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

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

Besides the Ethiopics, Cedrenus tells us of another book of Heliodorus, concerning the philosopher’s stone, or the art of transmuting metals into gold, which he presented to Theodosius the Great; and Fabricius has inserted in his “Bibliotheca Gra3ca,” a chemical Greek poem written in iambic verse, which he had from a ms. in the king of France’s library, and which carries the name of Heliodorus bishop of Tricca; but leaves it very justly questionable, whether it be not a spurious performance.

“In the year 1580,” says he, " a most miserable one to the Low Countries, my father died. I, the youngest and least esteemed of all my brothers and sisters, was bred a scholar; and in the year 1594, which was to me the 17th, had finished the course of philosophy. Upon seeing none admitted to examinations at Louvain, but in a gown, and masked with a hood, as though the garment did promise learning, I began to perceive, that the taking degrees in arts was a piece of mere mockery; and wondered at the simplicity of young men, in fancying that they had learned any thing from their doting professors. I entered, therefore, into a serious and honest examination of myself, that I might know by my own judgment, how much I was a philosopher, and whether I had really acquired truth and knowledge: but found myself altogether destitute, save that I had learned to wrangle artificially. Then came I first to perceive, that I knew nothing, or at least that which was not worth knowing. Natural philosophy seemed to promise something of knowledge, to which therefore I joined the study of astronomy. I applied myself also to logic and the mathematics, by way of recreation, when I was wearied with other studies; and made myself a master of Euclid’s Elements, as I did also of Copernicus’s theory ‘ De revolutionibus orbium ccelestium:’ but all these things were of no account with me, because they contained Jittle truth and certainty, little but a parade of science falsely so called. Finding after all, therefore, that nothing was sound, nothing true, I refused the title of master of arts, though I had finished my course; unwilling, that professors should play the fool with me, in declaring me a master of the seven arts, when I was conscious to myself that I knew nothing.

, son of the preceding, was born in 1618, and like his father, became celebrated for his knowledge, and his paradoxes was very skilful in physic and chemistry, and was esteemed a man of universal learning, and acquainted with most trades and arts. He was even suspected of having found the philosopher’s stone, because he lived at an apparently great expence with a small income; but was much esteemed and respected at Amsterdam. After living many years with the prince of Sultzbach, who was a great patron of the learned, he set out for Berlin, by desire of the queen of Prussia, and died at Cologn in 1699. His works are, “Alphabeti vere naturalis Hebraic! delineatio;” “Cogitationes super quatuor priora capita Geneseos,” Amsterdam, 1697, 8vo “De attributis divinis” “De Inferno,” &c. He believed the Metempsycosis, and maintained many other paradoxes.

, the most remarkable of this family, was born at Paris in 1715, and was son of the preceding Helvetius. He studied under the famous father Pon'e in the college of Louis the Great, and his tutor, discovering in his compositions remarkable proofs of genius, was particularly attentive to his education. An early association with the wits of his time gave him the desire to become an author, but his principles unfortunately became tainted with false philosophy. He did not publish any thing till 1758, when he produced his celebrated book “DeTEsprit,” which appeared first in one volume 4to, and afterwards in three volumes, 12mo. This work was very justly condemned by the parliament of Paris, as confining the faculties of man to animal sensibility, and removing at once the restraints of vice and the encouragements to virtue. Attacked in various ways at home, on account of these principles, he visited England in 1764, and the next year went into Prussia, where he was received with honourable attention by the king. When he returned into France, he led a retired and domestic life on his estate at Vore. Attached to his wife and family, and strongly inclined to benevolence, he lived there more happily than at Paris, where, as he said, he “was obliged to encounter the mortifying spectacle of misery that he could not relieve.” To Marivaux, and M. Saurin, of the French academy, he allowed pensions, that, for a private benefactor, were considerable, merely on the score of merit; which he was anxious to search out and to assist. Yet, with all this benevolence of disposition, he was strict in the care of his game, and in the exaction of his feudal rights. He was maltre-d'hotel to the queen, and, for a time, a farmer-general, but quitted that lucrative post to enjoy his studies. When he found that he had bestowed his bounty upon unworthy persons, or was reproached with it, he said, “If I was king, I would correct them; but I am only rich, and they are poor, my business therefore is to aid them.” Nature had been kind to Helvetius; she had given him a fine person, genius, and a constitution which promised long life. This last, however, he did not attain, for he was attacked by the gout in his head and stomach, under which complaint he languished some little time, and died in December 1771. His works were, 1. the treatise “De l'Esprit,” “on the Mind,” already mentioned: of* which various opinions have been entertained, It certainly is one of those which endeavour to degrade the nature of man too nearly to that of mere animals; and even Voltaire, who called the author at one time a true philosopher, has said that it is filled with common-place truths, delivered with great parade, but without method, and disgraced by stories very unworthy of a philosophical production. The ideas of virtue and vice, according to this book, depend chiefly upon climate. 2. “Le Bonheur,” or “Happiness,” a poem in six cantos; published after his death, in 1772, with some fragments of epistles. His poetical style is still more affected than his prose, and though he produces some fine verses, he is more frequently stiff and forced. His poem on happiness is a declamation, in which he makes that great object depend, not on virtue, but on the cultivation of letters and the arts. 3. “De l'Homme,” 2 vols. 8vo, another philosophical work, not less bold than the first. A favourite paradox, produced in this book, under a variety of different forms, is, “that all men are born with equal talents, and owe their genius solely to education.” This book is even more dangerous than that on the mind, because the style is clearer, and the author writes with less reserve. He* speaks sometimes of the enemies of what he called philosophy, with an asperity that ill accords with the general mildness of his character.

, or Hemsterhusius, one of the most famous critics of his country, the son of Francis Hemsterhuis, a physician, was born at Groningen, Feb. 1, 1635. After obtaining the rudiments of literature from proper masters, and from his father, he became a member of his native university in his fourteenth year, 1698. He there studied for some years, and then removed to Leyden, for the sake of attending the lectures of the famous James Perizonius on ancient history. He was here so much noticed by the governors of the university, that it was expected he would succeed James Gronovius as professor of Greek. Havercamp, however, on the vacancy, was appointed, through the intrigues, as Ruhnkenius asserts, of some who feared they might be eclipsed by young Hemsterhuis; who in 1705, at the age of nineteen, was called to Amsterdam, and appointed professor of mathematics and philosophy. In the former of these branches he had been a favourite scholar of the famous John Bernouilli. In 1717, he removed to Franeker, on being chosen to succeed Lambert Bos as professor of Greek; to which place, in 1738, was added the professorship of history. In 1740 he removed to Leyden to accept the same two professorships in that university. It appears that he was married, because his father-in-law, J. Wild, is mentioned; he died April 7, 1766, having enjoyed to the last the use of all his faculties. He published, 1. “The three last books of Julius Pollux’s Onomasticon,” to complete the edition of which, seven books had been finished by Lederlin. This was published at Amsterdam in 1706. On the appearance of this work, he received a letter from Bentley, highly praising him for the service he had there rendered to his author. But this very letter was nearly the cause of driving him entirely from the study of Greek criticism: for in it Bentley transmitted his own conjectures on the true readings of the passages cited by Pollux from comic writers, with particular view to the restoration of the metre. Hemsterhuis had himself attempted the same, but, when he read the criticisms of Bentley, and saw their astonishing justness and acuteness, he was so hurt at the inferiority of his own, that he resolved, for the time, never again to open a Greek book. In a month or two this timidity went off, and he returned to these studies with redoubled vigour, determined to take Bentley for his model, and to' qualify himself, if possible, to rival one whom he so greatly admired. 2. “Select Colloquies of Lucian, and his Timon,” Amst. 1708. 3. “The Plutus of Aristophanes, with the Scholia,” various readings and notes, Harlingen, 1744, 8vo. 4. “Part of an edition of Lucian,” as far as the 521st page of the first volume; it appeared in 1743 in four volumes quarto, the remaining parts being edited by J. M. Gesner and Reitzius. The extreme slowness of his proceeding is much complained of by Gesner and others, and was the reason why he made no further progress. 5. % “Notes and emendations on Xenophon Ephesius,” inserted in the 36 volumes of the te Miscellanea Critica“of Amsterdam, with the signature T. S. H. S. 6.” Some observations upon Chrysostom’s Homily on the Epistle to Philemon,“subjoined to Raphelius’s Annotations on the New Testament. 7.” Inaugural Speeches on various occasions.“8. There are also letters from him to J. Matth. Gesner and others; and he gave considerable aid to J. St. Bernard, in publishing the ' Eclogae Thomae Magistri,” at Leyden, in 1757. His “Philosophical Works” were published at Paris in 1792, 2 vols. 8vo, but he was a better critic -than philosopher. Ruhnkenius holds up Hemsterhusius as a model of a perfect critic, and indeed, according to his account, the extent and variety of his knowledge, and the acuteness of his judgment, were very extraordinary.

In 1755 Henault was chosen an honorary member of the academy of belles lettres, having been before elected into the academies of Nanci, Berlin, and Stockholm. The queen also appointed him superintendant of her house. His natural spnghtliness relieved her from the serious attendance on his private morning lectures. The company of persons most distinguished by their wit and birth, a table more celebrated for the choiceof the guests than its delicacies, the little comedies suggested by wit, and executed by reflection, united at his house all the pleasures of an agreeable literary life. All the members of this ingenious society contributed to render it pleasing, and the president was not inferior to any. He composed three comedies, “La Petite Maison;” “Le Jaloux de Soimeme,” and “Le Ileveil d'Epimenide.” The subject of the last was the Cretan philosopher, who is pretended to have slept twenty-seven years. The queen was particularly pleased with this piece.

, the founder of the sect of Heraciiteans, was born at Ephesus. He discovered an early propensity to the study of wisdom, and, by a diligent attention to the operations of his own mind, soon became sensible of his ignorance, and desirous of instruction. He was initiated into the mysteries of the Pythagorean doctrine by Xenophanes and Hippasus, and afterwards incorporated them into his own system. His fellow citizens solicited him to undertake the supreme magistracy; but, on account of their dissolute manners, he declined it in favour of his brother. When he was, soon afterwards, seen playing with the boys in the court of the temple of Diana, he said to those who expressed their surprize that he was not better employed, “Why are you surprised that I pass my time with children? It is surely better than governing the corrupt Ephesians.” He was displeased with them for banishing from their city so wise and able a man as Hermodorus; and plainly told them that he perceived they were determined not to keep among them any man who had more merit than the rest. His natural temper being splenetic and melancholy, he despised the ignorance and follies of mankind, shunned all public intercourse with the world, and devoted himself to retirement and contemplation. He made choice of a mountainous retreat for his place of residence, and lived upon the natural produce of the earth, Darius, king of Persia, having heard of his fame, invited him to his court; but he treated the invitation with contempt. His diet, and manner of life, at length brought him into a dropsy; upon which this philosopher, who was always fond of enigmatical language, returning into the city, proposed to the physicians the following question “Is it possible to bring dry ness out of moisture?” Receiving no relief from them, he attempted to cure himself by shutting himself up in a close stable of oxen; but it is doubtful how far he succeeded, for the cause and manner of his death are differently related by different writers. He flourished, as appears from his preceptors and contemporaries, about the sixty-ninth olympiad, B. C. 504. Sixty years are said to have been the term of his hfe. It has been a tale commonly received, that Heraclitirs was perpetually shedding tears on account of the vices of mankind, and particularly of his countrymen. But the story, which probably took its rise from the gloomy severity of his temper, ought to be ranked, like that of the perpetual laughing of Detnocritus, among the Greek fables. He wrote a treatise “On Nature,” of which only a few fragments remain. Througb the natural cast of his mind, and perhaps too through a desire of concealing unpopular tenets under the disguise of a figurative and intricate diction, his discourses procured him the name of the “Obscure Philosopher.” Neither critics norphilosopbers were able to explain his writings; and they remained in the temple of Diana, where he himself had deposited them for the use of the learned, till they were made public by Crates, or, as Tatian relates the matter, till the poet Euripides, who frequented the temple of Diana y committing the doctrines and precepts of Heraclitus to memory, accurately repeated them. From the fragments of this work, which are preserved by Sextus Empiricus, it appears to have been written in prose, which makes Tatian’s account the less credible. Brucker, to whom we refer, has given as good an account of Heraclitus’s systera as his obscure manner will permit. His sect was probably very soon extinct, as we find no traces of its existence after the death of Socrates, which may be ascribed, in part, to the insuperable obscurity of the writings of Heraclitus, but chiefly to the splendour of the Platonic system, by which it was superseded.

, a German philosopher of the new school, was born in 1741, in a small town of Prussia, and was originally intended for the profession of a surgeon, but afterwards studied divinity, and was invited to Buckeburg, to officiate as minister, and to be a member of the consistory of the ecclesiastical council, In 1774 he was promoted by the duke of Saxe Weimar, to be first preacher to the court, and ecclesiastical counsellor, to which was afterwards added the dignity of vice-president cjf the consistory of Weimar, which he held until his death, Pec. 18, 1803. Some of his ficst works gained him great^ praise, both as a critic antj philosopher; such as his, 1. “Three fragments on the new German Literature,” Riga, 1776. 2. “On the Writings of Thomas Abbt,” Berlin, 1768; and “On the origin of Language,” ibid. 1772. But he afterwards fell into mysticism, and that obscure mode of reasoning which has too frequently been dignified, with the name of philosophy. The first specimen he gave of this was in his “Oldest Notices of the Origin of Mankind,” Riga, 1774; after which his system, if it may be so called, was more fully developed in his “Outlines of a philosophy of the history of Man,” of which an English translation was published in 1800, 4to, but without attracting much public notice. It was not indeed to be supposed that such extravagant opinions, conveyed in an obscure jargon, made up of new and fanciful terms, and frequently at variance with revealed religion, could be very acceptable to an English public.

, an Egyptian legislator, priest, and philosopher, lived, as some think, in the year of the world 2076, in the reign of Ninus, after Moses: and was so skilled in all profound arts and sciences, that he acquired the surname of Trismegistus, or “thrice great.” Clemens Alexandrinus has given us an account of his writings, and a catalogue of some of them such as, the book containing the Hymns of the Gods another “De rationibus vitae regiae” four mo*e, “De astrologia,” that is, “De ordine fixarunl stellarum, & de conjunctione & illuminatione Solis & Lunae” ten more, entitled, “lE^arwa,” or which treat of laws, of the gods, and of the whole doctrine and discipline of the priests. Upon the whole, Clemens makes Hermes the author of thirty -six books of divinity and philosophy, and six of physic; but they are all lost. There goes indeed one under his name, whose title is “Poemander;” but this is agreed by all to be supposititious, and Casaubon imagines it to be written about the beginning of the second century, by some Platonizing Christian, who, to enforce Christianity with a better grace upon Pagans, introduces Hermes Trismegistus delivering, as it were long before, the greatest part of those doctrines which are comprised in the Christian creed.

This philosopher has stood exceedingly high in the opinion of mankind, ancients as well as moderns. Plato tells us, that he was the inventor of letters, of ordinary writing, and hieroglyphics. Cicero says, that he was governor of Egypt, and invented letters, as well as delivered the first laws to the people of that country; and Suidas asserts, that he flourished before Pharoah, and acquired the surname of Trismegistus, because he gave out something oracular concerning the Trinity. Gyraldus thinks he was called Thrice Great, because he was the greatest philosopher, the greatest priest, and the greatest king. When the great lord chancellor Bacon endeavoured to do justice to the merits of our James I. he could think of no better means for this purpose, than by comparing him to Hermes Trismegistus, who was at once distinguished by the glory of a king, the illuminations of a priest, and the learning of a philosopher."

, an heretic of the second century, was a native of Africa, a painter, and stoic philosopher, and was alive in the days of Tertullian, according to Fleury. Tillemont makes him flourish in the year 200; but Du Fresnoy says he did not preach his erroneous opinions concerning the origin of the world, and the nature of the soul, till the year 208. He established matter as the first principle, and made Idea the mother of all the elements; for which reason his followers were commonly called Mattriarians. By his assertion of the self-existence and improduction of matter, he endeavoured to give an account (as stoic philosophers had done before him) of the original of evils; and to free God from the imputation of them, he argued thus: God made all things either out of himself, or out of nothing, or out of pre-existent matter. He could not make all things out of himself, because, himself being always unmade, he should then really have been the maker of nothing: and he did not make all out of nothing, because, being essentially good, he would have made every thing in the best manner, and so there could have been no evil in the world: but since there are evils, and these could not proceed from the will of God, they must needs rise from the fault of something, and therefore of the matter out of which things were made. His followers denied the resurrection, rejected water-baptism, asserted that angels were composed of fire and spirit, and were the creators of the soul of man; and that Christ, as he ascended, diveste'd himself of human nature, and left his body in the sun. Tertullian has written against him.

was a celebrated philosopher of Syracuse, who, according to Theophrastus, as quoted by Cicero, believed that the heavens, sun, and stars, remained still, and that it was the earth which moved and, by turning on its axis, produced the same appearance to us as if the heavens had turned and the earth had been immovable. Copernicus acknowledges that this passage in Cicero suggested to him the first idea of his system. Diogenes Laertius also mentions Hicetas.

, a Platonic philosopher of Alexandria, flourished about A. D. 450. He was cruelly scourged at Constantinople for his adherence to the Pagan superstitions; and it is said that, in the midst of his torture, when he received some of the blood into his own hand, he threw it upon the face of his judge, repeating, from Homer,

, a learned English gentleman, fellow and treasurer of the royal society, one of the lords of trade, and comptroller to the archbishop of Canterbury, was descended of an ancient and honourable family of that name, seated at Shilston, in Devonshire, and was the son of Richard Hill, of Shilston, esq. His father was bred to mercantile business, which he pursued with great success, was chosen an alderman of London, and v.as much in the confidence of the Long-parliament, and of Cromwell and his statesmen. Abraham, his eldest son, was born April 18, 1633, at his father’s house, in St. Botolph’s parish by Billingsgate, and after a proper education, was introduced into his business. He was also an accomplished scholar in the Greek, Latin, French, Dutch, and Italian languages, and was considered as one of very superior literary attainments. On his father’s death in 1659, he became possessed of an ample fortune, and that he might, with more ease, prosecute his studies, he hired chambers in Gresham college, where he had an opportunity of conversing with learned men, and of pursuing natural philosophy, to which he was much attached. He was one of the first eucouragers of the royal society, and on its first institution became a fellow, and in 1663 their treasurer, which office he held for two years. His reputation, in the mean time, was not confined to his native country, but by means of the correspondence of his learned friends, was known over most part of Europe. Having, like his father, been biassed in favour of the republican party from which he recovered by time and reflection, his merit was in consequence overlooked during the reigns of Charles II. and James II. but on the accession of king William, he was called to a seat at the board of trade, where his knowledge of the subject made his services of great importance; and when Dr. Tillotson was promoted to the see of Canterbury in 1691, he prevailed on Mr. Hill to take on him the office of his comptroller, which he accordingly accepted, and lived in Jiigh favour with that distinguished prelate, who would frequently term him “his learned friend and his instructing philosopher.” On the accession of queen Anne, Mr. Hill resigned his office in the Board of Trade, and retired to his seat of St. John’s in Sutton, at Hone in the county of Kent, which he had purchased in 1665, and which was always his favourite residence. Here he died Feb. 5, 1721. In 1767 a volume of his “Familiar Letters” was published, which gives us a very favourable idea of his learning, public spirit, and character; and although the information these letters contain is not of such importance now as when written, there is always an acknowledged charm in unreserved epistolary correspondence, which makes the perusal of this and all such collections interesting.

* Archbishop Seeker one day, at be Christians, replied, “If they were, his table, when the Monthly Reviewers it was certainly ‘secundum usum Winwt-re said, by one of the company, to ton’.” the list of persons to be created doctors of physic: but either by chance or management, his name was not found in the last list; and he had not his degree of M. D, till about a month after, by a particular mandamus. He was elected F. R. S. in 1726, when he was very young, and had the honour of being made known to the learned world as a philosopher, by “A Letter from the rev. Dr. Samuel Clarke to Mr. Benjamin Hoadly, F. R. S. occasioned by the present controversy among the mathematicians concerning the proportion of Velocity and Force in bodies in motion.” He was made registrar of Hereford while his father filled that see; and was appointed physician to his majesty’s household so early as June 9, 1742. Jt is remarkable, that he was for some years physician to both the royal households; having been appointed to that of the prince of Wales, Jan. 4, 1745-6, in the place of Dr. Lamotte, a Scotch physician, whom the prince had himself ordered to be struck out of the list, on some imprudent behaviour at the Smyrna coffee-house at the time of the rebellion in 1745. The appointment was attended with some circumstances of particular honour to Dr. Hoadly. The prince himself, before the warrant could be finished, ordered the style to be altered; and that he should be called physician to the household, and not extraordinary, as the other had been: observing, that this would secure that place to him in case of a demise, and be a bar against any one getting over him. Nay, not content with this, his royal highness voluntarily wrote a letter to the bishop with his own hand “that he was glad of this opportunity of giving him a token of his gratitude for his services formerly to his family; and that he was his affectionate Frederic, P.” Dr. Hoadly is said to have filled these posts with singular honour. He married, 1. Elizabeth, daughter of Henry Betts, esq. of Suffolk, counsellor at law, by whom he had one son, Benjamin, that died an infant. 2 Anne, daughter and co-heiress of the honourable general Armstrong, by whom he left no issue. He died in the lifetime of his father, Aug. 10, 1757, athishouM it Chelsea, which he had built ten years before. He published, 1. “Three Letters on the Organs of Respiration, read at the royal college of physicians, London, A. D. 1737, being the Gulstonian lectures for that year. To which is added, an Appendix, containing remarks on some experiments of Dr. Houston, published in the Transactions of the Royal Society for the year 1736, by Benjamin Hoadly, M. B. fellow of the college of physicians, and of the royal society, London,” 1740, 4to. 2. “Oratio anniversaria in Theatro Coll. Medicor. Londinensium, ex Harveii instttuto habita die 18 Oct. A. D. 1742, a Benj. Hoadly, M. D. Coll. Med. & S. R. S.” 1742, esteemed a very elegant piece of Latin. 3. “The Suspicious Husband, a Comedy.” 4. “Observations on a Series of Electrical experiments, by Dr. Hoadly and Mr. Wilson, F. R. S.” 1756, 4to. The doctor was, in his private character, an amiable humane man, and an agreeable sprightly companion. In his profession he was learned and judicious; and, as a writer, has been long known in the theatrical world as the author of a comedy, “The Suspicious Husband,” which appeared first in 1747, and has kept its place on every stage since with undiminished attractions.

, an eminent English philosopher and miscellaneous writer, was born at Malmsbury in Wiltshire, April 5, 1588, his father being minister of that town. The Spanish Armada was then upon the coast of England; and his mother is said to have been so alarmed on that occasion, that she was brought to bed of him before her time. After having made a considerable progress in the learned languages at school, he was sent, in 1603, to Magdalen hall, Oxford; and, in 1608, by the recommendation of the principal, taken into the family of the right honourable William Cavendish lord Hardwicke, soon after created earl of Devonshire, as tutor to his son William lord Cavendish. Hobbes ingratiated himself so effectually with this young nobleman, and with the peer his father, that he was sent abroad with him on his travels in 16:0, and made the tour of France and Italy. Upon his return with lord Cavendish, he became known to persons of the highest rank, and eminently distinguished for their abilities and learning. The chancellor Bacon admitted him to a great degree of familiarity, and is said to have made use of his pen for translating some of his works into Latin. He was likewise much in favour with lord Herbert of Cherbury; and the celebrated Ben Jonson had such an esteem for him, that he revised the first work which he published, viz. his “English Translation of the History of Thucyciides.” This Hobbes undertook, as he tells us himself, “with an honest view of preventing, if possible, those disturbances in which he was apprehensive his country would be involved, by shewing, in the history of the Peloponnesian war, the fatal consequences of intestine troubles.” This has always been esteemed one of the best translations that we have of any Greek writer, and the author himself superintended the maps and indexes. But while he meditated this design, his patron, the earl of Devonshire, died in 1626; and in 1628, the year his work was published, his son died also. This loss affected him to such a degree, that he very willingly accepted an offer of going abroad a second time with the son of sir Gervase Clifton, whom he accordingly accompanied into France, and staid there some time. But while he continued there he was solicited to return to England, and to resume his concern for the hopes of that family, to which he had attached himself so early, and owed many and great obligations.

Not long after the meeting of the long parliament, Nov. 3, 1640, when all things fell into confusion, he withdrew, for the sake of living in quiet, to Paris; where he associated himself with those learned men, who, under the protection of Cardinal Richelieu, sought, by conferring their notions together, to promote every kind of useful knowledge. He had not been long there, when by the good offices of his friend Mersenne, he became known to Des Cartes, and afterwards held a correspondence with him upon mathematical subjects, as appears from the letters of Hobbes published in the works of Des Cartes. But when that philosopher printed afterwards his “Meditations,” in which he attempted to establish points of the highest consequence from innate ideas, Hobbes took the liberty of dissenting from him; as did also Gassendi, with whom Hobbes contracted a very close friendship, which was not interrupted till the death of the former. In 1642, he printed a few copies of his book “De Give,” which raised him many adversaries, by whom he was charged with instilling principles of a dangerous tendency. Immediately after the appearance of this book, Des Cartes said of it to a friend, “I am of opinion that the author of the book ‘ De Give,’ is the same person who wrote the third objection against my ‘ Meditations.’ I think him a much greater master of morality, than of metaphysics or natural philosophy; though I can by no means approve of his principles or maxims, which are very bad and extremely dangerous, because they suppose all men to be wicked, or give them occasion to be so. His whole design is to write in favour of monarchy, which might be done to more advantage than he has done, upon maxims more virtuous and solid. He has wrote likewise greatly to the disadvantage of the church and the Roman catholic religion, so that if he is not particularly supported by some powerful interest, I do not see how he can escape having his book censured.” The learned Conringius censures him very severely for boasting, in regard to this performance, “that though physics were a new science, yet civil philosophy was still newer, since it could not be styled older than his book * De Give;' whereas,” says Conringius, “there is nothing good in that work of his that was not always known.” But vanity was throughout life a prevailing foible with Hobbes.

Such were his occupations till 1660, when upon the king’s restoration he quitted the country, and came up to London. He was at Salisbury-house with his patron, when the king passing by one day accidentally saw him. He sent for him, gave Kim his hand to kiss, inquired kindly after his health and circumstances; and some time after directed Cooper, the celebrated miniature-painter, to take his portrait. His majesty likewise afforded him another private audience, spoke to him very kindly, assured him of his protection, and settled a pension upon him of lOOl. per annum out of his privy purse. Yet this did not render him entirely safe; for, in 1666, his “Leviathan,” and treatise “De Give,” were censured by parliament, which alarmed him much; as did also the bringing of a bill into the Hou^e of commons to punish atheism and profaneness. When this-stonn was a little blown over, he began to think of procuring a beautiful edition of his pieces that were in Latin; but finding this impracticable in England, he caused it to be undertaken abroad, where they were published in 1668, 4to, from the press of John Bleau. In 1669, he was visited by Cosmo de Medicis, then prince, afterwards duke of Tuscany, who gave him ample marks of his esteem; and having received his picture, and a complete collection of his writings, caused them to be deposited, the former among his curiosities, the latter in his library at Florence. Similar visits he received from several foreign ambassadors, and other strangers of distinction; who were curious to see a person, whose singular opinions and numerous writings had made so much noise all over Europe. In 1672, he wrote his own Life in Latin verse, when, as he observes, he had completed his eighty-fourth year: and, in 1674, he published in English verse four books of Homer’s “Odyssey,” which were so well received, that it encouraged him to undertake the whole “Iliad” and “Odyssey,” which he likewise performed, and published in 1675. These were not the first specimens of his poetic genius which he had given to the public: he had published many years before, about 1637, a Latin poem, entitled “De Mirabilibus Pecci, or, Of the Wonders of the Peak.” But his poetry is below criticism, and has been long exploded. In 1674, he took his leave of London, and went to spend the remainder of his days in Derbyshire; where, however, he did not remain inactive, notwithstanding his advanced age, but published from time to time several pieces to be found in the collection of his works, namely, in 1676, his “Dispute with Laney bishop of Ely, concerning Liberty and. Necessity;” in 1678, his “Decameron Physiologicum, or, Ten Dialogues of Natural Philosophy;” to which he added a book, entitled “A Dialogue between a Philosopher and a Student of the Common Law of England.” June 1679, he eent another book, entitled “Behemoth, or, A History of the Civil Wars from 1640 to 1660,” to an eminent bookseller, with a letter setting forth the reasons for his communication of it, as well as for the request he then made, that he would not publish it till a proper occasion offered. The book, however, was published as soon as he was dead, and the letter along with it; of which we shall give a curious extract: “I would fain have published my Dialogue of the Civil Wars of England long ago, and to that end I presented it to his majesty; and some days after, vrhen I thought he had read it, I humbly besought him to let me print it. But his majesty, though he heard me graciously, yet he flatly refused to have it published: therefore I brought away the book, and gave you leave to take a copy of it; which when you had done, I gave the original to an honourable and learned friend, who about a. year after died. The king knows better, and is more concerned in publishing of books than lam; and therefore I dare not venture to appear in the business, lest I should offend him. Therefore I pray you not to meddle in the business. Rather than to be thought any way to further or countenance the printing, I would be content to lose twenty times the value of what you can expect to gain by it. I pray do not take it ill; it may be I may live to send you somewhat else as vendible as that, and without offence. J am, &c.” However he did not live to send his bookseller any thing more, this being his last piece. It is in dialogue, and full of paradoxes, like all his other writings. More philosophical, political, says Warburton, or any thing rather than historical, yet full of shrewd observations. In October following, he was afflicted with a suppression of urine; and his physician plainly told him, that he had little hopes of curing him. In November, the earl of Devonshire removing from Chatsvvorth to another seat called Hardwick, Hobbes obstinately persisted in desiring that he might be carried too, though this could no way be done but by laying him upon a feather-bed. He was not much discomposed with his journey, yet within a week after lost, by a stroke of the palsy, the use of his speech, and of his right side entirely; in which condition he remained for some days, taking little nourishment, and sleeping much, sometimes endeavouring to speak, but not being able. He died Dec. 4, 1679, in his ninety-second year. Wood tells us, that after his physician gave him no hopes of a cure, he said, “Then I shall be glad to find a hole to creep out of the world at.” He observes also, that his not desiring a minister, to receive the sacrament before he died, ought in charity to be imputed to his being so suddenly seized, and afterwards deprived of his senses; the rather, because the earl of Devonshire’s chaplain declared, that within the two last years of his life he had often received the sacrament from his hands with seeming devotion. His character and manners are thus described by Dr. White Kennet, in his “Memoirs of the Cavendish Family;” “The earl of Devonshire,” says he, “for his whole life entertained Mr. Hobbes in his family, as his old tutor rather than as his friend or confidant. He let him live under his roof in ease and plenty, and in his own way, without making use of him in any public, or so much as domestic affairs. He would often express an abhorrence of some of his principles in policy and religion; and both he and his lady would frequently put off the mention of his name, and say, ‘ he was a humourist, and nobody could account for him.’ There is a tradition in the family of the manners and customs of Mr. Hobbes somewhat observable. His professed rule of health was to dedicate the morning to his exercise, and the afternoon to his studies. At his first rising, therefore, he walked out, and climbed any hill within his reach; or, if the weather was not dry, he fatigued himself within doors by some exercise or other, to be in a sweat: recommending that practice tfpon this opinion, that an old man had more moisture than heat, and therefore by such motion heat was to be acquired, and moisture expelled. After this he took a comfortable breakfast; and then went round the lodgings to wait upon the earl, the countess, and the children, and any considerable strangers, paying some short addresses to all of them. He kept these rounds till about twelve o‘clock, when he had a little dinner provided for him, which he eat always by himself without ceremony. Soon after dinner he retired to his study, and had his candle with ten or twelve pipes of tobacco laid by him; then shutting his door, he fell to smoaking, thinking, and writing for several hours. He retained a friend or two at court, and especially the lord Arlington, to protect him if occasion should require. He used to say, that it was lawful to make use of ill instruments to do ourselves good: * If I were cast,’ says he, ‘ into a deep pit, and the devil should put down his cloven foot, I would take hold of it to be drawn out by it.’ Towards the end of his life he had very few books, and those he read but very little; thinking he was now able only to digest what he had formerly fed upon. If company came to visit him, he would be free in discourse till he was pressed or contradicted; and then he had the infirmities of being short and peevish, and referring to his writings for better satisfaction. His friends, who had the liberty of introducing strangers to him, made these terms with them before their admission, that they should not dispute with the old man, nor contradict him.” After mentioning the apprehensions Hobbes was under, when the parliament censured his book, and the methods he took to escape persecution, Dr. Kennet adds, “It isnot much to be doubted, that upon this occasion he began to make a more open shew of religion and church communion. He now frequented the chapel, joined in the service, and was generally a partaker of the holy sacrament: and whenever any strangers in conversation with him seemed to question his belief, he would always appeal to his conformity in divine services, and referred them to the chaplain for a testimony of it. Others thought it a mere compliance to the orders of the family, and observed, that in city and country he never went to any parish church; and even in the chapel upon Sundays, he went out after prayers, and turned his back upon the sermon; and when any friend asked the reason of it, he gave no other but this, ‘ they could teach him nothing, but what he knew.’ He did not cone‘al his hatred to the clergy but it was visible that the hatred was owing to his fear of their civil interest and power. He had often a jealousy, that the bishops would burn him: and of all the bench he was most afraid of the bishop of Sarum, because he had most offended him; thinking every man’s spirit to be remembrance and revenge. After the Restoration, he watched all opportunities to ingratiate himself with the king and his prime ministers; and looked upon his pension to be more valqable, as an earnest of favour and protection, than upon any other account. His following course of life was to be free from danger. He could not endure to be left in an empty house. Whenever the earl removed, he would go along with him, even to his last stage, from Chatsworth to Hardwick. When he was in a very weak condition, he dared not to be left behind, but made his way upon a feather-bed in a coach, though he survived the journey but a few days. He could not bear any discourse of death, and seemed to cast off all thoughts of it: he delighted to reckon upon longer life. The winter before he died, he made a warm coat, which he said must last him three years, and then he would have such another. In his last sickness his frequent questions were, Whether his disease was curable? and when intimations were given that he might have ease, but no remedy, he used this expression, ’ I shall be glad to find a hole to creep out of the world at;' which are reported to have been his last sensible words; and his lying. some days following in a silent stupefaction, did seem owing to his mind more than to his body. The only thought of death that he appeared to entertain in time of health, was to take care of some inscription on his grave. He would suffer some friends to dictate an epitaph, among which he was best pleased with this humour, * This is the philosopher’s stone'.” A pun very probably from the hand which wrote for Dr. Fuller, “Here lies Fuller’s earth.”

After this account of Hobbes, which, though undoubtedly true in the main, may be thought too strongly coloured, it will be but justice to subjoin what lord Clarendon has said of him. This noble person, during his banishment, wrote a book in 1670, which was printed six years after at Oxford with this title, “A brief View of the dangerous and pernicious Errors to Church and State in Mr. Hobbes’s book entitled Leviathan.” In the introduction the earl observes, that Mr. Hobbes’s *' Leviathan“” cohtains in it good learning of all kinds, politely extracted, and very wittily and cunningly digested in a very commendable, and in a vigorous and pleasant style: and that Mr. Hobbes himself was a man of excellent parts, of great wit, some reading, and somewhat more thinking; one who has spent many years in foreign parts and observations; understands the learned as well as the modern languages; hath long had the reputation of a great philosopher and mathematician; and in his age hath had conversation with very many worthy and extraordinary men: to which it may be, if he had been more indulgent in the more vigorous part of his life, it might have had greater influence upon the temper of his mind; whereas age seldom submits to those questions, inquiries, and contradictions, which the laws and liberty of conversation require. And it hath been always a lamentation among Mr. Hobbes’s friends, that he spent too much time in thinking, and too little in exercising those thoughts in the company of other men of the same, or of as good faculties; for want whereof his natural constitution, with age, contracted such a morosity, that doubting-and contradicting men were never grateful to him. In a word, Mr. Hobbes is one of the most ancient acquaintance I have in the world; and of whom I have always had a great esteem, as a man, who, besides his eminent parts, learning, and knowledge, hath been always looked upon as a man of probity, and of a life free from scandal.“There have been few persons, whose writings have had a more pernicious influence in spreading irreligion and infidelity than those of Hobbes; and yet none of his treatises are directly levelled against revealed religion. He sometimes affects to speak with veneration of the sacred writings, and expressly declares, that though the laws of nature are not laws as they proceed from nature, yet” as they are given by God in Holy Scripture, they are properly called laws; for the Holy Scripture is the voice of God, ruling all things by the greatest right.“But though ha, seems here to make the laws of Scripture the Jaws of God, and to derive their force from his supreme authority, yet elsewhere he supposes them to have no authority, but what they derive from the prince or civil power. He sometimes seems to acknowledge inspiration to be a supernatural gift, and the immediate hand of God: at other times he treats the pretence to it as a sign of madness, and represents God’s speaking to the prophets in a dream, to be no more than the prophets dreaming that God spake unto them. He asserts, that we have no assurance of the certainty of Scripture but the authority of the church f, and this he resolves into the authority of the commonwealth; and declares, that till the sovereign ruler had prescribed them,” the precepts of Scripture were not obligatory laws, but only counsel or advice, which he that was counselled might without injustice refuse to observe, and being contrary to the laws could not without injustice observe;“that the word of the interpreter of Scripture is the word of God, and that the sovereign magistrate is the interpreter of Scripture, and of all doctrines, to whose authority we must stand. Nay, he carries it so far as to pronounce that Christians are bound in conscience to obey the laws of an infidel king in matters of religion; that” thought is free, but when it comes to confession of faith, the private reason must submit to the public, that is to say, to God’s lieutenant.“Accordingly he allows the subject, being commanded by the sovereign, to deny Christ in words, holding the faith of him firmly in his heart; it being in this” not he, that denieth Christ before men, but his governor and the laws of his country.“In the mean time he acknowledges the existence of God, and that we must of necessity ascribe the effects we behold to the eternal power of all powers, and cause of all causes; and he reproaches those as absurd, who call the world, or the soul of the world, God. But then he denies that we know any thing more of him than, that he exists, and seems plainly to make him corporeal; for he affirms, that whatever is not body is nothing at all. And though he sometimes seems to acknowledge religion and its obligations, and that there is an honour and worship due to God; prayer, thanksgivings, oblations, &c. yet he advances principles, which evidently tend to subvert all religion. The account he gives of it is this, that” from the fear of power invisible, feigned by the mind, or imagined from tales, publicly allowed, ariseth religion; not allowed, superstition:“and he resolves religion into things which he himself derides, namely,” opinions of ghosts, ignorance of second causes, devotion to what men fear, and taking of things casual for prognostics.“He takes pains in many places to prove man a necessary agent, and openly derides the doctrine of a future state: for he says, that the belief of a future state after death,” is a belief grounded upon other men’s saying, that they knew it supernaturally; or, that they knew those, that knew them, that knew others that knew it supernaturally.“But it is not revealed religion only, of which Hobbes makes light; he goes farther, as will appear by running over a few more of his maxims. He asserts,” that, by the law of nature, every man hath a right to all things, and over all persons; and that the natural condition of man is a state of war, a war of all men against all men: that there is no way so reasonable for any man, as by force or wiles to gain a mastery over all other persons that he can, till he sees no other power strong enough to endanger him: that the civtt laws are the only rules of good and evil, just and unjust, honest and dishonest; and that, antecedently to such laws, every action is in its own nature indifferent; that there is nothing good or evil in itself, nor any common laws constituting what is naturally just and unjust: that all things are measured by what every man judgeth fit, where there is no civil government, and by the laws of society, where there is: that the power of the sovereign is absolute, and that he is not bound by any compacts with his subjects: that nothing the sovereign can do to the subject, can properly be called injurious or wrong; and that the, king’s word is sufficient to take any thing from the subject if need be, and that the king is judge of that need." This scheme evidently strikes at the foundation of all religion, natural and revealed. It tends not only to subvert the authority of Scripture, but to destroy God’s moral government of the world. It confounds the natural differences of good and evil, virtue and vice. It destroys the best principles of the human nature; and instead of that innate benevolence and social disposition which should unite men together, supposes all men to be naturally in a state of war with one another. It erects an absolute tyranny in the state and church, which it confounds, and maKes the will of the prince or governing power the sole standard of right and wrong.

