the works of the fathers, obstinate in his opinions, and somewhat troublesome. He frankly owned to his friends, that he found several things still to reform in the reformed churches. He took a delight in publishing particular opinions, and in going out of the beaten road; and he gave instances of this when he was a youth, in his theses “De Tribus Frederibus,” which he published and maintained at Heidelberg, although yet but a proposant, or candidate for the ministry. He also mixed some novelties in all the theological questions which he examined; and when in explaining some passages of the holy scripture, he met with great difficulties, he took all opportunities to contradict the other divines, and especially Beza; for he pretended that they had not penetrated into the very marrow of that science. It was from him that monsieur Amyraut adopted the doctrine of universal grace, which occasioned so many disputes in France, and will always be found, at least upon Amyraut’s principles, to be too inconsistent for general belief. Cameron’s works are his “Theological Lectures,” Saumur, 1626 1628, 3 vols. 4to, published by Lewis Capellus, with a life of the author, and afterwards at Geneva in one vol. folio, with additions, by Frederick Spanheim. Capellus also published, in 1632, Cameron’s “Myrothecium Evangelicum.”

, a celebrated Italian philosopher, was born at Stilo, a small village in Calabria, Sept. 5, 1568. At thirteen he understood the ancient orators and poets, and wrote discourses and verses on various subjects; and the year after, his father purposed to send him to Naples to study law: but young Campanella, having other views, entered himself into the order of the Dominicans. Whilst he was studying philosophy at San Giorgio, his professor was invited to dispute upon some theses which were to be maintained by the Franciscans; but finding himself indisposed, he sent Campanella in his room, who argued with so much subtilty and force, as to charm his auditory. When his course of philosophy was finished, he was sent to Cosenza to study divinity: but his inclination led him to philosophy. Having conceived a notion that the truth was not to be found in the peripatetic philosophy, he anxiously examined all the Greek, Latin, and Arabian commentators upon Aristotle, and began to hesitate more and more with regard to the doctrines of that sect. His doubts still remaining, he determined to peruse the writings of Plato, Pliny, Galen, the Stoics, the followers of Democritus, and especially those of Telesius; and he found the doctrine of his masters to be false in so many points, that he began to doubt even of uncontroverted matters of fact. At the age of twenty- two he began to commit his new system to writing, and in 1500 he went to Naples to get it printed. Some time after he was present at a disputation in divinity, and took occasion to commend what was spoken by an ancient professor of his order, as very judicious;but the old man, jealous, perhaps, of the glory which Campanella had gained, bade him, in a very contemptuous manner, be silent, since it did not belong to a young man, as he was, to interpose in questions of divinity. Campanella 'fired at this, and said, that, young as he was, he was able to teach him; and immediately confuted what the professor had advanced, tothe satisfaction of the audience. The professor conceived a mortal hatred to him on this account, and accused him to the inquisition, as if he had gained by magic that vast extent of learning which he had acquired without a master. His writings now made a great noise in the world, and the novelty of his opinions stirring up many enemies agaiast him at Naples, he removed to Rome; but not meeting with a better reception in that city, he proceeded to Florence, and presented some of his works to the grand duke, Ferdinand I. the patron of learned men. After a short stay there, as he was passing through Bologna, in his way to Padua, his writings were seized, and carried to the inquisition at Rome, which, however, gave him little disturbance, and he continued his journey. At Padua, he was employed in instructing some young Venetians in his doctrines, and composing some pieces. Returning afterwards to Rome, he met with a hetter reception than before, and was honoured with the friendship of several cardinals. In 1598 he went to Naples, where he staid but a short time, then visited his own country. Some expressions which he dropped, with regard to the government of the Spaniards, and the project of an insurrection, being reported to the Spaniards, he was seized and carried to Naples in 1599, as a criminal against the state, and put seven times to the rack, and afterwards condemned to perpetual imprisonment. At first he was not permitted to see any person, and denied the use of pen, ink, and paper; but, being afterwards indulged with these implements, he wrote several of his pieces in prison; some of which Tobias Adamus of Saxony procured from him, and published in Germany. Pope Urban VIII. who knew him from his writings, having obtained his liberty from Philip IV. of Spain in May 1626, Campanella went immediately to Rome, where he continued some years in the prisons of the inquisition, but was a prisoner only in name. In 1629 he was discharged, but the resentment of the Spaniards was not abated. The friendship shewn him by the pope, who settled a considerable pension, and conferred many other favours on him, excited their jealousy; and his correspondence with some of the French nation, gave them new suspicions of him. Being informed of their designs against him, he went out of Rome, disguised like a minim, in the French ambassador’s coach, and, embarking for France, landed at Marseilles in 1634. Mr. Peiresc, being informed of his arrival, sent a letter to bring him to Aix, where he entertained him some months. The year following he went to Paris, and was graciously received by Lewis XIII. and cardinal Richelieu; the latter procured him a pension of 2000 livres, and often consulted him on the affairs of Italy. He passed the remainder of his days in a monastery of the Dominicans at Paris, and died March 21, 1639.

