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

, a learned critical and poetical writer of Germany, was born at Baling, in Suabia, in 1547. His father being a minister and a man of letters, taught him the rudiments of learning, and then sent him to Tubingen, where he made so amazing a progress in the Greek and Latin tongues, that he is said to have written poetry in both when he was no more than thirteen years of age. He continued to improve himself in compositions of several kinds, as well prose as verse; and at twenty years old was made a professor in the university of Tubingen. Though his turn lay principally towards poetry, insomuch, that as Melchior Adam tells us, he really could make verses as, fast as he wanted them, yet he was acquainted with every part of science and learning. He used to moderate in philosophical disputes; and to read public lectures in mathematics and astronomy, before he had reached his twenty-fifth year. In 1579, his reputation being much extended, he had a mind to try his fortune abroad, and therefore prepared to go to the ancient university of Friburg, where he had promised to read lectures. But he was obliged to desist from this purpose, partly because his wife refused to accompany him, and partly because the duke of Wirtemberg would not consent to his going thither, or any where else.

Hitherto Frischlin had been prosperous; but now an affair happened which laid the foundation of troubles that did not end but with his life. In 1580 he published an oration in praise of a country life, with a paraphrase upon Virgil’s Eclogues and Georgics. Here he compared the lives of modern courtiers with those of ancient husbandmen; and noticing some with great severity, who had degenerated from the virtue and simplicity of their ancestors, made himself so obnoxious, that even his life was in danger. He made many public apologies for himself; his prince even interceded for him, but he could not continue safe any longer at home. With his prince’s leave, therefore, he went to Laubach, a town of Carniola, in the remote part of Germany, and kept a school there; but the air not agreeing with his wife and children, he returned in about two years, to his own country. He met with a very ungracious reception; and therefore, after staying a little while, he went to Francfort, from Francfort into Saxony, and from thence to Brunswick, where he became a schoolmaster again. There he did not continue long, but passed from place to place, till at length, being reduced to necessity, he applied to the prince of Wirtemberg for relief. His application was disregarded, which he supposing to proceed from the malice of his enemies, wrote severely against them. He was imprisoned at last in Wirtemberg castle; whence attempting to escape by ropes not strong enough to support him, he fell down a prodigious precipice, and was dashed to pieces among the rocks. His death happened in 1590, and was universally and justly lamented; for he was certainly ingenious and learned in a great degree. He left a great many works of various kinds, as tragedies, comedies, elegies, translations of Latin and Greek authors, with notes upon them, orations, &c. These were published 1598 1607, in 4 vols. 8vo. He had also written a translation of Oppian, but this was never published. His scholia and version of “Callimachus,” with his Greek life of that poet, are in Stephens’ s edition of 1577, 4to. While he was master of the school at Labacum, or Laubach, he composed a new grammar; for there was no grammar extant that pleased him. This was more methodical, and shorter than any of them; and, indeed, was generally approved; but, not content with giving a grammar of his own, he drew up another piece, called “Strigil Grammatica,” in which he disputes with some little acrimony against all other grammarians; and this, as was natural, increased the number of his enemies. With all his parts and learning, he seems not a little to have wanted prudence.

Frisi unfortunately possessed a violent and atrabilarious temper, and a lofty, disdainful, and independent character; and hence he was never raised to eminent stations in church or state, but was perpetually involved in the most disagreeable contests with every person with whom he happened to be connected. Even as soon as he had taken possession of his chair in Casale, he quarrelled with his colleagues, and was compelled by his Sardinian majesty to withdraw. His superiors, not choosing to employ father Frisi any more in the scholastic department, sent him to Novara, in the capacity of annual preacher. His merit, however, as a scientific man, had already become so conspicuous, that in 1755, (the twenty-eighth of his age) he was requested by the superintendant of the university of Pisa to fill the vacant chair of metaphysics and ethics in that literary corporation, then in the zenith of its glory. He had indeed given some specimens of his knowledge in the philosophy of the human mind by his essays on moral philosophy, published at Lugano in 1753; but he had exhibited before that time still greater proofs of his superior abilities in mathematics and natural philosophy, by his two excellent works “Disquisitio Mathematica in causam physicam figurse et magnitudinis telluris nostrue,” and the “Nova Electricitatis theoria,” &c. which were published at Milan, the former in 1751, and the latter in 1755; and it is curious that he was thus indebted for his first step in the higher paths of literary honours to other pursuits than those which were his favourite, and which have so deservedly immortalized his name.

The Milanese government, duly sensible of the superior merit of Mr. Frisi, and most likely jealous of so many honours received by him in Tuscany, induced him to return to his native place, by tendering him the chair of mathematics in the Palatine schools of that metropolis. This offer was made in 1764, and was soon accepted by Mr. Frisi, who flattered himself that he should there be of greater assistance to his family than he had been in a foreign place; it was here he wrote his two capital works, “De gravitate universali,” in three books, and the “Cosmographia Physica et Mathematica,” in 2 vols. both of which were afterwards published at Milan, in 1768 and 1774. Many years had now elapsed without his being involved in any of those quarrels which were the result of his temper; but as he was threatened with an event of this kind soon after his return to Milan, he was advised by his friends to escape the storm by a temporary peregrination. He consequently made the tour of several European countries; and it was during this excursion, that he attained the friendship of some of the greatest characters in those times, especially in England and France, and acquired many literary honours; but the danger of incurring new evils was inherent to his nature. The famous periodical work entitled “The Coffee-house,” was at that time publishing by some of the most eminent Milanese literati, among whom was Mr. Frisi himself, who had already been appointed royal censor of new literary publications. In this capacity he did not scruple to give his approbation to a pernicious work which was supposed to have issued from the above-mentioned society, and when the book was afterwards suppressed by ecclesiastical and civil authority, he had the imprudence, or rather the effrontery, to become its apologist. Sensible, perhaps at last, of the dangers to which he had exposed himself, he resolved to spend some years in retirement. A new field of exertions, however, was opened to him in his retreat, which proved more beneficial to society, and more honourable to himself, than any he had before cultivated. His uncommon talents in hydrpnymics were already celebrated in Italy, and as many hydrostatical operations had been projected at the time by the several Italian governments, he became the chief director, and almost the oracle of such undertakings. The Venetian senate, and the late Pius VI. also, wished in latter times to have his opinion on the projects which they had respectively adopted for the course of the river Brenta, and for the draining of the Pontine marshes. But even in these honourable commissions, he disgusted every person in power with whom he had to deal, and the necessity of applying to a man of his temper was frequently the subject of regret. In 1777, the Milanese government recalled him from obscurity, and appointed him director of the newly-founded school of architecture; and from this period he became as active in the republic of letters as ever. He published in the same year, 1777, his “Course of Mechanics,” for the use of the royal school; in 1781 his “Philosophical Tracts,” and from 1782 to 1784, his “Opera Varia,” 3 vols. 4to and in the interval from 1778 to 1783, he wrote the eulogies of Galileo, Cavalieri, Newton, the empress Maria Theresa, and of count Firmian. His eulogies on Galileo and Cavalieri have been pronounced by Montuclas “two finished specimens of scientific biography.” Frisi died Nov. 22, 1784, a man of unquestionable learning, but, unhappily for himself, of an impetuous and turbulent disposition.

, a learned preacher and martyr, was the son of an inn-keeper at Sevenoaks, in Kent, wher he was born (or as Fuller says, at Westerham, in the same county). He was educated at King’scollege, Cambridge, where he proceeded B. A. but afterwards went to Oxford, was admitted ad eundem, and upon account of his extraordinary learning, was chosen one of the junior canons of cardinal Wolsey’s new college, now Christ church. About 1525 he was instructed in the principles of the reformation, according to the Lutheran system, by the celebrated Tyndale. These he openly professed, and with some other young men of the same persuasion and boldness, was imprisoned by the commissary of the university. The hardships of this imprisonment proved fatal to some of his companions, but he obtained his release, and about 1528 went abroad, where he remained about two years, and became more seriously coufirmed in his new opinions. On his return, he was narrowly watched by the lord chancellor, sir Thomas More, whose resentment was said to have been occasioned by a treatise which Fryth wrote against him. Simon Fish, of Gray’s-inn, had written his “Supplication of the Beggars,” against the begging friars, and against indulgences, &c. (See art. Fish ) This work was highly acceptable to Henry VIII. as favouring his quarrel with the pope. The lord chancellor, however, who was a more consistent catholic than his majesty, answered it, and Fryth answered More, denying the doctrine of purgatory. His opinions on the sacrament were also highly obnoxious, and after a strict search, he was betrayed into the hands of the civil power by a treacherous friend, and sent prisoner to the Tower. He was several times examined by the lord chancellor, who uniformly treated him with contempt and cruelty, but refusing to recant, he was ordered to be burnt, which sentence was executed in Smithfield, July 4, 1533, in the prime of his life. He had a very remarkable opportunity, some time before, of making his escape, the servants who were to convey him to the archbishop’s palace at Croydon, offering to let him go. But this he refused, with more zeal than prudence. He was, according to all accounts, a scholar of great eminence, and well acquainted with the learned languages.