Such principles in religion and politics would, as it may be imagined, raise adversaries. Hobbes accordingly was attacked by many considerable persons, and, what may seem more strange, by such as wrote against each other. Harrington, in his “Oceana,” very often attacks Hobbes; and so does sir Robert Filmer in his “Observations concerning the Original of Government.” We have already mentioned Bramhall and Clarendon; the former argued with great acuteness against that part of his system which relates to liberty and necessity, and afterwards attacked the whole in a piece, called “The Catching of the Leviathan,” published in 1685; in which he undertakes to demonstrate out of Hobbes’s own works, that no man, who is thoroughly an Hobbist, can be “a good Christian, or a good commonwealth’s man, or reconcile himself to himself.” Tenison, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, gave a summary view of Hobbes’s principles, in a book called “The Creed of Mr. Hobbes examined, 1670;” to which, we may add the two dialogues of Dr. Eachard between Timothy and Phiiautus, and Dr. Parker’s book, entitled “Disputationes de Deo &, Divina Providentia.” Dr. Henry More has also in different parts of his works canvassed and refuted several positions of Hobbes; and the philosopher of Malmesbury is said to have been so ingenuous as to own, that “whenever he discovered his own philosophy to be unsustainable, he would embrace the opinions of Dr. More.” But the two greatest works against him were, Cumberland’s book “De legibus Naturae,” and Cudworth’s “Intellectual System” for these authors do not employ themselves about his peculiar whimsies, or in vindicating revealed religion from his exceptions and cavils, but endeavour to establish the great principles of all religion and morality, which his scheme tended to subvert, and to shew that they have a real foundation in reason and nature.

There is one peculiarity related of Hobbes, which we have not yet mentioned in the course of our account of him his dread of apparitions and spirits. His friends indeed have called this a fable. “He was falsely accused,” say they, “by some, of being afraid to be alone, because he was afraid of spectres and apparitions; vain bugbears of fools, which he had chased away by the light of his philosophy.” They do not, however, deny, that he was afraid of being alone; they only insinuate, that it was for fear of being assassinated; but the fact probably was, that he had that tenacity of life which is observable in men whose religious principles are unsettled. Upon the whole, we may conclude, with the intelligent Brucker, that Hobbes was certainly possessed of vigorous faculties, and had he been sufficiently careful to form and improve his judgment, and to preserve his mind free from the bias of prejudice and passion, would undoubtedly have deserved a place in the first class of philosophers. The mathematical method Sf reasoning which he adopted, greatly assisted him in his researches; but he was often led into error, by assuming false or uncertain principles or axioms. The vehemence with which he engaged in -political contests biassed his judgment on questions of policy, and led him to frame such maxims and rules of government, as would be destructive of the peace and happiness of mankind. An arrogant contempt of the opinions of others, an impatience of contradiction, and a restless ambition to be distinguished as an innovator in philosophy, were qualities which appear to have contributed in no small degree to the perversion of his judgment. It is also to be remarked, that though he had the precept and example of lord Bacon to guide him, he neglected the new and fertile path of experimental philosophy. So little was he aware of the value of this kind of knowledge, that he censured the royal society of London, at its first institution, for attending more to minute experiment than general principles, and said, that if the name of a philosopher was to be obtained by relating a multifarious farrago of experiments, we might expect to see apothecaries, gardeners, and perfumers rank among philosophers. of publication, seems not unnecessary to close our account of him, 1. His “Translation of Thucydides,” Lond. 1628, and 1676, fol. reprinted in 2 vols. 8vo. 2. “De Mirabilibus Pecci,” a Latin poem, Lond. 1636, 8vo, 1666, 4to. 3. “Elementa philosophica seu politica de Give,” Paris, 1642, 4to, Amst. 1647, 12mo. 4. “An Answer to sir William Davenant’s Epistle or Preface to Gondibert,” Paris, 1650, 12mo, afterwards printed with Gondibert. 5. “Human Nature or the fundamental elements of policy,” Lond. 1650, 12mo. 6. “De Corpore Politico; or the Elements of the Law,” Lond. 1650, 12mo. 7. “Leviathan; or the matter, form, and power of a Commonwealth,” ibid. 1651, and 1680, fol. 8. “A Compendium of Aristotle’s Rhetoric, and Ilamus’s Logic.” y. “A Letter about Liberty and Necessity,” Lond. 1654, 12mo. This was answered by Dr. Laney and bishop Bramhali. 10. “The Questions concerning Liberty, and Necessity, and Chance, stated and debated between Mr. Hobbes and Dr. Bramhall, bishop of London-Derry,” Lond. 1656, 4to. 11. “Elementorum Philosophiae sectio prima de Corpore,” ibid. 1655, 8vo; in English, 1656, in 4to. “Sectio jsecunda,” London, 1657, 4to; Amsterdam, 1668, in 4-to. 12. “Six Lessons to the professors of mathematics of the institution of sir Henry Savile,” ibid. 1656, 4to, written against Mr. Seth Ward, and Dr. John Wallis. 13. “The Marks of the absurd Geometry, rural Language, &c. of Dr. John Wallis,” ibid. 1657, 8vo. 14. “Kxaminatio et emendatio Mathematicae hodiernae, sex Dialogis comprehensa,” ibid.

1661, 4to; Amsterdam, 1668, 4to. 17. “Problemata Physica, una cum magnitudine circuli,” Lond. 1662, 4to; Amsterdam, 1688, 4to. 18. “De principiis et ratiocinatione Geometrarum, contra fastuosum professorem,” Lond. 1666, 4toj Amsterdam, 1668, 4to. 19. “Quadratura Circuli, cubatio sphaerse, duplicatio cubi; una cum responsione ad objectiones geometriae professoris Saviliani Oxoniae editas anno 1669.” Lond. 1669, 4to. 20. “Rosetutn Geometricum, sive propositiones aliquoc frustra antehac tentatae, cum censura brevi doctrinae Wallisiamede motn,” London, 1671, 4to, of which an account is given in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 72, for the year 1671. 21. Three Papers presented to the royal society against Dr. Wallis, with considerations on Dr. Wallis’s Answer to them,“Loud. 1671, 4to. 22.” Lux Mathematica, &c. censura doctrinae Wallisianse de Libra: Rosetum Hobbesii,“Lond. 1672, 4io. 23.” Principia et Problemata, aliquot G&ometrica ante desperata, nunc breviter explicata et demonstrata,“London, 1674, 4to. 24.” Epistola ad Dom. Anton, a Wood, Authorem Historiae et Antiquitat. Universit. Oxon.:“dated April the 20th, 1674, printed in half a sheet on one side.” It was written to Mr. Wood,“says Wood himself,” upon his complaint made to Mr. Hobbes of several deletions and additions made in and to his life and character (which be had written of him in that book) by the publisher (Dr. Jo. Fell) of the said Hist, and Antiq, to the great dishonour and disparagement of the said Mr. Hobbes. Whereupon, when that history was finished, came out a scurrilous answer to the said epistle, written by Dr. Fell, which is at “the end of the said history.” In this Answer Dr. Fell styles Mr. Hobbes, “irritabile illud et vanissimum Malmsburiense animal-,” and tells us, that one Mr. J. A. had sent a magnificent eulogium of Mr. Hobbes drawn up by him, or more probably by Hobbes himself, in order to be inserted in the Hist, et Antiq. Univers. Oxon; but the editor finding in this eulogium a great many things foreign to the design of that work, and far from truth, he suppressed what he thought proper. 25. “A Letter to William duke of Newcastle, concerning the Controversy had with Dr. Laney, bishop of Ely, about Liberty and Necessity,” Lond. 1670, 12mo. 26. “Decameron Physiologicum; or ten dialogues of natural philosophy, &c.” London, 1678, 8vo. To this is added “The Proportion of a strait line to hold the Arch of a Quadrant.” 27. “His last words and dying Legacy:” printed on one side of a sheet of paper in December 1679, and published by Charles Blunt, esq. from the “Leviathan,” in order to expose Mr. Hobbes’s doctrine. 28. His “Memorable Sayings in his books and at the table;” printed on one side of a broad sheet of paper, with his picture before them. 29. “Behemoth: The History of the Civil Wars of England from 1640 to 1660,” Lond. 1679, 8vo. 30. “Vita Thomae Hobbes,” a Latin poem written by himself, and printed at London in 4to, in the latter end of December 1679; and a fortnight after that, viz. about the 10th of January, it'was published in English verse by another hand, at London 1680, in five sheets in folio. The Latin copy was reprinted and subjoined to “Vitae Hobbianae Auctarium.” 31. “Historical narration of Heresy, and the punishment thereof,” London, 1680, in four sheets and an half in folio; and in 1682 in 8vo. This is chiefly extracted out of the second chapter De Hseresi of his Appendix to fche Leviathan. 32. “Vita Thomse Hobbes,” written by himself in prose, and printed at Caropolis, i.e. London, and prefixed to “Vitae Hobbianae Auctarium,” 1681, 8vo, and 1682, 4to. 33. “A Brief of the art of Rhetoric, containing in substance all that Aristotle hath written in his three books of that subject,” 12mo, without a date. It was afterwards published in two books, London, 1681, in 8vo, the first bearing the title of “The Art of Rhetoric,” and the other of “The Art of Rhetoric plainly set forth; with pertinent examples for the more ready understanding and practice of the same.” To which is added, 34. “A Dialogue between a philosopher and a student of the Common Laws of England.” Mr. Barrington in his Observations on the Statute of Treasons, says it appears by this dialogue, that Hobbes had considered most of the fundamental principles of the English law with great care and attention. 35. “An Answer to archhishop Bramhall’s Book called The catching of the Leviathan,” London, 1682, 8vo. 36. “Seven philosophical Problems, and two Propositions of Geometry,” London, 1682, 8vo, dedicated to the king in 1662. 37. (< An Apology for himself and his Writings.“38.” Historia Ecclesiastica carmine elegiaco concinnata.“Aug. Trinob. i. e. London, 1688, 8vo. 39.” Tractatus Opticus,“inserted in Mersennus’s” Cojitata' PhysieoMathematica,“Paris, 1644, 4to. 40.” Observationes in Cartesii de prima Philosophia Meditationes.“These objections are published in all the editions of Des Cartes’s” Meditations.“41.” The Voyage of Ulysses; or Homer’s Odysses,“book 9, 10, 11, 12. London, 1674, in 8vo And 42.” Homer’s Iliads and Odysses," London, 1675 and 1677, 12mo.

, a learned English philosopher, was born in Nottinghamshire, educated in Pembroke hall, Cambridge, and, in 1642, became rector of Blechingdon, Oxfordshire. In 1660 he proceeded D. D. was afterwards canon of Ely, fellow of the royal society, canon of St. Paul’s, sub-dean of the royal chapel, and sub-almoner to his majesty. He gained particular celebrky by teaching a young gentleman of distinction, who was born deaf and dumb, to speak, an attempt at that time unprecedented. This gentleman’s name was Alexander Popham, son of colonel Edward Popham, uho was some time an admiral in the service of the long parliament. The cure was performed by him in his house at Blechingdon, in 1659; but Popham, losing what he had been taught by Holder, after he was called home to his friends, was sent to Dr. Wallis, who brought him to his speech again. On this subject Holder published a book entitled “The Elements of Speech; an essay of inquiry into the natural production of letters: with an appendix concerning persons that are deaf and dumb,” 1669, 8vo. In the appendix he relates how soon, and by what methods, he brought Popham to speak. In this essay he has analysed, dissected, and classed the letters of our alphabet so minutely and clearly, that it is well worthy the attentive perusal of every lover of philology, but particularly, says Dr. Burney, of lyric poets and composers of vocal music; to whom it will point out such harsh and untunable combinations of letters and syllables as from their difficult utterance impede and corrupt the voice in its passage. In 1678 he published, in 4to, “A Supplement to the Philosophical Transactions of July 1670, with some Reflections on Dr. Wailis’s Letter there inserted.” This was written to claim the glory of having taught Popham to speak, which Wallis in the letter there mentioned had claimed to himself: upon which the doctor soon after published, “A Defence of the Royal Society and the Philosophical Transactions, particularly those of July 1670, in answer to the cavils of Dr. William Holder,” 1678,“4to. Holder was skilled in the theory and practice of music, and composed some anthems, three or four of which are preserved in Dr. Tud way’s collection in the British museum. In 1694 he published” A Discourse concerning Time,“in which, among other things, the deficiency of the Julian Calendar was explained, and the method of reforming it demonstrated, which was afterwards adopted in the change of style. It is to be lamented that in treating this subject with so much clearness and ability, so good a musician did not extend his reflections on the artificial parts of time, to its divisions and proportions in musical measures; a subject upon which the abbate Sacchi has written in Italian,” Del Tempo nella Musica;" but which rhythmically, or metrically considered in common with poetry, has not yet been sufficiently discussed in our own language.

, an ingenious and learned German, was born at Hamburg in 1596; and after a liberal education in his own country, went to France, and at Paris distinguished himself by uncommon parts and learning. He was educated a protestant, but afterwards by the persuasions of Sirmond the Jesuit, embraced the Roman catholic religion, and going from France to Rome, attached himself to cardinal Francis Barberini; who took him under his protection, and recommended him to favour. He was honoured by three popes, Urban VIII. Innocent X. and Alexander VII. The first gave him a canonry of St. Peter’s; the second made him librarian of the Vatican; and the third sent him, in 1665, to Christina of Sweden, whose formal profession of the Catholic faith he received at Inspruck. He spent his life in study, and died at Rome in 1661, Cardinal Barberini, whom he made his heir, caused a marble monument to be erected over his grave, with a Latin inscription much to his honour. He was very learned both in sacred and profane antiquity, was an acute critic, and wrote with the utmost purity and elegance. His works consisted chiefly of notes and dissertations, which have been highly esteemed for judgment and precision. Some of these were published by himself; but the greater part were communicated after his death, and inserted by his friends in their editions of authors, or other works that would admit them. His notes and emendations upon Eusebius’s book against Hierocles, upon Porphyry’s “Life of Pythagoras,” upon Apollonius’s “Argonautics,” upon the fragments of Demophilus, Democrates, Secundus, apd Sallustius the philosopher, upon Stephanus Byzantinus de Urbibus, &c. are to be found in the best editions of those authors. He wrote a “Dissertation upon the Life and Writings of Porphyry,” which is printed with his notes on Porphyry’s “Life of Pythagoras;” and other dissertations/ of his are inserted in Grsevius’s “Collection of Roman Antiquities,” and elsewhere.

, usually called Lord Kames, an eminent Scotch lawyer, philosopher, and critic, the son of George Home of Kames, in the county of Berwick, was born at Kames in 1696. He was descended from an ancient and honourable family; being on his father’s side, the great grandson of sir John Home of Renton, whose ancestor was a cadet of the family of the earls of Home, who held the office of lord justice-clerk in the reign of king Charles II. His mother was a daughter of Mr. Walkinshaw of Barrowfield, and grand-daughter of Mr. Robert Baillie, principal of the university of Glasgow, of whom an account is given in our third volume. His father having lived beyond his income, and embarrassed his affairs, Henry, on entering the world, had nothing to trust to but his own abilities and exertions, a circumstance which although apparently unfavourable, was always most justly regarded by him as the primary cause of his success in life. The only education he had was from private instructions at home from a tutor of the name of Wingate, of whom he never spoke in commendation.

Homer had the most sublime and universal genius that the world has ever seen; and though it is an extravagance of enthusiasm to say, as some of the Greeks did, that all knowledge may be found in his writings, no man penetrated deeper into the feelings and passions of humaa nature. He represents great things with such sublimity, and inferior objects with such propriety, that he always makes the one admirable, and the other pleasing. Strabo, whose authority in geography is indisputable, assures us, that Homer has described the places and countries, of which he gives an account, with such accuracy, that no man can imagine who has not seen them, and no man can observe without admiration and astonishment. Nothing, however, can be more absurd, than the attempts of some critics, who have possessed more learning and science than taste, to rest the merit of Homer upon the extent of his knowledge. An ancient encomiast upon Homer proves him to have possessed a perfect knowledge of nature, and to have been the author of the doctrine of Thales and Xenophanes, that water is the first principle of all things, from his having called Oceanus the parent of nature; and infers, that he was acquainted with Empedocles’ doctrine of friendship end discord, from the visit which Juno pays to Oceanus and Thetis to settle their dispute: because Homer represents Neptune as shaking the earth, he concludes him to have been well acquainted with the causes of earthquakes; and because he speaks of the great bear as never touching the horizon, he makes him an eminent astronomer. The truth is, the knowledge of nature, which poetry describes, is very different from that which belongs to the philosopher. It would be easy to prove, from the beautiful similes of Homer, that he was an accurate observer of natural appearances; and to show from his delineation of characters, that he was intimately acquainted with human nature. But he is not, on this account, to be ranked with natural philosophers or moralists. Much pains have been taken to prove, that Homer expresses just and sublime conceptions of the divine nature. And it will be acknowledged, that, in some passages, he speaks of Jupiter in language which may not improperly be applied to the Supreme Deity. But, if the whole fable of Jupiter, as it is represented in Homer, be fairly examined, it will be very evident, either that he had not just conceptions of the divine nature, or that he did not mean to express them in the portrait which he has drawn of the son of Saturn, the husband of Juno, and the president of the council of Olympus. It would surely have been too great a monopoly of perfection, if the first poet in the world had also been the first philosopher. Homer has had his enemies; and it is certain, that Plato banished his writings from his commonwealth; but lest this should be thought a blemish upon the memory of the poet, we are told that the true reason was, because he did not esteem the common people to be capable readers of them. They would be apt to pervert his meaning, and have wrong notions of God and religion, by taking his bold and beautiful allegories in a literal sense. Plato frequently declares, that he loves and admires him as the best, the most pleasant, and divine of all poets, and studiously imitates his figurative and mystical way of writing: and though he forbad his works to be read in public, yet he would never be without them in his closet. But the most memorable enemy to the merits of Homer was Zoilus, a snarling critic, who frequented the court of Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, and wrote ill-natured notes upon his poems, but received no encouragement from that prince; on the contrary, he became universally despised for his pains, and was at length put, as some say, to a most miserable death. It is said that though Homer’s poems were at first published all in one piece, and not divided into books, yet every one not being able to purchase them entire, they were circulated in separate pieces; and each of those pieces took its name from the contents, as, “The Battle of the Ships;” “The Death of Dolon;” “The Valour of Agamemnon;” “The Grot of Calypso;” “The Slaughter of the Wooers,” &c. nor were these entitled books, but rhapsodies, as they were afterwards called, when they were divided into books. Homer’s poems were not known entire in Greece before the time of Lycurgus; whither that law-giver being in Ionia carried them, after he had taken the pains to transcribe them from perfect copies with his own hands. This may be called the first edition of Homer that appeared in Greece, and the time of its appearing there was about 120 years before Rome was built, that is, about 200 years after the time of Homer. It has been said, that the “Iliad” and “Odyssey” were not composed by Homer in their present form, but only in separate little poems, which being put together and connected afterwards by some other person, make the entire works they now appear; but this is so extravagant a conceit that it scarceJy deserves to be mentioned.

, an Arabian, and celebrated translator of the ninth century, was a Christian and a native of Hira. Having quitted Bagdad, where he had been improperly treated, he went to Greece, and remained there two years, studying the language, and collecting a library of the best writers. He then returned to Bagdad, and some time after went to Persia, where he learned the Arabic, and then finally settled at Bagdad, and executed very valuable translations of the Elements of Euclid, the Almagestus of Ptolemy, and the writings of Hippocrates and other Greek authors. At the desire of Almamon or Abdaliah III. he translated into Arabic all the works of Aristotle; and for every book of that philosopher is said to have received from Almamon its weight in gold. An anecdote very honourable to him is told by Abulfaragius. One day, after some medical conversation, the Caliph said to him, “Teach me a prescription by which I may take off any enemy I please, without being discovered.” Honain declining to give an answer, and pleading ignorance, was imprisoned. Being brought again, after a year’s interval, into the Caliph’s presence, and still persisting in ignorance, though threatened with death, the Caliph smiled upon him, and said, “Be of good cheer, we were only trying thee, that we might have the greater confidence in thee.” As Honain upon this bowed down and kissed the earth, “What hindered thee,” says the Caliph, “from granting our request, when thou sawest us appear so ready to perform what we had threatened?” “Two things;” replied Honain, “my Religion, and my Profession. My religion, which commands me to do good to my enemies; and my profession, which was purely instituted for the benefit of mankind.” v Two noble laws," said the Caliph; and immediately presented him, according to the Eastern usage, with rich garments, and a sum of money. This Caliph was not only an, illustrious patron of the learned, but was himself no mean adept in several branches of science. He was well acquainted with astronomy, mathematics, and philosophy; and was frequently present at the conferences of learned men, entering with great spirit into the subjects of their debates. In the midst of the praise which is due to this Caliph, it must, however, be mentioned with regret, that, through an ill-judged partiality for his vernacular tongue, he gave orders that, after the Arabic versions were finished, the original Greek manuscripts should be burned. A similar folly seized the Caliphs of Africa: and to this cause we are, doubtless, to ascribe the entire loss of many ancient, writings. The diligence, however, with which this Caliph cultivated and encouraged learning, cancels’ in some measure this disgrace, and leaves him entitled to an honourable station among philosophers.

His papers being put by his friends into the hands of Richard Waller, esq. secretary to the Royal Society, that gentleman collected such as he thought worthy of the press, and published them under the tide of his “Posthumous Works,” in 1705, to which he prefixed an account of his life, in folio.- It is thought, that this gentleman would have published more of Hooke’s manuscripts, had he lived. Mr. Professor Robison of Edinburgh, who ascribes the invention of spring watches to Hooke, had an opportunity of seeing some of Hooke’s Mss. that had been rescued from the fire at the burning of Gresham-college, and says that they are full of systematic views many of them, it must be acknowledged, hasty, inaccurate, and futile, but still systematical. Hooke called them algebras, and considered thein as having a sort of inventive power, or rather as means of discovering things unknown by a process somewhat similar to that art He valued himself highly on account of this view of science, which he thought peculiar to himself: and he frequently speaks of others, even the most eminent, as childishly contenting themselves with partial views of the corners of things. He was likewise very apt to consider other inventors as encroacbers on his systems, which he held as a kind of property, being seriously determined to prosecute them all in their turn, and never recollecting that any new object immediately called him off, and engaged him for a while in the most eager pursuit. His algebras had given him many signal helps, and he had no doubt of carrying them through in every investigation. Stimulated by this overfond expectation, when a discovery was mentioned to him he was too apt to think and to say, that he had long ago invented the same thing, when the truth probably was, that the course of his systematic thoughts on the subjects with which it was connected had really suggested it to him, with such vivacity, or with such notions of its importance, as to make him set it down in his register in its own systematic place, which was his constant practice: but it was put out of his mind by some new object of pursuit. These remarks are part of a series, by the same learned professor, on the merits and inventions of Dr. Hooke, which are new, and highly necessary to enable the reader to form a just estimate of Hooke as a benefactor to science. They are to be found in the “Encyclopaedia Britannica,” under the article Watch, and in Dr. Gleig’s supplement to that work, under Hooke. No English biographer appears to have done so much justice to our philosopher. 1 >

On the accession of king Edwar.d in 1547, Hooper was enabled to return to England, and settled in London, where he frequently preached the doctrines of the reformation; but had imbibed abroad such notions on the subject of church government, and the habits, as rendered his principles somewhat suspected by archbishop Cranmer, and Kidley, and prevented his co-operating with them so cordially as could have been wished in that critical time. In doctrinal matters, however, he was an able assistant, being a man of learning,. and a good philosopher and critic. When Bonner was to be deprived of his bishopric, he was one of his accusers; which, no doubt, would recommend him as an acceptable sacrifice in the following bloody reign. By the interest of trie earl of Warwick, he was nominated and elected bishop of Gloucester; but, when he came to be consecrated or invested by archbishop Cranmer and bishop Ridley, he refused to wear a canonical habit; and it was not until these ceremonies were dispensed with by the king’s authority, that he was consecrated bishop, in 1550; and about two years after, he had the bishopric of Worcester given to him, to keep in commendam with the former. He now preached often, visited his dioceses, kept great hospitality for the poor, and was beloved by many. But in the persecution under Mary, being then near sixty years of age, and refusing to recant his opinions, he was burned in the city of Gloucester, Feb. 9, 1554, and suffered death with admirable constancy.

Horace, although not a philosopher in the strictest sense, discovered an inclination for the Epicurean philosophy during the greatest part of his life; but at the latter end of it, seems to have leaned a little towards the Stoic. He was of a cheerful temper, fond of ease and liberty, and went pretty far into the gallantries of his times, until he advanced in years. Dacier has very justly said that he was a poet in his philosophy, and a philosopher in his poetry. He met with his greatest misfortune, when his beloved friend and patron Maecenas died; and this event is supposed to have touched him so sensibly, that he did not survive it long enough to lament him in an elegy. He died not many days after, aged fifty-seven, Nov. 17, in the year of Rome 746, about eight years B. C. He was buried near Maecenas’s tomb, and declared in his last words Augustus his heir; the violence of his distemper being such, that be was not able to sign his will. In his person he was very short and corpulent, as we learn from a fragment of a letter of Augustus to him, preserved in his life by Suetonius; where the emperor compares him to the book he sent him, which was a little short thick volume. He was grey-haired about forty; subject to sore eyes, which made him use but little exercise; and of a constitution probably not the best, by its being unable to support him to a more advanced age, though he seems to have managed it with very great care. Confident of immortal fame from his works, as all allow he very justly might be, he expressed his indifference to any magnificent funeral rites, or fruitless sorrows for his death.

After his Apology, Mr. Home took an active part in the controversy with Mr. Kennicott on the propriety of collating the text of the Hebrew Bible with such manuscripts as could then be procured, in order to reform the text, and prepare it for a new translation into the English language. Mr. Home strongly objected to the proposal, from a persuasion, among other serious reasons, that the wide principle upon which it was to be conducted might endanger the interest of genuine Christianity, He conceived that the unsound criticism to which the text would be liable by this measure, might afford some additional pretexts for the sceptical cavils of those, who, with affectation of superior learning, had already shewn themselves active in discovering imaginary corruptions. Whatever, in these speculative points, the opinions of Mr. Home might be, he was esteemed both now and throughout his life, a good and valuable -man, a sincere Christian in thought and in action, and in all respects worthy of the preferment he obtained. About 1756, he had planned and begun to execute his “Commentary on the Psalms,” which he did not complete and publish till twenty years after. It was a work in which he always proceeded with pleasure, and on which he delighted to dwell and meditate. Soon after the publication of this valuable work, Dr. Home, feeling much concern at the progress of infidelity, to which the writings of Mr. Hume seemed in no small degree to contribute, endeavoured to undeceive the world with respect to the pretended cheerfulness and tranquillity of the last moments of this unbelieving philosopher. He addressed an anonymous “Letter to Dr. Adam Smith,” in which, with clear and sound argument, and the most perfect natural good humour, he overthrows the artificial account givefn in Mr. Hume’s life, by allusions to certain well-founded anecdotes concerning him, which are totally inconsistent with it.

He was much admired for his. talent in Latin and English poetry, and highly respected by the most eminent men of his time, Camclen, Selden, Daniel, Dr. Donne, sir Henry Wotton, sir Walter Raleigh, whose “History” he revised before it was sent to press; and others, particularly Ben Jonson, who used to say, “'t was he that polished me, I do acknowledge it.” Wood speaks of him, as the author of the Greek lexicon already mentioned, left in ms. and imperfeqj of several epigram-: and epitaphs, ill Latin and English, interspersed in various collections; “The Art of Memory,” in which he himself excelled and of some law treatises, in ms. which became the property of his grandson, sir John Hoskins, -knt. and bart. master in chancery, but better known to the world as a philosopher, and one of the first members of the royal society, of which he was president in 1682.

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

He was one of those who would never consent to be painted; but we are told, that his picture was taken while he was in his last agony. His integrity, firmness, and piety, are highly extolled by the author of his life; yet, if Baudouin may be believed (whom, however, it is more reasonable not to believe, as he was his antagonist in religious opinions), he was suspected of being avaricious: but it must be remembered, that he lost his all when he changed his religion, and had no supplies but what arose from reading lectures; for it does not appear that his wife brought him a fortune. It is very probable, however, that his lectures would have been sufficient for his subsistence; had he not been deluded by schemes of finding out the philosopher’s stone; and we find him lamenting to a friend in his last illness, that he had squandered away his substance upon this hopeful project. With all these weaknesses, he xvas esteemed one of the greatest civilians France ever produced.

"It is not precisely known at what period the earl of Surrey began his travels. They have the air of a romance. He made the tour of Europe in the true spirit of chivalry, and with the ideas of an Amadis: proclaiming the unparalleled charms of his mistress, and prepared to defend the cause of her beauty with the weapons of knight-errantry. Nor was this adventurous journey performed without the intervention of an enchanter. The first city in Italy which he proposed to visit was Florence, the capital of Tuscany, and the original seat of the ancestors of his Geraidine. In his way thither, he passed a few days at the emperor’s court ^ where he became acquainted with Cornelius Agrippa, a celebrated adept in natural magic. This visionary philosopher shewed our hero, in a mirror of glass, a living image of Geraidine, reclining on a couch, sick, and reading one of his most tender sonnets by a waxen taper. His imagination, which wanted not the flattering F represeniations and artificial incentives of illusion, was heated anew by this interesting and affecting spectacle. Inflamed wiih every enthusiasm of the most romantic passion, he hastened to Florence and on his arrival, immediately published a defiance against any person who could handle a lance and was in love, whether Christian, Jew, Turk, Saracen, or Canibal, who should presume to dispute the superiority of Geraldine’s beauty. As the lady was pretended to be of Tuscan extraction, the pride of the Flo-, rentines was flattered on this occasion: and the grand duke of Tuscany permitted a general and unmolested ingress into his dominions of the combatants of all countries, till this important trial should be decided. The challenge was accepted, and the earl victorious. The shield which he presented to the duke before the tournament began, is exhibited in Vertue’s valuable plate of the Arundel family, and was actually in the possession of the late duke of Norfolk.

Mr. Hudson’s tranquillity received a dreadful shock in the winter of 1783, when his house, and the greater part of his literary treasures, were destroyed by a sudden fire, caused, as it was believed, by the villany of a confidential servant, who knew of a considerable sum in money which his master had received a day or two before; and the insurance having been neglected, although for a short time only, the loss was considerable, in a pecuniary point of view, to a man whose resources were not extensive. He bore the whole like a philosopher and a Christian, giving up his practice, and retiring, with Mr. and Mrs. Hole, to a more economical residence in Jermyn-street, where he died May 23d, 1793, and was buried in St. James’s church.

, a celebrated philosopher and historian, was descended from a good family in Scotland, and born at Edinburgh April 26, 1711. His father was a descendant of the family of the earl of Hume or Home, and his mother, whose name was Falconer, was descended from that of lord Halkerton, whose title came by succession to her brother. This double alliance with nobility was a source of great self-complacency to Hume, who was a philosopher only in his writings. In his infancy he does not appear to have been impressed with those sentiments of religion, which parents so generally, we may almost add universally, at the time of his birth, thought it their duty to inculcate. He once owned that he had never read the New Testament with attention. However this may be, as he was a younger brother with a very slender patrimony, and of a studious, sober, industrious turn, he was destined by his family to the law: but, being seized with an early passion for letters, he found an insurmountable aversion to any thing else; and, as he relates, while they fancied him to be poring upon Voet and Vinnius, he was occupied with Cicero and Virgil. His fortune, however, being very small, and his health a little broken by ardent application to books, he was tempted, or rather forced, to make a feeble trial at business; and, in 1734, went to Bristol, with recommendations to some eminent merchants: but, in a few months, found that scene totally unfit for him. He seems, also, to have conceived some personal disgust against the men of business in that place: for, though he was by no means addicted to satire, yet we can scarcely interpret him otherwise than ironically, when, speaking in his History (anno 1660) of James Naylor’s entrance into Bristol upon a horse, in imitation of Christ, he presumes it to be “from the difficulty in that place of finding an ass”

Immediately on leaving Bristol, he went over to France, with a view of prosecuting his studies in privacy; and practised a very rigid frugality, for the sake of maintaining his independency unimpaired. During his retreat there, first at Rheims, but chiefly at L& Fleche, in Anjou, he composed his “Treatise of Human Nature;” and, coming over to London in 1737, he published it the year after. This work, he informs us, he meditated even while at the university; a circumstance which, it has been observed, proves the self-sufficiency of Hume in a very striking manner. For a youth, in the full tide of blood and generous sympathy, to meditate the diffusion of a system of universal scepticism, in which it is endeavoured to prove, not only that all the speculations of the philosopher or the divine, but every virtuous feeling of the heart, every endearing tie by which man is bound to man, are no better than ridiculous prejudices and empty dreams, is the most singular deviation from the natural and laudable propensities of a mind unhacknied in the ways of the world, that has yet occurred in the anomalous history of man. The scepticism and irreligion of Voltaire, Diderot, and Rousseau, “grew with their growth, and strengthened with their strength,” but Hume started as if from the nursery, a perfect and full-grown infidel.

In 1754, he published the first volume, in 4to, of “A Portion of English History, from the Accession of James I. to the Revolution.” He strongly promised himself success from this work, thinking himself the first English historian that was free from bias in his principles: but he says, “that he was herein miserably disappointed and that, instead of pleasing all parties, he had made himself obnoxious to all.” He was, as he relates, “so discouraged with this, that, had not the war at that time been breaking out between France and England, he had certainly retired to some provincial town of the former kingdom, changed his name, and never more have returned to his native country.” The “cheerful and sanguine temper” of which he formerly boasted, had now forsaken him, and the philosopher had dwindled to a mere irritable author. He recovered himself, however, so far, as to publish, in 1756, his second volume of the same history and this was better received. “It not only rose itself,” he says, “but helped to buoy up its unfortunate brother.” Between these publications came out, along with some other small pieces, his “Natural History of Religion:” which, though but indifferently received, was in the end the cause of some consolation to him; because, as he expresses himself, “Dr. Hurd wrote a pamphlet against it, with all the illiberal petulance, arrogance, and scurrility, which distinguish the Warburtonian school;” so well aware was he, that, to an author, attack of any kind is much more favourable than neglect. Dr. Hurd, however, was only the ostensible author; he has since declared expressly, that it proceeded from Warburton himself. In 1759, he published his “History of the House of Tudor;” and, in 1761, the more early part of the English History: each in 2 vols. 4to. The clamour against the former of these was almost equal to that against the history of th two first Stuarts; and the latter was attended with but tolerable success: but he was now, he tells us, grown callous against the impressions of public censure. He had, indeed, what he would think good reason to be so; for the copy-money given by the booksellers for his history, exceptionable as it was deemed, had made him not only independent, but opulent.

On the 5th of February, 1767, Mr. Hunter was elected a fellow of the royal society; and in order to make that situation as productive of knowledge as possible, he prevailed on Dr. George Fordyce, and Mr. Gumming (the celebrated watch-maker) to form a kind of subsequent meeting at a coffee-house, for the purpose of philosophical discussion, and inquiry into discoveries and improvements. To this meeting some of the first philosophers of the age very speedily acceded, among whom none can be more conspicuous than sir Joseph Banks, Dr. Solander, Dr. Maskelyne, sir Geo. Shuckburgh, sir Harry Englefieid, sir Charles Blagden, Dr. Noothe, Mr. Ramsden, and Mr. Watt of Birmingham. About the same time, the accident of breaking his tendo Achillis, led him to some very successful researches into the mode in which tendons are reunited so completely does a true philosopher turn every accident to the advantage of science. In 176M, Dr. Hunter having finished his house in Windmill-street, gave up to his brother that which he had occupied in Jermyn-street; and in the same year, by the interest of the doctor, Mr. Hunter was elected one of the surgeons to St. George’s hospital. In 1771 he married Miss Home, the eldest daughter of Mr. Home, surgeon to Burgoyne’s regiment of light-horse, by whom he had two sons and two daughters. In 1772 he undertook the professional education of his brother-in-law Mr. Everard Home, then leaving Westminster-school, who has assiduously pursued his steps, ably recorded his merits, and successfully emulates his reputation.

, a philosopher of the Shaftesbury school, was the son of a dissenting; minister in Ireland, and was born Aug. 8, 1694. He, discovered early a superior capacity, and ardent thirst after knowledge; and when he had gone through his school-education, was sent to an academy to begin his course of philosophy. In 1710 he removed from the academy, and entered a student in the university of Glasgow in Scotland. Here he renewed his study of the Latin and Greek languages, and applied himself to all parts of literature, in which he made a progress suitable to his uncommon abilities. Afterwards h.e turned his thoughts to divinity, which he proposed to make the peculiar study and profession of his life, and for the prosecution of this he continued several years longer at Glasgow.

, an ingenious philosopher of the sceptical class, was the son of Mr. William Hutton, merchant in Edinburgh, and born in that city on the 3d of June, 1726. He entered the university as a student of humanity, in Nov. 1740. He studied afterwards under the celebrated Maclaurin, but did not prosecute the mathematical sciences to any great extent. The origin of his attachment to the study of chemistry is traced to the accidental mention of a chemical fact by professor Stevenson, in his prelections on logic. The fact was, that aqua regia is the only solvent of gold which requires the united action of two acids, each of which singly is capable of dissolving any of the baser metals. This important phenomenon drew him, as if by a kind of electric attraction, to the study of chemistry, with a force that could never afterwards be overcome. His philosophical career was however interrupted by his engaging, at the request of his friends, as an apprentice to a writer to the signet. But instead of copying writs and deeds, or studying th,e forms of legal proceedings, it was found that his favourite object of pursuit was the experiments of the crucible and retort. He was accordingly released from his engagement as an apprentice, and permitted to direct his attention to studies more congenial to his inclinations. He applied himself to the study of medicine as being the most closely connected with chemistry, and after attending the lectures in the university for some years, repaired, as was then customary, to the continent, to finish his course of study. He took the degree of M. D. at Leyden, in 1749.