After remaining nine years in this country parish, he was chosen one of the ministers of Aberdeen in June, 1757, where his various and extensive talents were appreciated by those who knew best their worth, and where his fame was most likely to be rewarded. Accordingly in 1759, he was presented by his majesty to the office of principal of Marischal college, and soon made it appear that he was worthy of this dignity. Hume had recently published his “Essay on Miracles,” and despised his opponents until principal Campbell published his celebrated “Dissertation on Miracles,” which deservedly raised his character as an acute metaphysician and an able polemical writer. This “Dissertation” was originally drawn up in the form of a sermon, which he preached before the provincial synod of Aberdeen, Oct. 9, 1760, and which, on their requesting him to publish it, he afterwards enlarged into its present form. Some circumstances attended the publication which are rather singular, and which we shall relate in the words of his biographer. “Before it was published, he sent a copy of his manuscript to Dr. Blair of Edinburgh, with a request that, after perusing it, he would communicate the performance to Mr. Hume. The learned aud judicious Blair read the dissertation both as a friend, and as a critic, then showed it to his opponent, and afterwards wrote to Mr. Campbell both what had occurred to himself, and what Mr. Hume chose at first to write on the subject. It soon appeared, that this sceptical philosopher, with all his affected equanimity, felt very sensibly, on reading so acute, so learned, and so complete an answer to his essay on miracles. He complained of some harsh expressions, and stated a few objections to what Mr. Campbell had advanced, shewing, in some cases, where his meaning had been misunderstood. Instead of being displeased, his generous adversary instantly expunged, or softened, every expression that either was severe, or was only supposed to be offensive, removed every objection that had been made to his arguments, and availed himself of the remarks both of his friend, and of his opponent, in rendering his dissertation a complete and unanswerable performance. Thus corrected and improved, it was put to the press, and a copy of it sent to Mr. Hume. That philosopher was charmed with the gentlemanly conduct of Mr. Campbell, confessed that he felt a great desire to answer the dissertation, and declared that he would have attempted to do something in this way, if he had not laid it down as a rule, in early life, never to return an answer to any of his opponents. Thus principal Campbell, from a rnanly and well-bred treatment of his adversary, rendered his own work more correct, gained the esteem of his opponent, and left an example worthy to be imitated by all polemical writers.” How far such an example is worthy to be imitated, may surely be questioned; in Mr. Campbell’s conduct we see somewhat of timidity and irresolution, nor does he seem to have been aware of the impropriety of gratifying Hume by personal respect; and after all no good was produced, for Hume reprinted his essay again and again without any notice of Campbell or any other of his opponents, a decisive proof that in this respect he had no title to the character of philosopher. The “Dissertation on Miracles” was published in 1763, previously to which the author received the degree of D.D. from King’s college, Old Aberdeen. The sale of the work was in proportion to its merit, most extensive in Great Britain, and being translated into the French, Dutch, and nan languages, the name of Dr. Campbell was from this time always mentioned with the highest respect among the learned men of Europe.

Dr. Campbell continued for twelve years to discharge the offices of principal of Marischal college-, and of one of the ministers of Aberdeen. In the former capacity he was equally esteemed by the professors and students; as he united great learning to a conduct strictly virtuous, and to manners equally gentle and pleasant. lit the latter office he lived in the greatest harmony with his colleagues, over whom he affected no superiority; and by all his hearers was esteemed as a worthy man, a good preacher, and one of the best lecturers they had ever heard. In lecturing, indeed, he excelled, while he rarely composed sermons, but preached from a few, and sometimes without any notes. Yet his discourses on particular occasions, were such as maintained his reputation. In June 1771, he was, on a vacancy by resignation, elected professor of divinity in Marischal college. This appointment was attended with the resignation of his pastoral charge, as one of the ministers of Aberdeen; but as minister of Gray Friars, an office conjoined to the professorship, he had to preach once every Sunday in one of the churches, and besides this, had the offices both of principal and professor of divinity to discharge. In the latter office he increased the times of instructing his pupils, so thak they heard nearly double the number of lectures which were usual with his predecessors, and he so arranged his subjects, that every student who chose to attend regularly during the shortest period prescribed by the laws of the church, might hear a complete course of lectures on thelgy embracing, under the theoretical part, every thing that the student of divinity should know; and under the practical branch, every thing that he should do, as a reader of sacred or church history, a biblical critic, a polemic divine, a pulpit orator, a minister of a parish, and a member of the church courts on the Scotch establishment. Some idea may be formed of the value of his labours, by the canons of scripture criticism, and a few other prelections on the same subject, which are included in preliminary dissertations/printed along with his “Translation of the Gospels,” and by the “Lectures” published after his death. In 1776 Dr. Campbell published his “Philosophy of Rhetoric,” which established his reputation as an excellent grammarian, an accurate and judicious critic, a scholar of delicate imagination and taste, and a philosopher of great acuteness and deep penetration. Our author also published a few occasional sermons, which were much admired, but not equally. That “On the Spirit of the Gospel,” 1771, placed him at variance with many members of his own church, who adhered more closely to the Caivinistic creed than the doctor. That in 1776, a Fast Sermon on account of the American war, inculcating the duty of allegiance, was circulated in an edition of six thousand, in America, but it had no effect, at that period of irritation among the colonies, in persuading the Americans that they had no right to throw off their allegiance. In 1779, when a considerable alarm, followed by riots in Scotland, took place in consequence of a bill introduced into parliament; for the relief of the Roman catholics, Dr. Campbell published an address well calculated to quiet the public mind, at the same time that he took occasion to express his abhorrence of the tenets of Popery. The same year he published a sermon on the happy influences of religion on civil society. It has already been noticed that he did not often, write sermons, but the few which he did compose, were in general highly finished.