His works are these: “Treatise of Purgatory; Antithesis between Christ and the Pope; Letters unto the faithful followers of Christ’s Gospel, written in the Tower, 1532; Mirror, or Glass to know thyself, written in the Tower, 1532; Mirror or Looking-glass, wherein you may behold the Sacrament of Baptism; Articles, for which he died, written in Newgate-prison, June 23, 1533; Answer to Sir Thomas More’s Dialogues concerning Heresies; Answer to John Fisher, bishop of Rochester, &c.” all which treatises were reprinted at London, 1573, in folio, with the works of Tyndale and Barnes. He also wrote some translations.

, an eminent and learned German printer, was a native of Hammelburg, in Franconia, where he was from his childhood trained to literature. Afterwards he went to the university of Basil, where he acquired the reputation of being uncommonly learned. With a view of promoting useful learning, for which he was very zealous, he applied himself to the art of printing; and, becoming a master of it, opened a shop at Basil. He was the first of the German printers who brought the art to any perfection; and, being a man of great probity and piety, as well as skill, he was,' what very few have been, particularly choice in the authors he printed. He would never suffer libels, or any thing that might hurt the reputation of another, to go through his press for the sake of profit; but very justly thought all such practices disgraceful to his art, disgraceful to letters, and infinitely pernicious to religion and society. The great reputation and character of this printer was the principal motive which led Erasmus to fix his residence at Basil, in order to have his own works printed by him. The connection between Erasmus and Frobenius grew very close and intimate; and was a connection of friendship and the sincerest cordiality. Erasmus loved the good qualities of Frobenius, as much as Frobenius could admire the great ones of Erasmus.; There is an epistle of Erasmus extant, which contains so full an account of this printer, that it forms a very curious memorial for his life. It was written in 1527, on the occasion of Frobenius’s death, which happened that year; and which, Erasmus tells us, he bore so extremely ill, that he really began to be ashamed of his grief, since what he felt upon the death of his own brother was not to be compared to it. He says, that he lamented the loss of Froben, not so much because he had a strong affection for him, but because he seemed raised up by Providence for the promoting of liberal studies. Then he proceeds to describe his good qualities, which were indeed very great and numerous; and concludes with a particular account of his death, which was somewhat remarkable. He relates, that about five years before, Frobenius had the misfortune to fall from the top of a pair of stairs, on a brick pavement; which fall, though he then imagined himself not much hurt by it, is thought to have laid the foundation of his subsequent malady. The year before he died, he was seized with most exquisite pains in his right ancle; but was in time so relieved from these, that he was able to go to Francfort on horseback. The malady, however, whatever it was, was not gone, but had settled in the toes of his right foot, of which he had no use. Next, a numbness seized the fingers of his right hand; and then a dead palsy, which taking him when he was reaching something from a high place, he fell with his head upon the ground, and discovered few signs of life afterwards. He died at Basil, in 1527, lamented by all, but by none more than Erasmus, who wrote his epitaph in Greek and Latin. Both these epitaphs are at the end of his epistle.

Bending their course northward, they came on the 24th within sight of Fara, one of the islands of Shetland; and on the llth of July discovered Friezeland r which stood high, and was all covered with snow. They could not land by reason of the ice and great depth of water near the shore; the east point of this island, however, they named “Queen Elizabeth’s Foreland.” On the 28th they had sight of Meta Incognita, being part of New Greenland; on which also they could not land, for the reasons just mentioned. August the 10th, he went on a desert island three miles from the continent, but staid there only a few hours. The next day he entered into a strait which he called “Frobisher’s Strait;” and the name is still retained. On the J2th, sailing to Gabriel’s Island, they came to a sound, which they named Prior’s Sound, and anchored in a sandy bay there. The 15th they sailed to Prior’s Bay, the 17th to Thomas Williams’s Island, and the 18th came to an anchor under Burcher’s Island. Here they went on shore, and had some communication with the natives; but he was so unfortunate as to have five of his men and a boat taken by those barbarians. They were like the Tartars, or Samoeids, with long black hair, broad faces, flat noses, and tawny; the garments both of men and women were made of seal-skins, and did not differ in fashion; but the women were marked in the face with blue streaks down the cheeks, and round the eyes. Having endeavoured in vain to recover hit men, he set sail again for England the 26th of August; and, notwithstanding a terrible "storm on the 7th, arrived safe at Harwich on the 2d of October.

He took possession of that country in the queen of England’s name; and, in token of such possession, ordered his men to bring whatever they could first find. ( One among the rest brought a piece of black stone, much like seacoal, but very heavy. Having at his return distributed fragments of it among his friends, one of the adventurer’s wives threw a fragment into the fire; which being taken out again, and quenched in vinegar, glittered like gold; and, being tried by some refiners in London, was found to contain a portion of that rich metal. This circumstance raising prodigious expectations of gold, great numbers earnestly pressed Frobisher to undertake a second voyage the next spring. The queen lent him a ship of the royal navy of 200 tons; with which, and two barks of about 30 tons each, they fell down to Gravesend May 26, 1577, and there received the sacrament together; an act of religion not so frequently performed as it ought to be, among men exposed to so many perils, and more particularly under the protection of heaven. They sailed from Harwich on the 3 1st of May, and arrived in St. Magnus Sound at the Orkney Islands, upon the 7th of June; from whence they kept their course for the space of twenty-six days, without seeing any land. They met, however, with great drifts of wood, and whole bodies of trees; which were either blown off the cliffs of the nearest lands by violent storms, or rooted up and carried by floods into the sea. At length, on the 4th of July, they discovered Friezeland; along the coasts of which they found islands of ice of incredible bigness, some being 70 or 80 fathoms under water, besides the part that stood above water, and more than half a mile in circuit. Not having been able safely to land in this place, they proceeded for Frobisher’s Straits; and on the 17th of the same month made the North Foreland in them, otherwise called Hall’s Island; as also a smaller island of the same name, where they had in their last voyage found the ore, but could not now get a piece so large as a walnut. They met with some of it, however, in other adjacent islands, but not enough to merit their attention. They sailed about to make what discoveries they could, and gave names to several bays and isles; as Tackman’s Sound, Smith’s Island, Beare’s Sound, Leicester’s Isle, Anne countess of Warwick’s Sound and Island, York Sound, &c.

He had but just left school, and was scarcely twenty years ol i, when at the intreaty of “his dear lord and master sir Robert de Namur, lord of Beaufort,” he undertook to write the history of the wars of his own time, more particularly of those which ensued after the battle of Poitiers. Four years afterwards, having gone to England, he presented a part of this history to queen Philippa of Hainault, the wife of Edward III. However young he might then be, he had already travelled into the most distant provinces of France. The object of his visit to England was to tear himself from the pains of an attachment which had tormented him for a long time. This passion took possession of his heart from his infancy; it lasted ten years, and sparks of it were again rekindled in a more advanced age. The history of this attachment may be seen in our authority. It appears to have been first childish, and then romantic, and for his feelings in either state, we have only poetical evidence, and from that we learn that he had more mistresses than one. He had made two journies to England, but on which occasion he presented his history to queen Philippa is not certain. It was well received, however, and probably gained him the title of Clerk (secretary or writer) of the chamber to that princess, which he was in possession of from 1361. She is said frequently to have amused herself, in that age of romantic gallantry, by making Froissart compose amorous ditties; but this occupation must be considered solely as a relaxation that no way impeded more serious works, since during the five years he was attached to the service of queen Philippa, he travelled at her expence to various parts of Europe, the object of which seems to be a research after whatever might enrich his history.