, a most beautiful, virtuous, and learned lady of antiquity, was the daughter of Theon, who governed the Platonic school at Alexandria, the place of her birth and education, in the latter part of the fourth century. Theon was famous among his contemporaries for his extensive knowledge and learning; but what has chiefly rendered him so with posterity, is, that he was the father of Hypatia, whom, encouraged by her prodigious genius, he educated not only in all the qualifications belonging to her sex, but likewise in the most abstruse sciences. She made an amazing progress in every branch of learning, and the things that are said of her almost surpass belief. Socrates, the ecclesiastical historian, a witness whose veracity cannot be doubted, at least when he speaks in favour of an heathen philosopher, tells us, that Hypatia “arrived at such a pitch of learning, as very far to exceed all the philosophers of her time:” to which Nicephorus adds, “those of Other times.” Philostorgius, a third historian of the same stamp, affirms, that “she was much superior to her father and master Theon, in what regards astronomy;” and Suidas, who mentions two books of her writing, one “on the Astronomical Canon of Diophantus, and another on the Conies of Apollonius,” avers, that “she not only exceeded her father in astronomy, but also that she understood all the other parts of philosophy.” It is some confirmation of these assertions that she succeeded her father in the government of the Alexandrian school: filling that chair, where Ammonius, Hierocles, and many great and celebrated philosophers had taught; and this, at a time, when men of immense learning abounded both at Alexandria, and in many other parts of the Roman empire. Her fame was so extensive, and her worth so universally acknowledged, that we cannot wonder, if she had a crowded au> ditory. “She explained to her hearers,” says Socrates, “the several sciences, that go under the general name of philosophy for which reason there was a confluence to her, from all parts, of those who made philosophy their delight and study.”

Her scholars were as eminent as they were numerous: one of whom was the celebrated Synesius, who was afterwards bishop of Ptolemais. This ancient Christian Platonist every where bears the strongest, as well as the most grateful testimony to the learning and virtue of his instructress; and never mentions her without the profoundest respect, and sometimes in terms of affection coming little short of adoration. In a letter to his brother Euoptius, “Salute,” says he, “the most honoured and the most beloved of God, the Philosopher”; and that happy society, which enjoys the blessing “of her divine voice.” In another, he mentions one Egyptus, who “sucked in the seeds of wisdom from Hypatia.” In another, he expresses himself thus “I suppose these letters will be delivered by; Peter, which he will receive from that sacred hand.” In a letter addressed to herself, he desires her to direct a hydroscope to be maJe and bought for him, which he there describes. That famous silver astrolabe, which he presented to Peonius, a man equally excelling in philosophy and arms, he owns to have been perfected by the directions of Hypatia. In a long epistle, he acquaints her with his reasons for writing two books, which he sends her; and asks her judgment of one, resolving not to publish it without her approbation. But it was not Synesius only, and the disciples of the Alexandrian school, who admired Hypatia for her great virtue and learning: never woman was more caressed by the public, and yet never woman had a more unspotted character. She was held as an oracle for her wisdom, which made her consulted by the magistrates in all important cases; and this frequently drew her among the greatest concourse of men, without the least censure of her manners. “On account of the confidence and authority,” says Socrates, “which she had acquired by her learning, she sometimes came to the judges with singular modesty. Nor was she any thing abashed to appear thus among a crowd of men; for all persons, by reason of her extraordinary discretion, did at the same time both reverence and admire her.” The same is confirmed by Nicephorus, and other authors, whom we have already cited. Danaascius and Suidas relate, that the governors and magistrates of Alexandria regularly visited her, and paid their court to her; and, when Nicephorus intended to pass the highest compliment on the princess Eudocia, he thought he could not do it better, than by calling her “another Hypatia.”

, an Arabian philosopher, was contemporary with Averroes, who died about the year 1198. He composed a philosophical romance, entitled “The Life or History of Hai Ebn Yokdhan” in which he endeavours to demonstrate, how a man may, by the mere light of nature, attain the knowledge of things natural and supernatural; particularly the knowledge of God, and the affairs of another life. He lived at Seville in Spain, as appears from one or two passages in this work, and was famous for his medical skill, and for his knowledge of the Peripatetic philosophy, of which this work exhibits a favourable specimen, as it was taught among the Saracens. He wrote some other pieces, which are not come to our hands; but, that this was well received in the East, appears from its having been translated by R. Moses Narbonensis, into Hebrew, and illustrated with a large commentary. It was published in 1671, with an accurate Latin version, by Mr. Edward Pococke, son of Dr. Pococke, professor of the Oriental languages at Oxford; and, in 1708, an English translation of it from the Arabic was given by Simon Ockley, soon after Arabic professor at Cambridge. It is written with great elegance of language, and vigour of imagination.

In 1742, he had an epistolary debate with his friend William Whiston, concerning the order and times of the high priests. In 1744, he published “An Address to the Deists, &c.” in answer to Morgan’s “Resurrection of Jesus considered by a Moral Philosopher;” and, in 1745, entered the lists against Warburtori, in “The Belief of a Future State proved to be a fundamental article of the religion of the Hebrews, and held by the philosophers, &c.” and two or three polemic pieces with Warburton were the consequence of this. His next work was, “Remarks upon Middleton’s Free Inquiry into the Miraculous Powers, &c.” and, after this, he does not appear to have published any thing till 1752, except that, in 1751, he communicated to Mr. John Gilbert Cooper, for the use of his “Life of Socrates,” some learned notes; in which he contrived to avenge himself upon his old antagonist Warburton. At the same time he exposed the young and incautious writer to the resentment of that veteran, who did not fail to shew it in one of his notes upon Pope. In 1752, came out his last and best work, “Chronological Antiquities,” in 3 vols. 4to. He afterwards made many collections and preparations for an edition of the New Testament in Greek, with Scholia in the same language; and would have inserted all the various readings, had not the growing infirmities of age prevented him. An account of the materials of this intended edition, with notes containing alterations, corrections, additions to his “Chronology,” are inserted in an appendix to “Memoirs” of him printed in 1764, by Dr. Sutton of Leicester.

, a native of Chalcis in Ccelosyria, an eminent philosopher, flourished about the beginning of the fourth century, and was the scholar first of Anatolius, and afterwards of Porphyry. Having become perfect master of the mysteries of the Piotinian system, he taught it with great credit and success, and gained the profound reverence of his scholars by certain wonders which he professed to perform, by means of an intercourse with invisible beings. His writings discover extensive reading, but his style is deficient in accuracy and elegance, and he borrows freely from other writers, particularly Porphyry, without the smallest acknowledgment. His philosophical works are exceedingly obscure, but valuable as authentic documents respecting the Alexandrian school. Those extant are, “The Life of Pythagoras” “An exhortation to the study of Philosophy” “Three books on Mathematical learning” “A commentary upon Nicomachus’s Institutes of Arithmetic,” and a “Treatise on the Mysteries of the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Assyrians.” The time and place of his death are uncertain; but it appears probable that he died about the year 333. This Jarnblicus must be distinguished from the person of the same name, to whom the emperor Julian dedicates his epistles; for Julian was scarcely born at the time when Porphyry’s successor died.

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

We learn from the “Anecdotes of Bowyer,” that the plan of another work was formed by this eminent mathematician, intended to be of the same nature with the “Synopsis,” but far more copious and diffusive, and to serve as a general introduction to the sciences, or, which is the same thing, to the mathematical and philosophical works of Newton. A work of this kind had long been a desideratum in literature, and it required a geometrician of the first class to sustain the weight of so important an undertaking; for which, as M. d'Alembert justly observes, “the combined force of the greatest mathematicians would not have been more than sufficient.” The ingenious author was conscious how arduous a task he had begun; but his very numerous acquaintance, and particularly his friend the earl of Macclesfield, never ceased importuning and urging him to persist, till he had finished the whole work, the result of all his knowledge and experience through a life of near 7O years, and a standing monument, as he had reason to hope, of his talents and industry. He had scarcely sent the first sheet to the press, when a fatal illness obliged him to discontinue the impression; and a few days before his death, he intrusted the ms. fairly transcribed by an amanuensis, to the care of lord Macclesfield, who promised to publish it, as well for the honour of the author as for the benefit of his family, to whom the property of the book belonged. The earl survived his friend many years but the “Introduction to the Mathetics” was forgotten or neglected and, after his death, the ms. was not to be found whether it was accidentally destroyed, which is hardly credible, or whether, as hath been suggested, it had been lent to some geometrician, unworthy to bear the name either of a philosopher or a man, who has since concealed it, or possibly burned the original for fear of detection. Lord Teignmouth, however, informs us, in his life of Mr. Jones’s illustrious Son, that there is no evidence in his memoranda to confirm or disprove this account.

His predilection for whatever concerned poetry, appeared in the pains he now took to study the varieties of the “Roman metre. His proficiency was indeed so superior to that of most of his associates in every pursuit, that they were glad to consult him as a preceptor, and to borrow from him, as a friend, those helps which they were otherwise unable to procure. During the holidays he learned French and arithmetic, and as he was admitted to the company of the ingenious philosopher Mr. Baker, and his learned friends, his mother recommended to him the” Spectacle de la Nature," as a book that might enable him to understand their conversation. He obeyed her injunction, as he uniformly did upon every occasion, and was probably not uninterested in many parts of that once instructive work; but he had not yet begun to make excursions into the field of natural history, and he acknowledged that he was more entertained with the Arabian Tales and Shakspeare.

A letter to his sister, written at the age of fourteen, which his biographer has inserted at this period of his history, contains reflections on the folly of sorrowing for the death of friends, which perhaps might be placed in a more just light, but from one of his age, certainly indicate very extraordinary powers of thinking; and the transition from these to the common trifles of correspondence, shews an inclination to play the youthful philosopher, which gives considerable interest to this singular epistle. The reflections, it is true, are trite, but they could not have been trite to one just entering upon life, nor could so lively a youth have long revolved the uncertainties of fame and happiness.

In 1731, he published “Miscellaneous Observations upon Authors, ancient and modern,” in 2 vols. 8vo. This is a collection of critical remarks, of which, however, he was not the sole, though the principal, author: Pearce, Masson, Dr. Taylor, Wasse, Theobald, Dr. Robinson, Upton, Thirlby, and others, were contributors to it. This work was highly approved by the learned here, and was translated into Latin at Amsterdam, and continued on the same plan by D'Orville and Burman. In 1751, archbishop Herring, unsolicited, gave him the living of St. Dunstan in the East, London. This prelate had long entertained a high and affectionate regard for him had endeavoured to serve him in many instances with others and afterwards, in 1755, conferred upon him the degree of D. D. This same year, 1751, came out his first volume of “Remarks upon Ecclesiastical History,” 8vi. This work was inscribed to die earl of Burlington by whom, as trustee for the Boylean Lecture, he had, through the application of bishop Herring and bishop Sherlock, been appointed, in 1749, to preach that lecture. There is a preface to this volume of more than forty pages, which, with much learning and ingenuity, displays a spirit of liberty and candour. These “Remarks upon Ecclesiastical fiistory” were continued, in tour succeeding volumes, down to the year 1517, when Luther began the work of reformation; two, published by himself, in 1752 and 1754; and two, after his death, in 1773. In 1755, he published “Six Dissertations upon different Subjects,” 8vo. The sixth dissertation is, “On the state of the dead, as described by Homer and Virgil;” and the remarks in this, tending to establish the great antiquity of the doctrine of a future state, interfered with Warburton in his “Divine Legation of Moses,” and drew upon him from that quarter a very severe attack. He made no reply; but in his “Adversaria” was the following memorandum, which shews that he did not oppose the notions of other men, from any spirit of envy or contradiction, but from a full persuasion that the real matter of fact was as he had represented it. “I have examined,” says he, “the state of the dead, as described by Homer and Virgil; and upon that dissertation I am willing to stake all the little credit that I have as a critic and philosopher. I have there observed, that Homer was not the inventor of the fabulous history of the gods: he had those stories, and also the doctrine of a future state, from old traditions. Many notions of the Pagans, which came from tradition, are considered by Barrow, Serm. viii. vol. II. in which sermon the existence of God is proved from universal consent.”

, a Roman emperor, commonly, although perfcaps not very justly, styled the Apostate, was the younger son of Constantius, brother of Constantine the Great. He was the first fruit of a second marriage of his father with Basilina, after the birth of Gallus, whom he had by Galla his first consort. He was born Nov. 6, in the year 331, at Constantinople; and, according to the medals of him, named Fiavius Claudius Julianus. During the life of Constantine, he received the first rudiments of his education at the court of Constantinople; but, upon the death of this emperor, all his relations being suspected of criminal actions, Julian’s father was obliged to seek his safety by flight; and his son Julian’s escape was entirely owing to Marc, bishop of Arethusa, without whose care he had inevitably perished in the persecution of his family. As soon as the storm was over, and Constantius, the son of Constantine, quietly seated on the imperial throne, he sent young Julian to Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, who was related to him by his mother’s side, and who educated him in the Christian faith; but at the same time employed an eunuch called Mardonius, who was a pagan, to teach him grammar, while Eulolius, a Christian of doubtful character, was his master in rhetoric. Julian made a very quick progress in learning; and, being sent afterwards to Athens to complete his education, he became the darling of that nursery of polite literature, and particularly commenced an acquaintance with St. Basil and Gregory of Nazianzen. This last, however, observed something in him which rendered his sincerity in the Christian faith suspected: and it is certain, that, notwithstanding all the care of his preceptor Eusebius, this young prince was entirely perverted by Maximus, an Ephesian philosopher and magician. His cousin Constantius the emperor was advertised of his conduct; and Julian, to prevent the effects, and save his life, professed himself a monk, and took the habit, but, under this character in public, he secretly embraced paganism. Some time before, his brother Gallus and he had taken orders, and executed the office of reader in the church; but the religious sentiments of the two brothers were widely different.

We have, in the course of his memoir, had occasion to exhibit some qualities to the disadvantage of Julian; yet we must in justice add, that he was sober and vigilant, free from the debaucheries of women; and, to sum up all, remarkably mild, merciful, good-natured, and, in general, most amiable; except in his passions which arose from his aversion to Christianity. He not only encouraged letters by his patronage, but was himself a learned writer. As a philosopher, he strictly adhered to the Alexandrian or Eclectic school. He professes himself a warm admirer of Pythagoras and Plato, and recommends an union of their tenets with those of Aristotle. The later Platonists, of his own period, he loads with encomiums, particularly Jamblichus, whom he calls “The Light of the World,” and “The Physician of the Mind.” Amidst the numerous traces of an enthusiastic and bigoted attachment to Pagan theology and philosophy, and of an inveterate enmity to Christianity, which are to be found in his writings, the candid reader will discern many marks of genius and erudition. Concerning the manners of Julian, Libanius writes, that no philosopher, in the lowest state of poverty, was ever more temperate, or more ready to practise rigorous abstinence from food, as the means of preparing his mind for conversing with the gods. Like Plotinus, Porphyry, Jambiichus, and others of this fanatical sect, he dealt in visions and extasies, and pretended to a supernatural intercourse with divinities. Suidas relates, probably from some writings of the credulous Eunapius now lost, an oracular prediction concerning his death. Besides his answer to St. Cyril, and “Misopogon,” he wrote some other discourses, epistles, &c. in which are many proofs of genius and erudition, conveyed in an elegant style. And his rescripts in the Theodosian code shew, that he made more good laws, in the short time of his reign, than any emperor either before or after him. His works were published in Greek and Latin by Spanheim in 1696, 2 vols. fol.; and a selection from them in England by Mr. Buncombe, 1784, 2 vols. 8vo, translated principally from La Bleterie, who wrote an excellent Life of Julian.

Before the death of Edward, he returned to his own country, and led a sedentary life, closely pursuing his studies; but, upon the accession of queen Mary, he returned thither; and, being a very good poet, he published, in 1554, an epithalamium on the marriage of Philip II. with that queen, entitled “Philippis.” This address could not fail of introducing him in a favourable light to that court, whence he would probably have made a considerable fortune, had not the turbulent state of those times driven him home again. He confined himself some time in Hoorn, but, after a while, settled at Haeriem; and repaired the disappointment he sustained respecting his finances in England, by marrying a young woman of fortune, which he knew how to improve by making the most of his dedications to his books, of which he published three at Haarlem in 1556. Some years after, he accepted an offer from the king of Denmark, to be his physician, with a considerable salary, and removed to Copenhagen; but neither liking the climate nor genius of the inhabitants, he left the country about 1564, very abruptly, without taking leave of the king. Returning to Haerlem, he practised physic, and was made principal of the college, or great school, in that town. He continued there till the place was besieged by the Spaniards in 1573, when he found means to escape, by obtaining leave to attend the prince of Orange, who desired his assistance as a physician; but lost his library, in which he had left a great many works which had cost him much pains and labour; and the loss was aggravated by this circumstance, that they were almost fit for the press. In this exigency he went to Middleburgh, where the prince had procured him a public salary to practise physic; but the air of the country did not agree with his constitution, and he fell into some disorders, which, with the grief he felt for the loss of his library, put an end to his life in 1575. There was a design to have given him a professorship at Leyden, which university was but just rising when he died. He had a prodigious memory, which enabled him to treasure up a vast stock of learning. Besides his skill in physic, which was his profession, he was an historian, poet, philosopher, and understood perfectly eight languages. His works make up 24 articles, among which are, “Lexicon Graeco-Latinum,” 1548; “Adagiorum ab Erasmo omissorum centuriae octo & dimidia,” 1558 which last was published after his death, as others of his pieces were.

Not long afterwards, Justin made a visit into the East; and, among other parts, went to Ephesus. Here he fell into the company and acquaintance of Trypho, a Jew of great note, with whom he engaged in a dispute that held for two days: the substance of which he afterwards wrote in a piece ^entitled his “Dialogue with Trypho.” By the conclusion we learn he was then ready to set sail to Ephesus. He returned at last to Rome, where he had frequent conferences with one Crescens, a philosopher of some repute in that city; a man who had endeavoured to traduce the Christians, and represent their religion under the most infamous character. Justin now presented his second Apology to Marcus Antoninus Philosophus, the successor of Pius, and a determined enemy to the Christians. The immediate occasion of this second Apology, as he himself Infoniis the emperor, was this: A woman at Rome had, together with her husband, lived in all manner of wantonness, and, from a vicious course of life, had been converted to Christianity; and being reclaimed herself, very naturally sought also to reclaim her husband, but at length, finding him quite obstinate, she procured a bill of divorce. The man, enraged at this, accused her to the emperor of being a Christian. She, however, putting in a petition for leave to answer it, he relinquished that prosecution; and, falling upon her converter, one Ptolomeus, procured his imprisonment and condemnation. On that occasion, Lucius, a Christian, being present, presumed to represent how hard it was that an innocent and virtuous man, charged with no crime, should be adjudged to die merely for bearing the name of a Christian: a proceeding that must certainly be a reflection upon the government. These words were no sooner spoken than he, together with a third person, were sentenced to the same fate. The severity of these proceedings awakened Justin’s solicitude and care for the rest of his brethren; and he immediately drew up his second apology, in which, among other things, he made heavy complaints of the malice and envy of his antagonist Crcscens. The philosopher, irritated at this charge, procured him to be apprehended, with six of his companions, and brought before the praefect of the city. After their ex amination, this sentence was pronounced, that “TheJ who refuse to sacrifice to the gods, and to obey the imperial edicts, be first scourged, and then beheaded, according to the laws:” which was put in execution upon Justin and the rest. This happened, according to Baronius, A. C. 165, not long after Justin had presented his second Apology; which is said, therefore, in the language of those times, to have procured him the crown of martyrdom.

, a German writer, who has lately attained extraordinary fame in his own country as the inventor of a new system of philosophical opinions, which, however, are not very likely to reach posterity, was born April 22, 1724, in the suburbs of Konigsberg, in Prussia. His father, John George Kant, was a sadler, born at Memel, but originally descended from a Scotch family, who spelt their name with a C; but the philosopher, the subject of this article, in early life converted the C into a K, as being more conformable to German orthography. Immanuel, the second of six children, was indebted to his father for an example of the strictest integrity and the greatest industry; but he had neither time nor talent to be his instructor. From his mother, a woman of sound sense and ardent piety, he imbibed sentiments of warm and animated devotion, which left to the latest 'periods of his life the strongest and most reverential impressions of her memory on his mind. He received his first instructions in reading and writing at the charity-school in his parish; but soon gave such indications of ability and inclination to learn, as induced his uncle, a wealthy shoe- maker, to defray the expence of his farther education and studies. From school he proceeded to the college of Fridericianum. This was in 1740; and his first teacher was Martin Kautzen, to whom Kant was strongly attached, and who devoted himself with no less zeal to the instruction of his pupil, and contributed very greatly to the unfolding of his talents. His favourite study at the university was that of mathematics, and the branches of natural philosophy connected with them. On the completion of his studies, he accepted a situation as tutor in a clergyman’s family. In this, and in two other similar situations, he was not able to satisfy his mind that he did his duty so well as he ought; he was, according to his own account, too much occupied with acquiring knowledge to be able to communicate the rudiments of it to others. Having, however, acted as a tutor for nine years, he returned to Konigsberg, and maintained himself by private instruction. In 1746, when twenty-two years of age, he began his literary career with a small work, entitled “Thoughts on the estimation of the animal powers, with strictures on the proofs advanced by Leibnitz and other mathematicians on this point,” &c. In 1754 he acquired great reputation by a prize essay on the revolution of the earth round its axis; and the following year was admitted.to his degree of master of arts, and entered immediately upon the task of lecturing, which he performed for many years to crowded audiences, and published several works, the titles of which are now of little importance, compared to his new metaphysical system, the first traces of which are to be found in his inaugural dissertation, written in 1770, when he was appointed to a professor’s chair in the university of Konigsberg; the subject was, “De mundi sensibilis atque intelligibilis forma et principiis.” Seated now in the chair of metaphysics, his subsequent publications were almost entirely of this nature. He pursued this study with unremitting ardour, and entered into all the depths of metaphysical subtlety, in order, as we are told, “to unfold the rational powers of man, and deduce from thence his moral duties.” It was not till 178 J, that the full principles of his system appeared in his “Review of pure reason;” and the system it contains is commonly known under the name of the “Critical Philosophy.” As this work had been variously misrepresented, he published a second part in 1783, entitled “Prolegomena for future Metaphysics, which are to be considered as a science.” In 1786 he was appointed rector of the university, and was a second time called to the same office, in 1788; and in a few months he was advanced to be senior of the philosophical faculty. About 1798, he took leave of the public as an author, and soon after gave up all his official situations. During his latter years, his faculties were visibly decayed, in which state he died Feb. 12, 1804. The character of Kant is said to have been contemplated with universal respect and admiration, and during his life he received from the learned throughout Germany, marks of esteem bordering upon adoration. How far he deserved all this, is very questionable. His language is equally obscure, and his reasonings equally subtle with those of the commentators of Aristotle in the fifteenth century. The truth of this assertion will be denied by none who have endeavoured to make themselves masters of the works of Willich and Nitsch, two of his pupils; and the source of this obscurity seems to be sufficiently obvious. Besides employing a vast number of words of his own invention, derived from the Greek language, Kant uses expressions which have long been familiar to metaphysicians, in a sense different from that in which they are generally received; and we have no doubt that the difficulty of comprehending his philosophy has contributed, far more than any thing really valuaBle in it, to bring it into vogue, and raise the fame of the author. For the following analysis of his system we are indebted to one of our authorities, and we might perhaps deserve blame for the length of the article, if it did not appear necessary that some record should remain of a set of opinions that once threatened to usurp the place of all true philosophy as well as religion. The reader who studies for the practical improvement of his mind, will perceive at once, that it is the object of all such metaphysical projectors to render the world independent of revealed religion.

Pure reason is the faculty of tracing our knowledge “a priori,” to subject it to principles, to trace it from its necessary conditions, till it be entirely without condition, and in complete unity. The great work of Kant is divided into several parts, under the titles, “Of Esthetic transcendental” “Of transcendental Logic” “Of the pure Ideas of the Understanding” “Of the transcendental Judgment” “Of the Paralogism of pure Reason,” &c. We cannot, from the nature of our work, discuss all the parts of the system; but may observe, that the author contends that we know objects only by the manner in which they affect us; and as the impressions which they make upon us are only certain apparitions or phenomena, it is impossible for us to know what an object is in itself. Hence the system of Kant has been compared with that of Berkeley, which maintains that sensations are only appearances, and that there is no truth, only in our reason. But Kant does not go to this length. According to his theory, the understanding, when it considers the apparitions or phenomena, acknowledges the existence of the objects themselves, inasmuch as they serve for the bases of those apparitions; though we know nothing of their reality, and though we can have no certainty but in experience. Truth, according to our author, consists in the agreement of our notions with the objects, in such a manner as that all men are obliged to form the same judgment: belief consists in holding a thing to be true, in consequence of a persuasion which is entirely personal, and has not its basis in an object submitted to experience. There is a belief of doctrine, as, that “there are inhabitants in the planets,” which is not the same as moral belief; because in moral belief there is something necessary. The ordinary mode of teaching the existence of God belongs to the belief of doctrine and it is the same with regard to the immortality of the soul nevertheless, the author was a firm believer in the existence of God, and a future state because, said he, “this persuasion renders immovable my moral principles principles which I cannot reject, without rendering myself contemptible in my own eyes. I wish for happiness, but I do not wish for it without morality; and as it depends on nature, I cannot wish it with this condition, except by believing that nature depends on a Being who causes this connection between morality and happiness. This supposition is founded on the want or necessity of my reason, and not on my duty. We have, however,” says Kant, “no certainty in our knowledge of God; because certainty cannot exist, except when it is founded on an object of experience. The philosopher acknowledges that pure reason is too weak to prove the existence of a being beyond the reach of our senses. The necessity of believing in God is, therefore, only subjective, although necessary and general for all those beings who conform to their duty. The proofs of natural theology, taken from the order and beauty of the universe, are proofs only in appearance. They resolve themselves into a bias of our reason to suppose an infinite Intelligence, the author of all that is possible; but from this bias it does not follow that there really is such an author. To say, that whatever exists must have a cause, is a maxim” a priori;“but it is a maxim applicable only to experience: for we know not how to subject to the laws of our perceptions that which is absolutely independent of them. It is impossible to know that God exists; but we can comprehend how it is possible to act morally on the supposition of the existence of an intelligent Creator, an existence which practical reason forces theoretical reason to adopt. This proof not only persuades, but even acts on the conviction, in proportion as the motives of our actions are conformable to the law of morality. Religion ought to be the means of virtue, and not its object. Man has not in himself the idea of religion, as he has that of virtue. The latter has its principle in the mind it exists in itself, and not as the means of happiness and it may be taught without the idea of God, for the pure law of morality is” a priori.“He who does good by inclination, does not act morally. There are compassionate minds, which feel an internal pleasure in communicating joy around them, and who thus enjoy the satisfaction of others; but their actions, however just, however good, have no moral merit, and may be compared to other inclinations; to that of honour, for example, which, while it meets with that which is just and useful, is worthy of praise and encouragement, but not of any high degree of esteem. According to Kant, we ought not even to do good, either for the pleasure which we feel in doing it, or in order to be happy, or to render others happy; for any one of these motives would be empiric, and injure the purity of our morals. We ought to act after the maxims derived” a priori;" from the faculty of knowledge, which carry with them the idea of necessity, and are independent of all experience; after the maxims which, it is to be wished, could be erected into general laws for all beings endowed with reason.

, an eminent mathematician and philosopher, was born Dec. 1, 1671, at Edinburgh, where he received the first rudiments of learning; and, being educated in that university, continued there till he took the degree of M. A. His genius leading him to the mathematics, he studied that science very successfully under David Gregory the professor there, who was one of the first that had embraced the Newtonian philosophy; and, in 1694, he followed his tutor to Oxford, where, being admitted of Baliol, he obtained one of the Scotch exhibitions in that college. He is said to have been the first who taught Newton’s principles by the experiments on which they are grounded, -which he was enabled to do by an apparatus of instruments of his own providing; and the lectures he delivered in his chambers upon natural and experimental philosophy, procured him very great reputation. The first public specimen he gave of his skill in mathematical and philosophical knowledge, was his “Examination of Burnet’s Theory of the Earth,” which appeared in 1698, and was universally applauded by the men of science, and allowed to be decisive against the doctor’s “Theory.” To this piece he subjoined “Remarks upon Whiston’s New Theory of the Earth;” and these theories, being defended by their respective inventors, drew from Keill, in 1699, another performance entitled “An Examination of the Reflections of the Theory of the Earth, together with ‘ a Defence of the Remarks on Mr. Whiston’s New Theory’.” Dr. Burnet was a man of grea.t humanity, moderation, and candour; and it was therefore supposed that Keill had treated him too roughly, considering the great disparity of years between them. Keill, however, left the doctor in possession of that which has since been thought the great characteristic and excellence of his work: and, though he disclaimed him as a philosopher, yet allowed him to be a man of a fine imagination. “Perhaps,” says he, “many of his readers will be sorry to be undeceived about his Theory; for, as I believe never any book was fuller of mistakes and errors in philosophy, so none ever abounded *vith more beautiful scenes and surprizing images of nature. But I write only to those who might expect to find a true philosophy in it: the*y who read it as an ingenious romance will still be pleased with their entertainment.”

, alias Talbot (Edward), a famous English alchymist, or, as some have called him, a necromancer, was born at Worcester in 1555, and educated at Gloucesterhall, Oxford. Wood says, that when his nativity was calculated, it appeared that he was to be a man of most acute wit, and great propensity to philosophical studies and mysteries of nature. He belied this prophecy, however, both in the progress and termination of his life; for, leaving Oxford abruptly, and rambling about the kingdom, he was guilty of some crime in Lancashire, for which his ears were cut off at Lancaster; but what crime this was we are not informed. He became afterwards an associate with the famous Dr. Dee, travelled into foreign countries with him, and was his reporter of what passed between him and the spirits with whom the doctor held intelligence, and who wrote down the nonsense Kelley pretended to have heard. Of their journey with Laski, a Polish nobleman, we have already given an account in the life of Dr. Dee. We farther learn from Ashmole, if such information can be called learning, that Kelley and Dee had the good fortune to find a large quantity of the elixir, or philosopher’s stone, in the ruins of Glastonbury abbey; which elixir was so surprisingly rich, that they lost a great deal in making projections, before they discovered the force of its virtue. This author adds, that, -at Trebona in Bohemia, Kelley tried a grain of this elixir upon an ounce and a quarter of common mercury, which was presently transmuted into almost an ounce of fine gold. At another time he tried his art upon a piece of metal, cut out of a warming-pan; which, without handling it, or melting the metal, was turned into very good silver, only by warming it at a fire. Cervantes has given us nothing more absurd in the phrenzy of Don Quixote. This warming-pan, however, and the piece taken out of it, were sent to queen Elizabeth by her ambassador, then residing at Prague. Kelley, afterwards behaving indiscreetly, was imprisoned by the emperor Rodolphus II. by whom he had been knighted; and, endeavouring to make his escape out of the window, fell down and bruised himself so severely that he died soon after, in 1595. His works are, “A Poem of Chemistry,” and “A Poem of the Philosopher’s Stone;” both inserted in the “Theatrum Chymicum Britannicum,” 1652 “De Lapide Philosophorurn,” Hamb. 1676, 8vi; but it is questioned whether he was the author of this. He was, however, certainly the author of several discourses in “A true and faithful Relation of what passed for many Years between Dr. John Dee and some Spirits,” &c. Lond. 1659, folio, published by Dr. Meric Casaubon. There are “Fragmentæ aliquot, edita a Combacio,” Geismar, 1647, 12mo; also “Ed. Kelleii epistola ad Edvardum Dyer,” and other little things of Kelley, in ms. in Biblioth. Ashmol. Oxon.

To this sagacious philosopher we owe the first discovery of the great laws of the planetary motions, viz. that the planets describe areas that are always proportional to the times; that they move in elliptical orbits, having the sun. in one focus and that the squares of their periodic times, are proportional to the cubes of their mean distances which are now generally known by the name of Kepler’s Laws.

We have two publications of Dr. King, in the course of this year, besides his “Rufinus” already mentioned. One was “Britain’s Palladium; or lord Bolingbroke’s Welcome from France.” This was published Sept. 13, 1712. The other piece was, “Useful Miscellanies,” Part I. 1712. He seems to have intended a continuation, if his life had been prolonged. As autumn advanced, the doctor drooped insensibly, and then neither cared to see, or to be seen by, any one: and, winter drawing on, he shut himself up entirely from his nearest friends; and would not even see his noble relation, till his lordship, hearing of his weak condition, sent his sister to fetch him in a chair to a lodging he had provided for him opposite Somerset- house in the Strand, where, next day, about noon, being Chrisrmasday, 1712, he yielded up his breath, with the patience and resignation of a philosopher, and with the true devotion of a Christian hero; but would not be persuaded to go to rest the night before, or even to lie down, till he had made such a will as he thought was agreeable to the inclinations of lord Clarendon. After his death, this noble lord took care of his funeral; and had him decently interred in the North cloisters of Westminster-abbey, where he lies next to his master Dr. Knipe, to whom he had a little before dedicated his “Historical Account of the Heathen Gods.” In 1732, his “Remains,” with an account of his life and writings, were published. They were republished in 1734, under the new title of “Posthumous Works,” and with the addition of the editor’s name, “Joseph Brown, M. D.” who purchased the original manuscripts from Dr. King’s sister; and again, with a title to the same purport, in 1739. They are incorporated by Mr. Nichols in a complete edition of Dr. King’s “Original Works in verse and prose,” 1776, 3 vols. 8vo, in such places as were most suitable to the connexion of the respective pieces. The most striking parts of our author’s character are these: In his morals, he was religious and strictly virtuous. He was a man of eminent learning and singular piety, strictly conscientious in all his dealings, and zealous for the cause rather than the appearance of religion. His chief pleasure consisted in trifles and he was never happier than when he thought he was hid from the world yet he loved company, provided they were such as tallied with his humour (for few people pleased him in conversation). His discourse was chearful, and his wit pleasant and entertaining. His philosophy and good sense prevailed over his natural temper, which was sullen, morose, and peevish; but he was of a timorous disposition, and the least slight or neglect would throw him into a state of despondency. He would say a great many ill-natured things, but never do one. He was made up of tenderness and pity, and tears would fall from him on the smallest occasion. Of his poetry, Dr. Johnson says, that “it will naturally be supposed his poems were rather the amusements of idleness, than efforts of study that he endeavoured rather to divert than astonish that his thoughts seldom aspire to sublimity, and that, if his verse was easy and his images familiar, he attained what he desired.” His talent for humour, however, was his great excellence, and in that we know not where to find his equal.

, a philosopher and mathematician of considerable learning, was born at Fulde, in Germany, 1601. He entered into the society of Jesuits 1618; and after going through the regular course of studies, during which his talents and industry were equally conspicuous, he taught philosophy, mathematics, the Hebrew and Syriac languages, in the university of Wirtzburg, in Franconia. The war which Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden made in Germany, disturbing his repose here, he retired into France, and settled in the Jesuits college at Avignon, where he was in 1635. He was afterwards called to Rome to teach mathematics in the Roman college; which he did six years. He spent the remainder of his life in that city; and for some time professed the Hebrew language. He died in 1680, after having published no less than twenty-two volumes in folio, eleven in quarto, and three in octavo, in all which, however, he discovers too much of that species of learning which is of little use. He was always credulous, inaccurate, and careless of what he asserted. Some reckon as his principal work, his “Oedipus Ægyptiacus: hoc est, universalis hieroglyphicae veterum doctrinse temporum injuria abolitae, instauratio. Romas, 1652, &c.” in 4 vols. folio. Kircher was more than ordinarily addicted to the study of hieroglyphical characters; and could always find a plausible, if not a true meaning for thm. As his rage for hieroglyphics was justly esteemed ridiculous, some young scholars resolved to divert themselves a little at his expence. With this view they engraved some unmeaning fantastic characters, or figures, upon a shapeless piece of stone, and had it buried in a place which was shortly to be dug up. It was then carried to Kircher, as a most singular curiosity; and he, enraptured at the discovery, applied himself instantly to explain the hieroglyphic, and made it, at length, in his opinion, very intelligible. Among Kircher’s other works are, “Praelusiones Magnetic,” 1654, fol. “Primitice Gnomonicae Catopticae,” 4to “Ars magna lucis et umbrae,” Romae, 1646, fol. “Musurgia Universalis,” 1650, 2 vols. folio. Dr. Burney says this, which treats of music, is a large book but a much larger might be composed in pointing out its errors and absurdities. For what is useful in it he was obliged to father Mersenne, in his “Harmonic Universelle.” “Obeliscus Pamphilius,” 1650, fol. “Itinerarium extaticum,” 4to; “Obeliscus Ægyptianus,” fol.; “Mundus subterraneus,” 1678, 2 vols. fol. “China illustrata,” 1667, fol. translated into French by F. S. d'Alquie, 1670, fol. “Turris Babel,” fol. “Area Noe,” fol. “Latium,” 1671, fol. a valuable work; “Phonurgia nova,” 16 73, fol.; “Ars sciendi combinatorial,” 1669, fol.; “Polygraphia,” 1663, fol. &c.

, a learned philosopher and mathematician, was a Swiss by birth, and came early into eminence by his mathematical abilities. He was professor of philosophy and natural law at Franeker, and afterwards at the Hague, where he became also librarian to the stadtholder, and to the princess of Orange; and where he died in 1757. The academy of Berlin enrolled him among her members; but afterwards expelled him on the following occasion. Maupertuis, the president, had inserted in the volume of the Memoirs for 1746, a discourse upon the laws of motion; which Koenig not only attacked, but also attributed the memoir to Leibnitz. Maupertuis, stung with the imputation of plagiarism, engaged the academy of Berlin to call upon him for his proof; which Koenig failing to produce, he was struck out of the academy. All Europe was interested in the quarrel which this occasioned between Koenig and Maupertuis. The former appealed to the public; and his appeal, written with the animation of resentment, procured him many friends. He was author of some other works, and had the character of being one of the best mathematicians of the age. He had a brother, Daniel, who was murdered at the age of twenty-two, at Franekei 4 The populace, overhearing him talk in French, imagined that he was a French spy, and would have killed him on the spot, if the academicians had not rescued him from their fury: but the wounds which he received hurried him to the grave in a few months. He translated into Latin Dr. Arbuthnot’s “Tables of Ancient Coins,” which remained in ms. till 1756, when it was published at Utrecht, with a curious and useful preface, by professor Reitz.

, a celebrated chemist, was born at Husurn, in the duchy of Sleswick, in 1630. He was originally intended for the practice of pharmacy; but having applied himself with equal diligence to the study of chemistry and metallurgy, he obtained great reputation in. these sciences, and was appointed chemist to the elector of Saxony. He afterwards went to the court of Frederic William, elector of Brandenburg, with a similar appointment; and subsequently to that of Charles XI. king of Sweden, who, in 1693, granted him letters of nobility, under the name of Kunckel de Loewenstern. He was elected a member of the imperial Academia Naturae Curiosorum, under the name of Hermes III. He died in Sweden, in March 1703. Notwithstanding his advantages and fame, his theoretical knowledge was very imperfect; he was altogether destitute of the least tincture of philosophy, and was even said to have been one of the searchers for the philosopher’s stone. He is now principally known as the discoverer of phosphorus, which he prepared from urine, and which bears his name in the shops. He was the author of several works, written in German, in a very bad style, and with as little method as the rest of the alchemists. His treatise “On Phosphorus,” was printed at Leipsic in 1678, and his “Art of Glass-making” in 1689. Two or three of his essays have been translated into Latin.

The character of Lactantius as a Christian writer is, that he refutes paganism with great strength of reasoning, but treats divinity too much as a philosopher. He did not understand thoroughly the nature of the Christian mysteries, and has fallen into several errors. His works have gone through a great number of editions, the first of which was published at Rome, in 1468, folio and the last, which is the most ample, at Paris, 1748, in 2 vols. 4-to.