In his seventy-second year, he was seized with a severe illness, from which he unexpectedly recovered, and though his bodily strength was impaired, resumed his former occupations. Some years before his death, he made. a dis^ interested and unsolicited offer of resigning his professorship of divinity, provided that any one of three gentlemen whom he named, and to whom he applied for their consent, should succeed him; but this offer not being accepted by the patrons of the professorship, he continued to hold his office, lest an improper person should in his life-time be chosen as his successor. But afterwards application was made to him, and also to the patrons of the professorship, in Lehalf of Dr. William Laurence Brown, late minister of the English church, and professor of moral philosophy, &c. in the university of Utrecht. This gentleman had been driven from these offices by the French invasion of Holland, on account of his attachment to the house of Orange, and his native country; and because, in some of his writings, he had opposed the progress of French principles, and maintained the cause of religion. Dr. Campbell, knowing the excellence of his character, instantly resigned the offices of professor of divinity, and minister of Gray Friars church, which were worth 160l. a year, and soon after his resignation, government, desirous of testifying in a public manner, the high respect so justly entertained of his abilities and services, offered him, on condition of resigning the principalship of Marischal college, a pension of 300l. a year. Dr. Campbell accepted this token of his majesty’s munificence, and was succeeded in the office of principal also by Dr. Brown. This pension, however, he did not long live to enjoy, though he continued writing till within a week of his death; an event which he expected with great tranquillity and composure. On the 31st of March, 1796, after some previous symptoms of uneasiness, he was struck with the palsy, which deprived him of speech, and under which he languished for a few days till he died. He had long accustomed himself to prepare for death; and in a former illness he had given the testimony of a dying man in favour of religion. A funeral sermon was preached on occasion of his death, by Dr. Brown, in which he has given a sketch of his character as a public teacher, as the head of a public seminary of learning, and as a private Christian. His character is thus summed up in a few sentences by his biographer, Dr. Keith: “His imagination was lively and fertile his understanding equally acute and vigorous and his erudition was at once very deep and wonderfully diversified. His piety was unfeigned his morals unimpeached his temper chearful and his manners gentle and unassuming. His love of truth was even more remarkable than the uncommon success with which he sought after it. Where intuitive faculties could be of service to any man, he saw at once if he saw at all. But his deep perspicacity was not satisfied with a superficial view of any thing; his piercing eye darted to the bottom of every sul/ic < i to which discernment could be applied. Where study aud reflection were necessary, he could bestow as much time on patient thinking, as if he had been possessed of no genius at all, and had acquired only a small share of erudition. And when once he began to examine any subject, he was never satisfied till he had viewed it in every light in which it could be seen. He always sought for truth in the love of truth, but he could not bear to be suspected of deviating from it for he neither courted those who might support, nor feared those who did oppose him. The tone of his mind was high, and he would not let it down from the elevation of truth and of virtue. Whether engaged in conversation, or employed in study, he could pass easily from the lightest subject to the most serious one. And the reach of his mind was so great, as to comprehend a great variety of subjects. He could explore the causes of that pleasure which arises in the mind from dramatic entertainments, and lay down the rules of Scripture criticism. He could illustrate the whole theory of evidence, or detect the false reasonings of Mr. Hume. He could explain the spirit of the Gospel, marking the extremes of superstition and enthusiasm; and both as a philosopher and a divine, declare the nature, extent, and importance of the duty of allegiance. While he zealously contended for the faith, he could warn the Christian against imbibing a persecuting spirit, and yet shew the influence of religion upon civil society, warning his countrymen against infidelity, before they had seen its dreadful effects. He could with manly eloquence describe the success of the fishermen of Galilee, while preaching the doctrine of the cross to prejudiced Jews, learned Greeks, and ambitious Romans; and at the same time, with well -applied erudition, he could delineate the characters of the pretended successors of the apostles, and trace the progress of the hierarchy through all the dark and middle ages, until the reformation of religion. As the principal of a college, a professor of divinity, or a minister of the Gospel, as a true patriot, a good man, and a sincere Christian, qwndo ullum invenies 'par tin”