It was about this time that Froissart experienced a loss which nothing could recompense, the death of Philippa, which took place in 1369. He composed a lay on this melancholy event, of which, however, he was not a witness; for he says, in another place, that in 1395 it was twenty-seven years since he had seen England. According to Vossius and Bullart he wrote the life of queen Philippa; but this assertion is not founded on any proofs. Independently of the employment of clerk of the chamber to the queen of England, which Froissart had held, he had been also of the household of Edward III. and even of that of John, king of France. Having, however, lost his patroness, he did not return to England, but went into his own country, where he obtained the living of Lestines. Of all that he performed during the time he exercised this ministry, he tells us nothing moiv than that the tavernkeepers of Lestines had live hundred francs of his money in ike short space of liuwj he was their rector. It is mentioned in a ms journal of the bishop of Chartres, chunceHor to the duke of Anjou, that according to letters sealed Dec. 12, 138 >, this prince caused to be seized fifty-six quires of the Chronicle of Froissart, rector of the parish church of Lestines, which the historian had sent to be illuminated, and then to be forwarded to the king of England., the enemy of France. Froissart attached himself afterwards to Winceslaus of Luxembourg, duke of Brabant, perhaps in quality of secretary. This prince had a taste for poetry; he had made by Froissart a collection of his songs, rondeaus, and virrlays, and Froissart adding s-nne of his own pieces to those of the prince, formed a soft of romance, under the title of “Meliador, or the Kujght of the Sun;” hut the duke did not live to see the completion of the work, for he died in 1334.

Almost immediately after this event Froissart found another patron in Guy count de 3lojis, who made him clerk oJ' his chapel; and he testified his gratitude by a pastoral, and epithalamium on a marriage in the family. He passed the years 1385, 1386, and 1387, sometimes in the Blaisois, sometimes in Touraine; but the count de Blois having engaged him to continue his history, which he left unfinished, he determined in 1388 to take advantage of the peace which was just concluded, to visit the court of Gaston Phoebus count de Foix, in order to gain full information in whatever related to foreign countries, and the more distant provinces of the kingdom-. His health and age still allowed him to bear great fatigue; his memory was suifrciently strong to retain whatever he should hear; and his judgment clear enough, to point out to him the use he should make of it. In his journey to the count de Foix, he met on the road with sir Espaing du Lyon, a gallant knight who had served in the wars, and was able to give him much information. At length they arrived at Ortez in Beam, the ordinary residence of the count de Foix, where Froissart met with a society suited to. his views, composed of brave captains who had distinguished themselves in combats or tournaments. Here Froissart used to entertain Gaston, after supper, by reading to him the romance of “Meliador,” which he had brought with him. After a considerable residence at this court, he left it in the suite of the young duchess of Berry, whom he accorupanied to Avignon. His stay here, however, was unfortunate, as he was robbed; which incident he made the subject of a long poem, representing his loss, and his expensive turn. Among other things he says that the composition of his works had cost him 700 francs, but he regretted, not this expence, for he adds, “I have composed many a history which will be spoken of by posterity.”

, canon regular of the congregation of St. Genevieve, and chancellor of the university of Paris, was born at Angers in 1614. His father was a notstry of that place. He was first educated under a private ecclesiastic in the neighbourhood of Angers, and is said to have made such rapid progress in these his early studies, that in less than five years he could readily translate into Latin and Greek. On his return to Angers he studied three years in the college of the oratory there, and was afterwards sent to that of La Fleche, where he completed his classical course. In 1630 he took the habit of a canon regular of the abbey of Toussaint, at Augers, and made profession the year following. Having dedicated his philosophical thesis to father Favre, this led to an acquaintance with the latter, by whose orders he came to Paris in 1636, and in 1637 was chosen professor of philosophy in the abbey of iSt. Genevieve. His first course of philosophical lectures being finished in 1639, he was employed to lecture on divinity, which he did with equal reputation, following the principles of St. Thomas, to which he was much attached; but his lectures were not dry and scholastic, but enlivened by references to the fathers, and to ecclesiastical history, a knowledge of which he thought would render them more useful to young students: and besides his regular lectures on theology, he held every week a conference on some subject of morals, or some part of the scriptures. Jansenius having published his “Augustinus,” he read it with attention, and thought he discovered in it the true sentiments of St. Augustine. Some time after, the Jesuits having invited him to be present at the theological theses of the college of Clermont, and having requested him to open the ceremony, he delivered a very learned and eloquent discourse, which was at first well received, but having attacked a proposition concerning predestination, he was suspected of inclining towards innovation. In a conference, however, with two fathers of the congregation, he explained his sentiments in such a manner as to satisfy them. In 1648 he was made chancellor of the university of Paris, although with some opposition from the members of the university, not upon his own account, but that of the fathers of the congregation in general, who had rendered themselves obnoxious to the university by the erection of a number of independent seminaries.

, a Roman writer, who flourished in the first century, and was in high repute under Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, Nerva, and Trajan, was a man of consular dignity, a great officer who commanded the Roman armies in England, and elsewhere, with success; and he is mentioned in high terms of panegyric by all the writers of his time. He was city-prgetor when Vespasian and Titus were consuls. Nerva made him crfrtitor of the aquasducts, which occasioned him to write his treatise, “De Aquaeductibus Urbis Romse.” He wrote also “Tres libros’ Stratagematum,” or, concerning the stratagems used in war by the most eminent Greek and Roman commanders; and afterwards added a fourth, coritaining examples of those arts and maxims, discoursed of in the former. These two works are still extant, together with a piece “De Re Agraria;” and another, “De Limitibus.” They have been often printed separately, but were all published together in a neat edition at Amsterdam in 1661, with notes by Robertus Keuchenius, who has placed at the end the fragments of several works of Frontinus that are lost. This eminent man died in the year 106, under Trajan, and was succeeded as augur by the younger Pliny, who mentions him with honour. He forbade any monument to be erected to him after his death, declaring, that every man was sure to be remembered without any such testimonial, if he had lived so as to deserve it. His words, as Pliny has preserved them, were these: “Impensa monument! supervacua est memoria nostri durabit, si vita meruimus.”

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

, an English law-writer, was the son of Thomas Fulbeck, who was mayor of Lincoln at the time of his death in J 566. He was born in the parish of St. Benedict in that city in 1560, entered as a commoner of St. Alban hall, Oxford, in 1577, and was admitted scholar of Corpus Christi college about two years after. In 1581 he took his bachelor’s degree, and the next year became probationer fellow. He then removed to Gloucester-hall (now Worcester college) where he completed the degree of M. A. in 1584. From Oxford he went to Gray’s Inn, London, where he applied with great assiduity to the study of the municipal law. Wood says, he had afterwards the degree of civil law conferred on him, but where he had not been able to discover, nor is the place or time of his death known. From an extract from, bishop Kennet, in the new edition of Wood, it seems not improbable that he took orders. His works are, 1. “Christian Ethics,” Lond. 1587, 8vo. 2. “An historical collection of the continual factions, tumults, and massacres -of the Romans before the peaceable empire of Augustus Caesar,” ibid. 1600, 8vo, 1601, 4to. 3. “A direction or preparative to the study of the Law,” ibid. 1600, 8vo, afterwards published, with a new title-page, as “A parallel or conference of the civil, the canon, and the common law,” ibid. 1618. 4. “The Pandects of the Laws of Nations; or the discourses of the matters in law, wherein the nations of the world do agree,” ibid. 1602, 4to.