, a celebrated Greek philosopher of Cyrene, the disciple of Arcesilaus, and his successor in the academy, devoted himself early to study, and, in spite of poTerty, became a very skilful philosopher, and very pleasing in his discourses, teaching in a garden which was given him by Attalus, king of Pergamus. This prince also invited him to court, but Lacydes replied, that the portraits of kings should be viewed at a distance. In some things, however, like the rest of his brethren, he descended from philosophy to the littlenesses of common men. He had a goose who attended him every where, and when she died he buried her as magnificently as if she had been his son or brother and his death, which happened in the year 212 B. C. is attributed to excess in drinking. Lacydes followed the doctrines of Arcesilaus, and affirmed that we ought not to decide on any thing, but always suspend our judgment. His servants frequently took advantage of this maxim to rob him, and, when he complained of it, maintained that he was mistaken; nor could he, on his own principles, make any reply but, growing weary at last of being plundered, and they still urging that he ought to suspend his judgment, he said to them, “Children, we have one method of disputing in the schools, and another of living in our families.”

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

, an eminent mathematician and astronomer, was born at Muhlhausen, in the Sundgaw, a town in alliance with the Swiss cantons, Aug. 29th, 1728. His father was a poor tradesman, who, intending to bring him up to his own business, sent him to a public school, where he was taught the rudiments of learning, at the expence of the corporation, till he was twelve years old. Here he distinguished himself among his school-fellows, and some attempts were made to provide him with the means of studying theology as a profession, but for want of encouragement, he was under the necessity of learning his father’s trade. In this laborious occupation, however, he continued to devote a considerable part of the night to the prosecution of his studies; and to furnish himself with candles, he sold for half-pence or farthings small drawings which he delineated while employed in rocking his infant sister in a cradle. He met with an old book on the mathematics which gave him inexpressible pleasure, and which proved that he had a genius for scientific pursuits. Seeing the turn which the young man had for knowledge, several learned men afforded him assistance and advice; and they had the pleasure of finding him improve, under their patronage, with a rapidity beyond their most sanguine expectations. He was now taken from the drudgery of the shop-board, and M. Iselin, of Basil, engaged him as his amanuensis, a situation which afforded him an opportunity of making further progress in the belles-lettres, as well as philosophy and mathematics. In 1748, his patron recommended him to baron Salis, president of the Swiss confederacy, to become tutor to his children, in which office he gladly engaged. His talents as a philosopher and mechanician began to display themselves in his inventions and compositions. After living eight years at Coire, he repaired, in 1756, with his pupils, to the university of Gottingen, where he was nominated a corresponding member of the scientific society in that place, and from thence he removed, in the following year, to Utrecht, where he continued twelve months. In 1758, he went with his pupils to Paris, where he acquired the esteem and friendship of D' Alembert and Messier; and from thence he travelled to Marseilles, and formed the plan of his work “On Perspective,” which he published in the following year at Zurich. In 1760 he published his “Photometry,” a master-piece of sagacity, which contains a vast quantity of information of the most curious and important nature. In the same year he was elected a member of the Electoral Bavarian Scientific Society. Lambert was author of many other pieces besides those which have been already mentioned: among these were his “Letters on the Construction of the Universe,” which were afterwards digested, translated, and published under the title of “The System of the World.” In 1764 he made an excursion to Berlin, and was introduced to Frederic II., who, sensible of his great services to science, gave directions to have him admitted a regular member of the academy; this appointment enabled him to devote himself wholly to the pursuit of his favourite studies. He enriched the transactions of several learned societies with his papers and treatises, some of which he published separately. He died Sept. 25th, 1777, when he was in the 50th year of his age. Most of his mathematical pieces were published in a collective form by himself in three volumes, in which almost every branch of mathematical science has been enriched with additions and improvements.

, a pious and learned Benedictine of the congregation of St. Maur, was born in 1636 of & noble family at a village called Montyreau, in the diocese of Chartres. He went first into the army, but entered the Benedictine order, 1659, and applied so closely to his studies, that he became an able philosopher, a judicious divine, and one of the best writers of his time. He died April 4, 1711, at St. Denis. His works are numerous, and much esteemed in France. They are, 1. “Traite” de la connoissance de soi-mme,“1700, 6 vols. 12mo; 2.” De la Vérité évidente de la Religion Chretienne;“3.” Nouvel Athéisme renversé“,” against Spinoza, 12mo, and in the refutations of Spinoza, collected by the abbé Lenglet, Brussels, 1731, 12mo; 4. “L'Incréclule amené à la Religion par la Raison;” 5. “Letters, theological and moral;” 6. “Lettres Philosophiques sur divers sujets;” 7. “Conjectures Physiques sur divers effets du Tonnerre,” 1689, with an addition published the same year; this little tract is very curious; 8. “De la connoissance et de l'amour de Dieu;” 9. “La Rhetorique de College, trahie par son Apologiste,” against the famous Gibert, professor of rhetoric in the Mazarine college; 10. “Les Gemissemens de l'Amo sous la Tyrannic du Corps;” 11. “Les premiers Klemens, ou entree aux connoissances solides,” to which is added an essay on logic in form of dialogues each of these works is in one vol. 12mo; 12. “A Letter to Mallebranche on disinterested love,” with some other Letters on philosophical subjects, 1699, 8vo; 13. “A Refutation of M. Nicole’s system of universal grace,” &c. &c. His style in all these is generally polished and correct.

, an Italian scholar, philosopher, and poet, was born at Florence in 1424. After having pursued his elementary studies at Volterra, he was constrained, in obedience to his father, to apply to jurisprudence; but by the favour of Cosmo and Peter de Medici, which he had the happiness to obtain, he was enabled to devote his time to philosophy and polite literature. He became particularly partial to the Platonic philosophy, and was one of the principal ornaments of the academy which Cosmo de Medici had founded. In 1457, he was appointed professor of the belles lettres at Florence, and considerably enlarged the reputation of that seminary. About the same time he was chosen by Peter de Medici to instruct his two sons, Julius, and the afterwards celebrated Lorenzo. Between Landinus and Lorenzo a reciprocal attachment took place; and such was the opinion that the master entertained of the judgment of his pupil, that he is said frequently to have submitted his works to his perusal and correction. Landinus became, in his old age, secretary to the seignory of Florence; but in his sixty-third year, he was relieved from the laborious part of this office, and allowed to retain his title and emoluments. He then retired to a residence at Prato Vecchio, from which his ancestors sprung. There he employed the remainder of his days in study, and died in 1504. He left several Latin poems, some of which have been printed, and some remain in manuscript. His notes on Virgil, Horace, and Dante, are much esteemed. He translated into Italian Pliny’s “-Natural History,” and published some learned dissertations both in Latin and Italian. It is said that he was rewarded for his critical labours on Dante by the donation of a villa, on the hill of Casentino, in the vicinity of Florence, which he enjoyed under the. sanction of a public decree. His edition of Horace was published in 1482. His philosophical opinions appear in his “Disputatipnes Cfuaaldulenses,” a work of which Mr. Roscoe has given an ample account. It was first published without a date; but, according to De Bure, in 1480, folio, and reprinted at Strasburgh in 1508. Landinus’s fame, however, rests chiefly on the advances he made in classical criticism.

, a learned mathematician of the sixteenth century, was a native of Keiserberg in Upper Alsatia, and was professor of Greek and mathematics at Friburg about the year 1610. Two years after, he wrote his “Elementale Mathematicum,” which, according to Vossius, was not printed until five years afterwards. It was, in 1625, much improved and published by Isaac Habrecht, a philosopher and physician. Langius’s previous works were, an edition of “Martial,” Strasburgh, 1595, 12mo, and a “Florilegium,” in 1598, 8vo, which, at the distance of some years, was followed by a folio, entitled, “Polyanthea nova.” This, which Bayle reckons the third compilation of the kind, was printed at Geneva, in 1600, and often since. Langius also published an edition of “Juvenal and Persius,” at Friburgh, in 1608. A “Tyrocinium Graecarum Literarum,” in 1607; and a collection entitled “Adagia, sive Sententise proverbiales.” We have no account of his personal history, unless that, after living many years in the Protestant communion, he became a Roman Catholic; but when he died is not specified.

Lanzoni acquired a high reputation by the success of his practice, and obtained the confidence and esteem of many illustrious personages. His attachment to study increased with his years; and every moment in which he was not employed in the duties of his profession, was devoted to literature, philosophy, or antiquarian research. His character as a physician and philosopher, indeed, ranked so high, that if any question upon these subjects was agitated in Italy, the decision was commonly referred to him. He was distinguished likewise by his genius in Latin and Italian poetry; and he was the restorer and secretary of the academy of Ferrara, and a member of many of the learned societies of his time. He left a considerable number of works, a collection of which was printed at Lausanne, in 1738, in 3 vols. 4to, with an account of his life, under the title of “Josephi Lanzoni, Philosophise et Medicinae Doctoris, in Patria Universitate Lectoris primarii, &c. Opera omnia Medico-physica et PhU lologica.”

, a distinguished chemical philosopher, was born at Paris, on the 13th of August, 1743. His father, a man of opulence, sparing no expence on his education, he displayed very early proofs of the extent and success of his studies, especially in the circle of the physical sciences. In 1764, when the French government proposed a prize question, relative to the best method of lighting the streets of a large city, Lavoisier presented a dissertation on the subject, which was highly approved, printed at the expence of the academy of sciences, and obtained for him the present of a gold medal from the king, which was delivered to him by the president of the academy, at a public sitting, in April 1766. Two years afterwards, he was admitted a member of that learned body, of which he was constantly one of the most active and useful associates. About the same time, he was occupied in experimental researches on a variety of subjects such as the analysis of the gypsum found in the neighbourhood of Paris; the crystallization of salt; the properties of water; and in exploring the phsenomena of thunder, and of the aurora borealis: and he distinguished himself by several dissertations on these and other topics, practical and speculative, which appeared in different periodical works. In the Memoirs of the Academy for 1770 were published his observations on the nature of water, and on the experiments which had been supposed to prove the possibility of its conversion into earth. He proved, by a careful repetition of these experiments, that the earthy deposit, left after repeated distillations of water, proceeded solely from an abrasion of the vessels employed. Lavoisier performed several journeys into various parts of France, in company with M. Guettard; in the course of which he collected a store of materials for a lithological and mineralogical history of that kingdom, which he ingeniously arranged in the form of a chart. These materials were the basis of a great work on the revolutions of the globe, and on the formation of the strata of the earth: two interesting sketches of which were printed in the Memoirs of the Academy for 1772 and 1787.

Time alone seemed now requisite to establish these doctrines, by exemplifying them in other departments of chemical research. In 1777 six memoirs were communicated feo the Academy of sciences by Lavoisier, in which his former experiments were confirmed, and new advances were made to a considerable extent. Our countrymen, Black and Crawford, in their researches respecting latent heat, and the different capacities of bodies under different circumstances, had laid a solid foundation, on which the doctrines of combustion, resulting from the foregoing experiments, might be perfected, and the cause of the light and heat connected with it might be explained. The first mentioned philosopher, Dr. Black, had shewn, that a solid, when it is made to assume a liquid form, and a liquid, when it assumes the form of vapour, absorbs or combines with, and renders latent, a large portion of heat, which is again parted with, becomes free and cognizable by the sense of feeling, and by the thermometer, when the vapour is again condensed into a liquid, and the liquid becomes solid. In like manner, it was now said by Lavoisier, during the process of combustion, the oxygen, which was previously in a gaseous state, is suddenly combined with the substance burnt into a liquid or solid. Hence all the latent heat, which was essential to its gaseous state, being instantaneously liberated in large quantity, produces flame, which is nothing more than very condensed free heat. About the same time, the analogy of the operation and necessity of oxygen in the function of respiration, with the preceding hypothesis of combustion, was pointed out by Lavoisier. In the process of respiration, it was found that, although atmospheric air is inhaled, carbonic acid and azot are expired. This animal operation, said Lavoisier, is a species of slow combustion: the oxygen of the air unites with the superfluous carbon of the venous blood, and produces carbonic acid, while the latent or combined caloric (the matter of heat) is set free, and thus supplies the animal heat. Ingenious and beautiful, however, as this extension of the analogy appeared, the subject of animal temperature is still under many obscurities and difficulties. The phenomena of chemistry, however, were now explicable upon principles more simple, consistent, and satisfactory than by the aid of any former theory; and the Lavoisierian doctrines were everywhere gaining ground. But there yet remained a formidable objection o them, which was derived from a circumstance attending the solution of metals in acids; to wit, the production of a considerable quantity of inflammable air. If sulphuric acid (formerly called vitriolic acid, or oil of vitriol) consists only of sulphur and oxygen, it was said, how does it happen, that wheti these two substances, with a little water, come in contact, they should produce a large quantity of inflammable air during their re-action? This objection was unanswerable, and appeared to be fatal to the whole theory: but it was most opportunely converted into an argument in its favour, by the great discovery of the decomposition of water, made by Mr. Cavendish; who resolved that element, as it was formerly esteemed, into oxygen and inflammable air. The latter has since, therefore, been called hydrogen, or generator of water. This experiment was repeated with full success by Lavoisier and his associates in 1783; and the discovery was farther established by a successful experiment of the same chemists, carried on upon a grand scale, in which, by combining the oxygen with hydrogen, they produced water, and thus adding synthesis to analysis, brought the fact to demonstration.

We have hitherto viewed M. Lavoisier principally a* a chemical philosopher, in which character he has founded his great claims to the respect and admiration of posterity. But the other arts and sciences are indebted to him for considerable services which he rendered them, both in a public and private capacity. In France, more than in any other country, men of science have been consulted in matters of public concern; and the reputation of Lavoisier caused him to be applied to, in 1776, to superintend the manufacture of gunpowder, by the minister Turgot. By the application of his chemical knowledge to this manufacture, he was enabled to increase the explosive force of the powder by one- fourth and while he suppressed the troublesome regulations for the collection of its materials from private houses, previously adopted, he quintupled the produce. The academy of sciences received many services from his hands. In addition to the communication of forty papers, relative to many of the most important subjects of philosophical chemistry, which were printed in the twenty volumes of Memoirs, from 1772 to 1793, he most actively promoted all its useful plans and researches, being a member of its board of consultation, and, when appointed to the office of treasurer, he introduced order into its accounts, and economy into its expenditure. When the new system of measures was proposed, he contributed some new and accurate experiments on the expansion of metals. The national convention consulted him with advantage concerning the best method of manufacturing assignats, and of securing them against forgery. Agriculture early engaged his attention, and he allotted a considerable tract of land on his estate in the Vendome, for the purpose of experimental farming. The committee' of the constituent assembly of 1791, appointed to form an improved system of taxation, claimed the assistance of his extensive knowledge; and he drew up, for their information, an extract of a large work on the different productions of the country and their consumption, for which he had been long collecting materials. This was printed by order of the assembly,under the title of “Richesses Territoriales de la France,” and was esteemed the most valuable memoir on the subject. In the same year, he wa appointed one of the commissioners of the national treasury; and he introduced into that department such order and regularity, that the proportion between the income and the expenditure, in all the branches of government, could be seen at a single view every evening. This spirit of systematic and lucid arrangement was, indeed, the quality by which he was peculiarly distinguished, and its happy influence appeared in every subject which occupied his attention.

M. Lavoisier married, in 1771, the daughter of a farmergeneral, a lady of pleasing manners and considerable talents, who partook of her husband’s zeal for philosophical inquiry, and cultivated chemistry with much success. She engraved with her own hand the copper-plates for his last work. Mad. Lavoisier afterwards gave her hand to another eminent philosopher, count llumtbrd, who, in 1814, left her a widow a second time.

We know not where a more just character of this singular man can be found than in the “Miscellaneous Works” of Gibbon, the historian, who has for once praised a churchman and a man of piety, not only without irony, but with affection. “In our family,” says Gibbon, “he left the reputation of a worthy and pious man, who believed all that he professed, and practised all that he enjoined. The character of a nonjuror, which he maintained to the last, is a sufficient evidence of his principles in church and state; and the sacrifice of interest to conscience will be always respectable. His theological writings, which our domestic connection has tempted me to peruse, preserve an imperfect sort of life, and I can pronounce with more confidence and knowledge on the merits of the author. His last compositions are darkly tinctured by the incomprehensible visions of Jacob Behmen; and his discourse? on the absolute unlawfulness of stage-entertainments is sometimes quoted for a ridiculous intemperance of sentiment and language. But these sallies of religious phrensy must not extinguish the praise which is due to Mr. William Law as a wit and a scholar. His argument on topics of less absurdity is specious and acute, his manner is lively, his style forcible and clear; and, had not his vigorous mind been clouded by enthusiasm, he might be ranked with the most agreeable and ingeniotfs writers of the times. While the Bangorian controversy was a fashionable theme, he entered the lists on the subject of Christ’s kingdom, and the authority of the priesthood; against the Plain account of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper‘ he resumed the combat with bishop Hoadly, the object of Whig idolatry and Tory abhorrence; and at every weapon of attack and defence, the nonjuror, on the ground which is common to both, approves himself at least equal to the prelate. On the appearance of the Fable of the Bees,’ he drew his pen against the licentious doctrine that private vices are public benefits, and morality as well as religion must join in his applause. Mr. Law’s masterwork, the ‘Serious Call,’ is still read as a popular and powerful book of devotion. His precepts are rigid, but they are founded on the gospel; his satire is sharp, but it is drawn from the knowledge of human life; and many of his portraits are not unworthy of the pen of La Bruyere *. If he finds a spark of piety in his reader’s mind, be will soon kindle it to a flame; and a philosopher must allow that he exposes, with equal severity and truth, the strange contradiction between the faith and practice of the Christian world.”

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

His views being at this time chiefly fixed upon the law, he commenced bachelor in that faculty in 1665, and the year after supplicated for his doctor’s degree; but was denied, as not being of sufficient standing, that is, not quite twenty; but the real cause of the demur was his rejecting the principles of Aristotle and the schoolmen, against the received doctrine of that time. Resenting the affront, he went to Altorf, where he maintained a thesis, “De Casibus perplexis,” with so much reputation, that he not only obtained his doctor’s degree, but had an offer of being made professor of law extraordinary. This, however, was declined; and he went from Altorf to Nuremberg, to visit the learned in that university. He had heard of some literati there who were engaged in the pursuit of the philosopher’s stone; and his curiosity was raised to be initiated into their mysteries. For this purpose he drew up a letter full of abstruse terms, extracted out of books of chemistry; and, unintelligible as it was to himself, addressed it to the director of that society, desiring to be admitted a member. They were satisfied of his merit, from the proofs given in his letter; and not only admitted him into their laboratory, but even requested him to accept the secretaryship, with a stipend. His office was, to register their processes and experiments, and to extract from the books of the best chemists such things as might be of use to them in their pursuits. About this time, baron Boinebourg, first minister of the elector of Mentz, passing through Nuremberg, met Leibnitz at a common entertainment; and conceived so great an opinion of his parts and learning from his conversation, that he advised him to apply himself wholly to law and history; giving him at the same time the strongest assurances, that he would engage the elector, John Philip of Schonborn, to send for him to his court. Leibnitz accepted the kindness, promising to do his utmost to render himself worthy of such a patronage; and, to be more within the reach of its happy effects, he repaired to Francfort upon the Maine, in the neighbourhood of Mentz. In 1668, John Casimir, king of Poland, resigning his crown, the elector palatine, among others, became a competitor for that dignity; and, while baron Boinebourg went into Poland to manage the elector’s interests, Leibnitz wrote a treatise to shew that the Polonnois could not make choice of a better person for their king. With this piece the elector palatine was extremely pleased, and invited our author to his court. But baron Boinebourg, resolving to provide for him at the court of Mentz, would not suffer him to accept this last offer from the palatine; and immediately obtained for him the post of counsellor of the chamber of review to the elector of Mentz. Baron Boinebourg had some connexions at the French court; and as his son, who was at Paris, was not of years to be trusted with the management of his affairs, he begged Mr. Leibnitz to undertake that charge.

Besides these projects to promote learning, there is another still behind of a more extensive view, both in its nature and use; he set himself to invent a language so easy and so perspicuous, as to become the common language of all nations of the world. This is what is called “The Universal Language,” and the design occupied the thoughts of our philosopher a long time. The thing had been attempted before by d'Algarme, and Dr. Wilkins, bishop of Chester; but Leibnitz did not approve of their method, and therefore attempted a new one. His predecessors in his opinion had not reached the point; they might indeed enable nations who did not understand each othe,r, to correspond easily together; but they had not attained the true real characters, which would be the beat instruments of the human mind, and extremely assist both the reason and memory. These characters, he thought, ought to resemble as much as possible those of algebra, which are simple and expressive, and never superfluous and equivocal, but whose varieties are grounded on reason. In order to hasten the execution of this vast project, he employed a young person to put into a regular order the definitions of all things whatsoever; but, though he laboured in it from 1703, yet his life did not prove sufficient to complete it*. In the meantime, his name became famous over Europe; and his merit was rewarded by other princes, besides the elector of Hanover. In 1711, he was made aulic counsellor to the emperor; and the czar of Moscovy appointed him privy-counsellor of justice, with a pension of a thousand ducats f. Leibnitz undertook at the same time to establish an academy of sciences at Vienna; but that project miscarried a disappointment which some have ascribed to the plague. However that be, it is certain he only had the honour of attempting it, and the emperor rewarded him for it with a pension of 2000 florins, promising him to double the sum, if he would come and reside at Vienna, which his death prevented. In the mean time, the History of Brunswick being interrupted by other works which he wrote occasionally, he found at his return to Hanover, in 1714, that the elector had appointed Mr. Eckard for his colleague in that history. The elector was then raised to the throne of Great Britain; and soon after his arrival, the electoral princess, then princess of Wales, and afterwards queen Caroline, engaged Leibnitz in a dispute with Dr. Samuel Clarke upon the subject of free-will, the reality of space, and other philosophical subjects. This controversy was carried on by letters which passed through her royal' high ness’s bands, and ended only with the death of Leibnitz, Nov. 14, 1716, occasioned by the gout and stone, at the age of seventy.

Gibbon has drawn the character of Leibnitz with great force and precision, as a man whose genius and studies have ranked his name with the first philosophic names of his age and country; but he thinks his reputation, perhaps, would have been more pure and permanent, if he had not ambitiously grasped the whole circle of human science. As a theologian, says Gibbon (who is not, perhaps, the most impartial judge of this subject), he successively contended with the sceptics, who believe too little, and with the papists who believe too much; and with the heretics, who believe otherwise than is inculcated by the Lutheran confession of Augsburgh. Yet the philosopher betrayed his love of union and toleration* his faith in revelation was accused, while he proved the Trinity by the principles of logic; and in the defence of the attributes and providence of the Deity, he was suspected of a secret correspondence with his adversary Bayle. The metaphysician expatiated in the fields of air; his pre-established harmony of the soul and body might have provoked the jealousy of Plato; and his optimism, the best of all possible worlds, seems an idea too vast for a mortal mind. He was a physician, in the large and genuine sense of the word like his brethren, he amused him with creating a globe and his Protogæa, or primitive earth, has not been useless to the last hypothesis of Buffon, which prefers the agency of fire to that of water. “I am not worthy,” adds Gibbon, “to praise the mathematician; but his name is mingled in all the problems and discoveries of the times; the masters of the art were his rivals or disciples; and if he borrowed from sir Isaac Newton, the sublime method of fluxions, Leibnitz was at least the Prometheus who imparted to mankind the sacred fire which he had stolen from the gods. His curiosity extended to every branch of chemistry, mechanics, and the arts; and the thirst of knowledge was always accompanied with the spirit of improvement. The vigour of his youth had been exercised in the schools of jurisprudence; and while he taught, he aspired to reform the laws of nature and nations, of Rome and Germany. The annals of Brunswick, and of the empire, of the ancient and modern world, were presented to the mind of the historian; and he could turn from the solution of a problem, to the dusty parchments and barbarous style of the records of the middle age. His genius was more nobly directed to investigate the origin of languages and nations; nor could he assume the character of a grammarian, without forming the project of an universal idiom and alphabet. These various studies were often interrupted by the occasional politics of the times; and his pen was always ready in the cause of the princes and patrons to whose service he was attached; many hours were consumed in a learned correspondence with all Europe; and the philosopher amused his leisure in the composition of French and Latin poetry. Such an example may display the exte^nt and powers of the human understanding, but even his powers were dissipated by the multiplicity of his pursuits. He attempted more than he could finish; he designed more than he could execute: his imagination was too easily satisfied with a bold and rapid glance on the subject, which he was impatient to leave; and Leibnitz may be compared to those heroes, whose empire has been lost in the ambition of universal conquest.”

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

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

emperor of the East, surnamed The Wise, and the Philosopher, succeeded his father Basilius the Macedonian, March 1, 886. He drove Photius from the see of Constantinople, fought with success against the Hungarians and Bulgarians, and died June 11, 911, leaving one son> Constantine Porphyrogeneta. This emperor was surnamed The Philosopher, from his attachment to learning, and not from his manners, which were very irregular. He was fond of writing sermons, and there are several of his composing in the library of the fathers. The following works are also attributed to him; a treatise on Tactics, a useful work for those who would acquire a knowledge of the lower empire it was printed in German by Bourscheid, at Vienna, and in French by M. de Maiserrti, 1770, 2 vols. 8vo “Novelise Constitutiones,” in which several of the novels introduced by Justinian are abolished; “Opus Basilicon,” where all the laws contained in Justinian’s works are new modelled. This system of law was adopted by the Greeks afterwards. In Constantine Manasses, printed at the Louvre, may be found “Leonis sapientis oracula.”

, a native of Mitylene, who flourished in the first century of the Christian aera, was a disciple of Timocrates, afterwards became a teacher of philosophy in his native city, and obtained a great number of scholars. He was author of many books of philosophy, and Photius says he had read sixteen orations written by him. Two of these were first published by Aldus, in his edition of the ancient orators, in 1513; afterwards by Henry Stephens, with the orations of JEschines, Lysias, and others; and in 1619, by Gruter. Lesbonax is said. to have been the author of a treatise “De Figuris Grammaticis,” printed with Ammonius, Leyden, 1739, 4to. He left a son named Potamon, an eminent rhetorician at Rome, in the reign of the emperor Tiberius. So sensible were the magistrates of Mitylene of his merits, and of the utility of his labours, that they caused a medal to be struck in his honour: one of which was discovered in the south of France about 1740, and an engraving of it, with a learned dissertation, published in the year 174-4, by M. Gary, of the Academy of Marseilles, but there seems some reason to think that Lesbonax the philosopher, and Lesbonax the grammarian, were different persons.

"But this is not all that we have to urge on the subject If there be plagiarism in the case, and the identity of titles looks very like it, it is infinitely more probable that the editor of St. Real’s works stole from Leslie, than that Leslie stole from St. Réal, unless it can be proved that the works of the abbe*, and this work in particular, were published before 1697. At that period the English language was very little read or understood on the continent; whilst in Britain the French language was by scholars as generally understood as at the present. Hence it is, that so many Frenchmen, and indeed foreigners of different nations, thought themselves safe in pilfering science from the British philosophers; whilst there is not, that we know, one well-authenticated instance of a British philosopher appropriating to himself the discoveries of a foreigner. If, then, such men as Leibnitz, John Bernouilli, and Des Cartes, trusting to the improbability of detection, condescended to pilfer the discoveries of Hooke, Newton, and Harriot, is it improbable that the editor of the works of St. Real should claim to his friend a celebrated tract, of which he knew the real author to be obnoxious to the government of his own country, and therefore not likely to have powerful friends to maintain his right?

, a philosopher of considerable eminence in the fifth century B. C. the first propagator of the system of atoms, is said by Diogenes Laertius, who has written his life, to have been a native of Elea. He was a disciple of Zeno the Eleatic philosopher. Dissatisfied with the attempts of former philosophers to account for the nature and origin of the universe metaphysically, Leucippus, and his follower Democritus, determined to restore the alliance between reason and the senses, which metaphysical subtleties had dissolved, by introducing the doctrine of indivisible atoms, possessing within themselves a principle of motion; and although several other philosophers, before their time, had considered matter as divisible into indefinitely small particles, Leucippus and Democritus were the first who taught, that these particles were originally destitute of all qualities except figure and motion, and therefore may justly be reckoned the authors of the atomic system of philosophy. They looked upon the qualities, which preceding philosophers had ascribed to matter, as the mere creatures of abstraction; and they determined to admit nothing into their system, which they could not establish upon the sure testimony of the senses. They were also of opinion, that both the Eleatic philosophers, and those of other sects, had unnecessarily encumbered their respective systems, by assigning some external or internal cause of motion, of a nature not to be discovered by the senses. They therefore resolved to reject all metaphysical principles, and, in their explanation of the phenomena of nature, to proceed upon no other ground than the sensible and mechanical properties of bodies. By the help of the internal principle of motion, which they attributed to the indivisible particles of matter, they made a feeble and fanciful effort to account for the production of all natural bodies from physical causes, without the intervention of Deity. But, whether they meant entirely to discard the notion of a divine nature from the universe, is uncertain. This first idea of the atomic system was improved by Democritus, and afterwards carried to all the perfection which a system so fundamentally defective would admit of, by Epicurus. The following summary of the doctrine of Leucippus will exhibit the infant state of the atomic philosophy, and at the same time sufficiently expose its absurdity.

, a celebrated Dutch philosopher, was born at Delft, in 1632 and acquired a great reputation throughout all Europe, by his experiments and discoveries in natural history, by means of the microscope. He particularly excelled in making glasses for microscopes and spectacles; and he was a member of most of the literary societies of Europe; to whom he sent many memoirs. Those in the Philosophical Transactions, and in the Paris Memoirs, extend through many volumes; the former were extracted and published at Leyden in 1722. He died in 1723, at ninety -one years of age. His Select Works have lately been translated into English from the Dutch and Latin editions published by the author, by Mr. Samuel Boole, 1798 1800, 3 parts 4to.

, a celebrated physician and philosopher, was born at Rapallo, in the state of Genoa, Oct. 3, 1577, where his father was also a physician. After completing his education at Bologna, in 15J9, he obtained the professorship of philosophy at Pisa, which he filled with so. much reputation that he was invited to the same chair in the university of Padua in 1609, and occupied it until 1636. He removed at that time to Bologna, in consequence of failing to obtain the professorship of medicine, when vacant by the death of Cremonini. But the Venetian states very soon acknowledged the loss which the university of Padua had sustained by the retirement of Licetus; and the same vacancy occurring in 1645, he was induced, by the pressing invitations which were made to him, to return to Padua, and held that professorship till his death in 1657. He was a very copious writer, having published upwards of fifty treatises upon medical, moral, philosophical, antiquarian, and historical subjects; but they are no longer sufficiently interesting to require a detail of their titles, as, notwithstanding his erudition, he displays little acuteness in research or originality of conception. His treatise “De Monstrorum Causis, Natur&, et Differentiis,” which is best known, is replete with instances of credulity, and with the fables and superstitions of his predecessors, and contains a classification of the monsters which had been previously described, without any correction from his own observations. The best edition is that of Gerard Blasius, in 1668.

, an English physician and natural philosopher, was born at Radcliffe, in Buckinghamshire, about 1638, and educated under his great uncle sir Martin Lister, knt. physician in ordinary to Charles I. and president of the college of physicians, one of a Yorkshire family which produced a considerable number of medical practitioners of reputation. Our author was sent to St. John’s college, in Cambridge, where he took his first degree in arts in 1653; and was made fellow of his college by a mandate from Charles II. after his restoration in 1660. He proceeded M. A. in 1662; and, applying himself closely to physic, travelled into France in 1668, for further improvement. Returning home, he settled in 1670 at York, where he followed his profession many years with good repute, and took every opportunity which his business would permit, of prosecuting researches into the natural history and antiquities of the country; with which view he travelled into several parts of England, especially in the North.

In 1762, he attempted to establish a periodical work, “The St. James’s Magazine,” which was to be the depository of his own efVusions, aided by the contributions of his friends. The latter, however, came in tardily; Churchill, from whom he had great expectations, contributed nothing, although such of his poems as he published during the sale of the magazine, were liberally praised. Thornton gave a very few prose essays, and poetical pieces were furnished by Denis and Emily, two versifiers of forgotten reputation. Lloyd himself had none of the steady industry which a periodical work requires, and his magazine was often made up, partly from books, and partly from the St. James’s Chronicle, of which Colman and Thornton were proprietors, and regular contributors. Lloyd also translated some of Marmontel’s tales for the Magazine, and part of a French play, in order to fix upon Murphy the charge of plagiarism. This magazine, after existing about a year, was dropped for want of encouragement, as far as Lloyd was concerned; but was continued for some time longer by Dr. Kenrick. Lloyd’s imprudence and necessities were now beyond relief or forbearance, and his eretlitors confined him within the Fleet prison, where he afforded a melancholy instance of the unstable friendship of wits. Dr. Kenrick informs us that “even Thornton, though his bosom friend from their infancy, refused to be his security for the liberty of the rules; a circumstance which, giving rise to some ill-natured altercation, induced this quondam friend to become an inveterate enemy, in the quality of his most inexorable creditor.” It was probably during his imprisonment, that he published a very indifferent translation of Klopstock’s “Death of Adam.” After that, his “Capricious Lovers,” a comic opera, was acted for a few nights at Drury-lane theatre. This is an adaptation of Favart’s Ninette a la Cour to the English stage, but Lloyd had no original powers in dramatic composition. Churchill and Wilkes are said to have afforded him a weekly stipend from the commencement of his imprisonment until his final release. How this was paid we knownot. Wilkes had been long out of the kingdom, and Churchill, who left Lloyd in a jail when he went to France, bequeathed him a ring only as a remembrance*. It is more probable that his father assisted him on this occasion, although it might not be in his power to pay his debts. He had in vain tried every means to reclaim him from idleness and intemperance, and had long borne “the drain or burthen” which he was to his family. The known abilities of this unhappy son, “rendered this blow the more grievous to so good a father,” who is characterized by bishop Newton as a man that “with all his troubles and disappointments, with all the sickness and distress in his family, still preserved his calm, placid countenance, his easy cheerful temper, and was at all times an agreeable friend and companion, in all events a true Christian philosopher.”

, one of the greatest philosophers this country has produced, was the son of John Locke, of Pensford, a market-town in Somersetshire, five miles from Bristol, by Anne his wife, daughter of Edmund Keen, or Ken, of Wrington, tanner. His father, who was first a clerk only to a neighbouring justice of the peace, Francis Baber, of Chew Magna, was advanced by col. Alexander Popham, whose seat was near Pensford, to be a captain in the parliament’s service. After the restoration, he practised as an attorney, and was clerk of the sewers in Somersetshire *. Although our philosopher’s age is not to be found in the registers of Wrington, which is the parish church of Pensford, it has been ascertained that he wasborn there Aug. 29, 1632. By the interest of col, Popham, he was admitted a scholar at Westminster, whence in 1652 he was elected to Christ church, Oxford. Here he took the degree of B. A. in 1655, and that of M. A. in 1658; but although he made a considerable progress in the usual course of studies at that time, he often said that what he learned was of little use to enlighten and enlarge his mind. The first books which gave him a relish for the study of philosophy, were the writings of Des Cartes, whom he always found perspicuous, although he did not always approve of his sentiments.

, sometimes called Abre Anam, or father of Anam, was a philosopher of great account among the Easterns, but his personal history is involved in much obscurity, and what we have is probably fabulous. Some say he was an Abyssinian of Ethiopia or Nubia, and was sold as a slave among the Israelites, in the reigns of David and Solomon. According to the Arabians, he was tlje son of Baura, son or grandson of a sister or aunt of Job. Some say he worked as a carpenter, others as a tailor, while a third sort will have him to be a shepherd; however that be, he was certainly an extraordinary person, endowed with great wisdom and eloquence, and we have an account of the particular manner in which he received these divine gifts; being one day asleep about noon, the angels saluted Lokman without making themselves visible, in these terms: “We are the messengers of God, thy creator and ours; and he has sent us to declare to thee that he will make thee a monarch, and his vice-gerent upon earth.” Lokman replied, “If it is by an absolute command of God that I am to become such a one as you say, his will be done in all things; and I hope if this should happen, that he will bestow on me all the grace necessary for enabling me to execute his commands faithfully; however, if he would grant me the liberty to chuse my condition of life, I had rather continue in my present state, and be kept from offending him; otherwise, all the grandeur and splendours of the world would be troublesome to me.” This answer, we are told, was so pleasing to God, that he immediately bestowed on him the gift of wisdom in an eminent degree; and he was able to instruct all men, by a multitude of maxims, sentences, and parables, amounting to ten thousand in number, every one of which his admirers reckon greater than the whole world in value.

His pen was first employed, in 1716, in a kind of periodical work, called the “Occasional Papers,” which now form three volumes, 8vo, and in which he wrote, No. I. (vol. H.) “On Orthodoxy” and No. VI. “On the danger of the Chqrcb.” His colleagues in this paper were Mr. Simon Brown, Dr. Grosvenor, Dr. Evans, and others. The subjects are in general on points in controversy with the church. In 1718, he wrote a treatise against Collins, the title of which, says his biographer, is forgotten, but it is mentioned by the accurate Leland, as “The Argument from prophecy, in proof that Jesus is the Messiah, vindicated, in some considerations on the prophecies cf the Old Testament, as the grounds and reasons of the Christian religion.” It was not printed, however, until 1733. In 1735, he was one of the preachers at Salttr’s-H ill, against popery: the subject of his sermon, “The Principles of Popery schismatical.” He had published before this, two occasional sermons. Another of his pamphlets, entitled “An Argument to prove the Unity and Perfections of God d prioi'i,” uas more admired for its novelty and ingenuity than usefulness: but the works of Mr. Lowman on which his reputation is most securely founded, are, 1. “A Dissertation on the Civil Government of the Hebrews,” in answer to Morgan’s “Moral Philosopher.” This, whicU appeared in 1740, was esteemed a very judicious performance, and was highly approved of by bishop Sherlock and' other clergymen of the established church. The second edition, in 1745, has an appendix. 2. “A rationale of the Ritual of the Hebrew Worship: in which the design and usefulness of that ritual are explained and vindicated from objections/ 1 1748. 3.” A Paraphrase and Notes upon the Revelation of St. John,“4to, twice, and 8vo, lately. 4.” Three (posthumous) Tracts," on the Schechina, the Logos, &c.