All parties allow him to have been a most extraordinary: man; of admirable parts, an eloquent orator, a subtile philosopher and skilful disputant, an exact preacher both in Latin and English, and a man of good temper and address. Besides the works already mentioned, he wrote, 1. “Nine Articles directed to the lords of the privy-council,” 1581. 2.“The History of Ireland,” noticed above, published by sir James Ware, Dublin, 1633, fol. The original ms. is in the British Museum. 3. “Chronologia universalis.” 4. te Conferences in the Tower,“published by the English divines, 1583, 4to. 5 r” Nar ratio de Divortio,“Antwerp, 1631. 6.” Orationes,“ibid. 1631. 7.” Epistoke variee,“ibid. 1631. 8.” De Imitatione Rhetorica," ibid. 1631. His life, written by Paul Bombino, a Jesuit, is very scarce the best edition is that of Mantua, 1620, 8vo.

, an ingenious natural philosopher, was born at Stroud, in Gloucestershire, July 31, 1713; and was placed, when young, under the care of a Mr. Davis, of the same place, a very able mathematician, with whom, before he attained the age of nine years, he had gone through both vulgar and decimal arithmetic. He then proceeded to the mathematics, and particularly to algebra and astronomy, wherein he made a considerable progress, when his father took him from school, and put him to learn his own business, that of a broad-cloth weaver, but this circumstance did not damp his zeal for the acquisition of knowledge. All his leisure time was devoted to the assiduous^cultivation of astronomical science; and, by the help of the Caroline tables, annexed to Wing’s astronomy, he computed eclipses of the moon and other phsenomena. His acquaintance with that science he applied, likewise, to the constructing of several kinds of dials. But the studies of our young philosopher being frequently pursued to very late hours, his father, fearing that they would injure his health, forbade him the use of a cmidle in his chamber, any longer than for the purpose of going to bed, and would himself often see that his injunction was obeye<l. The son’s thirst of knowledge was, however, so great, that it made him attempt to evade the prohibition, and to find means of secreting his light till the family had retired to rest; when he rose to prosecute undisturbed his favourite pursuits. It was during this prohibition, and at these hours, that he computed, and cut upon stone, with no better an instrument than a common knife, the lines of a large upright sun-dial; on which, besides the hour of the day, were shewn the rising of the sun, -his place in the ecliptic, and some other particulars. When this was finished, and made known to his father, he permitted it to be placed against the front of his house, where it excited the admiration of several gentlemen in the neighbourhood, and introduced young Mr. Canton to their acquaintance, which was followed by the offer of the use of their libraries. In the library of one of these gentlemen, he found Martin’s Philosophical Grammar, which was the first bodk that gave him a taste for natural philosophy. In the possession of another gentleman, a few miles from Stroud, he first saw a pair of globes; an object that afforded him uncommon pleasure, from the great ease with which he could solve those problems he had hitherto been accustomed to compute. The dial was beautified a few years ago, at the expence of the gentlemen at Stroud; several of whom had been his school-fellows, and who continued still to regard it as a very distinguished performance. Among other persons with whom he became acquainted in early life, was the late reverend and ingenious Dr. Henry Miles of Tooting, a learned member of the royal society, and of approved eminence in natural knowledge. This gentleman, perceiving that Mr. Canton possessed abilities too promising to be confined within ^the narrow limits of a country town, prevailed on his father to permit him to come to London. Accordingly he arrived at the metropolis March 4, 1737, and resided with Dr. Miles, at Tooting (who, it may here be noticed, bequeathed to him all his philosophical instruments), till the 6th of May following; when he articled himself, for the term of five years, as a clerk to Mr. Samuel Watkins, master of the academy in Spitalsquare. In this situation, his ingenuity, diligence, and good conduct were so conspicuous, that, on the expiration of his clerkship, in the month of May 1742, he was taken into partnership with Mr. Watkins for three years; which gentleman he afterwards succeeded in Spital-square, and there continued during his whole life. On December 25, 1744, he married Penelope, the eldest daughter of Mr. Thomas Colbrooke, and niece to James Colbrooke, esq. banker in London.