, bishop of Chartres, who flourished towards the end of the tenth t and beginning of the eleventh century, is celebrated, in the Tlomish church history, for his learning and piety. Some authors rank him among the chancellors of France, under the reign or‘ king Robert, but he was only chancellor of the church of Chartres, at the same time that he was rector of the school. He had been himself a disciple of the learned Gerbert, who was afterwards pope Sylvester II. in the year 999. Fulbert came from Rome to France, and taught in the schools belonging to the church of Chartres, which were then not only attended by a great concourse of scholars, but by his means contributed greatly to the revival of learning and religioii in France and Germany; and most of the eminent men of his time thought it an honour to be able to say that they had been his scholars. In 1007 he succeeded to the bishopric of Chartres, and the duke William gave him the office of treasurer of St. Hilary of Poitiers, the profits of which Fulbert employed in rebuilding his cathedral church. He was distinguished in his time for attachment to ecclesiasrtical discipline, and apostolic courage; and such was his character and fame, that he was highly esteemed by the princes and sovereigns of his age, by Robert, king of France, Canute, king of England; Richard II. duke of Normandy; William, duke of Aquitaine; and the greater part of the contemporary noblemen and prelates. He continued bishop of Chartres for twenty-one years and six months, and died, according to the abbé Fleuri, in 1029; but others, with more probability, fix that event on April 10, 1028. His works, which were printed, not very correctly, by Charles de Villiers in 1608, consist of letters, sermons, and some lesser pieces in prose and verse. His sermons, Dupin thinks, contain little worthy of notice; but his letters, which amount to 134-, have ever been considered as curious memorials of the history and sentiments of the times. They prove, however, that although Fulbert might contribute much to the propagation of learning, he had not advanced in liberality of sentiment before his contemporaries. There are also two other letters of our prelate in existence, the one in D’Acheri’s “Spicilegium,” and the other in Martenne’s “Thesaurus Anecdotorum,” both illustrative of his sentiments, and the sentiments of his age.

, an ecclesiastical writer, was borti at Telepta, or Tellepte, about the year 468. He was of an illustrious family, the son of Claudius, and grandson of Gordianus, a senator of Carthage. Claudius dying early, left his son, then very young, to the care of his widow Mariana. He was properly educated in the knowledge of the Latin and Greek languages, and made such progress in his studies, that while yet a boy he could repeat all Homer, and spoke Greek with fluency and purity. As soon as he was capable of an employment he was made procurator or receiver of the revenues of his province. But this situation displeased him, because of the rigour he was forced to use in levying taxes; and therefore, notwithstanding the tears and dissuasions of his mother, he left the world, and took the monastic vows under Faustus, a bishop persecuted by the Arian faction, who had founded a monastery in that neighbourhood. The continued persecutions of the Arians soon separated him and Faustus; and not long after, the incursions of the Moors obliged him to retire into the country of Sicca, where he was whipped and imprisoned. Afterwards he resolved to go into Egypt; but in his voyage was dissuaded by Eulalius bishop of Syracuse, because the monks of the East had separated from the catholic church. He consulted also a bishop of Africa, who had retired into Sicily; and this bishop advised him to return to his own country, after he had made a journey to Rome. King Theodoric was in that city when he arrived there, which was in the year 500. After he had visited the sepulchres of the apostles he returned to his own country, where he built a monastery.

Africa was then under the dominion of Thrasitnond king of the Vandals, an Arian, and a cruel enemy to the catholics. He had forbidden to ordain catholic bishops in. the room of those who died: but the bishops of Africa were determined not to obey an order which threatened the extinction of orthodoxy. Fulgentius, under these circumstances, wished to avoid being a bishop; and when elected for the see of Vinta in the year 507, fled and concealed himself, but being soon discovered, was appointed bishop of Ruspae much against his will. On this elevation he did not change either his habit or manner of living, but uspd. the same austerities and abstinence as before. He still loved the monks, and delighted to retire into a monastery as often as the business of his episcopal function allowed him time. Afterwards he had the same fate with about two hundred and twenty catholic bishops of Africa, whom. Thrasimond banished into the island of Sardinia; and though he was not the oldest among them, yet they paid such respect to his learning, as to employ his pen in all the writings produced in the name of their body. So great was his reputation, that Thrasimond had a curiosity to see and hear him; and having sent for him to Carthage, he proposed to him many difficulties, which Fulgentius solved to his satisfaction: but because he confirmed the catholics, and converted many Arians, their bishop at Carthage prayed the king to send, him back to Sardinia. Thrasimond dying about the year 523, his son Hilderic recalled the catholic bishops, of whom Fulgentius was one. He returned, to the great joy of those who were concerned with him, led a most exemplary life, governed his clergy well, and performed all the offices of a good bishop. He died in the year 533, on the first day of the year, being then sixty- five.

, who is sometimes confounded with the preceding St. Fulgentius, is supposed to have been bishop of Carthage in the sixth century, but some think not before the eighth or ninth. He is the author of three books of mythology, addressed to one Catus, a priest. They were first published in 1498, at Bftilan, in folio, by Jo. Bapt. Pius, who added a commentary.Jerome Commolin reprinted them in 1599, with the works of other mythologists. There is likewise a treatise by him “De Prisco Sermone, ad Chalcidium,” published Hy Hadrian Junius, at Antwerp, 1565, along with Nonius Marcel I us, and afterwards reprinted with the “Auctones Linguae Latinaj,” Paris, 1586, and elsewhere. His works are now rather curious than valuable, as they bear the impress of the dark age in which be lived.

His works, chiefly controversial, are, I. “Anti-prognosticon contra predictiones Nostradami,” &c. 1560. 2. “Sermon at Hampton -court,” 1571. 3. “Confutation df a libelle in forme of an apology made by Frocknam,” 1571. 4. “A goodly gallery, or treatise on meteors,” 1571. 5. “Astrologus ludus,” 1571. 6. “Metpomaxia, sive Ludus geometricus,” 1578. 7. “Responsio ad Tho. Stapletoni cavillationes,” 1579. 8. “A retentive against the motives of Richard Bristow; also a discovery of the dangerous rock of the popish church,” 1580. 9. “A defence of the translation of the Holy Scriptures in English,” 1583. 10. “Confutation of Will. Allen’s treatise in defence of the usurped power of the popish priesthood.” feut the work by which he is best known, and is still remembered with high esteem, is his Comment upon the Rheims Testament, printed in 1580, and reprinted in 1601 with this title: “The Text of the New Testament of Jesus Christ, translated out of the vulgar Latin by the Papists of the traiterous Seminarie at Rhemes. With arguments of books, chapters, and annotations, pretending to discover the corruptions of divers translations, and to clear the controversies of these days. Whereunto is added the translation out of the original Greek, commonly used in the Church of England; with a confutation of all such arguments, glosses, and annotations, as containe manifest impietie of Heresie, Treason, and Slander against the Catholike Church of God, and the true teachers thereof, or the translations used in the church of England. The whole worke, perused and enlarged in divers places by the author’s owne hand before his death, with sundry quotations and authorities out of Holy Scriptures, Counsels, Fathers, and History. More amply than in the former Edition.” This work was published again, 1617 and 1633, in folio, as it was before, and proves that in power of argument and criticism, he was one of the ablest divines of his time, and one of the principal opponents of the popish party. One other work has been attributed to him, we know not on what authority, which was published under the name of Mr. Dudley Fenner; entitled “A. brief and plain declaration, containing the desires of all those faithful ministers who seek discipline and reformation of the church of England, which may serve as a just apology against the false accusations and slanders of their adversaries,” 1584. Having never been molested on account of his opinions, unless when at college, there seems no reason why he should now publish them under another name.

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

, a learned English divine and critic, was born at Southampton in 1557, and educated at the free-school in that town. He did not go directly thence to the university, but was taken into the family of the bishop of Winchester, Dr. Robert Home; where spending some time in study, he was made at length his secretary, and afterwards continued in that office by his successor, Dr. Watson. But Watson dying also in about three years, Fuller returned home, with a resolution to follow his studies. Before he was gettled there, he was invited to be tutor to the sons of a knight in Hampshire, whom he accompanied to St. John’s college, Oxford, in 1584. His pupils leaving him in a little time, he removed himself to Hart- hall, where he took both the degrees in arts, and then retired into the country. He afterwards took order*, and was presented to the rectory of Aldington, or Ailington, near Amesbury, in Wiltshire. He afterwards became a prebendary in the church of Salisbury*, and rector of Bisbop’s-Waltham, in Hampshire. He died in 1622. He was extremely learned in the sacred tongues, and, as Wood quaintly says, “was so happy in pitching upon useful difficulties, tending to the understanding of the Scripture, that he surpassed all the critics of his time.” His “Miscellanea Theologica,” in four books, were published first at Heidelberg, 1612, 8vo, and afterwards at Oxford, in 1616, and at London, in 1617, 4 to. These miscellanies coming into the hands of John Drusius, in Holland, he charged Fuller with plagiarism, and with taking his best notes from him without any acknowledgment. But Fuller, knowing himself guiltless, as having never seen Drusius’s works, published a vindication of himself at Leyden, in 1622, together with two more books of “Miscellanea Sacra,” Leyden and Strasburgh, 1650, 4to. All these miscellanies are printed in the 9th volume of the Critici Sacri,“and dispersed throughout Pool’s” Synopsis Griticorum.“There are some manuscript* of Fuller in the Bodleian library at Oxford, which shew his great skill in Hebrew and in philological learning; as” An Exposition of rabbi Mordecai Nathan’s Hebrew Roots, with notes upon it,“and” A Lexicon," which he intended to have published with the preceding.