, a celebrated Roman poet, was a native of Cordova, in Spain, where he was born Nov. lh> in the year 37. His father Annseus Mela, a Roman knight, a man of distinguished merit and interest in his country, was the youngest brother of Seneca the philosopher; and his mother, Acilia, was daughter of Acilius Lucanus, an eminent orator, from which our author took his name. When only eight months old he was carried to Rome and carefully educated under the ablest masters in grammar and rhetoric, a circumstance which renders it singular that critics have endeavoured to impute the defects in his style to his being a Spaniard; but it is certain that his whole education was Roman. His first masters were Palaemon, the grammarian, and Flavius Virginius, the rhetorician. He then studied under Cornutus, from whom he imbibed the sentiments of the stoic school, and probably derived the lofty and free strain by which he is so much distinguished. It is said he completed his education at Athens. Seneca, then tutor to the emperor Nero, obtained for him the office of quaestor: he was soon after admitted to the college of augurs, and considered to be in the full career of honour and opulence. He gave proofs of poetical talents at a very early age, and acquired reputation by several compositions; a circumstance peculiarly unfortunate for him, as it clashed with the vanity of the emperor, who valued himself on his powers as a poet and musician. On one occasion Lucan was so imprudent as to recite one of his own pieces, in competition with Nero; and as the judges honestly decided in favour of Lucan, Nero forbad him to repeat any more of his verses in public, and treated him with so much indignity that Lucan no more looked up to him with the respect due to a patron and a sovereign, but took a part in the conspiracy of Piso and others against the tyrant; which being discovered, he was apprehended among the other conspirators. Tacitus and other authors have accused him of endeavouring to free himself from punishment by accusing his own mother, and involving her in the crime of which he was guilty. Mr. Hayley has endeavoured to rescue his name from so terrible a charge; and it is more likely that it was a calumny raised by Nero’s party to ruin his reputation. Be this as it may, his confessions were ofno avail, and no favour was granted him but the choice of the death he would die; and he chose the same which had terminated the life of his uncle Seneca. His veins were accordingly opened; and when he found himself growing cold and faint through loss of blood, he repeated some of his own lines, describing a wounded soldier sinking in a similar manner. He died in the year 65, and in the twentyseventh year of his age. Of the various poems of Lucan, none but his Pharsalia remain, which is an account of the civil wars between Caesar and Pompey, but is come down to us in an unfinished state. Its title to the name of an epic poem has been disputed by those critics, who, from the examples of Homer and Virgil, have maintained that machinery, or the intervention of supernatural agency, is essential to that species of composition. Others, however, have thought it rather too fastidious to refuse the epic name to a poem because not exactly conformable to those celebrated examples. Blair objects, tliat although Lucan’s subject is abundantly heroic, he cannot be reckoned happy in the choice of it, because it has two defects, the one its being too near the times in which he lived, which deprived him of the assistance of fiction and machinery; the other that civil wars, especially when as fierce and cruel as those of the Romans, present too many shocking objects to be fit for epic poetry, gallant and honourable achievements being a more proper theme for the epic muse. But Lucan’s genius seems to delight in savage scenes, and he even goes out of his way to introduce a long episode of Marius and Sylla’s proscriptions, which abounds with all the forms of atrocious cruelty. On the merits of the poetry itself there are various opinions. Considered as a school book, Dr. Warton has classed it with Statins, Claudian, and Seneca the tragedian, authors into whose works no youth of genius should ever be suffered to look, because, by their forced conceits, by their violent metaphors, by their swelling epithets, by their want of a just decorum, they have a strong tendency to dazzle and to mislead inexperienced minds, and tastes unformed, from the true relish of possibility, propriety, simplicity and nature. On the other hand it has been said, that although Lucan certainly possesses neither the fire of Homer, nor the melodious numbers of Virgil, yet if he had lived to a maturer age, his judgment as well as his genius would have been improved, and he might have claimed a more exalted rank among the poets of the Augustan age. His expressions are bold and animated; his poetry entertaining; and it has been asserted that he was never perused without the warmest emotions, by any whose minds were in unison with his own.

, a celebrated Roman poet and philosopher, born about the year 96 B. C. was sent at an early age to Athens, where, under Zeno and Pheodrus, he imbibed the philosophical tenets of Epicurus and Empedocles, and afterwards explained and elucidated them in his celebrated work, entitled “De Rerum Natura.” In inis poem the writer has not only controverted all the popular notions of heathenism, but even those points which are fundamental in every system of religious faith, the existence of a first cause, by whose power all things were and are created, and by whose providence they are supported and governed. His merits, however, as a poet, have procured him in all ages, the warmest admirers; and undoubtedly where the subject admits of elevated sentiment and descriptive beauty, no Roman poet has taken a loftier flight, or exhibited more spirit and sublimity; the same animated strain is supported almost throughout entire books. His poem was written and finished while he laboured under a violent delirium, occasioned by a philtre, which the jealousy of his mistress or his wife had administered. The morality of Lucretius is generally pure, but many of his descriptions are grossly licentious. The best editions are those of Creech, Oxon. 1695, 8vo; of Havercamp, Lugd. Bat. 1725, 4to, and of the celebrated Gilbert Wakefield, Lond. 3 vols. 4to, which last is exceedingly rare, on account of the v fire which destroyed the greater part of the impression. Mr. Good, the author of the best translation of Lucretius, published in 1805, has reprinted Waketield’s text, and has given, besides elaborate annotations, a critical account of the principal editions and translations of his author, a history of the poet, a vindication of his character and philosophy, and a comparative statement of the rival systems of philosophy that flourished in the time of Lucretius, to whom Mr. Good traces the inductive method of the illustrious Bacon, part of the sublime physics of sir Isaac Newton, and various chemical discoveries of our own days, perhaps a little too fancifully, but with great ingenuity and display of recondite learning.

, an eminent mathematician and philosopher, was the son of a clergyman, and born at Kilmodan, near Inverary, in Scotland, Feb. 1698. His family was originally from Tirey, one of the western islands. He was sent to the university of Glasgow in 1709, where he continued five years, and applied himself to study in a most intense manner, particularly to the mathematics. His great genius for this science discovered itself so early as at twelve years of age; when, having accidentally met with a copy of Euclid’s Elements in a friend’s chamber, he became in a few days master of the first six books without any assistance: and it is certain, that in his sixteenth year he had invented many of the propositions, which were afterwards published as part of his work entitled “Geometria Organica.” In his fifteenth year, he took the degree of master of arts; on which occasion he composed and publicly defended a thesis “On the power of gravity,” with great applause. After this he quitted the university, and retired to a country-seat of his uncle, who had the care of his education, his parents being dead some time. Here he spent two or three years in pursuing his favourite studies; and such was his acknowledged merit, that having in 1717 offered himself a candidate for the professorship of mathematics in the Marischal college of Aberdeen, he obtained it after a ten days trial against a very able competitor. In 1719 he went to London, where he left his “Geometria Organica” in the press, and where he became acquainted with Dr. Hoadly, bishop of Bangor, Dr. Clarke, sir Isaac Newton, and other eminent men. At the same time he was admitted a member of the royal society; and in another journey in 1721, he contracted an intimacy with Martin Folkes, esq. the president of it, which lasted to his death.

In 1745, having been very active in fortifying the city of Edinburgh against the rebel army, he was obliged to fly to the north of England; where he was invited by Herring, then archbishop of York, to reside with him during his stay in this country. “Here,” says he, in a letter to one of his friends, “I live as happy as a man can do, who is ignorant of the state of his family, and who sees the ruin of his country.” We regret to add, that in this expedition being exposed to cold and hardships, and naturally of a weak and tender constitution, he laid the foundation of a dropsical disorder, which put an end to his life June 14, 1746, aged 48. There is a circumstance recorded of him during his last moments, which shows that he was the inquiring philosopher to the last: He desired his friend Dr. Monro to account for a phenomenon he then observed in himself, viz. flashes of fire seeming to dart from his eyes, while in the mean time his sight was failing, so that he could scarcely distinguish one object from another."

Mr. Maclaurin is said to have been a very good, as well as a ver^y great man, and worthy of affection as well as admiration. His peculiar merit as a philosopher was, that all his studies were accommodated to general utility; and we find, in many places of his works, an application even of the most abstruse theories, to the perfection of mechanical arts. He had resolved, for the same purpose, to compose a course of practical mathematics, and to rescue several useful branches of the science from the bad treatment they often meet with in less skilful hands. But all this his death prevented; unless we should reckon, as a part of his intended work, the translation of Dr. David Gregory’s “Practical Geometry,” which he revised, and published with additions, 1745. He had, however, frequent opportunities of serving his friends and his country by his great skill. Whatever difficulty occurred concerning the constructing or perfecting of machines, the working of mines, the improving of manufactures, the conveying of water, or the execution of any other public work, he was at hand to resolve it. He was likewise employed to terminate some disputes of consequence that had arisen at Glasgow concerning the gauging of vessels; and for that purpose presented to the commissioners of excise two elaborate memorials, with their demonstrations, containing rules by which the officers now act. He made also calculations relating to the provision, now established by law, for the children and widows of the Scotch clergy, and of the professors in the universities, entitling them to certain annuities and sums, upon the voluntary annual payment of a certain sum by the incumbent. In contriving and adjusting this wise and useful scheme, he bestowed a great deal of labour, and contributed, not a little, towards bringing it to perfection.

, son of the preceding, was born at Edinburgh in December 1734, and educated at the grammar-school and university of Edinburgh. Having applied to the study of the law, he was admitted a member of the faculty of advocates at Edinburgh in 1756. In 1782, a royal aociety was established in Edinburgh, of which Mr. Maclaurin was one of the original constituent members, and at an early period of the institution he read an essay to prove that Troy was not taken by the Greeks. In 1787 he was raised from the Scottish bar, at which he had practised long and successfully, to the bench, by the title of lord Dreghorn. He died in 1796. As an author we have “An Essay on Literary Property;” “A Collection of Criminal Cases;” “An Essay on Patronage;” and some poetical pieces, with three dramas, entitled “Hampden,” “The Public,” and “The Philosopher’s Opera.” During the years 1792, 3, 4, and 5, lord Dreghorn kept a journal, or diary, in which he recorded the various events that happened in Europe during those years. From this journal he made a selection for publication: and in 1799 a selection of his lordship’s works was printed in two vols. 8vo, containing most of the pieces mentioned above. It has, however, been generally thought that these added very little to his reputation, the character of his poetry being that of mediocrity, and his prose neither very lively not profound, though he occasionally exhibits learning and acuteness, and always an ardent love of liberty."

, a celebrated philosopher and mathematician, was born at Rome Octqber 23, 1637. After studying jurisprudence, in which he made a great and very rapid progress at Pisa, he began to devote his main attention to mathematics and natural philosophy, which he cultivated at Florence, during three years, under the celebrated Vincent Viviani, and was made secretary to the academy del Cimento, the duties of which office he discharged with the utmost assiduity and care. Being directed by the prince to draw up an account of the experiments made there, he published it in 1666, when it was received with universal applause by men of science. While engaged on this work, he obtained leave from Leopold to pay a visit to his father at Rome, and with a view to obtain some ecclesiastical promotion. Having failed in this object, he returned to Florence, and obtained a place at the court of the grand duke Ferdinand II.; and shortly after a pension was given him by pope Alexander VII. About 1666 he drew up and published a small volume relative to the history of China, which was received with great applause; and at the same time he published a small, but elegant compendium of the Moral Doctrine of Confucius. Having considerable poetical talents, he was the first person who published a good translation of the Odes of Anacreon in Italian verse. He was very conversant in many of the modern languages, and could write and speak French, Spanish, and English, with the correctness and ease of the natives of those countries. When in England he became the intimate friend of the illustrious Mr. Robert Boyle, whom he vainly attempted to convert from the errors of the protestant faith. After being employed in several missions to foreign princes, he was in 1674 appointed ambassador to the imperial court, where he acquired the particular favour of the emperor, and formed connections with the men most eminent for science and literature; but, finding a very inconvenient delay of the necessary pecuniary remittances from his court, he determined to return to Florence without waiting the permission of the duke. Shortly after, that prince recalled him, and gave him apartments in his palace, with a considerable pension, but Magalotti preferred retirement, and the quiet prosecution of his studies. In 1684 he composed fifteen Italian odes, in which he has drawn the picture of a woman of noble birth and exquisite beauty, distinguished not only by every personal, but by every mental charm, and yet rendering herself chiefly the object of admiration and delight by her manners and conduct, whom, with no great gallantry, he entitled “The Imaginary Lady.” His next work consisted of Letters against Atheists, in which his learning and philosophy appear to great advantage. In 169 he was appointed a counsellor of state to the grand duke, who sent him his ambassador into Spain to negotiate a marriage between one of his daughters and king Charles II.; but soon after he had accomplished the object of this mission, he sunk into a temporary melancholy. After recovering in about a year, he resumed his literary labours, and published works upon various subjects, and left others which were given to the world after his decease, which happened in 1712, when he had attained the age of 75. Magalotti was as eminent for his piety as he was for his literary talents; unimpeachable in his morals, liberal, beneficent, friendly, polite, and a lively and cheerful, as well as very instructive companion. His house was the constant resort of men of letters from all countries, whom he treated with elegant hospitality. He was deeply conversant with the writings of the ancient philosophers, and was a follower of the Platonic doctrine in his poems. In his natural and philosophical investigations he discarded all authority, and submitted to no other guide but experiment. Among the moderns he was particularly attached to Galileo. After his death a medal was struck in honour of his memory, with the figure of Apollo raised on the reverse, and the inscription Omnia Lustrat.

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

, a religious minim, and one of the greatest philosophers of his age, was born at Toulouse, of an ancient and noble family, July 17, 1601. While he was a child, he discovered an inclination to letters and the sciences, and nothing is said to have had so great an effect in quieting his infant clamours, as putting some little boot into his hands. He went through his course in the college of Jesuits, and acquitted himself with great diligence in every part of scholarship, both with respect to literary and religious exercises. He was determined to a religious life, by a check given to his vanity when he was learning rhetoric. He had written a poem, in order to dispute the prize of eloquence, and believed the victory was unjustly adjudged to another. This made him resolve to ask the minim’s habit, and having acquitted himself satisfactorily in the trials of his probation-time, he was received upon his taking the vow in 1619, when he was eighteen. He went through his course of philosophy under a professor who was very much attached to the doctrine of Aristotle; and he omitted no opportunity of disputing loudly against all the parts of that philosopher’s scheme, which he suspected of heterodoxy. His preceptor considered this as a good presage; and in a short time discovered, to his great astonishment, that his pupil was very well versed in mathematics, without having had the help of a teacher. In this, like Pascal, he had been his own master but what he says of himself upon this point must be understood with some limitation; namely, that “in his leisure hours of one year from the duties of the choir and school, he discovered of himself as many geometrical theorems and problems, as were to be found in the first six books of Euclid’s Elements.”

Thus this great philosopher and divine passed a life of tranquillity in writing books, making experiments, and reading lectures. He was perpetually consulted by the most eminent philosophers, and was obliged to carry on a very extensive correspondence. Such was the activity of his mind that he is said to have studied even in his sleep; for his very dreams employed him in theorems, and he was frequently awaked by the exquisite pleasure which he felt upon the discovery of a demonstration. The excellence of his manners, and his unspotted virtues, rendered him no less worthy of esteem than his genius and learning. He died at Toulouse Oct. 29, 1676, aged seventy-five. It is said of him, that he composed with great ease, and without any alterations at all. See a book entitled “De vita, moribus, & scriptis R. patris Emanuelis Maignani Tolosatis, ordinis Minimorum, philosophi atque mathematici pracstantissimi, elogium,” written by F. Saguens, and printed at Toulouse in 1697, a work in which are some curious facts, not, however, unmixed with declamatory puerilities.

, a French theorist of some note, was born in 1659, of a noble family in Lorraine. At the age of thirty-three he was appointed consul-general of Egypt, and held that situation with great credit for sixteen years. Having strenuously supported the interests of his sovereign, he was at length rewarded by being removed to Leghorn, which was esteemed the chief of the Frencb consulships. In 1715 he was employed to visit and inspect the other consulships of Barbary and the Levant, and fulfilled this commission so much to the satisfaction of his court, that he obtained leave to retire, with a considerable pension, to Marseilles, where he died in 1738, at the age of seventy-nine. De Maillet did not publish any thing himself, but left behind him papers and memoirs, from which some publications were formed. The first of these was published in 8vo, by the abbe Mascrier, under the feigned name of Telliamed, which is De Maillet reversed. The subject is the origin of our globe, and the editor has thrown the sentiments of his author into the form of dialogues between an Indian philosopher and a French missionary. The philosopher maintained that all the land of this earth, and its vegetable and animal inhabitants, rose from the bosom of the sea, on the successive contractions of the waters: that men had originally been tritons with tails; and that they, as well as other animals, had lost their marine, and acquired terrestrial forms by their agitations when left on dry ground. This extravagance had its day in France. The same editor also drew from the papers of this author, a description of Egypt, published in 1743, in 4to, and afterwards in two volumes 12mo.

, a French philosopher, whose works do credit to his country, was born at Beziers, in 1678. He was early admitted into the academy of sciences, and the French academy; and in the former, in 1741, succeeded Fontenelle in the office of perpetual secretary. This place he filled with great reputation for three years, and displayed, like his predecessor, the talent of placing the most abstruse questions in a clear and intelligible light. He died at Paris, Feb. 20, 1771. His works are, 1. “Dissertation sur les variations du Barometre,” 1715, 12mo. 2. “Dissertation sur la cause de la lumiere des Phosphores, et des noctiluques,” 1717, 12mo. 3. “Dissertation sur la Glace,” 1719, 12mo. 4. “Lettre a M. I'abbe Bignon, sur la nature des Vaisseaux.” 1728, 4to. 5. “Traiie physique et historique de l'Aurore Boreale,” 1733, 4to. 6. “Dissertation sur les forces motrices des corps,” 1741, 12 mo. 7. “Lettre a Madame du Chatelet, sur ia question des forces vives,” 1741, 12mo. 8. “Eloges des Academicians de l'academie des sciences, morts en 1741, 1743, and 1747,” 12mo. In these compositions, without imitating Fontenelle, he is thought nearly to equal him, in the talent of characterizing the persons he describes, and appreciating their merits justly. 9. “Lettre au Pere Parennin, contenant diverses questions, sur la Chine,” 12mo. This is a curious work, and strongly displays the philosophical mind of the author. 10. Many memoirs inserted in the volumes of the academy of sciences, and some other compositions of no great bulk. Mairan was much admired in society as an intelligent, agreeable, and lively companion. It is of him that madame Pompadour relates the following anecdote, which, if we mistake not, has been attributed to others: “His house had by chance taken fire, which was just getting into the second floor, where he was plodding calmly over his circles and triangles. He is summoned to fly without delay `Talk to my wife,' says he, `I meddle with none of these matters’ and sat down again contentedly to muse on the moon, until he was forced out of the house.”

, a French philosopher, was born at Paris, Aug. 6, 1638, and was first placed under a domestic tutor, who taught him Greek and Latin. He afterwards went through a course of philosophy at the college of la Marche, and that of divinity in the Sorbonne; and was admitted into the congregation of the Oratory at Paris, in 1660, After he had spent some time there, he consulted father le Cointe, in what manner he should pursue his studies; who advised him to apply himself to ecclesiastical history. Upon this he began to read Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret; but soon grew weary of this study, and next applied himself to father Simon, who recommended Hebrew, Arabic, Syriac, rabbinical learning, and critical inquiries into the sense of the Scriptures. But this kind of study was not at all more suitable to his genius, than the former. At last, in 1664, he met with Des Cartes’s “Treatise upon Man,” which he read over with great satisfaction, and devoted himself immediately to the study of his philosophy; of which, in a few years, he became as perfect a master as Des Cartes himself. In 1699, he was admitted an honorary member of the royal academy of sciences. He died Oct. 13, 1715, being then seventy-seven years of age. From the time that he began to read Des Cartes, he studied only to enlighten his mind, and not to furnish his memory; so that he knew a great deal, though he read but little. He avoided every thing that was mere erudition; an insect pleased him much more than all the Greek and Roman history. He despised likewise that kind of learning, which consists only in knowing the opinions of different philosophers; since it was his opinion that a person may easily know the history of other men’s thoughts, without ever thinking at all himself. Such was his aversion to poetry, that he could never read ten verses together without disgust. He meditated with his windows shut, in order to keep out the light, which he found to be a disturbance to him. His conversation turned upon the same subjects as his books, but was mixed with so much modesty and deference to the judgment of others, that it was much courted. Few foreigners, who were men of learning, neglected to visit him when they came to Paris: and it is said, that an English officer, who was taken prisoner during die war between William III. and the king of France, was content with his lot, when he was. brought to Paris, because it gave him an opportunity to see Louis XIV. and father Malebranche.

However visionary this system may appear on a superficial view, yet when we consider, says Dr. Reid, that he agreed with the whole tribe of philosophers in conceiving ideas to be the immediate objects of perception, and, that he found insuperable difficulties, and even absurdities, in every other hypothesis concerning them, it will not seem so wonderful that a man of very great genius should fall into this; and probably it pleased so devout a man the more, that it sets in the most striking light our dependence upon God, and his continual presence with us. He distinguished more accurately than any philosopher had done before, the objects which we perceive from the sensations in our own minds, which, by the laws of nature, always accompany the perception of the object: and in this respect, as well as in many others, he had great merit. For this, as Dr. Reid apprehends, is a key that opens the way to a right understanding, both of our external senses, and of other powers of the mind.

The next piece which Malebranche published, was his “Conversations Chretiennes, dans lesquelles sont justifié la verite de la religion & de la morale de J. C.” Paris, 1676. He was moved, it is said, to write this piece, at the desire of the duke de Chevreuse, to shew the consistency and agreement between his philosophy and religion. His “Traité de la nature & de la grace,” 1680, was occaioned by a conference he had with M. Arnaud, about those peculiar notions of grace into which Malebranche’s system had led that divine. This was followed by other pieces, which were all the result of the philosophical and theological dispute our author had with M. Arnaud. In 1688, he published his “Entretien sur la inetaphysique & la religion:” in which work he collected what he had written against M. Arnaud, but disengaged it from that air of dispute which is not agreeable to every reader. In 1697, he published his “Traite de P amour de Dieu.” When the doctrine of the new mystics began to be much talked of in France, father Lamy, a Benedictine, in his book “De la connoissance de soi-mme,” cited some passages out of this author’s “Recherche de la verit6,” as favourable to that party; upon this, Malebranche thought proper to defend himself in this book, by shewing in what sense it may be said, without clashing with the authority of the church or reason, that the love of God is disinterested. In 1708, he published his “Entretiens d‘un philosophe Chretien, & d’un philosophe Chinois sur l'existence & la nature de Dieu:” or, “Dialogues between a Christian philosopher and a Chinese philosopher, upon the existence and nature of God.” The bishop of Rozalie having remarked some conformity between the opinions of the Chinese, and the notions laid down in the “Recherche de la Verite”,“mentioned it to the author, who on that account thought himself obliged to write this tract. Malebranche wrote many other pieces besides what we have mentioned, all tending some way or other to confirm his main system established in the” Recherche," and to clear it from the objections which were brought against it, or from the consequences which were deduced from it: and, if he has not attained what he aimed at in these several productions, he has certainly shewn great ingenuity and abilities.

Mr. Mallet’s stature, says Dr. Johnson, “was diminutive, but he was regularly formed. His appearance, till he grew corpulent, was agreeable, and he suffered it to want no recommendation that dress could give it. His conversation was elegant and easy.” Of his character in other respects, it would be unnecessary to add any thing to the preceding facts. As a writer he cannot be placed in any high class, nor is there any species of composition in, which. he is eminent yet his poetry surely entitles him to a place in every collection of English bards. In his poems as well as his prose compositions, elegance of style predominates, and he appears to have written with ease. His “Life of Lord Bacon,” prefixed to an edition of that illustrious philosopher’s works in 1740, has been censured as touching too little on the philosophical part of the character. The writing it, however, was probably a matter of necessity rather than choice, and while he could not afford to refuse the employment, he was too conscious of his inability to attempt any other than what he has accomplished, an elegant narrative of the events of lord Bacon’s life. Of Mallet’s works, prose and verse, an edition was published in 1769, 3 vols. small 8vo.

, an eminent French chemist and physician, was born at Caen in 1701, and was the son of a counsellor, who sent him, when of a proper age, to study law at Paris. Young Malouin, however, as soon as he arrived there, without ever informing his father, began the study of medicine, and pursued it with such success as well as secrecy, that on his return home in 1730, his father, whom he had always satisfied in every respect as to moral conduct, expenses, &c. and who expected to see him return as a licentiate in law, was astonished to find him a doctor of medicine, but was obliged at the same time to yield to a choice which indicated so much zeal and decision. Nor was this a new profession in the family, his uncle and grandfather having both been physicians. After remaining at home about three years, he went again, to Paris, and assisted Geoffroi in his chemical lectures, and would probably have succeeded him had he been on the spot when he died; but it was not until 1767 that he was appointed in the room of Astruc, who was the immediate successor of Geoffroi. At Paris, where he got iiitd practice, it lay much among literary men, whom he found generally very incredulous in the virtues of medicine. Malouin, who was a perfect enthusiast in his art, had many contests with them on this account. When a certain great philosopher had been cured by taking Malouin’s prescriptions for a considerable time, and came to acknowledge the obligation, Malouin embraced him and exclaimed, “you deserve to be sick.” (Vous etes digne d'etre maladej. He could not, however, bear those who, after being cured, indulged their pleasantries at the expehce of the faculty, and he broke off his acquaintance with an eminent writer* who had been his patient, on this account. On another occasion, when one of these wits with whom he had had a warm dispute about his favourite art, and had quarrelled, fell ill, Malouin sought him out, and his first address was, “I know you are ill, and that your case has been improperly treated; I am now come to visit you, although I hate you; but I will cure you, and after that never see your face more,” and he kept his word in all these points. This was, however, in him pure enthusiasm, without any mixture of quackery. His liberal conduct and talents were universally acknowledged, and he filled with great reputation the honourable offices of professor of medicine in the college of Paris, and physician in ordinary to the queen. He was also a member of the academy of sciences, and of our royal society. His love of medicine did not hinder him from paying equal attention to preventatives, and he was distinguished for a habit of strict temperance, which preserved his health and spirits to the advanced age of seventy-seven, without any of its infirmities. His death was at last occasioned by a stroke of apoplexy, which happened Dec. 31, 1777. He left a legacy to the faculty on condition of their assembling once a year, and giving an account of their labours and discoveries. His principal works were, 1. “Traite” de Chimie,“1734, 12mo. 2.” Chimie medicinale,“1755, 2 vols. 12mo, a work iti a very elegant style, and including maiiy valuable observations. He wrote also several articles in the dictionary” Des arts et metiers,“published by the academy of sciences* and the chemical part of the” Encyclopedic."

, a distinguished mathematician, philosopher, and military engineer, was born at Paris July 23, 1775. His first education was principally directe'd to classical and polite literature, and at seventeen years of age he composed a tragedy in five acts, called “The Death of Cato.” These pursuits, however, did not prevent him from a study apparently not very compatible, that of the mathematics; for at the above age he passed an examination which gained him admittance into the school of engineers. After having distinguished himself there by his genius for analysis, he was about to leave it in quality of officer of military engineers, but was rejected on political grounds, and as this repulse deprived him of all hope of promotion there, he repaired to the army in the north, where he was incorporated in the 15th battalion of Paris, and was employed as a common soldier in the fortifications of Dunkirk. The officer of engineers, who superintended those works, perceiving that Malus was deserving of a better station, represented his merits to the government, and he was recalled and sent to the Polytechnic school, where he was soon appointed to the analytic course in the absence of M. Monge. Being now re-established in his former rank at the date of his first nomination, he succeeded almost immediately to that of captain, and was employed at the school at Metz as professor of mathematics.

Although exhausted by so many fatigues, and by the dreadful diseases which had undermined his constitution, he did not neglect his promise to his mistress, but married her soon after his arrival, and their union, though short, was happy. About the time of his marriage, Malus gained new celebrity by a work in which be treated all the optical questions which depend on geometry, and in which he expounded and calculated all the phenomena of reflection and refraction, and followed the ray of light through all its various courses. This production called the attention of the learned to the phenomenon of double refraction, which had occupied Huygens and Newton; and hopes were entertained of obtaining an explanation of a fact which had defied the penetration of the greatest geniuses. The Institute of France made it the subject of a prize, which ]VIalus gained, and shewed that to the analytical knowledge of which he had given proofs in his first work, he could unite the patience, the skill, and the sagacity, which constitute a great philosopher. By very nice experiments he discovered a remarkable and totally unknown property of light, that is, the resemblance between the loadstone and a particle of light, the latter of which he found to acquire polarity and a determined direction. This success opened the doors of the Institute to him, where he supplied the place of a philosopher whose name had been immortalized by a brilliant discovery (Montgolfier).

The activity of Malus was equal to so many different pursuits. Though he carried in his habit the seeds of that severe illness which was so soon to terminate his life, scarcely a week elapsed without his submitting to the Institute new fruits of his researches and his name being attached to the phenomenon of polarised light, which he discovered, all future discoveries of this kind must recall the remembrance of the philosopher who first opened this new road, and who, if he had lived, would have probably completed the theory of light. He died February 24th, 1812, in the thirty-seventh year of his age, a loss which cannot be sufficiently deplored, as his learning, his genius, and indefatigable industry, afforded every hope that length of years would have added to his discoveries, and extended the boundaries of science. His discovery of the polarisation of light by oblique reflection is perhaps the most important that optics has received since the discovery of the achromatic telescope.

The “Fable of the Bees,” as we have observed, was attacked by several writers; particularly by Dr. Fiddes, in the preface to his “General treatise of morality formed upon the principles of natural religion only,” printed in 1724; by Mr. John Dennis, in a piece entitled “Vice and luxury public mischiefs,” in 1724; by Mr. William Law, in a book entitled “Remarks upon the Fable of the Bees,” in 1724; by Mr. Bluet, in his “Enquiry, whether the general practice of virtue tends to the wealth or poverty, benefit or disadvantage, of a people? In which the pleas offered by the author of The Fable of the Bees, for the usefulness of vice and roguery, are considered; with some thoughts concerning a toleration of public stews,” in 1725; by Mr. Hutcheson, author of the “Inquiry into the original of our ideas of beauty and virtue, in several papers published at Dublin, and reprinted in the first volume of Hibernicus’s Letters;” and lastly, by Mr. Archibald Campbell, in his “Astoria,” first published by Alexander Innis, D. D. in his own name, but claimed afterwards by the true author. Mandeville’s notions were likewise animadverted upon by Berkeley, bishop of Cloyne in Ireland, in his “Alciphron, or the Minute Philosopher,” printed in 1732; in answer to which Mandeville published, the same year, “A Letter to Dion, occasioned by his book called Alciphron.” In this year also a pamphlet appeared, entitled “Some remarks on the Minute Philosopher, in a letter from a country clergyman to his friend in London;” the anonymous author of which, supposed to have been John lord Harvey, interferes in the controversy between Mandeville and Berkeley with an apparent impartiality. It would be very unnecessary now, however, to enter minutely into the merits of a work no longer read. The prevailing error in the “Fable of the Bees” appears to us to be, that the author did not sufficiently distinguish between what existed, and what ought to be; that while he could uicontestibly prove “private vices” to be in some degree “public benefits,” that is, useful to the grandeur and financial prosperity of a state, he did not distinguish between vices properly so called, and superfluities, or articles of luxury, which are the accompaniments, and the usetul accompaniments too, of certain ranks of life. As to his tracing good actions to bad motives, and the general disposition he has to dwell on the unfavourable side of appearances in human nature and conduct, no apology can be offered, and none can be wanted for the contempt into which his writings have fallen.

, Man!, or Manicileus, the founder of a remarkable sect of heretics, flourished towards the conclusion of the third century, and began about the year 267 to propagate his doctrines, which he had taken from the books of one Scythianus. Scythianus was an Arabian, educated upon the borders of Palestine, and extremely well skilled in all the learning of the Greeks. Afterwards he went to Alexandria, where he studied philosophy, and acquainted himself also with the learning of the Egyptians. Here he espoused the opinion of Empedocles, concerning two co-eternal principles, one good and the other bad; the former of which he called God and light, the latter matter and darkness; to which he joined many dogmas of the Pythagorean school. These he formed into a system, comprised in four books; one of which was called “Evangelium,” another “Capita,” a third “Mysteria,” and a fourth “Thesauri.” After this he went to Jerusalem, ivhere he disputed with the Jews, and taught openly his opinions. Upon the death of Scythianus, his books and effects devolved by will to Terebinthus his disciple, who, however, soon quitted Palestine, and fled into Persia, where, to avoid the persecutions to which his doctrines exposed him, he took up his abode with a certain rich widow. Here he died, by a sudden and violent death, as it is commonly related. When, according to his usual way, he had ascended to the top of the house, in order to invoke the demons of the air, which custom the Manichees afterwards practised in their ceremonies, he was in a moment struck with a blow from heaven, which threw him headlong down and fractured his skull. St. Epiphanius says, that Scythianus had also met with the same fate before him. Here, however, it was that Manes became acquainted with the writings of Scythianus; for, having a handsome person and a ready wit, this widow, who had bought him, adopted him for her son, and took care to have him instructed by the magi in the discipline and philosophy of the Persians, in which he made so considerable a progress that he acquired the reputation of a very subtile and learned philosopher. When this lady died, the writings of Terebinthus, to whom she had been heir, or rather of Scythianus, from whom Terebinthus had received them, fell of course into the hands of Manes.

, an eminent Italian painter, was born in 1431, at Padua or in its district. His parents were poor, but Squarcione, whose pupil he became, was so deeply struck with his talents, that he adopted him for his son, and repented of it when Andrea married a daughter of Jacopo Bellini, his competitor. But the censure which now took place of the praise he had before lavishe'd on his pupil, only added to his improvement. Certain basso-relievos of the ancient Greek style, possessed by the academy in which Andrea studied, captivated his taste by the correctness of their outline, the simplicity of the forms, the parallelism of the attitudes, and strictness of the drapery: the dry servility with which he copied these, suffered him not to perceive that he had lost the great prerogative of the originals, the soul that animates them. The sarcasms of Squarcione on his picture of S. Jacopo, made him sensible of the necessity of expression and character; he gave more life to the figures in the story of S. Cristophoro; and in the face of St. Marc, in the church of S. Giustina, united the attention of a philosopher with the enthusiasm of a prophet. While the criticisms of Squarcione improved Mantegna in expression, the friendly advice of the Bellini directed his method, and fixed his principles of colour. During his short stay at Venice, he made himself master of every advantage of that school; and in some of his pictures there are tones and tints in flesh and landscape, of a richness and zest equal to the best Venetians of his day. Whether he taught Bellini perspective is uncertain; Lomazzo affirms “that Mantegna was the first who opened the eyes of artists in 'hat branch.”

, an eminent French philosopher and mathematician, was born at Dijon, and admitted a member of the academy of sciences of Paris in 1666. His works, however, are better known than his life. He was a good mathematician, and the first French philosopher who applied much to experimental physics. The law of the shock or collision of bodies, the theory of the pressure and motion of fluids, the nature of vision, and of the air, particularly engaged his attention. He carried into his philosophical researches that spirit of scrutiny and investigation so necessary to those who would make any considerable progress in it. He died May 12, 16S4. He communicated a number of curious and valuable papers to the academy of sciences, which were printed in the collection of their Memoirs dated 1666, viz. from volume 1 to volume 10. And all his works were collected into 2 volumes in 4to, and printed at Leyden in 1717.

Though Dr. Marshal’s genius, with the assistance of great industry, enabled him to attain a very considerable proficiency in many different parts of learning, it was not equally well adapted for every purpose of a literary man. It was better fitted to acquire than digest, to heap up than arrange, to make a scholar than render its possessor a, philosopher; and hence he often appeared to less advantage in conversation than other persons of much inferior possessions. The successful exertion of his talents had given him a confidence in them, which otherwise would have been justly regarded as presumptuous. At the age of forty-one, with little previous knowledge of the subject, he began to prepare for being a teacher of anatomy in London, and, in the following year, actually gave a course of lectures upon it. These lectures were not superficial: they were, on the contrary, remarkable for minuteness of description and copiousness of illustration. When he could derive assistance from his other studies, as while speaking ofthe uses of the bones and muscles, he was particularly full and instructive. In his lectures, however, his want of a methodical mind would not unfrequently appear; for he often seemed to be seeking for a thought which was not readily to be found, and sometimes confessed that what he said was not so clear, from want of proper words, as he wished it to be. Though he began thus late to cultivate anatomy, it was ever after a favourite pursuit with him, particularly that part which relates to the ascertaining the seats of diseases. He kept in his house, for many years after ceasing to lecture, at no inconsiderable expense, a person for the purpose of assisting him in anatomical inquiries.

, an Italian, famous for letters as well as arms, was descended from an ancient and noble family, and born at Bologna in 1658. He was educated with great care, and instructed in all the arts and sciences by the best masters in Italy; learning mathematics of Borelli, anatomy of Malpighi, &c. He went to Constantinople in 167S); and, as he had destined himself for the military profession, he contrived to take a view of the Ottoman forces, and made other observations of a like nature. He examined at the same time, as a philosopher, the Thracian Bosphorus, and its currents. He returned to Italy in 1680; and, the Turks soon after threatening an irruption into Hungary, he went to Vienna, to offer his service to the emperor Leopold II. which was readily accepted. Discovering great knowledge in fortifications and in the science of war, he had the command of a company conferred on him in 1683; and the same year, after a very sharp action, fell unfortunately into the hands of the Tartars. He was sold by them to two Turks, with whom he suffered great hardships; but at length, conveying intelligence of his situation to his friends, who had believed him dead, he was redeemed, and returned to Bologna towards the latter end of 1684. He went again into Germany, was employed by the emperor in several military expeditions, and made a colonel in 1639. A reverse of fortune afterwards overtook him. In the general war which broke out in 1701, on account of the Spanish, succession, the important fortress of Brisac surrendered to the duke of Burgundy, Sept. 6, 1703, thirteen days after the trenches were open: and it being judged that the place was capable of holding out much longer, the consequence was, that count d‘Arco, who commanded, lost his head; and Marsigli, who was then advanced to be a marshal, was stripped of all his honours and commissions, and had his sword broken over him. This sentence was executed on Feb. 18 following. He afterwards attempted to justify the surrender before the emperor; but, not being able to get admittance, he published a memorial, the purport of which was to shew, that long before the siege of Brisac, it had been represented and proved, that the place could not be defended for any long time. It was in fact the geneEfd opinion that d’Arco and he had been sacrificed, to exculpate the prince of Baden, who had posted a numerous artillery in a bad situation, and with a very weak garrison. When Marsigli went afterwards into France, and appeared at court without a sword, the king presented him with that which he himself wore, and assured him cf his favour.

, an ancient Latin poet, and the model of epigrammatists, was born at Bilbilis, now called Bubiera, a town of the ancient Celtiberia in Spain, which is the kingdom of Arragon. He was born, as is supposed, in the reign of Claudius, and went to Rome when he was about twenty-one. He was sent thither with a view of prosecuting the law; but soon forsook that study, and applied himself to poetry. He excelled so much in the epigrammatic style, that he soon acquired reputation, and was courted by many of the first rank at Rome. Silius Italicus, Stella, and Pliny the younger, were his friends and patrons. Stertinius, a noble Roman, had so great an esteem for his compositions, that he placed > his statue in his library, while he was yet living; and the emperor Verus, who reigned with Antoninus the philosopher, used to call him his Virgil, which was as high an honour as could well be paid to him. We learn also from Pliny and Tacitus, as well as from several passages in his own writings, that he had honours and dignities bestowed upon him by some of the emperors. Domitian, whom it must be confessed he has flattered not a little, made him a Roman knight, and gave him likewise the “Jus trium liberorum,” the privileges of a citizen who had three children. He was also advanced to the tribunate. But though he was so particularly honoured, and had so many great and noble patrons, who admired him for his wit and poetry, it does not appear that he made his fortune among them. There is reason to think that, after the death of Domitian, his credit and interest declined at Rome; and if he had still remaining among the nobles some patrpns, such as Pliny, Cornelius Priscus, &c. yet the emperor Nerva took but little notice of him, and the emperor Trajan none at all. Tired of Rome, therefore, after he had lived in that city about four and thirty years, and grown, as himself tells us, grey-headed, he returned to his own country Bilbilis, where he took a wife, and had the happiness to live with her several years. He admired her much, as one who alone was sufficient to supply the want of every thing he enjoyed at Rome. She appears to have brought him a very large fortune; for, in one of his epigrams he extols the magnificence of the house and gardens he had received from her, and says, “that she had made him a little kind of monarch.” About three years after he had retired into Spain, he inscribed his twelfth book of Epigrams to Priscus, who had been his friend and benefactor; and is supposed to have died about the year 100. As an epigrammatist, Martial is eminently distinguished, and has been followed as a model by all succeeding wits. All his efforts, however, are not equally successful, and many of his epigrams are perhaps unjustly so called, being merely thoughts or sentiments without applicable point. He offends often by gross indelicacy, which was the vice of the times; but his style is in general excellent, and his frequent allusion to persons and customs render his works very interesting to classical antiquaries.