On July 20, 1752, our philosopher was so fortunate as to be the first person in England, who, by attracting the electric fire from the clouds during a thunder storm, verified Dr. Franklin’s hypothesis of the similarity of lightning and electricity. Dec. 6, 1753, his paper, entitled, “Electrical experiments,” with an attempt to account for their several phenomena, was read at the Royal Society. In the same paper Mr. Canton mentioned his having discovered, by a great number of experiments, that some clouds were in a positive, and some in a negative state of electricity. Dr. Franklin, much about the same time, made the like discovery in America. This circumstance, together with our author’s constant defence of the doctor’s hypothesis, induced that eminent philosopher, immediately on his arrival in England, to pay Mr. Canton a visit, and gave rise to a friendship which ever after continued without interruption or diminution. On November 14, 1754, was read at the royal society, a letter to the right honourable the earl of Macclesfield, concerning some new electrical experiments. On St. Andrew’s day, 1754, he was a second time elected one of the council of the royal society for the year ensuing. In the Lady’s Diary for 1756, our author answered the prize question that had been proposed in the preceding year. The question was, “How can what we call the shooting of stars be best accounted for; what is the substance of this phenomenon; and in what state of the atmosphere doth it most frequently shew itself?” The solution, though anonymous, was so satisfactory to his friend Mr. Thomas Simpson, who then conducted that work, that he sent Mr. Canton the prize, accompanied with a note, in which he said he was sure that he was not mistaken, in the author of it, as no one besides, that he knew of, could have answered the question. Our philosopher’s next communication to the public was a letter in the Gentleman’s Magazine for September 1759, on the electrical properties of the tourmalin, in which the laws of that wonderful stone are laid down in a very concise and elegant manner. On Dec. 13, in the same year, was read, at the royal society, “An attempt to account for the regular diurnal variation of the horizontal magnetic needle; and also for its irregular variation at the time of an aurora borealis.” A complete year’s observations of the diurnal variations of the needle are annexed to the paper. On Nov. 5, 1761, our author communicated to the royal society an account of the transit of Venus, June 6, 1761, observed in Spitai- square. Mr. Canton’s next communication to the society was a letter addressed to Dr. Benjamin Franklin, and read Feb. 4, 1762, containing some remarks on Mr. Delaval’s electrical experiments. On December 16, in the same year, another curious addition was made by him to philosophical knowledge, in a paper entitled, “Experiments to prove that water is not incompressible.” These experiments are a complete refutation of the famous Florentine experiment, which so many philosophers have mentioned as a proof of the incompressibility of water. On St. Andrew’s day, 1763, our author was the third time elected one of the council of the royal society; and on Nov. 8, in the following year, were read, before that learned body, his farther experiments and observations on the compressibility of water, and some other fluids. The establishment of this fact, in opposition to the received opinion, formed on the hasty decision of the Florentine academy, was thought to be deserving of the society’s gold medal. Tt was accordingly moved for in the council of 1764 and after severalinvidious delays, which terminated much to the honour of Mr. Canton, it was pro sented to him Nov. 30, 1765.

, an Italian physician, mathematician, and philosopher, was born at Pa via, Sept. 24, 1501. It appears that his father and mother were not married, and the latter, a woman of violent passions, endeavoured to destroy him by procuring abortion. He was, however, safely born, and his father who was a lawyer by profession, at Milan, and a man well skilled in what were then called secret arts, instructed him very early in the mysteries of numbers, and the precepts of astrology, He taught him also the elements of geometry, and was desirous to have engaged him in the study of jurisprudence. But his own inclination being rather to medicine and mathematics, at the age of twenty he went to the university of Pavia, where, two years after, he explained Euclid. He then went to Padua, and, in 1524, was admitted to the degree of master of arts, and in the following year to that of doctor in medicine. In 1529, he returned to Milan, where although he obtained little fame as a physician, he was appointed professor of mathematics, for which he was better qualified; and in 1539, he became one of the medical college in Milan. Here he attempted to reform the medical practice by publishing his two first works, “De malo recentiorurn medicorum medendi usu,” Venice, 1536; and “Contradicentium Medicorum libri duo,” Lyons, 1548; but he was too supercilious and peevish to profit by the kindness of his friends, who made repeated efforts to obtain an advantageous establishment for him; and he had, in 1531, formed a matrimonial connection of which he bitterly complained as the cause of all his subsequent misfortunes.