He was soon after ordained priest, and presented to the rectory of Broad Windsor, in Dorsetshire; in 1635 he came again to Cambridge, and took his degree of B. D. after which, returning to Broad Windsor, he married about 1638, and had one son, but lost his wife about 1641. During his retirement at this rectory, he began to complete several works he had planned at Cambridge; but growing weary of a country parish, and uneasy at the unsettled state of public affairs, he removed to London; and distinguished himself so much in the pulpits there, that he was invited by the master and brotherhood of the Savoy to be their lecturer. In 1640, he published his “History f the Holy War;” it was printed at Cambridge, in folio, and was so favourably received, that a third edition appeared in 1647. On April 13, 1640, a parliament was called, and then also a convocation began at Westminster, in Henry VII.'s chapel, having licence granted to make new canons for the better government of the church; of this convocation he was a member, and has amply detailed its proceedings in his “Church History,” During the commencement of the rebellion, and when the king left London in 1641, to raise an army, Mr. Fuller continued at the Savoy, to the great satisfaction of his people, and the neighbouring nobility and gentry, labouring all the while in private and in public to serve the king. To this end, on. the anniversary of his inauguration, March 27, 1642, he preached at Westminster-abbey, on this text, 2 Sam. xix. 30: “Yea, let him take all, so that my lord the king return in peace;” which being printed, gave great offence to those who were engaged in the opposition, and brought the preacher into no small danger. He soon found that he must expect to be silenced and ejected, as others had been; yet desisted not, till he either was, or thought himself unsettled. This appears from what he says in the preface to his “Holy State,” which was printed in folio that same year at Cambridge. This is a collection of characters, moral essays and lives, ancient, foreign, and domestic. The second edition of 1648, contains “Andronicus, or the unfortunate politician,” originally printed by itself in 1646, 12mo.

In 1643, refusing to take an oath to the parliament, unless with such reserves as they would not admit, he was obliged in April of that year to convey himself to the king at Oxford, who received him gladly. As his majesty had heard of his extraordinary abilities in the pulpit, he was now desirous of knowing them personally; and accordingly Fuller preached before him at St. Mary’s church. His fortune upon this occasion was very singular. He had before preached and published a sermon in London, upon “the new-moulding church-reformation,” which caused him to be censured as too hot a royalist and now, from his sermon at Oxford, he was thought to be too lukewarm which can only be ascribed to his moderation, which he would sincerely have inculcated in each party, as the only means of reconciling both. During his stay here, he resided in Lincoln college, but was not long after sequestered, and lost all his books and manuscripts. This loss, the heaviest he could sustain, was made up to him partly by Henry lord Beauchamp, and partly by Lionel Cranfield, earl of Middlesex, wiio gave him the remains of his father’s library. That, however, he might not lie under the suspicion of want of zeal or courage in the royal cause, be determined to join the army; and therefore, being well recommended to sir Ralph Hopton, in 1643, he was admitted by him in quality of chaplain. For this employ-, ment he was quite at liberty, being deprived of all other preferment. And now, attending the army from place to place, he constantly exercised his duty as chaplain; yet found proper intervals for his beloved studies, which he employed chiefly in making historical collections, and especially in gathering materials for his “Worthies of England,” which he did, not only by an extensive correspondence, but by personal inquiries in every place which the army had occasion to pass through.

After the battle at Cheriton-Down, March 29, 1644, lord Hopton drew on his army to Basing-house, and Fuller, being left there by him, animated the garrison to so vigorous a defence of that place, that sir William Waller was obliged to raise the siege with considerable loss. But the, war hastening to an end, and part of the king’s army being driven into Cornwall, under lord Hopton, Fuller, with the leave of that nobleman, took refuge at Exeter, where he resumed his studies, and preached constantly to the citizens. During his residence here he was appointed chaplain to the infant princess Henrietta Maria, who was born at Exeter in June 1643; and the king soon after gave him a patent for his presentation to the living of Dorchester in Dorsetshire. He continued his attendance on the princess till the surrender of Exeter to the parliament, in April 1646; but did not accept the living, because he determined to remove to London at the expiration of the war. He relates, in his * Worthies,“an extraordinary circumstance which happened during the siege of Exeter” When the city of Exeter, he says, was besieged by the parliament forces, so that only the south side thereof towards the sea was open to it, incredible numbers of larks were found in that open quarter, for multitude like quailg in the wilderness; though, blessed be God, unlike them in the cause and effect; as not desired with man’s destruction, nor sent with God’s anger, as appeared by their safe digestion into wholesome nourishment. Hereof I was an, eye and mouth-witness. I will save my credit in not conjecturing any number; knowing that herein, though I should stoop beneath the truth, I should mount above belief. They were as fat as plentiful; so that being sold for two-pence a dozen and under, the poor who could have no cheaper, and the rich no better meat, used to make pottage of them, boiling them down therein. Several causes were assigned hereof, &c. but the cause of causes was the Divine Providence; thereby providing a feast for many poor people, who otherwise had been pinched for provision.“While here, as every where else, he was much courted on account of his instructive and pleasant conversation, by persons of high rank, some of whom made him very liberal offers; but whether from a love of study, or a spirit of independence, he was always reluctant in accepting any otters that might seem to confine him to any one family, or patron. It was at Exeter, where he is said to have written his” Good Thoughts in Bad Times,“and where the book was published in 1645, as what he calls” the first fruits of Exeter press.“At length the garrison being forced to surrender, he came to London, and met but a coid reception among his former parishioners, and found his lecturer’s place filled by another. However, it was not Ions: before he was chosen lecturer at St. Clement’s near Lombard-street and shortly after removed to St. Bride’s, in Fleet-street. In 1647 he published, in 4to,” A Sermon of Assurance, fourteen years agoe preached at Cambridge, since in other places now, by the importunity of his friends, exposed to public view.“He dedicated it to sir John Danvers, who had been a royalist, was then an Oliverian, and next year one of the king’s judges; and in the dedication he says, that” it had been the pleasure of the present authority to make him mute; forbidding him till further order the exercise of his public preaching.“Notwithstanding his being thus silenced, he was, about 1648, presented to the rectory of Waltham, in Essex, by the earl of Carlisle, whose chaplain he was just before made. He spent that and the following year betwixt London and Waltham, employing some engravers to adorn his copious prospect or view of the Holy Land, as from mount Pisgah; therefore called his” Pi*gah-sijht of Palestine and the confines thereof, with the history of the Old and New Testament acted thereon,“which he published in 1650. It is an handsome folio, embellished with a frontispiece and many other copper- plates, and divided into five books. As for his” Worthies of England,“on which he had been labouring so long, the death of the king for a time disheartened him from the continuance of that work:” For what shall I write,“says he,” of the Worthies of England, when this horrid act will bring such an infamy upon the whole nation as will ever cloud an4 darken all its former, and suppress its future rising glories?“He was, therefore, busy till the year last mentioned, in preparing that book and others; and the next year he rather employed himself in publishing some particular lives of religious reformers, martyrs, confessors, bishops, doctors, and other learned divines, foreign and domestic, than in augmenting his said book of” English Worthies“in general. To this collection, which was executed by several hands, as he tells us in the preface, he gave the title of” Abel Redivivus,“and published it in 4to, 1651. In the two or three following years he printed several sermons and tracts upon religious subjects. About 1654 he married a sister of the viscount Baltinglasse; and the next year she brought him a son, who, as well as the other before-mentioned, survived his father. In 1655, notwithstanding Cromwell’s prohibition of all persons from, preaching, or teaching school, who had been adherents to the late king, he continued preaching, and exerting his charitable disposition towards those ministers who were ejected by the usurping powers, and not only relieved such from what he could spare out of his own slender estate, but procured many contributions for them from his auditories. Nor was his charity confined to the clergy; and among the laity whom he befriended, there is an instance upon record of a captain of the army who was quite destitute, and whom he entirely maintained until he died. In 1656 he published in folio,” The Church History of Britain, from the birth of Jesus Christ to the year 1648;“to which are subjoined,” The History of the University of Cambridge since the conquest,“and” The History of Waltham Abbey in Essex, founded by king Harold.“His Church History was animadverted upon by Dr. Hey 1 in in his” Examen Historicum;" and this drew from our author a reply: after which they had no further controversy, but were very well reconciled *. About this time he was invited, accord ing to his biographer, to another living in Essex, in which he continued his ministerial labours until his settlement at London. George, lord Berkeley, one of his noble patrons, having in 1658 made him his chaplain, he took leave of Essex, and was presented by his lordship to the rectory of Cranford in Middlesex. It is said also that lord Berkeley took him over to the Hague, and introduced him to Charles if. It is certain, however, that a short time hefore the restoration, Fuller was re-admitted to his lecture in the Savoy, and on that event restored to his prebend of Salisbury. He was chosen chaplain extraordinary to the king; created doctor of divinity at Cambridge by a mandamus, dated August 2, 1660; and, had he lived a twelvemonth longer, would probably have been raised to a bishopric. But upon his return from Salisbury in August 1661 he was attacked by a fever, of which he died the 15th of that month. His funeral was attended by at least two hundred of his brethren; and a sermon was preached by Dr. Hardy, dean of Rochester, in which a great and noble character was given of him. H was buried in his church at Cranford, on the north wall of the chancel of which is his monument, with the following inscription:

In 1662 was published in folio, with an engraving of him prefixed, his “History of the Worthies of England.” This work, part of which was printed before the author died, seems not so finished as it would probably have beeu if he had lived to see it completely published: yet it certainly did not deserve the heavy censures of Nicolson. Whatever errors may be found in it, as errors undoubtedly may be found in all works of that nature, the characters or memorials there assembled of so many great men, will always make it a book necessary to be consulted.

Besides the works already mentioned in the course of this memoir, Fuller was the author of several others of a smaller nature; as, l.“Good Thoughts in bad times.” 2. “Good Thoughts in worse times.” These two pieces printed separately, the former in 1645, the latter in 1647, were published together in 1652, and have very recently been reprinted by the rev. Mr. Hinton, of Oxford. He afterwards published, in 1660, 3. “Mixt Contemplations in better times.” 4. “The Triple Reconciler; stating three controversies, viz. whether ministers have an exclusive power of barring communicants from the sacrament; whether any person unordained may lawfully preach; and whether the Lord’s Prayer ought not to be used by all Christians, 1654,” 8vo. 5. “The speech of birds, also of flowers, partly moral, partly mystical, 1660,” 8vo. A work entitled “T. Fuller’s Triana; or three-fold Romanza of Mariana, Paduana, and Sabina,” 1662, 12mo, is attributed to him in some catalogues. He published also a great many sermons, separately and in volumes.

Of the powers of his memory, such wonders are related as are not quite credible. He could repeat five hundred strange words after twice hearing, and could make use of a sermon verbatim, if he once heard it. He undertook, in passing from Temple-bar to the farthest part of Cheapside, to tell at his return every sign as it stood in order on both sides of the way, repeating them either backwards or forwards: and he did it exactly. His manner of writing is also reported to have been strange. He wrote, it is said, near the margin the first words of every line down to the foot of the paper; then, by beginning at the head again, would so perfectly fill up every one of these lines, and without spaces, interlineations, or contractions, would so connect the ends and beginnings, that the sense would appear as complete, as if he had written it in a continued series after the ordinary manner. This, however, he might sometimes do to amuse his friends; it never could have been his practice.

, an English physician, but perhaps better known for a very useful work on morals, was born June 24, 1654, and was educated at Queen’s college, Cambridge, where he took his degrees in medicine, that of M. B. in 1676, and that of M. D. in 1681. He does not appear to have been a member of the college of physicians of London, but settled at Sevenoak in Kent, where he was greatly esteemed. He was a great benefactor to the poor, and a zealous assertor of their rights, having, not long before his death, prosecuted the managers of a considerable charity given to the inhabitants of that town by sir William Senoke (a foundling of the place, and in 1418 lord mayor of London) and obliged them to produce their accounts in chancery, and to be subject for the future to an annual election. Here Dr. Fuller died, Sept. 17, 1734. The moral work which he published was entitled “Introductio ad prudentiam; or directions, counsels and cautions, tending to prudent management of affairs of common life,” 1727, 12mo, compiled for the use of his son. To this he added, what may be reckoned a second volume, with the title of “Introductio, &c.; or the art of right thinking, assisted and improved by such notions as men of sense and experience have left us in their writings, in order to eradicate error, and plant knowledge,” 1731-2, 12mo. His medical works were, 1. “Pharmacopreia extemporanea,” 1702 and 1714, 8vo. 2. “Pharmacopoeia Bateana,” 1718, 12mo. 3.“Pharmacopoeia Domestica,” 1723, 8vo, 4.“Of eruptive fevers, measles, and small-pox,” 1730, 4to. There is another work entitled “Medici na Gymnastica,” which has been sometimes attributed to him, but was written by a Francis Fuller, M. A. of St. John’s college, Cambridge, and published in 1704.

, so called from the trade of a fuller, which he exercised in his monastic state, intruded himself into the see of Antioch, in the fifth century, and after having been several times deposed and condemned on account of the bitterness of his opposition to the council of Chalcedon, was at last fixed in it, in the year 482, by the authority of the emperor Zeno, and the favour of Acacius, bishop of Constantinople, Among the innovations which he introduced to excite discord in the church, was an alteration in the famous hymn which the Greeks called Tris-agion. After the words “O God most holy, &c.” he ordered the following phrase to be added in the eastern churches, “who has suffered for us upon the cross.” His design in this was to raise a new sect, and also to fix more deeply in the minds of the people, the doctrine of one nature in Christ, to which he was zealously attached. His adversaries, and especially Fcelix, the Roman pontiff, interpreted this addition in a quite different manner, and charged him with maintaining, that all the three persons of the Godhead were crucified and hence his followers were called Theopaschites. To put an end to the controversy, the emperor Zeno published in the year 482 the “Henoticon,” or decree of onion, which was designed to reconcile the parties, and Fullo signed it; but the effects of the contest disturbed the church for a long time after his death, which happened in the year 486.

, an ingenious and learned lawyer, was born at Paris in 1620; and, after a liberal education, became eminent in the civil and canon law. He was first an advocate in the parliament; and afterwards, taking orders, was presented to the abbey of Chalivoy, and the priory of Chuines. Many works of literature recommended him to the public; but he is chiefly known and valued for his “Universal Dictionary of the French Tongue,” in which he explains the terms of art in all sciences. He died in 1688. He was of the French academy, but, though a very useful member, was excluded in 1685, on the accusation of having composed his dictionary, by taking advantage of that of the academy, which was then going on. He justified himself by statements, in which he was very severe against the academy; but wished, a little before his death, to be re-admitted; and he offered to give any satisfaction, which could reasonably be expected from a man, who owned he had been carried too far by the heat of disputation. His dictionary was not printed till after his death, in 2 vols. fol. Basnage de Beauval published an edition at Amsterdam, 1725, 4 vols., fol. This dictionary was the foundation of that known by the name of Trevoux, the last edition of which is, Paris, 1771, 8 vols. fol. His other works are: “Facta,” and. other pieces, against his brother academicians. “Relation des Troubles arrives au Ro‘iaume d’Eloquence;” a tolerably good critical allegory. “Le Roman Bourgeois,” 12mo or 8vo; a book esteemed in its time. Five “Satires” in verse, 12mo, which are not valued. “Paraboles Evangeliques,” inverse, 1672, 12mo. There is also a “Furetieriana,” in which there are some amusing anecdotes.