, a protestant divine, was born at Revel, in Languedoc, in 1639, but settled in Holland after the revocation of the edict of Nantes. He was at once a good theologian, and a good philosopher, in both of which capacities he gave lectures at Utrecht, when he was settled as a pastor in that city. Though he was much absent from France, he retained a critical and accurate knowledge of its language, and when the French academy announced the second edition of their dictionary, he transmitted to them some remarks which were received with applause. He died at Utrecht, of a violent fever, in 1721. He was universally regretted in that place, from his probity, modesty, and ex9ellence of character; his heart was affectionate and compassionate, and-he delighted in doing good offices without being solicited, and without expecting even gratitude in return. He published, 1. “A History of the Old and New Testament,” in 2 vols. folio, printed at Amsterdam in 1707, with 424 fine plates. It is often, called Mortier’s Bible, from the name of the printer; and the early impressions are distinguished by the absence of a little defect in the last plate, which arose from a fracture of the plate after a few had been taken. 2. “Eight Sermons,” 1708, 8vo. 3. “A treatise on Natural Religion,” 1713, 8vo. 4. “An Explanation of the 110th Psalm,” against John Masson, 1715, 8vo. 5. “Two Dissertations,” one in defence of the authenticity of the controverted text, 1 John v. 7. the other in favour of the passage of Josephus, in which Christ is mentioned, 1722, 8vo. 6. “A Bible with short notes,” Amsterdam, 1707, 2 vols. fol. 7. “A treatise on Revealed Religion,” in which he ably supports the divine inspiration of the sacred books; reprinted at Amsterdam in 1723, in 2 vols. 8vo. This useful and judicious work has been translated into English. Martin wrote with ease, but not with a facility of style; but his talents were considerable, his memory good, and hisjudgment sound.

, recorder of Exeter, was born in that city in 1562, and educated in the grammar school, whence he was sent to Broadgates-hall, now Pembroke college, Oxford, in 1579. Here he is supposed to have taken one degree in arts, and then removed to some of the inns of court in London to study law. In 1605, he was elected reeofder of his native city, where he died April 12, 1617. He is noticed here as the author of a history or chronicle of the kings of England, entitled “The History and Lives of the Kings of England, from William the Conqueror to King Henry VIII.” Lond. 1616, folio, reprinted in 1618, an amusing, and not ill-written work, taken principally from the Chronicles. An appendix was published in 1638, by B. R M. A. including the history of Edward VI., Mary, and Elizabeth. It is said that king James took offence at some passages in Mr. Martyn’s work respecting his own family or the Scottish nation, and that the author was brought into some trouble. Of what kind this trouble was we are not told, but that it preyed on his mind, and hastened his death. Mr. Martyn also published a book for the use of one of his sons, entitled “Youth’s Instruction,” Lond. 1612, 'Jto, which Wood saysj shows a great deal of reading. His family appears to have been somewhat poetical, as his history was preluded by copies (if verses by his three sons, and his son-in-law. 1 Ma&Tyr, Justin, see Justin. Martyr, Peter. See Anghiera. Martyr (Peter), a very distinguished divine, was born at Florence, Sept. 8, 1500. His family name was VermiliUs; but his parents gave him that of Marty*, from one Peter a martyr, whose church happened to stand near their house. The first rudiments of literature he received from his mother, who was a very ingenious lady; and used, as it is said, to read Terence and other classics to him in the original. When he was grown up, he became a regular Augustine in the monastery of Fiesoli; and, after three years’ stay there, was sent to the university of Padua, to study philosophy and the Greek language. At twenty-six, in 1526, he was made a public preacher, and preached first at Brixia, in the church of Afra, then at Rome, Venice, Mantua, and other cities of Italy. He read lectures of philosophy and divinity in his college, and applied himself to the study of the Hebrew tongue, the knowledge of which he attained by the assistance of one Isaac, a Jewish physician. Such was his fame at this time, that he was made abbot of Spoletto, in the duchy of Umbria, where he continued three years. Afterwards, he was made go1 Prince’s Worthies 6f Devon. Fuller’s Worthies. Ath. Ox. vol I. vernor of the monastery of St. Peter ad aram in Naples. Here he first became acquainted with the writings of Zuinglius and Bucer, which led him to entertain a good opinion of protestantism: and afterwards his conversation with Valdes, a Spanish lawyer, so confirmed him in it, that he made no scruple to preach it at Rome privately to many persons of quality, and sometimes even publicly. Thus when he came to I Cor. iii. 13, he boldly affirmed, that place not to be meant of purgatory “because,” said he, “the fire there spoken of is such a fire, as both good and bad must pass through and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.” “And this,” says Fuller, in his quaint manner, “seeming to shake a main pillar of purgatory, the pope’s furnace, the fire whereof, like the philosopher’s stone, melteth all his leaden bulls into pure gold; some of his under-chemists, like Demetrius and the craftsmen, began to bestir themselves, and caused him to be silenced.”

He is said to have published during his life 382 pieces, many of them indeed but small, as single sermons, essays, &c. yet several of larger size. Among these were “Magnalia Christi Americana,” or “An Ecclesiastical History of New-England, from its first planting in 1620 to 1698,” folio. “The Christian Philosopher,” 8vo. “Ratio disciplines fratrum Nov-Anglorum,” that is, “The reason of the discipline of the brethren in New-England.” “Directions to a candidate for the ministry.” “Psalterium Americanum,” or “American psalter,” &c. But the most remarkable of all his works was that in which, like Glanville, he defended the reality of witchcraft. This is entitled “The wonders of the invisible world; being an account of the trials of several witches, lately executed in New-England, and of several remarkable curiosities therein occurring. Together with, 1. Observations upon the nature, the number, and the operations of the devils. 2. A short narrative of a late outrage committed by a knot of witches in Swedeland, very much resembling, and so far explaining that under which New-England has laboured. 3. Some counsels directing a due improvement of the terrible things lately done by the unusual and amazing range of evil spirits in New-England. 4. A brief discourse upon those temptations, which are the more ordinary devices of Satan. By Cotton Mather. Published by the special command of his excellency the governor of the province of Massachusets-Bay in New-England.” Printed first at Boston in New-England, and reprinted at London, in 1693, 4to.

In order to make himself known, in 1750 he began to publish, in French, an account of the productions of the English press, printed at the Hague, under the name of the “Journal Britannique.” This humble, though useful labour, says Gibbon, “which had once been dignified by the genius of Bayle, and the learning of Le Clerc, was not disgraced by the taste, the knowledge, and the judgment of Maty; he exhibits a candid and pleasing view of the state of literature in England during a period of six years (Jan. 1750 December 1755); and, far different from his angry son, he handles the rod of criticism with the tenderness and reluctance of a parent. The author of the ‘ Journal Britannique’ sometimes aspires to the character of a poet and philosopher: his style is pure and elegant; and in his virtues, or even in his defects, he may be ranked as one of the last disciples of the school of Fontenelle.” This Journal, whatever its merits, answered the chief end he intended by it, and introduced him to the acquaintance of some of the most eminent literary characters in the country he had made his own; and it was to their active and uninterrupted friendship, that he owed the places he afterwards possessed. In 1758, he was chosen fellow, and, in 1765, on the resignation of Dr. Birch (who died a few months after, and made him his executor), secretary to the Royal Society. He had been appointed one of the under-librarians of the British Museum at its first institution in 1753, and became principal librarian at the death of Dr. Knight in 1772. Useful in all these posts, he promised to be eminently so in the last, when he was seized with a languishing disorder, which, in 1776, put an end to a life uniformly devoted to the pursuit of science, and the offices of humanity. His body being opened, the appearances which presented themselves were thought so singular as to be described before the Royal Society by Dr. Hunter, whose account is inserted in vol. LXVII. of the Philosophical Transactions.

, a celebrated French mathematician and philosopher, was born at St. Malo in 1698, and at first educated there. In 1714 he studied in the college of La Marche, at Paris, where he discovered a strong inclination for mathematics. He fixed, however, on no profession until he arrived at his twentieth year, when he entered into the army, and during the space of five years in which he remained in it, pursued his mathematical studies with great vigour. In 1723 he was received into the royal academy of sciences, and read his first performance, a memoir upon the construction and form of musical instruments. When he commenced his travels, his first visit was to England, and during his residence at London he became a zealous admirer and follower of Newton. His next excursion was to Basil in Switzerland, where he formed a friendship with the celebrated John Bernouilli and his family, which continued till his death. At his return to Paris he applied himself to his favourite studies with greater zeal than ever. And how well he fulfilled the duties of an academician, may be seen in the Memoirs of the academy from 1724 to 1744; where the most sublime questions in the mathematical sciences, received from his hand that elegance, clearness, and precision, so remarkable in all his writings. In 1736 he was sent to the polar circle to measure a degree of the meridian, in order to ascertain the figure of the earth; in which expedition he was accompanied by Messrs. Clairault, Camus, Monnier, Outhier, and Celsus, the celebrated professor of astronomy at Upsal. This business rendered him so famous, that on his return he was admitted a member of almost every academy in Europe.

In 1746 Maupertuis was declared, by the king of Prussia, president of the royal academy of sciences at Berlin, and soon after by the same prince was honoured with the order of merit. However, all these accumulated honours and advantages, so far from lessening his ardour for the sciences, seemed to furnish new allurements to labour and application. Not a day passed but he produced some new project or essay for the advancement of knowledge. Nor did he confine himself to mathematical studies only: metaphysics, chemistry, botany, polite literature, all shared his attention, and contributed to his fame. At the same time Jie had, it seems, a strange inquietude of spirit, with a dark atrabilious humour, which rendered him miserable amidst honours and pleasures. Such a temperament did not promise a pacific life; and he was in fact engaged in several quarrels. One of these was with Koenig the professor of philosophy at Franeker, and another more terrible with Voltaire. Maupertuis had inserted in the vohime of Memoirs of the Academy of Berlin for 1746, a discourse upon the laws of motion; which Koenig was not content with attacking, but attributed to Leibnitz. Maupertuis, stung with the imputation of plagiarism, engaged the academy of Berlin to call upon him for his proof; which Koenig failing to produce, his name was struck out of the academy, of which he was a member. Several pamphlets were the consequence of this measure and Voltaire, for some reason or other, engaged in the quarrel against Maupertuis, although they had been apparently upon the most amicable terms. Voltaire upon this occasion exerted all his wit and satire against him; and upon the whole was so much transported beyond what was thought right, that he found it expedient in 1753 to quit the court of Prussia. Our philosopher’s constitution had Jong been considerably impaired by the great fatigues of various kinds in which his active mind had involved him; though, from the amazing hardships he had undergone in his northern expedition, most of his bodily sufferings may be traced. The intense sharpness of the air could only be supported by means of strong liquors; which helped but to lacerate his lungs, and bring on a spitting of blood, which began at least twelve years before he died. Yet still his mind seemed to enjoy the greatest vigour; for the best of his writings were produced, and most sublime ideas developed, during the time of his confinement by sickness, when he was unable to occupy his presidial chair at the academy. He took several journeys to St. Malo during the last years, of his life, for the recovery of his health: and though he always received benefit by breathing his native air, yet still, upon his return to Berlin, his disorder likewise returned with greater violence. His last journey into France was undertaken in 1757; when he was obliged, soon after his arrival there, to quit his favourite retreat at St. Malo, on account of the danger and confusion which that town was thrown into by the arrival of the English in its neighbourhood. From thence he went to Bourdeaux, hoping there to meet with a neutral ship to carry him to Hamburgh, in his way back to Berlin; but, being disappointed in that hope, he went to Toulouse, where he remained seven months. He had then thoughts of going to Italy, in hopes a milder climate would restore him to health but finding himself grow worse, he rather inclined towards Germany, and went to Neufchatel, where for three months he enjoyed the conversation of lord Marischal, with whom he had formerly been much connected. At length he arrived at Basil, October 16, 1758, where he was received by his friend Bernoulli and his family with the utmost tenderness and affection. He at first found himself much better here than he had been at Neufchatel: but this amendment was of short duration; for as the winter approached, his disorder returned, accompanied by new and more alarming symptoms. He languished here many months, during which he was attended by M. de la Condamine; and died in 1759, at sixty-one years of age.

, usually called Maximus Tyrius, to distinguish him from several other Maximuses of antiquity, though chiefly distinguished by his eloquence, has obtained some degree of celebrity as a philosopher. According to Suidas, he lived under Commodus; according to Eusebius and Syncellus, under Antoninus Pius, in the second century; perhaps he flourished under Antoninus, and reached the time of Commodus, in both whose reigns he is said to have made a journey to Rome, but spent his life chiefly in Greece. We have extant of Maximu> Tyrius forty-one “Dissertations, upon various arguments;” a manuscript copy of which was first brought out of Greece into Italy by Janus Lascaris, and presented to Lorenzo de Medici. From this copy a Latin translation was made, and published by Cosmus Paccius, archbishop of Florence, in 1519. The work was then published in Greek by Henry Stephens, in 1557 in Greek and Latin by Daniel Heinsius, in 1607 byJ. Davies, of Cambridge, in 1703; by Markland in 1740, 4to; and by Reiske, in 1774, 8vo. The French have two good translations by Formey, 1764, and by Dounous, 1802. Isaac Casaubon, in the epistle dedicatory of his “Commentaries upon Persius,” calls Maximus Tyrius “mellitissimus Platonicorum;” and Peter Petit (in his “Misc. Observat.” lib. i. c. 20.) represents him as “auctorem imprimis elegantem in Philosophia, ac disertum.” He has spoken a good deal of himself in his thirtyseventh dissertation, and seemingly in a style of panegyric. Upon this account his editor Davies has accused him of vanity, but Fabricius has defended him by observing, that Davies did not sufficiently attend to Maximus’s purpose in speaking thus of himself; “which was,” he says, “not at all with a view of praising himself, but to encourage and promote the practice of those lessons in philosophy, which they heard from him with so much applause.” These dissertations are for the most part written upon Platonic principles, but sometimes lean towards scepticism.

By the time he had taken the degree of master of arts, which was in 1610, he had made such progress in all kinds of academical study, that he was universally esteemed an accomplished scholar. He was an acute logician, an accurate philosopher, a skilful mathematician, an excellent anatomist, a great philologer, a master of many languages, and a good proficient in history and chronology. His first public effort was an address that he made to bishop Andrews, in a Latin tract “De sanctitate relativa;” which, in his maturer years, he censured as a juvenile performance, and therefore never published it. That great prelate, however, who was a good judge and patron of learning, liked it so well, that he not only was the author’s firm friend upon an occasion that offered soon after, but also then desired him to be his domestic chaplain. This Mede very civilly refused; valuing the liberty of his studies above any hopes of preferment, wnd esteeming that freedom which he enjoyed in his cell, so he used to call it, as the haven of all his wishes. These thoughts, indeed, had possessed him. betimes: for, when he was a school-boy, he was invited by his uncle, Mr. Richard Mede, a merchant, who, being then without children, offered to adopt him for his son, if he would live with him: but he refused the offer, preferring, as it should seem, a life of study to a life of gain.

, a German writer on philosophical subjects, was born in 1718, at Ammendorff, near Halie in Saxony. He appeared first as an author in 1745, when he published, in German, 1. His “Representation of a Critic,” being his delineation of the character of a perfect critic. In the same year he produced, 2. “Instructions how any one may become a Modern Philosopher,” 8vo. We have a translation in this country, called “The Merry Philosopher, or Thoughts on Jesting,” published in 1764, from the German of Meier, but whether a translation of the last- mentioned work, we know not. It is a very dull performance. Whatever merit might belong to his works on philosophical and critical subjects, they were peculiarly his own, for he was not master of the learned languages. Yet his work on the elements of all the polite arts, was received by his countrymen with no inconsiderable approbation. It is entitled, 3. “Introduction to the elegant arts and sciences;” and was printed at Halle, in 8vo, 1748—1750; and republished, in three parts, in 1754—1759. J. Matthew Gesner, however, in his “Isagoge,” is frequently severe against this, author, and particularly derides his form of Æsthetics, which had been much applauded. Meier died in 1777.

, a philosopher of Samos, of the Eleatic sect, who flourished about the year 444 B. C. was a disciple of Parmenides, to whose doctrines he closely adhered. He was likewise a man of political wisdom and courage, which gave him great influence among his countrymen, and inspired them with a high veneration for his talents and virtues. Being appointed by them to the command of a fleet, he obtained a great naval victory over the Athenians. As a philosopher, he maintained that the principle of all things is one and immutable, or that whatever exists is one being that this one being includes all things, and is infinite, without beginning or end that there is neither vacuum nor motion in the universe, nor any such thing as production or decay, that the changes which it seems to suffer, are only illusions of our senses, and mere appearances; and that we ought not to lay down any thing positively concerning the gods, since our knowledge of them js so uncertain. Dr. Cudworth, in his *' Intellectual System," has opposed these opinions.

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

, a Greek philosopher, was a native of Eretria in the island of Euboea, who, going to study at Athens, became first a hearer of Plato, and then of Xenocrates; but, not being satisfied with their doctrines, went over to the Cyrenaic philosopher Parsebates, and by him was led to the Megarensian Stilpo. Here, being delighted by the free manner of his new master, he learned to despise all scholastic forms and arts. He had now become so famous by his studies, that his countrymen, who at first had held him in no estimation, now voluntarily committed to him the direction of the state, with a large stipend; and he in return was able to render them essential services by the credit in which he stood with the kings of Macedon. After a time, however, he was exposed to the attacks of envy, that usual concomitant of greatness; and, "being accused of a design to betray his country, died of grief at the imputation. He died in the year 284 B. C. in the reign of Alexander the Great; and the masters under whom he studied mark sufficiently the earlier period of his life.

was a Cynic philosopher, rather of a later period, just before that sect sunk into disrepute, and that of the Stoics under Zeno rose out of its ruins. It is probable that the extravagance of this very man contributed very materially to bring his sect into disrepute; for he went about, says Diogenes Laertius, dressed like a fury, and saying that he was sent by the infernal gods, to report to them the transgressions of men. His dress was a long black robe, reaching to his feet; a scarlet girdle; a large Arcadian cap, with the twelve signs of the zodiac embroidered on it; tragic buskins, a vast beard, and a strong ashen staff in his hand. Laertius says that he was a pupil of Colotes of Lampsacus, of whom, however, he gives no particular account. Others make him the disciple of Echecles an Ephesian, another Cynic. Suidas, by mistake, applies to Menippus the extravagant dress here attributed to Menedemus. Menippus, however, was a disciple of Menedemus.

, a learned French writer, was born at Oyse, in the province of Maine, Sept. 8, 1588. He cultivated the belles lettres at the college of la Flche; and afterwards went to Paris, and studied divinity at the Sorbonne. Upon his leaving the schools of the Sorbonne, he entered himself among the Minims, and received the habit of that order, July 17, 1611. In 1612 he went to reside in the convent of Paris, where he was ordained priest. He then applied himself to the Hebrew language, which he learned of father John Bruno, a Scotch Minim. From 1615 to 1619, he taught philosophy and theology in the convent of Nevers; and then returned to Paris, where he spent the remainder of his life. Study and conversatioa were afterwards his whole employment. He held a correspondence with most of the principal men of his time; being as it were the very centre of communication between literary men of all countries, by the mutual correspondence which he managed between them; and was in France what Mr. Collins was in England. He omitted no opportunity to engage them to publish their works; and the world is obliged to him for several excellent discoveries, which would probably have been lost, but for his encouragement; and on all accounts he had the reputation of being one of the best men, as well as philosophers, of his time. He was the chief friend and literary agent of Des Cartes, in particular, with whom he had contracted a friendship while he studied at la Flche, which continued to his death. He was that philosopher’s chief agent at Paris. Thus, when Mersenne gave out in that city, that Des Cartes was erecting a new system of physics upon the foundation of a vacuum, and found the public very indifferent to it on that very account, it was said, that he immediately sent intelligence to Des Cartes, that a vacuum was not then the fashion at Paris; which made that philosopher change his system, and adopt the old doctrine of a plenum. In the mean time, Mersenne’s residence at Paris did not hinder him from making several journies into foreign countries; for he went to Holland in 1629, and stayed a year there; and he was in Italy four times; in 1639, 1641, 1644, and 1646. He fell sick, in 1648, of an abscess in the right side, which the physicians took to be a bastard pleurisy and bled him several times to no purpose. At last it was thought proper to open the side but he expired in the midst of the operation, when he was almost sixty years of age. He ordered the physicians at his death to open his body, which they did, and found an abscess two inches above the place where they had opened his side; so that, if the incision had been made at the proper place, his life might possibly have been saved.

Meston is said to have been one of the best classical scholars of his time, and by no means a contemptible philosopher and mathematician. His wit also was very lively, and shone particularly in jovial meetings, to which unhappily he was rather too strongly addicted. His poems were first published separately, as they were written, and doubtless by way of assisting him in his necessities. That called “the Knight/* appears to have been first printed in 1723; and, after it had received several corrections, a second edition was printed at London. The first decade of” Mother Grim’s Tales,“afterwards appeared; and next, the second part, by Jodocus, her grandson. Some years after, the piece called,” Mob contra Mob.“The whole were first collected in a small volume, 12 mo, at Edinburgh, in 1767, to which a short account of his life is prefixed, whence the present memoirs have been extracted. The Knight,” and several others of his poems, are in the style of Butler, whom he greatly adinired and imitated, perhaps too servilely, yet with some success. In the second decade, written under the name of Jodocus, there are several poems in Latin, and the title was in that language. It runs thus: “Decadem alteram, ex probatissimis auctoribus, in usum Juventutis Jinguse Latinse, prsesertim verse poeseos studiosse, selectam, et in scholis ad propagandam fidem legendam: admixtis subinde nonnullis, in gratiam Pulchrioris Sexus, vernaculis, subjunxit Jodocus Grimmus Aniculae nostrae pronepos.” His Latin poetry is of no great excellence.

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

, born in 1677, of a noble and ancient family at Tarascon, entered among aie lathers of the oratory, and was pupil to Malebranche. Quitting the oratory, after that celebrated philosopher’s death, he devoted himself wholly to physic and mathematics, in which he acquired great skill, and was appointed professor of philosophy at the royal college in 1723, and afterwards member of the academy of sciences, in 1729. His principal work is “Philosophical Lectures,” 4 vols. 12mo, in which he explains the laws, mechanism, and motions of. the celestial vortices, in order to demonstrate the possibility and existence of them in the system of the Plenum; his system is that of Descartes, but corrected by Newton’s principles. He also left “Mathematical Lectures,” 12mo, very incorrectly printed; and “La premiere partie des Elemens de Geometric,” 12mo. In his temper he shewed very little of the philosopher. In the maintenance of his principles he could bear no contradiction; and when some of his positive assertions provoked the smiles of the academicians, he fell into violent passions, and on one occasion this irritation was so great, as to bring on a fever, of which he died, May 12, 1742. In other respects his character was amiable; but, like some other mathematicians, he was liable in his studies to such absence of mind, as to appear almost wholly insensible to surrounding objects, and this infirmity becoming known, he was made the subject of depredations. A shoe-black, once finding him profoundly absorbed in a reverie, contrived to steal the silver buckles from his shoes, replacing them with iron ones. At another time, while at his studies, a villain broke into the room in which he was sitting, and demanded his money; Molieres, without rising frogi his studies, or giving any alarm, coolly shewed him where it was, requesting him, as a great favour, that he would not derange his papers.

During his long career he was considered among his friends as the soul of astronomy, and made numerous proselytes to this study by his advice, example, and instructions. It is to him we chiefly owe the early progress of two celebrated astronomers, Lalande and Pingre. Le Monnier died in 1799, in the 84th year of his age. He had a brother, Lewis William, a very able experimental philosopher, but who is not to be confounded with an abbe of that name who translated Terence and Persius into French, and who was the author of fables, tales, and epistles. The latter died in 1796.

His reputation is founded on his “Essays,” which were at one time extremely popular, and which are still read with pleasure by a numerous class of persons. La Harpe says of him, “As a writer, he has impressed on our language (the French) an energy which it did not before possess, and which has not become antiquated, because it is that of sentiments and ideas. As a philosopher he has painted man as he is; he praises without compliment, and blames without misanthropy.” In 1774 was published at Rome (Paris), “Memoirs of a Journey into Italy,” &c. by Montaigne, the editor of which has given us a few less known particulars of the author. He says that “with a large share of natural vivacity, passion, and spirit, Montaigne’s life was far from being that of a sedentary contemplatist, as those may be inclined to think, who view him only in the sphere of his library and in the composition of his essays. His early years by no means passed in the arms of leisure. The troubles and commotions whereof he had been an eye-witness during five reigns, which he had seen pass successively before that of Henry IV. had not in any degree contributed to relax that natural activity and restlessness of spirit. They had been sufficient to call it forth even from indolence itself. He had travelled a good deal in France, and what frequently answers a better purpose than any kind of travel, he was well acquainted with the metropolis, and knew the court. We see his attachment to Paris in the third book of his Essays. Thuanus likewise observes, that Montaigne was equally successful in making his court to the famous duke of Guise, Henry of Lorraine, and to the king of Navarre, afterwards Henry IV. king of France. He adds, that he was at his estate at Blois when the duke of Guise was assassinated, 1558. Montaigne foresaw, says he, that the troubles of the nation would only end with the life of that prince, or of the king of Navarre; and this instance we have of his political sagacity. He was so well acquainted with the character and disposition of those princes, so well read in their hearts and sentiments, that he told his friend Thuanus, the king of Navarre would certainly have returned to the religion of his ancestors (that of the Romish communion) if he had not been apprehensive of being abandoned by his party. Montaigne, in short, had talents for public business and negociation, but his philosophy kept him at a distance from political disturbances; and he had the address to conduct himself without offence to the contending parties, in the worst of times.”

, a very celebrated French writer, was descended of an ancient and noble family of Guienne, and born at the castle of Brede near Bourdeaux, Jan. 18, 1639. The greatest care was taken of his education; and, at the age of twenty, he had actually prepared materials for his “Spirit of Laws,” by a well-digested extract from those immense volumes which compose the body of the civil law; and which he had studied both as a civilian and a philosopher. Maupertuis informs us that he studied this science almost from his infancy, and that the first product of his early genius was a work, in which he undertook to prove, that the idolatry of most part of the pagans did not deserve eternal punishment, but this he thought fit to suppress. In Feb. 1714, he became a counsellor of the parliament of Bourdeaux, and was received president amortier, July 13, 1716, in the room of an uncle, who left him his fortune and his office. He was admitted, April 3, 1716, into the academy of Bourdeaux, which was then only in its infancy. A taste for music, and for works of entertainment, had, at first, assembled the members who composed it; but the societies for belles lettres being grown, in his opinion, too numerous, he proposed to have physics for their chief object; and the duke de la Force, having, by a prize just founded at Bourdeaux, seconded this just and rational proposal, Bourdeaux acquired an academy of sciences.

, an eminent English divine and philosopher, was the second son of Alexander More, esq. and born at Grantham in Lincolnshire, Oct. 12, 1614. His parents, being zealous Calvinists, took especial care to breed up their son in Calvinistic principles; and, with this design, provided him with a private master of their own persuasion, under whose direction he continued till he was fourteen years of age. Then, at the instigation of his uncle, who discerned in him very uncommon talents, he was sent to Eton-school, in order to be perfected in the Greek and Latin tongues; carrying with him, a strict charge not to recede from the principles in which he had been so carefully trained. Here, however, he abandoned his Calvinistic opinions, as far as regarded predestination; and, although his uncle not only chid him severely, but even threatened him with correction, for his immature philosophizing in such matters; yet he persisted in his opinion. In 1631, after he had spent three years at Eton, he was admitted of Christ’s college in Cambridge, and, at his own earnest solicitations, under a tutor that was not a Calvinist. Here, as he informs us, “he plunged himself immediately over head and ears in philosophy, and applied himself to the works of Aristotle, Cardan, Julius Scaliger, and other eminent philosophers;” all which he read over before he took his bachelor of arts’ degree, which was in 1635. But these did not answer his expectations; their manner of philosophising did not fall in with his peculiar turn of mind; nor did he feel any of that high delight, which he had promised himself from these studies. This disappointment, therefore, induced him to search for what he wanted in the Platonic writers and mystic divines, such as Marsilius Ficinus, Plotinus, Trismegistus, &c. where his enthusiasm appears to have been highly gratified. Among all the writings of this kind, there was none which so much affected him as the “Theologia Germanica,” once a favourite book with Luther. This was written by one John Taulerus, a Dominican monk, in the fourteenth century; and who, being supposed by the credulity of that age to be favoured with revelations from heaven, was styled the “illuminated divine.” He preached chiefly at Cologne and Strasburg, and died in 1631. His book, written in German, was translated into Latin, first by Surius, and afterwards by Sebastian Castalio; and it went through a great number of editions from 1518 to 1700, when it was printed in French at Amsterdam.

With these opinions, he was accounted a man of the most ardent piety, and of an irreproachable life. Dr. Outram said “that he looked upon Dr. More as the holiest person upon the face of the earth.” His temper was naturally grave and thoughtful, but at some times, he could relax into gay conversation and pleasantry. After finishing some of his writings, which had occasioned much fatigue, he said, “Now, for these three months, I will neither thiuk a wise thought, nor speak a wise word, nor do any ill thing.” He was subject to fits of extacy, during which he seemed so entirely swallowed up in joy and happiness, that Mr. Norris styles him the “intellectual Epicure.” He was meek and humble, liberal to the poor, and of a very kind and benevolent spirit. He once said to a friend, “that he was thought by some to have a soft head, but he thanked God he had a soft heart,” and gave at that time the sum of 50l. to a clergyman’s widow. Bishop Burnet calls him “an open-hearted and sincere Christian philosopher, who studied to establish men in the great principles of religion against atheism, which was then beginning to gain ground, chiefly by reason of the hypocrisy of some, and the fantastical conceits of the more sincere enthusiasts.” His writings have not of late years been in much request, although all of them were read and admired in his day. Addison styles his “Enchiridion Ethicum” an admirable system of ethics but none of his works appear to have been more relished than his “Divine Dialogues” concerning the attributes and providence of God. Dr. Blair says of this work, that though Dr. More’s style be now in some measure obsolete, and his speakers marked with the academic stiffness of those times, yet the dialogue is animated by a variety of character, and a sprightlmess of conversation, beyond what are* commonly met with in writings of this kind.

In the mean time, he found leisure to exercise his talents in polite literature; and, in the height of this hurry of business, wrote his “Utopia.” He finished it in 1516, and after two editions of uncertain date, the first with a date was published at Basil, in 1518. In this short but extraordinary work, he gave his mind full scope, and considered mankind and religion with a freedom which became a true philosopher. It is, however, impossible to reconcile the liberality of his religious sentiments in this work, with that superstition and intolerance which shaded his future conduct. In this, he feigns “Utopia” to be one*of those countries then lately discovered in America, and the account of it to be given him by one Hythlodaeus, a Portuguese, who sailed in company with Americus Vespucius, the first discoverer of that part of the world: under which character he delivers his own opinions and sentiments. It is said too, that about the same time, he began the “ History of Richard III.” which is inserted in Rennet’s “Complete History of England,” and in the continuation of Harding’s Chronicle; but the late editor of that Chronicle, Mr. Ellis, has proved that this was not written by More.

He was an early contributor to the Gentleman’s Magazine; assisted Hogarth in his “Analysis of Beauty,” and published some occasional sermons. His other publications followed in this order, 1. “The Life of Dr. Edward Littleton,” prefixed to the first volume of his sermons, in 1735. 2. “Poems on Divine Subjects; original and translated from the Latin of Marcus Hieronymus Vida, with large annotations, more particularly concerning the being and attributes of God,” Loud. 1732, 8vo, reprinted 1736. 3. “The Canterbury Tales of Chaucer, in the original, from the most authentic Mss. and as they are turned into modern language by the most eminent hands,” ibid. 1737. 4. “A copy of English congratulatory verses on the maryiage of the prince of Orange with the princess Anne,” 1737. 5. “Philalethes and Theophanes; or a summary view of the last controversy occasioned by a book entitled The Moral Philosopher,' parti.” Lond. 1739, 8vo, reprinted 1740. 6. “The Christian’s Epinikion, or Song of Triumph; a paraphrase on I Cor. xv. attempted in blank Terse; with annotations, explanatory and critical,” ibid. 1743, 4to. 7. “Hope, a poetical essay, in blank verse, on that Christian grace, in three books,” 1745. 8. “Spenser’s Works,” by subscription, 1747. 9. “Euripidis Hecnba, Orestes, et Phenissce, cum scholiis antiquis, &c.” 1748, 2 vols. 8vo. This is a reprint of King’s edition, with the Alcestes added by himself. In 1749, Dr. Morell published the “Hecuba,” translated from the Greek, with annotations. 10. A speciaien of his “Thesaurus,” 1757. 11. “Philoctetes,” 1757, 8vo. 12. “Thesaurus Graecse Poeseos, sive Lexicon Grreco-prosodiacum,” &c. 4to, with Hogarth’s portrait of the author. The value of this work has been so long and so often acknowledged, that it is only necessary to add that a much improved edition is now in the hands of an eminent scholar, and nearly ready for publication. 13. The “Prometheus” of jschylus/&e. 1767, 8vo; 1774, 4to. 14. “A Dissertation on the Corbridge altar now in the British Museum,” &c. in a Latin letter to the hon. Daines Barrington,“1774, printed in the Archasologia, vol. III. 15.” Sacred Annals; or the Life of Christ, as recorded by the Four Evangelists,“&c. 1776, 4to. He also published a corrected edition of Hederick’s Lexicon, and three editions of Ainsworth’s Dictionary; and compiled the words for Handel’s Oratorios. After his death was published a translation of” Seneca’s Epistles,“with annotations, 1786, 2 vols. 4to. This is a correct and faithful translation, but never attracted much public attention. In 1794 also was published” Notes and Annotations on Locke on the Human Understanding, written by order of the queen (Caroline), corresponding in section and page to the edition of 1793," 8vo. This, which was written by the author while in the prime of life, does great credit to his talents as a metaphysician, and has been judged a very necessary aid in the perusal of Locke.

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

, a French physician and botanist, of singular character, was born at Mans, July 11, 1635, of parents eminent for their piety, who, although he was one of a numerous family of sixteen children, omitted nothing in his education which their fortune could supply. Botany was the study that appeared to have taken possession of his inclinations, as soon as the bent of his genius could be discovered. A country person who supplied the apothecaries of the place, was his first master, and was paid by him for his instructions with the little money that he could procure, but he soon made himself master of all this man knew, and was obliged to enlarge his acquaintance with plants, by observing them himself in the neighbourhood of Mans. Having finished his grammatical studies, he travelled on foot to Paris, and after going through the usual course of philosophy, was determined, by his love of botany, to the profession of physic. From this time he engaged in a course of life, which was never exceeded either by the ostentation of*a philosopher, or the severity t)f an anchoret, for he confined himself to bread and water, and at most allowed himself no indulgence beyond fruits. This regimen, extraordinary as it was, had many advantages it preserved his health it gave him an authority to preach diet and abstinence to his patients and it made him rich without the assistance of fortune.

although the name be different from divorced from one in 168$. in it, dated March 5, 1695. He died Jan. 1696, probably in a weak condition, as he was unable to sign the will, by which he disinherited his only son, or the same name, who was the second and last baronet of the family, and bequeathed his property to Mrs. Zenobia Hough. According to the representation he made of his affairs to archbishop Tenison, this could not have been much. The reason of his disinheriting his son, appears from a passage in his letter to the archbishop, in which he is confessing the sins of iiis past life. “I have been, in my youthful days, very undutiful to my parents, for which God has given me a son, altogether void of filial respect or natural affection.” The errors of sir Samuel’s life were probably considerable, as he speaks of having* been at one time excommunicated, but some of his writings shew that he was a sincere penitent, particularly his “Urim of Conscience,” which he published a little before his death, written, as the titlfc says, “in blindness and retirement.” It consists of a rhapsody of meditations on the fall of man, the wonderful structure and powers of the human body, with allusions to his machines, cautions to those who are in quest of the perpetual motion, or the philosopher’s stone, and pious advice to men of all ranks and professions.

In 1567, he was obliged to retire from Paris, where he was pursuing his studies, on account of the commotions which were breaking out, and soon after took up arms, and served a campaign or two. But, having the misfortune to break one of his legs, he quitted the profession of a soldier, and began to entertain thoughts of travelling into foreign countries, for the improvement of his mind, and for the sake of some baths, which he hoped would restore to him the free use of his leg. He arrived at Geneva in 1568, not without the greatest danger and peril to himself; for, all places were so full of soldiers, and the passages so guarded, that it was difficult for one of his religion to pass with safety. He made but a short stay at Geneva, on account of the plague which was there; but, taking his way through Switzerland, went to Heidelberg in Germany. Here he became acquainted with Tremellius, and other learned men, and entered upon the study of the civil law. In 1569 he went to Francfort, where he was affectionately received by the celebrated Languet, who gave him instructions for his future travels, and recommendatory letters to several great men. He stayed some time afterwards at Padua, for the farther prosecution of the study of civil law, and then proceeded to Venice. He had a great desire to make the tour of the East; but, as the Venetians and Turks were then at war about the Isle of Cyprus, it was impossible for him to pass the coasts of Istria and Dalmatia with any degree of safety. From Venice, in 1571, he went to Rome, where his religion had like to have brought him into danger. He had experienced something of this sort at Venice, owing to the zeal of an officer of the inquisition, but he escaped in both places, and from Rome he returned to Venice, from Venice to Vienna; and thence, after taking a round through Hungary, Bohemia, Misnia, Saxony, Hesse, Franconia, to Francfort, where he arrived in Sept. 1551. Though he was very young when he set out upon his travels, yet he never suffered the man of pleasure to get the better of the philosopher; but made that profitable use of them, which a wise man will always make. He examined every thing that was curious in every place; and, that nothing might escape him, attentively perused not only the general history of the countries, but also the histories of each particular town and province through which he passed. Nor was he only attentive to their antiquities, but remarked also whatever was worth notice in the manners, customs, policy, and constitution, of each.

This “promising youth” was afterwards a fellow of his college, B. A. 1731, M. A. 1735, and D. D. 1747. He became archdeacon of Colchester, prebendary of Salisbury, rector of St. Andrew Under.shaft, of St. James’s, Westminster, 1750, and of St. George’s, Hanover-square, in 1759. He was elected bishop of St. David’s in 1766, and translated to Bath and Wells in 1774. He died April 13, 1802. Besides four or five sermons preached on public occasions, he printed “A Charge to the Clergy of the archdeaconry of Colchester, occasioned by the uncommon Mortality and quick succession of Bishops in the see of London, at a visitation holden in May 1764;” and twenty years before, an admirable tract in defence of bishop Sherlock’s celebrated “Tryal of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus.” This tract was entitled, “The Evidence of the Resurrection cleared from the exceptions of a late pamphlet, entitled * The Resurrection of Jesus considered by a moral philosopher, in answer to the Tryal of the Witnesses,'” &c. Lond. 1744. It afterwards appeared with the following title “The Sequel of the Tryal of the Witnesses of the Resurrection being an answer to the exceptions of a late pamphlet, &c. &c. revised by the author of the Tryal of the Witnesses,” ibid. 1749. “The title-page, however, alone is new; as the impression is identically the same as in 1744; but the inscription signed” C. M." is omitted in 1749. It was to Sherlock he owed his promotions, to whom he had been chaplain. His son, Dr. Charles Moss, to whom he left a vast property, was educated at Christ Chnrch, Oxford, of which diocese he became bishop in 1807, and died in 1811.