In 1547, an offer was made to him of the honourable post of physician to the king of Denmark, with an annual salary of eight hundred crowns, and a free table, which he refused on account of the climate and the religion of the country. This offer, which was made by the advice of Vesalius, is a proof that his medical reputation was considerably high; and we find that it was likewise very extensive, for in 1552, he was invited into Scotland by Hamilton, archbishop of St. Andrew’s, who had consulted the most eminent physicians in Europe without effect. Of his disease, which was of the asthmatic kind, he began to recover from the time that Cardan prescribed for him; and in less than two months Cardan left him with fair prospects of recovery, and gave him some prescriptions, which in two years effected a complete cure. For this he was amply rewarded by his patient, and great offers were made to persuade him to reside in Scotland. These, however, he rejected, and took an opportunity to visit France and Germany, from which he passed into England, and' at London he exercised his astrological knowledge in calculating the nativity of Edward VI. The most remarkable part of it was, that the young monarch should die a violent death; for which reason, he says, he left the kingdom for fear of further danger which might follow on it. He drew a very favourable character of Edward, which was probably just and sincere, because it was afterwards published in one of his works, in Italy, where Edward was detested as a heretic, and where Cardan could have no motive for flattering his memory. While at the English court Edward was solicitous to retain him in England, and appears to have honoured him with frequent conferences; but Cardan refused sril his offers, and returned to Milan, after an absence, in all, of only ten months, and resided there until 1559, practising physic and teaching the mathematics. He then went to Pavia, where he filled the chair of professor of medicine until 1562, when he removed to Bologna, and there likewise became professor of medicine until 1570. About this time he was, for some reason with which we are unacquainted, thrown into prison, which was exchanged soon after for a milder confinement in his own house. On his release, he was invited to Rome, and admitted into the college of physicians there, with a pension from the pope. Here he died Sept. 21, 1576, “more,” says Brucker, “like a maniac than a philosopher.” Thuanus and Scaliger both are of opinion that he starved himself, in order to verify his own prediction of his death.

He wrote a great number of books, now comprised in 10 vols. folio, Lyons*, 1663. His poverty, he tells us, was one reason why he wrote so many treatises, the digressions and obscurity of which puzzle the reader, who often finds in them what he did not expect to meet with. In his arithmetic he introduces several discourses concerning the motion of the planets, the creation, and the tower of Babel; and in his logic he has inserted a criticism on historians and letter- writers. He owns that he made these digressions to fill up his bargain with the booksellers being for so much a sheet and he wrote as much for bread as for reputation. With regard to the obscurity of his writings, Naudaeus alleges the following among other reasons for it: that Cardan imagined, that many things being familiar to him needed not to be expressed, and the heat of his imagination and his extensive genius hurried him from one thing to another, without staying to explain the medium or connection between them. Naudseus adds, that the amazing contradictions in his writings are an evident proof, that he was not always in his senses; that they can neither be imputed to a defect of memory, nor to artifice; and that the little relation there is between his several variations, proceeded from the different fits of madness with which he was seized. In the midst of all this weakness, Cardan is universally acknowledged to have been a man of great erudition and fertile invention, and is celebrated as the author of many new and singular observations in philosophy and medicine. His discoveries in mathematics may be seen in Dr. Hutton’s Dictionary, or the Cyclopædia, art. Algebra; and his treatise “De Met ho do Medendi” discovers a mind capable of detecting and renouncing established errors. His book “De snbtilitate et varietate rerum” shews, in the opinion of Brucker, that if he could have preserved his judgment free from the influence of a disordered imagination, he was able to have contributed to the improvement of natural philosophy. Of the dogmas of this philosopher, the following are a specimen: “Primary matter, which remains immutably the same, fills every place; whence, without the annihilation of matter there can be no vacuum. Three principles subsist every where; matter, form, and mind. There are in matter three kinds of motion; the h'rst, from form to element; the second, the reverse of this; the third, the descent of heavy bodies. The elements or passive principles are three; water, earth, and air, for naturally all things are cold, that is, destitute of heat. The agent in nature is celestial heat; the air, being exposed to the action of the solar rays, is perpetually in motion. The moon and all the other heavenly bodies are luminous from themselves. The heavens are animated by an ever-active principle, and are therefore never quiescent. Man, having mind as well as soul, is not an animal. The dispositions of men are produced, and all moral affairs are directed, by the influence of the stars. Mind is universally diffused; and though it appears multiplied, is but one; it is extrinsically, and for a time, attached to human bodies, but never perishes.”

Innumerable other singular metaphysical and physical notions are to be found in the works of Cardan and they are accompanied with many experiments and observations on natural phenomena. But the whole is thrown together in such a confused mass, as plainly proves that, though the author’s head was replete with ideas, he wanted that sound understanding and cool judgment, without which the mosfe ingenious and original conceptions must prove abortive. He was too fond of mysticism, too credulous, too superstitious, and, in a word, too much of an astrologer, to be a true philosopher. Cardan, therefore, notwithstanding all the variety and apparent originality of his writings, must be ranked among the unsuccessful adventurers in philosophy.