, called Bibaculus, perhaps from his excessive drinking, an ancient Latin poet, was born at Cremona about the year of Rome 650, or 100 before Christ. He wrote annals, of which Macrobius has preserved some fragments. They are inserted in Maittaire’s “Corpus Poetarum. >r Quintilian says, that he wrote iambics also irt a very satirical strain, and therefore is censured by Cremutius Cordus, in Tacitus, as a slandering and abusive writer. Horace is thought to have ridiculed the false sublime of his taste; yet, according to Macrobius, Virgil is said to have imitated him in many places. But some are of opinion that the” Annals" may be attributed to Furius Antias, or Anthius, a contemporary poet, whose fragments are likewise in Maittaire’s collection.

, a learned dissenting clergyman, was born at Totness in Devonshire in Dec. 1726, and was educated in the free-school of that town at the same time with Dr. Kennicott, who was a few years his senior, and between them a friendship commenced which continued through life. From Totness Dr. Furneaux came to London for academical studies among the dissenters, which he completed in 1749. He was soon after ordained, and chosen assistant to the rev. Henry Read, at the meetinghouse in St. Thomas’s, Southwark, and joint Sunday evening lecturer at Salters’-hall meeting. In 1753 he succeeded the rev, Moses Lowman, as pastor of the congregation at Clapham, which he raised to one of the most opulent and considerable among the protestant dissenters. He remained their favourite preacher, and highly esteemed by all classes, for upwards of twenty-three years, bat was deprived of his usefulness in 1777, by the loss of his mental powers, under which deplorable malady (which was hereditary) he continued to the day of his death, Nov. 23, 1783. His flock and friends raised a liberal subscription to support him during his illness, to which, from sentiments of personal respect, as well as from the principle of benevolence, the late lord Mansfield, chief justice of the king’s bench, generously contributed. Dr. Furneaux (which title he had received from some northern university) united to strong judgment a very tenacious iriemory; of which he gave a remarkable proof, when the cause of the dissenters against the corporation of London, on the exemption they claimed from serving the office of sheriff, was heard in the' house of lords. He was then present, and carried away, and committed to paper, by the strength of his memory, without notes, the very able speech of lord Mansfield, with so much accuracy, that his lordship, when the copy was submitted to his examination, could discover but two or three trivial errors in it. This circumstance introduced him to the acquaintance of that great man, who conceived a high regard for him. Dr. Furneaux published but little, except a few- occasional sermons the most considerable of his works was that entitled “Letters to the hon. Mr. Justice Blackstone, concerning his exposition of the act of toleration, and some positions relative to religious liberty, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England,” 1770, 8vo. This is said to have induced the learned commentator to alter some positions in the subsequent edition of his valu^­able work. To the second edition of Dr. Furneaux’s “Letters” was added the before-mentioned speech of lord Mansfield. In 1773 he published also “An Essay on Toleration,” with a view to an application made by dissenting ministers to parliament for relief in the matter of subscription, which, although unsuccessful then, was afterwards granted.

, an eminent prelate, the descendant of a noble family in Westphalia, was born at Bilstein in 1626. He studied at Cologne, where he contracted an intimate friendship with Chigi, who was then nuncio, and afterwards pope. During the cardinalate of Chigi, he invited f urstemberg to reside with him, whom he raised to the bishopric of Paderborn in 1661, when he himself was seated in the papal chair, under the title of Alexander VII. The high reputation of the bishop attracted the notice of Vat) Galer:, who appointed him his, coadjutor, and whom he succeeded in 1678, when he. was declared by the pope apostolical vicar of all the north of Kurope. He was. a zealous catholic, and anxious for the conversion of those who were not already within the pale of the church; but at the same time he did not neglect the cultivation of the belles lettres, eitper by his own efforts or those of many learned men whom he patronized. He died in 1683, As an author he collected a number of Mss. and monuments of antiquity, and gave to the world valuable work relative to those subjects, entitled “Momimenta Paderbornensia.” He al*o printed at Rome a. collection of Latin poems, entitled “Septem Virorutn. illusirium Poemata.” In this work there were many poems of his own, written witU much purity. A magnificent edition of these poems was published in the same year in which he died, at the Louvre, at the expence of the king of France.

, an eminent physician, was born at Herforden, in Westphalia, in the month of May, 1688. He began the study of medicine at the age of eighteen, and attended with diligence the schools of Wittemberg, Jena, and Halle, and became a licentiate in medicine in the last-mentioned university. About 1709 he returned to Herforden, and immediately obtained a considerable share of practice; but having conceived the design of visiting the Low Countries, he commenced his journey in 1711, in order to hear those great masters of his art, who at that time flourished so numerously in the cities of Amsterdam, Leyden, Utrecht, the Hague, Delft, and Doit. Having profited much by their instructions, whether in the chair, in hospitals, or in private communication, he returned to his native place at the end of a year, and recommenced the practice of his profession with the same ardour as when he quitted Halle, but with more knowledge and greater resources. Nevertheless he again interrupted his practice by another journey in 1716. He tnarried in 1717, with the intention of settling at Herforden; but became a professor in 1720, at Rintlen, where he died April 7, 1756. He left several works: the first of these was frequently re-printed, and bears the title of “Desiderata Medica.” It includes also “Desiderata Anatomico-Physiologica Desiderata circa morbos et eorum sig na Quae desiderantur in Praxi Medica Desiderata Chirurgica.” 2. “De Fatis Medicorum, Oratio Inauguralis,” 1720. 3. “De morbis Jurisconsultorum Epistola,” 1721. 4. “De Dysenteria alba in puerpera Dissertatio,” 1723. 5. “Programmata nonnulla, tempore Magistrates Academici impressa,” 1724 and 1725.

, a French poet, well known by his satirical pieces against Bossuet, Rousseau, La Motte, and others, was the son of a merchant, and born at Lyons in 1667. He became a father of the Oratory; obtained the poetical prize at the French academy in 1717; and died in his priory of Baillon Nov. 15, 1725. Among his works are, “Le Poete sans fard,” a satirical piece, which cost him some months of imprisonment; a French translation of “Anacreon,” with notes, which was the best of his works; “L' Anti-Rousseau,” an attack against J. Baptiste Rousseau, the poet; “L'Homere venge,” against La Motte. Gacon also attacked La Motte, and turned him into ridicule, in a small piece entitled “Les Fables de M. de la Motte, traduites en vers Francois, par P. S. F. au Caffe* du Mont Parnasse, &c.” This poet’s natural propensity to satire and criticism, led him to attack alt sorts of writers, and involved him in all the literary quarrels of his times. The French academy acted with great impartiality, when they adjudged him the prize; for he had written in some shape or other against almost all the members of that illustrious body; and on this account it was, that he was not suffered to make his speech of thanks, as is usual on such occasions, the prize having been remitted to him by the hands of the abbé de Choisy. “Gacon,” says Voltaire, “is placed bj father Niceron in the catalogue of illustrious men, though he has been famous only for bad satires. Such authors cannot be cited but as examples to be detested.” In fact, though he wrote with care, his style was heavy and diffuse in prose, and low in verse.

, one of the astrological impostors of the seventeenth century, was born at Wheatly near Oxford, Dec. 31, 1627. His father, William, was a farmer of that place, and his mother was a daughter of sir John Curzon of Waterperry, knt. Our conjuror was first put apprentice to Thomas Nicols, a taylor, in Oxford, but leaving his master in 1644, he went up to London, and became a pupil of the noted William Lilly, under whom be profited so far as to be soon enabled “to set up the trade of almanack-making and fortune-telling for himself.” His pen was employed for many years on nativities, almanacks, and prodigies. There is, we believe, a complete collection of his printed works in the new catalogue of the British Museum, and vre hope we shall be excused for not transcribing the list. Dodd, who has given an account of him, as a Roman catholic, says that some of his almanacks, reflecting upon the management of state affairs during the time of Oates’s plot, brought him into trouble. While other astrologers were content to exercise their art for the benefit of their own country only, Gadbury extended his to a remote part of the globe, as, in 1674, he published his “West India, or Jamaica Almanack” for that year. He collected and published the works of his friend sir George Wharton in 1683, 8vo. His -old master Lilly, who quarrelled with him, and against whom he wrote a book called “Anti-Merlinus Anglicus,” says he was a “monster of ingratitude,” and “a graceless fellow;” which is true, if, according to his account, he had two wives living at one time, and one of them two husbands. Lilly adds, that be went to sea with intention for Barbadoes, but died by the way in his voyage. When this happened we are not told. Lilly died in 16S1, and according to Wood, Gadbury was living in 1690. “The Black Life of John Gadbury” was written and published by Partridge in 1693, which might be about the time of his death, but his name, as was usual, appeared long after this in an almanack, similar to that published in his life-time. There was another astrologer, a Job Gadbury, who was taught his art by John, and probably succeeded him in the almanack, and who died in 1715.