Having thus failed in obtaining the first situation in which a man of letters could be placed, he succeeded, in 1647, in being appointed to what might be considered as the second, that of preceptor to Philip, then duke of Anjou, and afterwards duke of Orleans, the king’s brother. He had also conferred on him the titles of historiographer of France and counsellor of state. By his first wife he had an only son, who died in 1664, in the thirty-fifth year of his age. His wife also being dead long before, he is said to have been so much afflicted at the loss of his son, as to determine to marry again, which he did the same year, 1664, at the age of seventy-six He died in 1672, aged eightyfour. He was a voluminous writer, and upon all subjects, ancient, modern, sacred and profane. We cannot, perhaps, to some of our readers, give a better idea of his works, than by comparing them to those of Bayle. We find in them the same scepticism and the same indecencies; and on this account Bayle expatiates on his character with congenial pleasure. In his private character, he was somewhat of a humourist, but his moral conduct was more correct than might have been expected from his writings. He is mentioned hy Guy Patin as a Stoic, who would neither praise nor be praised, and who followed his own fancies and caprices without any regard to the opinions of the world, and his dress and usual demeanour distinguished him from other men. In the court he lived like a philosopher, immersed in books, simple and regular in his manner of living, and void of ambition and avarice. His treatise which we have mentioned, “On the Virtue of Pagans/' was answered by Arnauld. La Mothers bookseller complaining that his book did not sell,” I know a secret,“said the author,” to quicken the sale:" he procured an order from government for its suppression, which was the means of selling the whole edition. His works were collected in two volumes folio; and there was an edition, we believe the last, printed at Dresden, in 1756, in 14 vols. 8vo, so lowpriced, in the French catalogues, that there seems now little value placed on them.

Soon after the birth of Thomas, his father was appointed master of the free grammar-school at Biddeford, in the north of Devonshire, whither he removed with his family; and here, under his own immediate care, his son Thomas received his education. At a very early period of life he gave strong indications of that mechanical genius by which he has since been so eminently distinguished; for, while he was yet a school-boy, he could with ease take to pieces a watch, and put it together again, without any previous instruction. At the age of fourteen he was bound apprentice to Mr. George Graham, watch-maker, a distinguished philosopher, and the most celebrated mechanic of his time. He soon attracted the particular attention of his master, who so highly estimated his mechanical powers, that, upon all occasions, he assigned to him the nicest and most difficult work; and once, in particular, having been applied to by one of his friends to construct a machine new in its mechanical operation, his friend, some time after it had been sent home, complained that it did not perform its office. Mr. Graham answered, that he was very certain the complaint could not be well founded, the work having been executed “by his apprentice, Thomas;” and, indeed, it appeared, upon examination, that Mr. Graham was fully justified in this implicit confidence in his apprentice, the work having been executed in a very masterly manner, and the supposed defect arising entirely from the unskilful management of the owner.

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

, celebrated by ancient writers as a philosopher, astronomer, and poet, was, according to Plato and Diodorus Siculus, an Athenian, the son of Orpheus, and chief of the Eleusinian mysteries, instituted at Athens in honour of Ceres; or, according to others, he was only the disciple of Orpheus. He is allowed to have been one of the first poets who versified the oracles. He is placed in the Arundelian marbles, Epoch 15, 1426 B.C. at which time his hymns are there said to have been received in the celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries. Laertius tells us, that Musæus not only composed a theogony, but formed the first sphere but he was probably misled by the title of a poem said to have been written by Mnsaeus, “de Sphaera.” The doctrine which he taught was, that all things are produced fiom one, and shall be resolved into the same; an Orphic doctrine, which is the first principle of the system of emanation, and the foundation of all the ancient theogonies. He is celebrated by Virgil in the character of Hierophant, or priest of Ceres, among the most illustrious mortals who have merited a place in Elysium, and is made the conductor of Æneus to the recess, where he meets the shade of his fatber Anchises.

, an eminent mathematician and natural philosopher, was born at Leyden in 1692. He appears first to have studied medicine, as he took his doctor’s degree in that faculty in 1715, but natural philosophy afterwards occupied most of his attention. After visiting London, where he became acquainted with Newton and Desaguliers, probably about 1734, when he was chosen a fellow of the royal society, he returned home, and was appointed professor of mathematics and natural philosophy at Utrecht, which he rendered as celebrated for those sciences as it had long been for law studies. He was afterwards placed in the same chair at Leyden, and obtained great and deserved reputation throughout all Europe. Besides being elected a member of the Paris academy and other learned bodies, the kings of England, Prussia, and Denmark, made him tempting offers to reside in their dominions; but he preferred his native place, where he died in 1761. He published several works in Latin, all of them demonstrating his great penetration and accuracy: 1. “Disputatio de Aeris praesentia in humoribus animalibus,” Leyd. 1715, 4to. 2. “Epitome Elementorum Pbysico-mathematicorum,” ib. 1729, 4to. 3. “Physicx, experimentales, et geometries Dissertationes: ut et Ephemerides meteorologicae Utrajectenses,” ibid. 1729, 4to. 4. “Tentamina Experinientorurn naturalium, in academia del Cimento, ex Ital. in Lat. conversa,” ibid. 1731, 4to. 5. “Elementa Physicsc,” 1734, 8vo, translated into English by Colson, 1744, 2 vols. 8vo. His “Introduction to Natural Philosophy,” which he began to print in 1760, was completed and published at Leyden in 1762 by M. Lulofs, after the death of the author. There is a French translation, of Paris, 1769, 3 vols. 4to. Musschenbroeck is also the author of several papers, chiefly on meteorology, printed in the volumes of the “Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences” for 1734, 1735, 1736, 1753, 1756, and 1760.

, a celebrated statesman and financier of France, brother to the preceding Louis Necker, was born at Geneva in 1732. After such an education as might qualify him for business, he was in his fifteenth year sent to Paris, where he was employed, first in the bankinghouse of Vernet, and then in that of Thelluson, of which last he became first cashier, and afterwards a partner. Upon the death of Thelluson he established a bank of his own, in partnership with Girardot and Haller, in which, we have just noticed, his brother had a concern. In 1776, when the French finances were in a disordered state, he was appointed director, and soon after comptroller-general of that department. Besides his reputation for financial knowledge and probity, which was now at its height, he had in the reign of Louis XV. adjusted some differences subsisting between the East India company and the crown in such a manner as to obtain, what rarely occurs in such cases, the approbation of both parties. His appointment to the comptrollership of the finances was hailed as an instance of enlargement of mind and liberality of sentiment, and as honourable to the reign of Lewis XVI.; Necker being the first protestant since the revocation of the edict of Nantes, who had held any important place in the French administration. Of the wisdom of his plans, in this critical situation, various opinions have been entertained, which this is not the place to examine, but it seems generally agreed that his intentions were pure, and his conduct disinterested. He refused all emolument for his services, and advanced a large sum to government from his private property, which he never drew from the public funds. His administration was generally popular, but he had enemies at court, and alter having filled the office of minister of finance for five years, he resigned. Previously to this he had published his “Compte Rendu,” in explanation of his financial system, which was followed by a work entitled “De P Administration des Finances.” This was read and circulated with great avidity, and unhappily scattered opinions on matters of government, by which the people knew not how to profit. M. Calonne, who was his successor, made an attack, before the assembly of notables, upon the veracity of his statements. Necker drew up a reply, which he transmitted to the king, who intimated that if he would forbear making it public, he should shortly be restored to his place. This he refused, and appealed to the nation by publishing his defence, which was so displeasing to the court, that he was exiled to his country-seat at St. Ouen, at the distance of 120 miles from the capital. During his retreat he wrote his work entitled “De l'Importance des Opinions R6ligieuses,” in which he speaks of religion like one who felt its power operating on his own mind, and who was fully convinced of its importance both to individuals and society. Calonne, however, and Brienne, another minister, finding it impossible to lessen the deficiencies of the revenue, thev resigned in their turn; and in August 1788, Necker was reinstated in his former post, to the apparent satisfaction of the court, as well as to the joy of the people; but the acclamations of the latter could not banish from his mind the difficulties with which he had to struggle. He was aware that de Calonne and the archbishop of Sens had both sunk under the public distress, and the impracticability of raising the necessary supplies; and he well knew that the evil was not diminished, and unless some expedient could be hit on to re-establish public credit, he foresaw his own fate must be similar to that of his predecessors. first intentions were to recal the banished members of the parliament of Paris, and to restore that body to its functions; to replenish the treasury, which he found almost empty; and to relieve the scarcity of corn under which the kingdom, and the capital in particular, then laboured. His next plan was the convocation of the states-general, which had been already promised by the king, and which, in fact, proved the immediate fore-runner of the revolution. Necker was particularly blamed for having consented that the number of members of the tiers etat should be equal to that of the nobles and clergy united, as the nobility and clergy would very naturally insist on voting by orders, while the tiers etat would contend with equal obstinacy for a plurality of voices. The consequences were therefore exactly such as had been foreseen. When the assembly of the states opened, Necker addressed them in a studied speech that pleased no party; even the tiers etat, already taught the sentiments of democracy, resented his saying that the meeting was the effect of royal favour, instead of a right. Nor was he more successful in the plan of government which he drew up, and which the king was to recommend in a speech, for this underwent so many alterations that he absented himself when it was delivered. At this time the prevalence of the democratic party was such as to induce the king to assemble troops around Paris, which measure Necker opposed, and on July 11, 1789, was therefore ordered to quit the kingdom within twenty ­four hours. This he immediately obeyed, and went to Brussels. As soon as his absence was known, the populace assembled, destroyed the Bastille, and proceeded to such other outrages, that the king thought it necessary to recal Necker to appease their fury. He accordingly returned in triumph, but his triumph was short. The populace was no longer to be flattered with declamations on their rights, nor was Necker prepared to adopt the sentiments of the democratic leaders, while it became now his duty to propose financial expedients that were obnoxious to the people. He that had just before been hailed as the friend of the people, was now considered as an aristocrat, and his personal safety was endangered. In this dilemma he desired to resign, offering to leave, as pledges for his integrity, the money which he had advanced to government, viz. about 80,000l. sterling, and his house and furniture. His resignation being accepted, he left Paris, and in his retreat he was more than once insulted by the very people whu, but a few months before, had considered him as their saviour. Gibbon, who passed four days with him at this period, says, “I could have wished to have exhibited him as a warning to any aspiring youth possessed with the demon of ambition. With all the means of private happiness in his power, he is the most miserable of human beings; the past, the present, and the future, are equally odious to him. When I suggested some domestic amusements, he answered, with a deep tone of despair, * in the state in which I am, I can feel nothing but the blast which has overthrown me.'” Shortly after this, his mind was diverted from public disappointment by the more poignant grief of domestic calamity; his wife died, after a long illness, in which he had attended her with the most affectionate assiduity. He now had recourse to hia favourite occupation of writing, and several works of different kinds were the product of his solitary hours. His principal pieces are entitled “Sur I' Administration de M. Necker, par lui-meme;” “Reflections,” &c. which were intended to benefit the king during his captivity and trial; “Du Pouvoir Exécutif,” being an essay that contained his own ideas on the executive part of government; “Dernieres Vue’s de Politiques, et de Finance,” of which the chief object was to discuss what was the best form of government France was capable of receiving. Besides these, he published a “Course of Religious Morality,” and a novel, written at the suggestion of his daughter, entitled “The fatal Consequences of a single Fault.” Though deprived of three- fourths of his fortune, he had sufficient for all his wants, and also to indulge his benevolent disposition. He had been placed on the list of emigrants, but the directory unanimously erased his name, and when the French army entered Swisserland, he was treated by the generals with every mark of respect. His talents and conduct have been alike the subject of dispute, and perhaps the time is not yet come when the latter can. be fully understood. It is well known that all who suffered by the revolution blamed Necker as a principal cause of that event; but it may be questioned whether any talents, guided by the utmost probity and wisdom, could have averted the evils that had been prepared by so long a course of infatuation. Necker passed the latter years of his life in the rational pursuits of a philosopher and a man of sound judgment and true taste, His only daughter, who married the baron de Stael, ambassador from Sweden to France, and who has made herself known to the literary world by several publications, published some “Memoirs of the Character and Private Life of her Father,” written in a high style of panegyric.

, a philosopher and divine of the Roman catholic persuasion, was born at London Sept. 10, 1713. His father possessed a considerable patrimony at Hilston, in the county of Monmouth, being of the younger or catholic branch of the Needham family, but died young, leaving only a small fortune to his four children. Our author, his eldest son, studied in the English college of Douay, where he took orders, and taught rhetoric for several years, but was particularly distinguished for his knowledge of experimental philosophy.

was a Greek philosopher, who embraced Christianity, and was made bishop of Emesa in Phoenicia, where he was born about the year 370. We have a piece by him, entitled “De Natura Hominis;” in which he refutes the fatality of the Stoics, and the errors of the Manichees, the Apollinarists, and the Eunomians: but he espouses the opinion of Origen concerning the pre-existence of souls. Brucker calls this treatise one of the most elegant specimens, now extant, of the philosophy which prevailed among the ancient Christians. The writer relates and examines the opinions of the Greek philosophers on the subject of his dissertation with great perspicuity of thought, and correctness of language. But the treatise is chiefly curious, as it discovers a degree of acquaintance with physiology, not to be paralleled in any other writers of this period. Brucker adds, that he treats clearly concerning the use of the bile, the spleen, the kidneys, and other glands of the human body, and seems to have had some idea of the circulation of the blood. But Brucker was not aware that his knowledge of this last discovery has been shewn to be a mistake by Dr. Freind, in his “History of Physic.” This treatise was translated by Valla, and printed in 1535. Another version was afterwards made of it by Ellebodius, and printed in 1665; it is also inserted into the “Bibliotheca Patrum,” in Greek and Latin. The last and best edition was published at Oxford, in 1671, 8vo.

, an eminent chemist, the son of an apothecary, was born at Zullichau, in the duchy of Crossen, July 11, 1682. Caspar was educated under his father, and commenced practice at Unruhstadt, in Poland; but after a short residence there, he went to Berlin in 1705, and was employed several years as traveller for the pharmaceutic establishment of the king of Prussia. In consequence of the ability which he manifested in the performance of this duty, the king sent him to prosecute his studies at the university of Halle, and subsequently defrayed the expences of a journey, for the purpose of acquiring chemical information. He commenced this chemical tour in 1711 by visiting the mines of Germany and thence went to Holland, where he profited by the instructions of the celebrated Boerhaave. He then visited England, and while here had the misfortune to lose his royal patron, Frederick I., by death. His talents and character, however, soon afforded him relief from this temporary embarrassment for, on his return to the continent he was detained at Franeker by Cyprianus, who employed him in the execution of many chemical experiments; and he was at the same time invited to Berlin. At that time, however, he preferred accompanying George I., king of England, to Hanover, whither he went in 1716. He subsequently visited Berlin, for the purpose of settling some private affairs, where he obtained the friendship of Stahl, through whose influence at court he was again sent on a tour of chemical investigation, through England, France, and Italy, where he was introduced to all the celebrated chemists of the day. On his return to Berlin, he was appointed apothecary to the court and in 1723, when the king instituted the Royal College of Medicine and Surgery, he was nominated professor of practical chemistry, and was elected a member of that body in the following year. In 1725, he was chosen a fellow of the Royal Society of London; and in 1727, was honoured with the degree of M. D. by the university of Halle. In the course of the same year, he travelled through Silesia and Moravia to Vienna; and on his return through Bohemia he visited the baths of Tb'plitz, and examined the mines, in passing by the way of Dresden and Freyberg, with all the attention of a chemical philosopher.

In 1664 he bought a prism, as appears by some of his own accounts of expences at Cambridge, to try some experiments upon Des Cartes’s doctrine of colours, and soon satisfied himself that that philosopher’s hypothesis was destitute of foundation; and the further prosecution of the subject satisfied him respecting the real nature of light and colours. He soon after drew up an account of his doctrine, which was published in the Philosophical Transactions, and unfortunately gave origin to a controversy between him and some foreign opticians, which produced an unhappy effect on his mind, and prevented him from publishing his mathematical discoveries, as he had originally intended. He communicated them, however, to Dr. Barrow, who sent an account of them to Collins and Oldenburg, and by that means they came to be known to the members of the royal society. He laid the foundation of all his discoveries before he was twenty-four years of age.

Dissatisfied with the hypothetical grounds on which former philosophers, particularly Des Cartes, had raised the structure of natural philosophy, Newton adopted the manner of philosophising introduced by lord Bacon, and determined to raise a system of natural philosophy on the basis of experiment. He laid it down as a fundamental rule, that nothing is to be assumed as a principle, which is not established by observation and experience, and that no hypothesis is to be admitted into physics, except as a question, the truth of which is to be examined by its agreement with appearances. “Whatever,” says he, “is not deduced from phenomena, is to be called an hypothesis: and hypotheses, whether physical or metaphysical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.” In this philosophy, propositions are drawn from phenomena, and are ' rendered general by induction. This plan of philosophising he pursued in two different methods, the Analytic and the 8301thetic; collecting from certain phenomena the forces of nature, and the more simple laws of these forces; and then proceeding, on the foundation of these, to establish the rest. In explaining, for example, the system of the world, he first proves, from experience, that the power of gravitation belongs to all bodies then, assuming this as an established principle, he demonstrates, by mathematical reasoning, that the earth and sun, and all the planets, mutually attract each other, and that the smallest parts of matter in each have their several attractive forces, which are as their quantities of matter, and which, at different distances, are inversely as the squares of their distances. In investigating the theorems of the “Principia,” Newton made use of his own analytical method of fluxions; but, in explaining his system, he has 'followed the synthetic method of the ancients, and demonstrated the theorems geometrically. The following, we presume, is a correct list of the works of Newton, published before or after his death. 1. Several papers relating to his “Telescope,” and his “Theory of Light and Colours,” printed in the Philosophical Transactions, numbers 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85., 83, 96, 97, 110, 121, 123, 128; or vols. Vj, VII, VIII, IX, X, XL 2. “Optics, or a Treatise of the Reflections, Refractions, and Inflections, and the Colours of Light,” 1704, 4to; a Latin translation by Dr. Clarke, 1706, 4 to.; and a French translation by Pet. Coste, Amst. 1729, 2 vols. 12mo; beside several English editions in 8vo. 3. “Optical Lectures,” 1728, 8vo; also in several Letters to Mr. Oldenburg, secretary of the Royal Society. 4. “Lectiones Opticse,” 1729, 4to. 5. “Naturalis Philosophise Principia Mathematica,” 1687, 4to; a second edition in 17 13, with a Preface, by Roger Cotes; the third edition in 1726, under the direction of Dr. Pemberton; an English translation, by Motte, 1729, 2 vols. 8vo, printed in several editions of his works, in different nations, particularly an edition, with a large Commentary, by the two learned Jesuits, Le Seur and Jacquier, in 4 vols. 4to, in 1739, 1740, and 1742. 6. “A System of the World,” translated from the Latin original, 1727, 8vo this was at first intended to make the third book of his Principia; an English translation by Motte, 1729, 8vo. 7. Several Letters to Mr. Flamsteed, Dr. Halley, and Mr. Oldenburg, 8. “A Paper concerning the Longitude,” drawn up by order of the House of Commons, ibid. 9. “Abrege de Chronologic,” &c. 1726, under the direction of the abbe Conti, together with some observations upon it. 10. “Remarks upon the Observations made upon a Chronological Index of Sir I. Newton,” &c. Philos. Trans, vol. XXXIII. See also the same, vol. XXXIV and XXXV, by Dr. Halley. 11. “The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms amended,” &c. 1728, 4to. 12. “Arithmetica Universalis,” &c. under the inspection of Mr. Whiston, Cantab. 1707, 8vo. Printed, Dr. Hutton thinks, without the author’s consent, and even against his will: an offence which it seems was never forgiven. There are also English editions of the same, particularly one by Wilder, with a Commentary, in 1769, 2 vols. 8vo; and a Latin edition, with a Commentary, by Castilion, 2 vols. 4to, Amst. &c. 13. “Analysis per Quantitatum Series, Fluxiones, et Differentias, cum Enumeratione Linearum Tertii Ordinis,” 1711, 4to, under the inspection of W. Jones, eaq. f. ft. S.; the last tract had been published before, together with another on the Quadrature of Curves, by the method of fluxions, under the title of “Tractatus duo de Speciebus & Magnitudine Figurarum Curvilinearum,” subjoined to the first edition of his Optics in 1704; and other letters in the Appendix to Dr. Gregory’s Catoptrics, &c. 1735, 8vo; under this head may be ranked “Newtoni Genesis Curvarum per Umbras,” Leyden, 1740. 14. Several Letters relating to his Dispute with Leibnitz, upon his right to the invention of Fluxions printed in the “Commercium Epistolicum D. Johannis Collins & aliorum de Analyst Promota, jussu Societatis Regise editum,” 1712, 8vo. 15. Postscript and Letter of M. Leibnitz to the Abbe Conti, with Remarks, and a Letter of his own to that Abbe, 1717, 8vo. To which was added, Raphson’s History of Fluxions, as a Supplement. 16. “The Method of Fluxions, and Analysis by Infinite Series,” translated into English from the original Latin; to which is added, a Perpetual Commentary, by the translator Mr. John Colson, 1736, 4to. 17. “Several Miscellaneous Pieces, and Letters,” as follow L A Letter to Mr. Boyle upon the subject of the Philosopher’s Stone. Inserted in the General Dictionary, under the article Boyle, II. A Letter to Mr. Aston, containing directions for his travel?, ibid, under our author’s article; III. An English translation of a Latin Dissertation upon the Sacred Cubit of the Jews* Inserted among the miscellaneous works of Mr. John Greaves, vol. IL published by Dr. Thomas Birch, in 1737, 2 vols. 8vo. This Dissertation was found subjoined to a work of sir Isaac’s, not finished, entitled “Lexicon Propheticum;” IV. Four Letters from sir Isaac Newton to Dr. Bentley, containing some arguments in proof of a Deity, 1756, 8vo, very acutely reviewed by Dr. Johnson in the Literary Magazine, and afterwards inserted in his works V. Two Letters to Mr. Clarke, &c. iSi “Observations on the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John,” 1733, 4to. 19. “I*. Newtoni Elementa Perspective Universalis,” 1746, 8vo. 20. “Tables for purchasing College Leases,” 1742, 12mo. 21. “Corollaries,” by Whiston. 22. A collection of several pieces of our author’s, under the following title, “Newtoni Is. Opuscula Mathematica Philos. & Philol. collegit J. Castilioneus,” Laus. 1744, 4to, 8 tomes. 23. “Two Treatises of the Quadrature^ Curves, and Analysis by Equations of an Infinite Number of Terms, explained: translated by John Stewart, with a large Commentary,” 1745, 4to. 24. “Description of an Instrument for observing the Moon’s Distance from the Fixed Stars at Sea,” Philos. Trans, vol. XLII. 25. Newton also published “Barrow’s Optical Lectures,” 1699, 4to; and “Bern. Varenii Geographia,” &c. 1681, 8vo. 26. The whole works of Newton, published by Dr. Horsley, 1779, 4to, in 5 volumes.

, the son of Callistus Xanthopulus, a learned monk of Constantinople, is placed by Wharton at 1333, but by Lardner in 1325. He wrote in Greek an “Ecclesiastical History,” in twenty-three books, eighteen of which are still extant, containing the transactions of the church from the birth of Christ to the death of the emperor Phocas in the year 610. We have nothing left besides the arguments of the five other books, from the commencement of the reign of the emperor Heraclius to the end of that of Leo the philosopher, who died in the year 911. He dedicated this history to the emperor Andronicus Palseologus the elder: it was translated into Latin, by John Langius, and has gone through several editions, the best of which is that of Paris, in 1630. There is only one manuscript of this history, which was said to be formerly in the library of Matthias, king of Hungary, and now in that of Vienna. Nicephorus was no more than thirty years of age when he compiled it, and it is said to abound in fables, and therefore has been treated with contempt by Beza, and by Gesner. Some other pieces are ascribed to our author. Labbe, in his preliminary discourse prefixed to the “Byzantine Historians,” has given a catalogue of the emperors and patriarchs of Constantinople, composed by Nicephorus. His abridgment of the Bible in iambic verse was printed at Basil in 1536, and Dr. Hody has attributed to him a small piece which he published in Greek and Latin, during his controversy with Mr. Dodwell, under the title of “Anglicani Schismatis Redargutio.” His homilies on Mary Magdalen are also inserted in Bandini “Monumenta,” 1762, vol. III.

, an eminent Dutch philosopher and mathematician, was born Aug. 10, 1654, at Westgraafdyk in North Holland, of which place his father vvas minister. He discovered a turn for learning in his first infancy, and his father designed him for the ministry; but when he found him averse from this study, he suffered him to gratify his own taste. He then applied himself to logic, and the art of reasoning justly; in which he grounded himself upon the principles of Des Cartes, with whose philosophy he was greatly delighted. Thence he proceeded to the mathematics, where he made a great proficiency; and added so much to his stock of various knowledge, that he was accounted a good philosopher, a great mathematician, a celebrated physician, and an able and just magistrate. Although naturally of a grave and serious disposition, yet his engaging manner in conversation made him be equally admired as a companion and friend, and frequently drew over to his opinion those who, at first, differed very widely from him. Thus accomplished, he acquired great esteem and credit in the council of the town of Purmerende, where he resided; as he did also in the states of that province, who respected him the more, as he never interfered in any cabals or factions. His disposition inclined him to cultivate the sciences, rather than to obtain the honours of the government and he therefore contented himself with being counsellor and burgomaster of the town, without wishing for more bustling preferments, which might interfere with his studies, and draw him too much out of his library. He died May 30, 1718, in the sixty-third year of his age. His works are, 1. “Considerationes circa Analyseos ad Quantitates infinite parvas applicator principia,” &c. Amst. 1694, 8vo. 2. “Analysis infinitorum seu curvilineorum Proprietates ex Polygpnorum natura deductse,” ibid. 1695, 4to. 3. “Considerationes secundoe circa differentialis Principia r & Responsio ad Yirum nobilissimum G. G. Leibnitium,” ibid. 1696, 8vo. This piece was attacked by John Bernoulli and James Hermant, celebrated geometricians at Basil. 4. “A Treatise upon a New Use of the Tables of Sines and Tangents.” 5. “Le veritable Usage de la Contemplation de TUnivers, pour la conviction des Athees & des Incredules,” in Dutch. This is his most esteemed work; and went through four editions in three or four years. It was translated into English by Mr. John Chamberlaine, and printed three or four times under the title of the “Religious Philosopher,” &c. 3 vols. 8vo. This was, until within these forty years, a very popular book in this country. We have also, by our author, one letter to Bothnia of Burmania, upon the 27th article of his meteors, and a refutation of Spinosa, 1720, 4to, in the Dutch language.

a learned Italian, was born at Sessa, in the kingdom of Naples, in 1473. About 1500, he was appointed professor of philosophy at Padua, where he composed a treatise “De Intellectu et Duemonibus,” in which he maintained that there is but one soul, which animates all nature. This raised many opponents, and he was forced to publish his treatise with amendments in 1492, fol. reprinted 1503 and 1527. He afterwards gained so much reputation by his other works, however insignificant they may now appear, that the most celebrated universities of Italy offered him professorships with large stipends; and he had a salary of a thousand crowns in gold, when professor at Pisa, about 1520. Pope Leo X. had such a value for Niphus, that he made him count palatine, permitted him to quarter his arms with those of the Medici family, and granted him power to create masters of arts, bachelors, licentiates, doctors of divinity, civil and canon law, to legitimate bastards, and to ennoble three persons. The letters patent which conveyed these singular privileges, are dated June 15, 1521. Niphus was a philosopher in theory only, being remarkable even in old age for levity and intrigue. He also loved high living; and such were the charms of his conversation, that he had easy access to the nobility and ladies of rank. The year in which he died is not exactly known, but it is certain that he was living in 1545, and dead in 1550, and that he was above seventy at the time of his death. He left Commentaries in Latin on Aristotle and Averroes, 14 vols. fol.; some smaller works on subjects of morality and politics, Paris, 1645, 4to a treatise “on the Immortality of the Soul,” against Pomponatius, Venice, 1518, fol. “De amore, de pulchro, Veneris et Cupidinis venales,” Leydae, 1641, 16to, &c.

, a French abbe, and member of most of the literary societies of Europe, was born at Pimpre“, in the district of Noyon, Nov. 19, 1700. Notwithstanding the obscurity in which his finances obliged him to live, he soon acquired fame as an experimental philosopher. M. Dufay associated him in his electrical researches; and M. de Reaumur assigned to him his laboratory and these gentlemen may be considered as his preceptors. M. Dufay took him along with him in a journey he made into England; and Nollet profited so well of this opportunity, as to institute a friendly and literary correspondence with some of the most celebrated men in this country. The king of Sardinia gave him an invitation to Turin, to perform a course of experimental philosophy to the duke of Savoy. From thence he travelled into Italy, where he collected some good observations concerning the natural history of the country. In France he was master of philosophy and natural history to the royal family; and professor royal of experimental philosophy to the college of Navarre, and to the schools of artillery and engineers. The academy of sciences appointed him adjunct-mechanician in 1739, associate i 1742, and pensioner in 1757. Nollet died the 24th of April, 1770, regretted by all his friends, but especially by his relations, whom he always succoured with an affectionate attention; but his fame, as an electrician, in which character he was best known, did not survive him long. His’ works are, 1.” Recueils de Lettres sur TElectricite;“1753, 3 vols. 12mo. '2.” Essai sur l'Electricite des corps;“1 vol. 12mo. 3. Recherches sur les causes particulieres des Phenomenes Electriques,” 1 vol. 12mo. 4. “L'Art des Experiences,” 1770, 3 vols. 12mo. In these are contained his theory on electricity, which he maintained with the most persevering obstinacy against all the arguments of his antagonists, who were perhaps all the eminent electrical philosophers of Europe. It is no easy matter to form a very adequate notion of this theory, which has been long since abandoned by every person. When an electric is excited, electricity flows to it from all quarters, and when thus effluent (as he termed it), it drives light bodies before it. Hence the reason why excited bodies attract. When the electricity is effluent, the light bodies are of course driven from the electric, which in that state appears to repel. He conceived every electric to be possessed of two different kinds of pores, one for the emission of the electric matter, and the other for its reception. Besides his papers in the “Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences” from 1740 to 1767, we have in our “Philosophical Transactions,” the result of a great number of experiments, made by the abbe Nollet, on the eflect produced by electricity on the flowing of water through capillary tubes; on the evaporation of liquids; the transpiration of vegetables; and the respiration of animals. These last experiments have been often repeated since, but the results drawn by the abbe are not considered as established.

, was a grammarian and peripatetic philosopher of Tivoli, by whom we have a treatise “De Proprietate Sermonis, sive da varia significatione verborum.” He is supposed to have flourished in. the fourth century. His work is valuable only because he introduces several fragments of ancient writers not to be found elsewhere. The best edition is that by Mercer, printed at Paris, 1614, 8vo, with notes. The first editions, of 1471, and 1476, and 1480, are of great rarity, but all in the Spencer collection.

, a learned English divine and Platonic philosopher, was born in 1657, at Collingborne-Kingston, in Wiltshire, of which place his father, Mr. John Norris, was then minister. After being educated in grammar, &c, at Winchester school, he was entered of Exeter college in Oxford in 1676; but was elected fellow of All Souls in 1680, soon after he had taken his degree of bachelor of arts. From his first application to philosophy, Plato became his favourite author; by degrees he grew deeply enamoured with beauties in that divine writer, as he thought him, and took an early occasion to communicate his ideal happiness to the public, by printing an English translation of a rhapsody entitled “Effigies Arnoris,” but which he called “The Picture of Love unveiled,” in 1682. He commenced master of arts in 1684, and the same year opened a correspondence with that learned mystic Dr. Henry More, of Christ’s college in Cambridge, and with those learned females, lady Masham, and Mrs. Astell.

, or Novatus, a priest of the church of Carthage, flourished in the third century, and was the author of a remarkable schism called after his name, or rather after the name of his associate Novatian, who, however, is also called Novatus by many ancient writers. He is represented by the orthodox as a person scandalous and infamous for perfidy, adulation, arrogance, and so sordidly covetous, that he even suffered his own father to perish with hunger, and spared not to pillage the goods of the church, the poor, and the orphans. It was in order to escape the punishment due to these crimes, and to support himself by raising disturbances, that he resolved to form a schism; and to that end entered into a cabal with Felicissimus, an African priest, who opposed St. Cyprian Novatus was summoned to appear before the prelate in the year 249; but the persecution, begun by Decius the following year, obliging that saint to retire for his own safety, Novatus was delivered from the danger of that process; and, not long after associating himself with Felicissimws, then a deacon, with him maintained the doctrine, that the lapsed ought to be received into the communion of the church without any form of penitence. In the year 2.51, he went to Rome, about the time of the election of pope Cornelius. There he met with Novatian, a priest, who had acquired a reputation for eloquence, and presently formed an alliance with him; and, although their sentiments with regard to the lapsed were diametrically opposite, they agreed to publish the most atrocious calumnies against the Roman clergy, which they coloured over so artfully, that many were deceived and joined their party. This done, they procured a congregation consisting of three obscure, simple, and ignorant bishops; and, plying them well with wine, prevailed upon them to elect Novatian bisuop of Rome. After this irregular election, Novatian addressed letters to St. Cyprian of Carthage, to Fabiuu of Antioch, and to Dionysius of Alexandria; but St. Cyprian refused to open his letter, and excommunicated his deputies: he had likewise sent to Rome before, ia order to procure the abolition of the schism. Fabius made himself pleasant at Novatian’s expence; and Dionysius declared to him, that the best way of convincing the world, that his election was made against his consent, would be to quit the see, for the sake of peace. On the contrary, Novatian now maintained his principal doctrine, that such as had fallen into any sin after baptism ought not to be re*­ceived into the church by penance; and he was joined in the same by Novatus, although he had originally maintained the contrary while in Africa. Novatian had been a Pagan philosopher before his conversion to Christianity, and it does not appear that he and his party separated from the church, on any grounds of doctrine, but of discipline, and it is certain, from some writings of Novatian still extant, that he was sound in the doctrine of the Trinity. He lived to the time of Valerian, when he suffered martyrdom. He composed treatises upon the “Paschal Festival, or Easter,” of -the “Sabbath,” of “Circumcision,” of the “Supreme Pontiff,” of “Prayer,” of the “Jewish Meats,” and of “the Trinity.” It is highly probable, that the treatise upon the “Trinity,” and the book upon the “Jewish Meats,” inserted into the works of Tertullian, were written by Novatian, and they are well written. There is an edition of his works by Whiston, 1709; one by Welchman; and a third, of 1728, with notes, by Jackson. With respect to the followers of Novatian, at the first separation, they only refused communion with those who had fallen into idolatry: afterwards they went farther, and excluded, for ever, from their communion, all such as had committed crimes for which penance was required; and at last they took away from the church the power of the keys, of binding and loosing offenders, and rebaptised those who had been baptised by the church. This sect subsisted a long time both in the east and west; but chiefly became considerable in the east, where they had bishops, both in the great sees and the small ones, parish-churches, and a great number of followers. There were also Novatians in Africa in the time of St. Leo, and in the east some remains continued till the eighth century.

, surnamed Lucanus, as being a native of Lucania, was a philosopher of the Pythagorean school, and lived about the time or soon after Pythagoras first opened his school in Italy, 500 B. C. He wrote a book “On the Universe,” which is still extant, and from which Aristotle seems to have borrowed freely in his treatise on generation and corruption. It is not, indeed, written after the usual manner of the Pythagoreans, in the Doric dialect; but probably it has undergone a change, and, at the period when the writings of the Pythagoreans became obscure on account of the dialect in which they were written, was converted, by the industry of some learned grammarian, from the Doric to the Attic dialect. That it was originally written in the Doric, appears from several fragments preserved by Stobaeus. Little attention, therefore, Brucker thinks is due to the opinion, that this book was compiled from the writings of Aristotle, and is to be considered only as an epitome of the Peripatetic doctrine concerning nature. Whatever Aristotelian appearance the treatise in its present form may bear, is to be ascribed to the pains taken by transcribers to elucidate the work. If its doctrine be carefully compared with what has been advanced concerning the Pythagorean system, there will be little room left to doubt that it was written by a disciple of Pythagoras. The fundamental dogmas of Ocellus perfectly agree with those of the Italic school. His subtle speculations concerning the changes of the elements are consonant to the manner of the Pythagoreans, after they exchanged the obscure method of philosophising by numbers into a less disguised explanation of the causes of natural phenomena. As this book passed out of the hands of Archytas into those of Plato, it is evident that it was in being before the time of Aristotle; and it becomes probable that the Stagyrite, after his usual manner, borrowed many things from Ocellus, but in a sense very different from that of their first author. This remnant of philosophical antiquity is therefore to be received as a curious specimen of the Pythagorean doctrine, mixed, however, with some tenets peculiar to the author. Ocellus’s work was first printed in 1539, and editions have since been given by Commelin, Visanius, Gale, the abbe Batteux, and the marquis D'Argens. Of these, the best is that by Gale in his “Opuscula,” with the Latin translation of Nogarola.

I ago,* by Abu Jaafar Ebn Tophail:“translated from the Arabic, and illustrated with figures, 8vo. The design of the author, who was a Mahometan philosopher, is to shew, how human reason may, by observation and experience, arrive at the knowledge of natural things, and thence to supernatural, and particularly the knowledge of God and a future state: the design of the translator, to give those who might be unacquainted with it, a specimen of the genius of the Arabian philosophers, and to excite young scholars to the reading of eastern authors. This was the point our Rabbi had Constantly in view; and, therefore, in his” Oratio Inauguralis,“for the professorship, it was with no small pleasure, as we imagine, that he insisted upon the beauty, copiousness, and antiquity, of the Arabic tongue in particular, and upon the use of Oriental learning in general; and that he dwelt upon the praises of Erpenius, Golius, Pocock, Herbelot, and all who had any ways contributed to promote the study of it. In 1713, his name appeared to a little book, with this title,” An Account of South-West Barbary, containing what is most remarkable in the territories of the king of Fez and Morocco; written by a person who had been a slave there a considerable time, and published from his authentic manuscript: to which are added, two Letters; one from the present king of Morocco to colonel Kirk; the other to sir Cloudesly Shovell, with sir Cloudesly’s answer,“&c. 8vo. While we are enumerating these small publications of the professor, it will be but proper to mention two sermons one,” Upon the Dignity and Authority of the Christian Priesthood,“preached at Ormond chapel, London, in 1710; another,” Upon the Necessity of instructing Children in the Scriptures,“at St. Ives, in Huntingtonshire, 1713. To these we must add a new translation of the second” Apocryphal Book of Esdras,“from the Arabic version of it, as that which we have in our common Bibles is from the vulgar Latin, 1716. Mr. Whiston, we are told, was the person who employed him in this translation, upon a strong suspicion, that it must needs make for the Arian cause he was then reviving; and he, accordingly, published it in one of his volumes of” Primitive Christianity Revived.“Ockley, however, was firmly of opinion, that it could serve nothing at all to his purpose; as appears from a printed letter of his to Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Thirl by, in which are the following words:” You shall have my ' Esdras’ in a little time; 200 of which I reserved, when Mr. Whiston reprinted his, purely upon this account, because I was loth that any thing with my name to it should be extant only in his heretical volumes. I only stay, till the learned author of the c History of Montanism' has finished a dissertation which he has promised me to prefix to that book*.“A learned Letter of Ockley’s to Mr. W. Wotton is printed among the” Miscellaneous Tracts of Mr. Bowyer, 1784."