, a celebrated Greek philosopher, was an African, a native of Gyrene, and is supposed to have been born in the third year of the 141st olympiad, or B. C. 214. He was first instructed by Diogenes the stoic, and afterwards becoming a member of the academy, he attended upon the lectures of Egesinus, and by assiduous study acquired great skill and readiness in the method of disputing, which Arcesilaus had introduced. He succeeded Egesinus in the chair, and restored the declining reputation of the academy. With Diogenes the stoic, and Critolaus the peripatetic, he was sent on an embassy from Athens to Rome, complaining of the severity of a fine inflicted upon the Athenians, under the authority of the Romans, by their neighbours the Sicyonians, for having laid waste Oropus, a town in Bceotia. The three philosophers whom they entrusted with their embassy, whilst they were in Rome, gave the Roman people many specimens of Grecian learning and eloquence, with which till then they had been unacquainted. Carneades excelled in the vehement and rapid, Critolaus in the correct and elegant, and Diogenes in the simple and modest kind of eloquence. Carneades particularly attracted the attention and admiration of his new auditors, by the subtlety of his reasoning, and the fluency of his language. Before Galba, and Cato the censor, he harangued, with great variety of thought, and copiousness of diction, in praise of justice. The next day, to establish his doctrine of the uncertainty of human knowledge, he undertook to refute all his former arguments. Many were captivated by his eloquence; but Cato, apprehensive lest the Roman youth should lose their military character in the pursuit of Grecian learning, persuaded the senate to send back these philosophers, without further delay, to their own schools.

, an English clergyman o great learning and parts, was born in the parsonage-house of North- Lew (not Northlegh, as Wood says), near Hatherlegh, in Devonshire, Feb. 7, 1588. His father, John Carpenter, a native of Cornwall, was at that time rector of this place, and author of some sermons enumerated by Wood. His son, after a private education, was entered of Edmund hall, Oxford; and in 1607, by the casting vote of the vice-chancellor, was elected fellow of Exeter college, to which he removed, and became distinguished as a logician, mathematician, and philosopher.- He took his degree of B. A. in 1610, of M. A. in 1613, and of B. D. in 1620, and soon after completing his master’s degree, entered into holy orders, and had the reputation of a very popular divine. About 1626 he became acquainted with

, M. D. a physician and philosopher of Oxford, was born at Woodstock in that county, and educated in New college, Oxford, where, as well as in Christ Church, he was some time chorister. In 1564 he was elected scholar of St. John’s college, proceeded M. A. was made fellow of the house, and was accounted one of the most acute disputants of his time. He forsook his fellowship, as supposed, on account of his inclination to the Koman catholic religion, but appears to have concealed this, as we find him in 1589 made prebendary of North Aulton, in the church of Salisbury. In the mean time he was reckoned so able an instructor, that he was permitted to keep a sort of private academy in St. Mary Magdalen’s parish, where he held declamations, disputations, and exercises, as in the other colleges and halls, and his auditors were numerous, particularly of young men of popish principles; and several men of eminence came from his school. His printed works were also held in considerable estimation. His learning was various, but he inclined most to medicine, and was admitted to his doctor’s degree in that faculty in 1589. In 1574 he married Elizabeth, the widow of one Dobsou, keeper of the Bocardo prison. By his lectures, and by his medical practice he acquired a considerable fortune, much of which he bestowed on pious uses. He was a man, says Wood, “of an innocent, meek, religious, and studious life, of a facete and affable conversation; a lover of scholars, beloved by them again, and had in high veneration.” Pits gives nearly the same character. Dodd only laments that he hurt his conscience by occasional conformity to the reformed religion, and says that he never made a candid confession of his faith till he lay in his last sickness, when he was assisted by a priest of the Roman catholic communion. He died at his house in Oxford, Jan. 23, 1600, and was interred in the chapel of St. John’s college, where a monument was afterwards erected to his memory. He was one of the benefactors to this college.