He wrote, “Twelve Conclusions addressed to the parliament of England.” At the end of the first book he wrote some monkish rhymes in Latin, which Bale has preserved, and which, he says, “were copyed out by dyverse men, and set upon theyr wyndowes, gates, and dores, which were then knowen for obstynate hypocrytes and fleshlye livers, which made the prelates madde.” Bale published “A brefe Chronycle concernynge the Examynacyon and death of the blessed martyr of Christ, syr Johan Oldecastell the lorde Cobham,” which was reprinted under the care of Mr. Lewis, of Margate, in 1729. His life has been since elegantly written by Mr. Gilpin. “Lord Cobham, says this biographer,” had been much conversant in the world; and had probably been engaged in the early part of his life, in the licence of it. His religion, however, put a thorough restraint upon a disposition naturally inclined to the allurements of pleasure. He was a man of a very high spirit, and warm temper; neither of which his sufferings could subdue. With very little temporizing he might have escaped the indignities he received from the clergy, who always considered him as an object beyond them; but the greatness of his soul could not brook concession. In all his examinations, and through the whole of his behaviour, we see an authority and dignity in his manner, which speak him the great man in all his afflictions. He was a person of uncommon parts, and very extensive talents; well qualified either for the cabinet or the field. In conversation he was remarkable for his ready and poignant wit. His acquirements were equal to his parts. No species of learning which was at that time in esteem had escaped his attention. It was his thirst of knowledge, indeed, which first brought him acquainted with the opinions of Wickliff.' The novelty of them engaged his curiosity. He examined them as a philosopher, and in the course of his examination became a Christian."

, the most considerable of a family of learned men of thU name, originally of Saxony, was horn at Leipsic July 23, 1672. He was the son of John Olearius, professor of Greek and theology in that university, and the grandson of Godfrey Olearius, a learned Lutheran divine. From his earliest years he discovered a thirst for knowledge, and a capacity which enabled him to rm.ke a distinguished figure during his studies. When his academic course was completed, in his twenty-first year he went to Holland, and then to England, attracted by the reputation of the university of Oxford and the Bodleian library, to which he gained admittance, and pursued his learned inquiries there a year. On his return home he was appointed professor of Greek at Leipsic; and in 1708 succeeded to the theological chair. In 1709 he obtained a canonry at Meissen; was appointed inspector of the students maintained by the elector, and in 1714 assessor to the electoral and ducal consistory. He died Nov. 10, 1715, when only forty-three years of age. He was an able divine and philosopher, and particularly distinguished for a critical knowledge of the Greek language. Among his works are, I.-“Dissertatio de miraculo Piscinae Bethesdae,” Leipsic, 1706, 4to. 2 “Dissert, de adoratione Dei Patris per Jesum Christum,” ibid. 1709, 4to, against the Socinians. 3. “Introduction to the Roman and German history, from the foundation of Rome to the year 1699,” ibid. 1699, 8vo, in German. 4. A Latin translation of sir Peter King’s “History of the Apostles’ Creed,” 1708, 8vo. 5. An edition, reckoned the best, of “Philostratus,” Gr. & Lat. Leipsic, 1709, fol. 6. A translation of Stanley’s “History of Philosophy,” ibid. 1712, 4to, with valuable notes and corrections, which were consulted in the reprint of the original at London in 1743, 4to. 7 “Observationes sacrae in Evangelium Matthaei,” Leipsic, 1713, 4to. He left various Mss. 2

, a peripatetic philosopher of Alexandria, lived under Theodosius the younger, about the year 430, and wrote Commentaries on part of Aristotle, 1551, fol. and a Life of Plato, which contains many particulars not to be met with in Diogenes Laertius. James "WinJet has translated this Life into Latin, and added notes to it. It seems probable, however, that the commentator on Aristotle, and the author of the life of Plato, were different persons; and there is a third Olympiodorus, a Greek monk, who lived in the fifth or sixth century, and left short and elegant Commentaries on Job and Ecclesiastes, which may be found in the library of the Greek fathers. The little that is known of either of these may be seen in our authorities.

, a Greek author, and a Platonic philosopher, wrote commentaries upon Plato’s “Politics,” which are lost; but his name is still known, by his treatise entitled “Stratageticus,” on the duty and virtues of the general of an army, which has been translated into Latin, Italian, French, and Spanish. The first edition in Greek was published, with a Latin translation, by Nicolas Rigault, at Paris, 1599, 4to but the reprint of this in 1600, 4 to, with the notes of Æmilius Forms, is preferred. There is also a good edition by Schwebelius, Nuremberg, 1762, fol. The time when our author flourished is not precisely fixed, only it is certain that he lived under the Roman emperors. His book may determine the point, if Q. Veranius, to whom it is dedicated, be the same person of that name who is mentioned by Tacitus, who lived under the emperors Claudius and Nero, and died in the reign of the latter, being then Legatus Britannia? but this is not certain.

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

After he had been some lime instructed by his father, other preceptors were sought out for him he had, for his master in philosophy, Ammonius, the famous Christian philosopher; and in divinity the no less famous Clement of Alexandria. From the former he imbibed that Platonic philosophy, with which he afterwards so miserably infected his Christianity, and gave birth to those many singular and heretical opinions which have distinguished him above all the primitive writers; but amidst these philosophical and theological pursuits, ' he found time to cultivate several arts and sciences: and so universal and powerful was his genius, that, as Jerom relates, he acquired very great skill and knowledge in geometry, arithmetic, music, grammar, rhetoric, &c. He was not above seventeen years of age when the persecution under the emperor Severus began at Alexandria in the year 202: and, his father being seized and imprisoned for his faith in Christ, Origen would also have offered himself to the persecutors, out of the great zeal he had to suffer martyrdom. This his mother resolutely opposed; but when he found he was detaiued against his will, he wrote a letter to his father to exhort him to martyrdom, in which he expresses himself thus: “Stand stedfast, my father, and let no regard to us alter your opinion, or shake your resolution;” for he had six sons besides Origen. Leonides, animated by his son, resolved to persist even to martyrdom, and was accordingly beheaded soon after: and though his family fell into extreme poverty, his goods being immediately confiscated, yet Origen, applying himself soon after entirely to human learning, by teaching grammar made a shift to maintain himself, his mother, and his brethren.

All Origen’s works, which remain only in Latin, were collected by Merlinus, and afterwards by Erasmus, and printed at Paris, in 1512, and at Basil in 1536, in 2 vols. folio. Genebrard has since made a larger collection, which was printed at Paris, in 1574, 1604, 1619, 2 vols. folio. All the Greek fragments of Origen upon the Scriptures were published, with a Latin translation by Huetius, and printed in 1668, 1679, and 1685, 2 vols, folio; to which are prefixed by the editor large Prolegomena, under the title of “Origeniana,” in which are given, in three books, a very copious and learned account of the life, the doctrines, and the writings of Origen. The eight books against U Oelsus,“an Epicurean philosopher, which are by far the most valuable of his works, were published in Greek, with the” Translation of Gelenius,“and the” Notes of Hoeschelius,“in 1605, 4to; and afterwards very correctly at Cambridge, in 1658, 4to, by William Spencer, fellow of Trinity-college, who corrected the translation, and also added notes of his own. To this edition are subjoined the” Philocalia, sive de obscuris sacrse scripturae locis,“of Origen. Wetstein, Greek-professor at Basil, caused to be printed there, with a Latin version and notes, in 1674, 4to,” The Dialogue against Marcion“(which, by the way, is supposed by Huetius to be a spurious piece), the” Exhortation to Martyrdom,“and the” Letters of Africanus and Origen, concerning the “History of Susannah and lastly, the book” De Oratione,“was published at London, in 1718, 4to, with notes by Dr. Ashton and Mr. Reading. An edition of all Origen’s works was undertaken by Charles Delarue, a Benedictine monk, who began to publish it at Paris, in 1733, folio; and though the four volumes he has given us do not complete his plan, yet they contain the best, and indeed the only part of Origen’s works wprth any attention. This was reprinted by Oberthur, in 1780, 15 vols. 8vo. The celebrated Montfaucon has published in 2 vols, folio, some remains and fragments of his” Hexapla," and more recently Bahrdt published at Leipsic the Hexapla, 1769, in 2 vols. 8vo.

This happened about the fiftieth year of his age, when he incurred the displeasure of Augustus; and by him was banished to Tomi, or Tomos, a town in Scythia, near the Euxine sea, and not far from the mouths of the Danube. The cause of this has been variously represented. The pretence was, his writing loose verses, and corrupting the Roman youth but it is agreed on all hands, and is in effect owned by himself, that this was not the real cause of his exile and although he hints at the matter very obscurely, it may be conjectured that he had been a witness to some court intrigue, which it was dangerous to divulge, but which he probably had not kept secret. Whatever it was, it appears that the offence was thought unpardonable; nor could his most submissive importunities and flattering addresses, although often repeated, obtain his recall, or his removal to a more eligible situation. It seems allowed, that he shewed nothing of the philosopher in his exile; but, in hopes of pardon, was continually praising the emperor with such extravagance as bordered even upon idolatry; and, what was more singular, he made an idol of him literally, as soon as he heard of his death, by consecrating a chapel to him, where he went every morning to pay his devotions, and offer frankincense. He continued the same importunities towards his successor, but the court was as inexorable under Tiberius, and the unhappy Ovid died in the seventh or eighth year of his banishment, A. D. 17, and was buried at Tomos, where the people had shewn him every mark of respect, mourned publicly for him, and erected a stately monument to his memory.

, an eminent lawyer and philosopher, called Pacius de Beriga, from the name of a country seat belonging to his father’s family, near Vicenza, was born at the latter city in 1550. His parents bestowed every pains on his education, and he is said to have made such progress in his first studies as to have composed a treatise on arithmetic at the age of thirteen. For farther proficiency he was sent to Padua, with his brother Fabius, who afterwards became a physician of eminence, and is mentioned with great honour by the medical biographers. Julius, after taking his degree of doctor in law, returned to his own country, where, in the course of his extensive reading, he became acquainted with the sentiments of the reformers, and concealed his attachment to them with so little care, that he was menaced by the horrors of the inquisition, from which he escaped to Geneva. This step being attended with the Joss of his property, he gained a livelihood for some lime by teaching youth, until his character becoming known, he was encouraged to give lectures on civil Jaw, which he did for ten years with great success and reputation. At Geneva also he married a lady whose family had fled from Lncca for the cause of religion, and had a family of ten children by her.

was a Greek philosopher, of whom a treatise in explication of ancient fables has been several times reprinted in Greek and Latin; the best edition is that of Fischer, Lips. 1761. But little is known of him, and there are several ancient writers of this name; one an Athenian, placed by the poets before the time of Homer; one a native of Puros, who lived under Artaxerxes Mnemon; and one, a grammarian and philosopher, born at Athens or in Egypt, posterior to Aristotle. Which of these is author of the work already noticed, is not at all certain.

In private life, Dr. Paley is said to have had nothing of the philosopher. He entered into little amusements with a degree of ardour which formed a singular contrast with the superiority of his mind. He was fond of company, which he had extraordinary powers of entertaining; nor was he at any time more happy, than when communicating the pleasure he could give by exerting his talents of wit and humour. No man was ever more beloved by his particular friends, or returned their affection with greater sincerity and ardour. That such a man, and such a writer, should not have been promoted to the bench of bishops, has been considered as not very creditable to the times in which we live. It is generally understood that Mr. Pitt recommended him to his majesty some years ago for a vacant bishopric, and that an opposition was made from a very high quarter of the church, which rendered the recommendation ineffectual. If this be true, it is a striking proof of Mr. Pitt’s liberality; for, according to his biographer, Dr. Paley frequently indulged in sarcastic and disrespectful notice of that celebrated statesman. What truth may be in this, or what justice in the complaints of his friends, we shall not inquire. Judging from his writings, we should be inclined to regret, with them, that he had not higher preferment; but, contemplating his character, as given in the “Memoirs of William Paley, D. D. by George Wilson Meadley,” we must rather wonder that he had so much. It will, however, be universally acknowledged, that no author ever wrote more pleasingly on the subjects he has treated than Dr. Paley. The force and terseness of his expressions are not less admirable than the strength of his conceptions; and there is both in his language and his notions a peculiarity of manner, stamped by the vigour of his mind, which will perpetuate the reputation of his works.

, a Christian philosopher, of the Stoic sect, flourished in the second century. Some say he was born in Sicily, others at Alexandria, of Sicilian parents. He is said to have taught the Stoic philosophy in the reign of Commodus, from A. D. 180, in the school of Alexandria; where from the time of St. Mark, founder of that church, there had always been some divine who explained the Holy Scriptures. The Ethiopians having requested Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria, to send a proper person to instruct them in the Christian religion, he sent Pantænus who gladly undertook the mission, and acquitted himself very worthily in it. It is said, that he found the Ethiopians already tinctured with the truth of Christian faith, which had been declared to them by St. Bartholomew; and that he saw the gospel of St. Matthew in Hebrew, which had been left there by that apostle. St. Jerome says, that Pantænus brought it away with him, and that it was still to be seen in his time in the Alexandrian library; but this story is not generally credited, since no good reason can be given, why St. Bartholomew should leave a Hebrew book with the Ethiopians. Pantænus, upon his return to Alexandria, continued to explain the sacred books under the reign of Severus and Antoninus Caracalla, and did great service to the church by his discourses. He composed some “Commentaries” upon the Bible, which are lost. Theodoret informs us that Pantænus first started the remark, which has been followed by many interpreters of the prophecies since, “That they are often expressed in indefinite terms, and that the present tense is frequently used both for the preterite and future tenses.” We may form a judgment of the manner in, which Pantænus explained the Scriptures, by that which Clemens Alexandria as, Origen, and all those have observed, who were trained up in the school of Alexandria. Their commentaries abound with allegories; they frequently leave the literal sense, and find almost every where some mystery or other; in the explaining of which, they usually shew more erudition than judgment. Mil ner observes, that the combination of Stoicism with Christianity must have very much debased the sacred truths; and we may be assured that those who were disposed to follow implicitly the dictates of such an instructor as Pantænus, must have been furnished by him with a clouded light of the gospel. Cave is of opinion that Pantænus’s death occurred in the year 213.

, a man of a strange and paradoxical genius, and classed by Brucker among the Theosophists, was born, as is generally supposed (for his birth-place is a disputed matter), at Einfidlen near Zurick, in 1493. His family name, which was Bombastus, he afterwards changed, according to the custom of the age, into Paracelsus. His father, who was a physician, instructed him in that science, but, as it would appear, in nothing else, for he was almost totally ignorant of the learned languages. So earnest was he, however, to penetrate into the mysteries of nature, that, neglecting books, he undertook long and hazardous journeys through Germany, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Hungary, Moscovy, and probably several parts of Asia and Africa. He not only visited literary and learned men, but frequented the workshops of mechanics, descended into mines, and thought no place mean or hazardous, if it afforded him an opportunity of increasing his knowledge of nature. He also consulted barber-surgeons, monks, conjurors, old women, quacks of every description, and every person who pretended to be possessed of any secret art, particularly such as were skilled in metallurgy. Being in this manner a self-taught philosopher and physician, he despised the medical writings of the ancients, and boasted that the whole contents of his library would not amount to six folios. He appears indeed to have written more than he ever read. His quackery consisted in certain new and secret medicines procured from metallic substances by the chemical art, which he administered with such wonderful success, that he rose to the summit of popular fame, and even obtained the professorship of medicine at Bail. One of his nostrums he called Azoth, which he said was the philosopher’s stone, the medical panacea, and his disciples extolled it as the tincture of life, given through the divine favour to man in these last days. But while his irregular practice, and arrogant invectives against other physicians, created him many enemies, his rewards were by no means adequate to his vanity and ambition; and he met frequently with mortifications, one of which determined him to leave Basil. A wealthy canon who happened to fall sick at that place, offered him a hundred florins to cure his disease, which Paracelsus easily effected with three pills of opium, one of his most powerful medicines. The canon, restored to health so soon, and apparently by such slight means, refused to stand to his engagement. Paracelsus brought the matter before the magistrate, who decreed him only the usual fee. Inflamed with violent indignation at the contempt which was thus thrown upon his art, he railed at the canon, the magistrate, and the whole city, and leaving Basil, withdrew into Alsace, whither his medical fame and success followed him. After two years, during which time he practised medicine in the principal families of the country, about the year 1530 he removed into Switzerland, where he conversed with Bullinger and other divines. From this time, he seems for many years to have roved through various parts of Germany and Bohemia. At last, in the year 1541, he died in the hospital of St. Sebastian, in Saltsburg.

, an ingenious French mathematician and philosopher, was born at Pau, in the province of Gascony, in 1636; his faiher being a counsellor of the parliament of that city. At the age of sixteen he entered into the order of Jesuits, and made so great proficiency in his studies, that he taught polite literature, and composed many pieces in prose and v< rse with considerable delicacy of thought and style before he was well arrived at the age of manhood. Propriety and elegance of language appear to have been his first pursuits, lor which purpose he studied the belles lettres; but afterwards he devoted himself to mathematical and philosophical studies, and read, with due attention, the most valuable authors, ancient and modern, in those sciences. By such assiduity in a short time he made himself master of the Peripatetic and Cartesian philosophy, and taught them both with great reputation. Notwithstanding he embraced Cartesianism, yet he affected to be rather an inventor in philosophy himself. In this spirit he sometimes advanced very bold opinions in natural philosophy, which met with opposers, who charged him with starting absurdities: but he was ingenious enough to give his notions a plausible turn, so as to clear them seemingly from contradictions. His reputation procured him a call to Paris, as professor of rhetoric in the college of Louis the Great. He also taught the mathematics in that city, as he had before done in other places; but the high expectations which his writings very reasonably created, were all disappointed by his early death, in 1673, at thirty-seven years of age. He fell a victim to his zeal, having caught a contagious disorder by preaching to the prisoners in the Bicetre.

, a philosopher of the Eleatic sect, flourished about the sixty-ninth olympiad, or 504 B. C. Some have supposed he was a pupil of Anaximander. He was, however, at first a man of property and consequence in civil life, until Diochetas, a Pythagorean, introduced him into the recesses of philosophy. Cebes, in his allegorical table, speaks of Parmenides as an eminent pattern of virtue. He wrote the doctrines of his school in verses, of which a few fragments still remain in the collection “Poesis Philosophica,” by Henry Stephens, Paris, 1573, but insufficient to explain his system of philosophy. Plato, in the dialogue which bears the name of Parmenides, professes to represent his tenets, but confounds them with his own. From the scattered reports of the ancients, Brucker has compiled the following Abstract of the philosophy of Parmenides.

, a celebrated painter of Ephesus, or, according to others, of Athens, flourished in the time of Socrates, as we learn from Xenophon, who has introduced him in a dialogue, discoursing with that philosopher. He was one of the most excellent painters of his time. Pliny tells us, that it was he who first gave symmetry and just proportions in the art; that he also was the first who knew how to express the truth of character, and the different airs of the face; that he found out a beautiful disposition of the hair, and heightened the grace of the visage. It was allowed even by the masters in the art, that he bore away from all others the glory of succeeding in the outline, in which consists the grand secret of painting. But the same author observes, that Parrhasius became insupportable by his pride; and affected to wear a crown of gold upon his head, and to carry in his hand a baton, studded with nails of the same metal. It is said that, though Parrhasius was excelled by Timanthes, yet he excelled Zeuxis. Among his pictures was a celebrated one of Theseus; and another representing Meleager, Hercules, and Perseus, in a groupe together; as also Æneas, with Castor and Pollux in a third. But of him, or his pictures, the accounts handed down to us are extremely imperfect, and little to be relied on in forming a just estimate of his merit.

We shall close this article with an extract from Dr. Maty’s eulogium: “The surprising variety of branches which Dr. Parsons embraced, and the several living as well as dead languages he had a knowledge of, qualified him abundantly for the place of assistant secretary for foreign correspondences, which the council of the royal society bestowed upon him about 1750. He acquitted himself to the utmost of his power of the functions of this place, till a few years before his death, when he resigned in favour of his friend, who now gratefully pays this last tribute to his memory. Dr. Parsons joined to his academical honours those which the royal college of physicians of London bestowed upon him, by admitting him, after due examination, licentiate, on the first day of April, 1751. The diffusive spirit of our friend was only equalled by his desire of information. To both these principles he owed the intimacies which he formed with some of the greatest men of his time. The names of Folkes, Hales, Mead, Stukeley, Needham, Baker, Collinson, and Garden, may be mentioned on this occasion; and many more might be added. Weekly meetings were formed, where the earliest intelligence was received and communicated of any discovery both here and abroad; and new trials were made, to bring to the test of experience the reality or usefulness of these discoveries. Here it was that the microscopical animals found in several infusions were first produced; the propagation of several insects by section ascertained; the constancy of nature amidst these wonderful changes established. His ‘ Remains of Japhet, being historical inquiries into the affinity and origin of the European Languages,’ is a most laborious performance, tending to prove the antiquity of the first inhabitants of these islands, as being originally descended from Gomer and Magog, above 1000 years before Christ, their primitive and still subsisting language, and its affinity with some others. It cannot be denied that there is much ingenuity as well true learning in this work, which helps conviction, and often supplies the want of it. But we cannot help thinking that our friend’s warm feelings now and then mislead his judgment, and that some at least of his conjectures, rest' ing upon partial traditions, and poetical scraps of Irish filids and Welsh bards, are less satisfactory than his tables of affinity between the several northern languages, as deduced from one common stock. Literature, however, is much obliged to him for having in this, as well as in many of his other works, opened a new field of observations and discoveries. In enumerating our learned friend’s dissertations, we find ourselves at a loss whether we should follow the order of subjects, or of time; neither is it easy to account for their surprising variety and quick succession. The truth is, that his eagerness after knowledge was such, as to embrace almost with equal facility all its branches, and with equal zeal to ascertain the merit of inventions, and ascribe to their respective, and sometimes unknown, authors, the glory of the discovery. Many operations which the ancients have transmitted to us, havebeen thought fabulous, merely from our ignorance of the art by which they were performed. Thus the burning of the ships of the Romans at a considerable distance, during the siege of Syracuse, by Archimedes, would, perhaps, still continue to be exploded, had not the celebrated M. Buffon in France shewn the possibility of it, by presenting and describing a model of a speculum, or rather assemblage of mirrors, by which he could set fire at the distance of several hundred feet. Inthe contriving, indeed, though not in the executing of such an apparatus, he had in some measure been forestalled by a writer now very little known or read. This Dr. Parsons proved in a- very satisfactory manner; and he had the pleasure to find the French philosopher did not refuse to the Jesuit his share in the invention, and was not at all offended by the liberty he had taken. Another French discovery, I mean a new kind of painting fathered upon the ancients, was reduced to its real value, in a paper which shewed ouv author was possessed of a good taste for the fine arts: and I am informed that his skill in music was by no means inferior, and that his favourite amusement was the flute. Richly, it appears from these performances, did our author merit the honour of being a member of the antiquarian society, which long ago had associated him to its labours. To another society, founded upon the great principles of humanity, patriotism, and natural emulation, he undoubtedly was greatly useful. He assisted at most of their general meetings and committees and was for many years chairman to that of agriculture always equally ready to point out and to promote useful improvements, and to oppose the interested views of fraud and ignorance, so inseparable from very extensive associations. No sooner was this society formed, than Dr. Parsons became a member of it. Intimately convinced of the nobleness of its views, though from his station in life little concerned in its success, he grudged neither attendance nor expence. Neither ambitious of taking the lead, nor fond of opposition, he joined in any measure he thought right; and submitted cheerfully to the sentiments of the majority, though against his own private opinion. The just ideas he had of the dignity of our profession, as well as of the common links which ought to unite all its members, notwithstanding the differences of country, religion, or places of education, made him bear impatiently the shackles laid upon a great number of respectable practitioners; he wished, fondly wished, to see these broken; not with a view of empty honour and dangerous power, but as the only means observing mankind more effectually, checking the progress of designing men and illiterate practitioners, and diffusing through the whole body a spirit of emulation. Though by frequent disappointments he foresaw, as well as we, the little chance of a speedy redress, he nobly persisted in the attempt; and, had he lived to the final event, would undoubtedly, like Cato, still have preferred the conquered cause to that supported by the gods. Afier having tried to retire from business and from London, for the sake of his health, and having disposed of most of his books with that view, he found it inconsistent with his happiness to forsake all the advantages which a long residence in the capital, and the many connexions he had formed, had rendered habitual to him. He therefore returned to his old house, and died in it, after a short illness, April 4, 1770. The style of our friend’s compositions was sufficiently clear in description, though in argument not so close as could have been wished. Full of Lis ideas, he did not always so dispose and connect them together as to produce in the minds of his readers that conviction which was in his own. He too much despised those additional graces which command attention when joined to learning, observation, and sound reasoning. Let us hope that his example and spirit will animate all his colleagues; and that those practitioners who are in the same circumstances will be induced to join their brethren, sure to find amongst them those great blessings of life, freedom, equality, information, and friendship. As long as these great principles shall subsist in this society, and I tVust they will outlast the longest liver, there is no doubt but the members will meet with the reward honest men are ambitious of, the approbation of their conscience, the esteem of the virtuous, the remembrance of posterity.”

, another learned and amiable physician, though less known as an author, the son of major Parsons, of the dragoons, was horn in Yorkshire, in 1742. He was educated at Westminster school, whence in 17:. 9 he was elected to a studentship in Christ Church, Oxford. Having made choice of medicine as a profession, he prosecuted the study of it with uncommon assiduity, not only at Oxford, but also at London and Edinburgh. But while he bestowed much attention on every branch of medical knowledge, he at first showed a particular predilection for natural history and botany, and in the latter branch made a very distinguished figure during his stay at Edinburgh. In 1766 he had the honour of obtaining the prize medal given by Dr. Hope for the most extensive and elegant hortus siccus, and the same year took his degree of M. A. This, however, was only a prelude to more distinguished honours. In 1769, when he took his degree of M. B. he was appointed to the anatomy lecture at Oxford, and was also the first reader in anatomy at Christ Church, on the institution of John Freind and Matthew Lee, M. D. and students of that house. In consequence of this appointment, his attention, it may naturally be supposed, was more particularly directed to anatomy, and under his direction a very commodious anatomical theatre was built; and for the instruction of his pupils he provided a set of anatomical preparations, which for neatness and elegance have seldom been surpassed. From the time of his appointment he read two courses of anatomical lectures every year; and although they were calculated rather for the general philosopher than the medical practitioner, yet they were not only highly instructive to all his audience, but afforded incontestable evidence of his genius and abilities. He was soon after elected one of the physicians to the Radcliffe infirmary, and in June 1772 proceeded M. D. He had a considerable share also of private practice, and from his attention and success his reputation with the public kept pace with the esteem in which he was held by the university. In 1780 he was elected the first clinical professor on the foundation instituted in 1772 by George Henry, earl of Lichfield, late chancellor of the university. In this department also he read lectures during the winter months with much credit to himself. But it is not improbable that the various active employments in which he was engaged, and which necessarily exposed him to fatigue and danger, had some share in overthrowing a constitution naturally strong. He was not, however, cut off by any tedious or painful ailment, but died of a fever April 3, 1785, in the forty-fourth year of his age, and was buried in the north transept of the cathedral, where four of his children were buried before him.

, a French mathematician and philosopher, and one of the greatest geniuses and best writers that country has produced, was born at Clermont in Auvergne, June 19, 1623. His father, Stephen Pascal, was president of the Court of Aids in his province, and was also a very learned man, an able mathematician, and a friend of Des Cartes. Having an extraordinary tenderness for this child, his only son, he quitted his office and settled at Paris in 1631, that he might be quite at leisure to attend to his son’s education, of which he was the sole superintendant, young Pascal never having had any other roaster. From his infancy Blaise gave proofs of a very extraordinary capacity. He was extremely inquisitive; desiring to know the reason of every thing; and when, good reasons were not given him, he would seek for better; nor would he ever yield his assent but upon such as appeared to him well grounded. What is told of his manner of learning the mathematics, as well as the progress he quickly made in that science, seems almost miraculous, liis father, perceiving in him an extraordinary inclination to reasoning, was afraid lest the knowledge of the mathematics might hinder his learning the languages, so necessary as a foundation to all sound learning. He therefore kept him as much as he could from all notions of geometry, locked up all his books of that kind, and refrained even from speaking of it in his presence. He could not however prevent his son from musing on that science; and one day in particular he surprised him at work with charcoal upon his chamber floor, and in the midst of figures. The father asked him what he was doing: “I am searching,” says Pascal, “for such a thing;” which was just the same as the 32d proposition of the 1st book of Euclid. He asked him then how he came to think of this: “It was,” says Blaise, “because I found out such another thing;” and so, going backward, and using the names of bar and round, he came at length to the definitions and axioms he had formed to himself. Of this singular progress we are assured by his sister, madame Perier, and several other persons, the credit of whose testimony cannot reasonably be questioned.

, a platonic philosopher and man of letters, was born, in 1529, at Clissa in Illyricum, and was educated at Padua. In 1553 he began to appear as an author by some miscellaneous Italian tracts. In 1557, with the view of obtaining the patronage of the duke of Ferrara, he published a panegyrical poem on the house of Este, entitled “L'Eridano,” in a novel kind of heroic verse of thirteen syllables. After this, for several years, he passed an unsettled kind of life, in which he twice visited the isle of Cyprus, where he took up his abode for seven years, and which he finally quitted on its reduction by the Turks in 1571. He also travelled into France and Spain, and spent three years in the latter country, collecting a treasure of ancient Greek Mss. which he lost on his return to Italy. In 1578 he was invited to Ferrara by duke Alphonso II. to teach philosophy in the university of that city. Afterwards, upon the accession of Clement VIII. to the popedom, he was appointed public professor of the Platonic philosophy at Rome, an office which he held with high reputation till his death, hi 1597. He professed to unite the doctrines of Aristotle and Plato, but in reality undermined the authority of the former. He wholly deserted the obscurity of the Jewish Cabbala, and in teaching philosophy closely followed the ancient Greek writers. During his lecturing at Rome, he more openly discovered his aversion to the Aristotelian philosophy, and advised the pope to prohibit the teaching pf it in the schools, and to introduce the doctrine of Plato, as more consonant to the Christian faith. His “Discussiones Peripatetics,” a learned, perspicuous, and elegant work, fully explains the reason on which his disapprobation of the Peripatetic philosophy was founded. He was one of the first of the moderns who attentively observed the phenomena of nature, and he made use of every opportunity, that his travels afforded him, for collecting remarks concerning various points of astronomy, meteorology, and natural history. In one of his “Dialogues on Rhetoric,” he advanced, under the fiction of an Ethiopic tradition, a theory of the earth which some have thought similar to that afterwards proposed by Dr. Thomas Burnet. His other principal works were, “Nova Geometria,” 1587; “Parallels Militari,” 1594, both of which are full of whimsical theories and an elaborate edition of “Oracula Zoroastris, Hermetis Trismegisti, et aliorum ex scriptis Platonicorum collecta, Graece et Latine, prefixa Dissertation^ Historica,” 1591.

Some of his manuscripts he left at Brereton in Cheshire", where he resided some years, being the seat of William lord Brereton, who had been his pupil at Breda. A great many others came into the hands of Dr. Busby; which Mr. Hook was desired to use his endeavours to obtain for the society. But they continued buried under dust, and mixed with the papers and pamphlets of Dr. Busby, in four large boxes, till 1755; when Dr. Birch, secretary to the Royal Society, procured them for that body, from the trustees of Dfr. Busby. The collection contains not only Pell’s mathematical papers, letters to him, and copies of those from him, &c. but also several manuscripts of Walter Warner, the mathematician and philosopher, who lived in the reignS of James the First and Charles the First.

"The character of Dr. Percival was in every way calculated to secure for him that eminence in his profession, and that general respect, esteem, and attachment, which he every where obtained. A q:iick penetration, a discriminating judgment, a patient attention, a comprehensive knowledge, and, above all, a solemn sense of responsibility, were the endowments which so conspicuously fitted him at once to discharge the duties, and to extend the boundaries, of the healing art; and his external accomplishments and manners were alike happily adapted to the offices of his profession. In social discussion, he possessed powers of a very uncommon stamp, combining the accuracy of science, and the strictest precision of method, with the graces of a copious and unstudied elocution; and to these was superadded the polish of a refined urbanity, the joint result of innate benevolence, and of early and habitual intercourse with the most improved classes of society. In few words, he was an author without vanity, a philosopher without pride, a scholar without pedantry, and a Christian without guile. Affable in his manners, courteous in his conversation, dignified in his deportment, cheerful in his temper, warm in his affections, steady in his friendships, mild in his resentments, and unshaken in his principles; the grand object of his life was usefulness, and the grand spring of all his actions was religion.

, one of the three great Roman satirists, was born at Volterra, in Tuscany, in the 22d year of Tiberius’s reign, or A. D. 34. At the age of 12 he was removed to Rome, where he pursued his studies under Palaemon the grammarian, and Virginius Flaccus the rhetorician. He afterwards, at sixteen, applied himself to philosophy under Cornutus, a Stoic, who entertained so great a love for him, that there was ever after a most intimate friendship between them. Persius has immortalized that friendship in his fifth satire, and his gratitude for the good offices of his friend. This he shewed still farther by his will, in which he left him his library, and a great deal of money: but Cornutus, like a true philosopher, who knew how to practise what he taught, accepted only the books, and gave the money to the heirs of the testator. We have nothing deserving the name of a life of Persius, but his character appears to have been excellent. He had a strong sense of virtue, and lived in an age when such a sense would naturally produce a great abhorrence of the reigning vices. His moral and religious sentiments were formed on the best systems which the philosophy of his age afforded and so valuable is his matter, that Mr. Harris, of Salisbury, justly said, “he was the only difficult Latin author that would reward the reader for the pains which he must take to understand him.”

, a considerable mathematician and philosopher of France, was born at Montlugon, in the diocese of Bourges, in 1598, according to some, but in 1600 according to others. He first cultivated the mathematics and philosophy in the place of his nativity; but in 1633 he repaired to Paris, to which place his reputation had procured him an invitation. Here he became highly celebrated for his ingenious writings, and for his connections with Pascal, Des Cartes, Mersenne, and the other great men of that time. He was employed on several occasions by cardinal Richelieu; particularly to visit the sea-ports, with the title of the king’s engineer; and was also sent into Italy upon the king’s business. He was at Tours in 1640, where he married; and was afterwards made intendant of the fortifications. Baillet, in his Life of Des Cartes, says, that Petit had a great genius for mathematics; that he excelled particularly in astronomy; and had a singular passion for experimental philosophy. About 1637 he returned to Paris from Italy, when the dioptrics of Des Cartes were much spoken of. He read them, and communicated his objections to Mersenne, with whom he was intimately acquainted, and yet soon after embraced the principles of Des Cartes, becoming not only his friend, but his partisan and defender. He was intimately connected with Pascal, with whom he made at Rouen the same experiments concerning the vacuum, which Torricelli had before made in Italy; and was assured of their truth by frequent repetitions. This was in 1646 and 1647; and though there appears to be a long interval from this date to the time of his death, we meet with no other memoirs of his life. He died August 20, 1667, at Lagny, near Paris, whither he had retired for some time before his decease. Petit was the author of several works upon physical and astronomical subjects; the principal of which are, 1. “Chronological Discourse,” &c. 1636, 4to, in defence of Scaliger. 2. “Treatise on the Proportional Compasses.” 3. “On the Weight and Magnitude of Metals.” 4. “Construction and Use of the Artillery Calibers.” 5. “On a Vacuum.” 6. “On Eclipses.” 7. “On Remedies against the Inundations of the Seine at Paris.” 8. “On the Junction of the Ocean with the Mediterranean Sea, by means of the rivers Aude and Garonne.” 9. “On Comets.” 10. “On the proper Day for celebrating Easter.” 11. “On the nature of Heat and Cold,” &c.

It was while at Avignon, that he contracted that passion which has so deeply engaged the attention of his biographers, and has given an air of romance, or of poetic fiction, to a considerable portion of his life. It appears that on the morning of Good Friday in 1327, he saw for the first time the young and beautiful Laura; undoubtedly a most important incident to Petrarch, for although his works give evidence of his abilities as a politician, theologian, and philosopher, yet it is to those beautiful verses alone, in which he has celebrated the accomplishments, and bewailed the fate of Laura, that he has been indebted for his permanent reputation. But his biographers differ widely from each other in their representations of the nature of Petrarch’s love for Laura. His late acute and ingenious apologist, lord Wooclhouselee, deduces from the works of the poet himself, that this passion, so remarkable both for its fervency and duration, was an honourable and virtuous flame, and that Petrarch aspired to the happiness of being united to Laura in marriage. “We have,” says his lordship, “unquestionable grounds for believing, from the evidence of his own writings, that the heart of Laura was not insensible to his passion; and although the term of his probation was tedious and severe, he cherished a hope, approaching to confidence, that he was at last to attain the of his wishes. Such are the ideas that we are led to entertain from the writings of the poet himself, of the nature and object of his passion; and such has been the uniform and continued belief of the world with regard to it, from his own days to the present.”

"I remember one St. Andrew’s day (which is the day of the general meeting of the royal society for annual elections) I sayd, ‘ Methought ’twas not so well that we should pitch upon the patron of Scotland’s day, we should rather have taken St. George or St. Isidora (a philosopher canonized).‘ ` No,’ said sir William, ` I would rather that it had been on St. Thomas’s day, for he would not believe till he had seen and putt his fingers into the holes, according to the motto Nullius in verba.'

, a celebrated Greek philosopher of EHs, was originally a slave but, when Socrates had obtained his freedom, and he became that great man’s disciple, studied philosophy, and, retiring to Elis, established a distinct school called from the place of his birth the Eliac, or Eliatic school, which was continued by Plistanus and Menedemus. Plato, in honour of him, gave the name of Phcedo to one of his dialogues. Phaedo wrote several dialogues in defence of Socrates, and never left him till his death. He flourished 400 B. C.

, an eminent philosopher, and the first preceptor of Pythagoras, was a native of the island of Scyrus, one of the Cyclades, near Delos, and flourished about the 45th olympiad, or B. C. 600. It has been maintained, with great erudition, that Pherecydes derived his principles of philosophy and theogony from the sacred books of the Phoenicians; but little dependence, Brucker thinks, is to be placed upon the authorities by which this opinion is supported; and it will appear, upon inquiry, that the tenets of this philosopher were not less similar to those of the most ancient Grecian and barbaric philosophers, than to the doctrine of the Phoenicians. The opinion of Josephus, that Pherecydes studied philosophy in Egypt, seems more probable; for Egypt was, at that universally resorted to as the seat of learning; the symbolical method of teaching, which was made use of by Pherecydes, was perfectly after the Egyptian manner; and the general aspect of his doctrine bears a strong resemblance to the dogmas of the Egyptian school.