, a man of eminence in many respects, and called by way of distinction “the senator,” was born at Squillace, in Calabria, about the year 4i>7. He had as liberal an education as the growing barbarism of his times afforded; and soon recommended himself by his eloquence, his learning, and his wisdom, to Theodoric king of the Goths in Italy. Theodoric first made him governor of Sicily; and when he had Sufficiently proved his abilities and prudence in the administration of that province, admitted him afterwards to his cabinet-councils, and appointed him to be his secretary. After this he had all the places and honours at his command, which Theodoric had to bestow; and, having passed through all the employments of the government, was raised to the consulate, which he administered alone, in the year 514. He was continued in the same degree of confidence and favour by Athalaric, who succeeded Theodoric, about the year 524; but afterwards, in the year 537, being discarded from all his offices by king Vitiges, he renounced a secular life, and retired into a monastery of his own founding in the extreme parts of Calabria. Here he led the life of a man of letters, a philosopher, and a Christian. He entertained himself with forming and improving several curious pieces of mechanism, such as sun-dials, water clocks, perpetual lamps, &c. He collected a very noble and curious library, which he enlarged and improved by several books of his own composing. About the year 556, he wrote two books “De Divinis Lectionibus;” and afterwards a book “De Orthographia,” in the preface to which he tells us, that he was then in his ninety-third year. There are extant of his twelve books of letters, ten of which he wrote as secretary of state, in the name of kings Theodoric and Athalaric, and two in his own. He composed also twelve books “De rebus gestis Gothorum,” which are only extant in the abridgment of Jornandes; though it has been surmised that a manuscript of Cassiodorus is still remaining in some of the libraries in France. He wrote also a commentary upon the Psalms, and several other pieces, theological and critical. Father Simon has ?poken of him thus “There is no need,” says he, “of examining Cassiodorus’s Commentaries on the Psalms, which is almost but an abridgment of St. Augustin’s Commentaries, as he owns in his preface. But besides these commentaries, we have an excellent treatise of this author’s, entitled < De institutione ad Divinas Lectiones,' which shews, that he understood the criticism of the scriptures, and that he had marked out what were the best things of this nature in the ancient doctors of the church. In the same book Cassiodorus gives many useful rules for the criticism of the scriptures; and he takes particular notice of those fathers who have made commentaries upon the Bible, &c.” It seems generally agreed that he was in all views a very extraordinary man; and we think that those have done him no more than justice, who have considered him as a star, which shone out amidst the darkness of a barbarous age. When he died we cannot precisely determine, but most writers seem to be of opinion this happened in the year 575. His works have been collected and printed several times; the best edition is that of Rohan, 1679, 2 vols. fol. with the notes and dissertations of John Garret, a Benedictine monk. In 1721, Signer Scipio Maffei published a work of Cassiodorus, which had long been missing; and in the following year the same was published at London, by Mr. Samuel Chandler, entitled “Complexions, or short Commentaries upon the Epistles, the Acts, and the Revelation,” which Dr. Lardner has enumerated among the testimonies to the credibility of the gospel history.

, a geometrician and philosopher, born at Montpellier in 1688, entered himself of the Jesuits in 1703, and was noticed by Fontenelle and by Tournemine for the specimens he gave of his early proficiency, and as he was then in the country, they invited him to the capital, where he arrived towards the end of 1720, and supported the character which his first essays promised. The first work he published was his treatise of “Universal Gravity,” 1724, 2 vols. 12mo. All depended, according to him, on two principles, the gravity of bodies, and the action of minds; the former giving them a continual tendency to rest, the other renewing their motion. This doctrine, the key to the system of the universe, as he pretended, did not appear to be so to the abbe Saint Pierre. Though the friend of the mathematician, he attacked him, and Castel answered. The papers on both sides shewed much reflection, though in a singular channel. The second work of Castel was his plan of an “Abridged system of Mathematics,” Paris, 1727, 4to, which was soon followed by an “Universal system of Mathematics,” 1728, 4to, a work applauded both in England and France. The royal so'ciety of London admitted him of their body.

The “Vrai systeme de physique generate de Newton,” 1743, 4to, did him more honour in the opinion of several of the learned, though it was displeasing to others. He reverenced the English philosopher, though his doctrine appeared to him but little adapted to reveal the true system of the universe. “Newton and Descartes,” said he, tt are nearly on a par in regard to invention; but the latter had more facility and elevation; the other, with less facility, was more profound. Such is pretty nearly the character of the two nations: the French genius builds upwards, the English genius downwards. Each of them had the ambition to make a world, as Alexander had that of conquering it, and both had grand ideas of nature.“Other papers by him are in the Memoires de Trevoux, in which he was for some time concerned. The style of Castel partook of the fire of 'his genius and the wanderings of his imagination. The conversation turning one day, in presence of Fontenelle, on the marks of originality in the works of this scholar, somebody said,” But he is mad.“” I know it,“returned Fontenelle,” and I am sorry for it, for it is a great pity! But I like him better for being original and a little mad, than I should if he were in his senses without being original.“Castel died the llth of January, 1757, at the age of 68. The abbe dela Porte published in 1763, 12mo, at Paris under the imprint of Amsterdam,” L'esprit, les saillies, & singularites du pere Castel." The author treats, on a great number of subjects; and though he enters deeply into none, yet he thinks much, and sometimes verjr well. The life of Castel was exemplary and edifying he! was ever assiduous in performing the duties of his station, and had the highest reverence for religion.