His only work, which he produced while resident at Merton college, Oxford, is the famous “Rosa Anglica,” which comprises the whole practice of physic; collected indeed chiefly from the Arabians, and the moderns who had written in Latin just before him, but enlarged and interspersed with additions from his own experience. Its title is “Rosa Anglica quatuor Libris distincta, de morbis particularibus: de Febribus, de Chirurgia, de Pharmacopeia.”. Dr. Freind observes, that John seems to have made a collection of all the receipts he had ever met with or heard of and that this book affords us a complete history of what medicines were in use, not only among the physicians of that time, hut among the common people in all parts of England, both in the empirical and superstitious way. Dr. Aikin remarks that the method of producing fresh from salt water by simple distillation (“in an alembic with a gentle heat”) is familiarly mentioned by this author, even at so remote a period.

, an eminent botanist, was born at Calw, in the duchy of Wirtemberg, March 12, 1732. His father, physician to the duke of Wirtemberg, and his mother, both died in his early youth. He was at first destined by his surviving relations for the church, and when he disliked that, the law. was recommended; but at length, from an early bias towards the study of natural history, he resorted to physic, as most congenial to his disposition, and removed to the university of Gottingen, in the 19th year of his age. Here the lectures of Halier and others instructed him in anatomy, physiology, and botany, but he studied these rather for his own information and amusement, than as a means of advancement in the practice of physic. After this he undertook a tour through Italy, France, and England, in the pursuit of knowledge in botany. On his return he took the degree of M. D. and published an inaugural dissertation on the urinary secretion, after which he devoted two years to the study of mathematics, optics, and mechanics, constructing with his own hands a telescope, as well as a common and solar microscope. In the summer of 1759 he attended a course of botanical lectures at Leyden, under the celebrated Adrian Van Royen. He had for some time acquired the use of the pencil, in which he eminently excelled, and which subsequently proved of the greatest use to him in enabling him to draw the beautiful and accurate figures of the books he published. Having bestowed great attention upon the obscurer tribes of marine animals and plants, particularly with a view to the mode of propagation of the latter, as well as of, other cryptogamic vegetables, he revisited England, and spent some time here, as well in scrutinizing the productions of our extensive and varied coasts, as in conversing with those able naturalists Ellis, Collinson, Baker, and others, who were assiduously engaged in similar pursuits. He communicated a paper to the royal society on the polype called Urtica marina, and the Actinia of Linnseus, comprehending descriptions and figures of several species, which is printed in the 52d volume of the Philosophical Transactions; and he prepared several essays on the anatomy of fishes, and other obscure matters of animal and vegetable physiology, part of which only has hitherto been made public. Soon afterwards Dr. Gsertner became a member of the royal society of London, and of the imperial academy of sciences at Petersburg. In 1768, he was instituted professor of botany and natural history at Petersburg, and about a year afterwards he began to plan and prepare materials for the great work on which his eminent reputation rests, the object of which was the illustration of fruits and seeds for the purposes above-mentioned. His situation at Petersburg, however, seems not to have suited either his health or disposition. After having performed a journey into the Ukraine, in which he collected many new or obscure plants, he resigned his professorship at the end of two years, steadily refusing the pension ordinarily attached to it, and retired in the autumn of 17 70 -to his native town, where he married. At the end of eight years he found it necessary, for the perfection of his intended work, to re-visit some of the seats of science in which he had formerly studied, in order to re-examine several botanical collections, and to converse again with persons devoted to similar inquiries with his own. Above all, he was anxious to profit by the discoveries of the distinguished voyagers Banks and Solander, who received him with open arms on his arrival at London, in 1778, and, with the liberality which ever distinguished their characters, freely laid before him all their acquisitions, and assisted him with their own observations and discoveries. A new genus was dedicated to Gaertner by his illustrious friends in their manuscripts; but this being his own sphenoclea, has been superseded by another and a finer plant. He visited Thunberg in his return through Amsterdam, that distinguished botanist and traveller being then lately arrived from Japan; nor were the acquisitions of Gartner less considerable from this quarter. He further enriched himself from the treasures at Leyden, laid open to him by his old friend Van lloyen; and arrived at home laden with spoils destined to enrich his intended publication. Here, however, his labours and his darling pursuits were interrupted by a severe disorder in his eyes, which for many months threatened total blindness; nor was it till after an intermission of four or five years that he was able to resume his studies.

At length he gave to the public the first volume of his long-expected work, “De fructibus et sem'mihus plantarum,” printed at Stutgard in 1788, and containing the essential generic characters, with particular descriptions of the fruit of 500 genera, illustrated by figures of each, admirably drawn by himself, and neatly engraved in 79 quarto plates; a long anatomical and physiological introduction is prefixed, in which he define* and explains the nature of the parts of fructification, especially of the fruit and seed. In this essay he denies the existence of real flowers, and consequently of proper seeds, in fungi, and other cryptogamic vegetables, in which Hedwig and others, conceive they had detected the organs of impregnation as well as real seeds. Gaertner considers the Litter as gemma: or buds, and not seeds produced by sexual impregnation. He even denies the celebrated Hedwigian theory of mosses. He changes the name of germen, applied by Linnæus to the rudiments of the fruit in old plants, to the old and erroneous term ovarium. In the detail of his work he often corrects the great Swedish naturalist, with more or less justice, but not always with candour, and changes his names frequently for the worse. In synonyms he is not always exact, copying them, as it appears, from errors of the press occasionally transcribed from other authors, without turning to the books quoted.

, a learned Rabbinical writer, was the son of Dr. Gaffarell, by Lucrece de Bermond, his wife; and was born at Mannes, in Provence, about 1601. He was educated at the university of Apt, in that county, where he prosecuted his studies with indefatigable industry; and applying himself particularly to the Hebrew language and Rabbinical learning, was wonderfully pleased with the mysterious doctrines of the Cabala, and commenced author in their defence at the age of twenty-two. He printed a 4to volume at Paris in 1623, under_the title of “The secret mysteries of the divine Cabala, defended against the trifling objections of the Sophists,” or “Abdita divinae Cabalae mysteria,” &c. The following year he published a paraphrase upon that beautiful ode the 137th Psalm, “By the waters of Babylon we sat down and wept, when we remembered thee, O Sion>” -&c. He began early to be inflamed with an ardent desire of travelling for his improvement in literature, in which his curiosity was boundless.

This disposition, added to his uncommon talents, did not escape the notice of cardinal Richelieu, who appointed him his library-keeper, and sent him into Italy to collect the best books printed or ms. that could be found. This employment extremely well suited Gaffarell’s taste, both as it gave him an opportunity of furnishing his own library with some curious pieces in oriental and other languages, and of making inquiries into that branch of literature which was his chief delight. With this view, while he was at Home, he went with some others to visit Campanella, the famous pretender to magic; his design in this visit was to procure satisfaction about a passage in that author’s took, “De sensu rerum et magiu.” Campanella was then in the inquisition, where he had been cruelly used, in order to force him to confess the crimes laid to his charge. At their entrance into his chamber he begged they would have a little patience, till he had finished a small note which he was writing to cardinal Magaloti. As soon as they were seated, they observed him to make certain wry faces, which being supposed to proceed from pain, he was asked if he felt no pain; to which, smiling, he answered, No! and guessing the cause of the question, he said he was fancying himself to be cardinal Magaloti, as he had heard him described. This was the very thing Gaffarell wanted; and convinced him, that in order to discover another person’s thoughts, it was not sufficient, as he had before understood Campanella, barely to fancy yourself to be like the person, but you must actually assume his very physiognomy. This anecdote will afford the reader a sufficient idea of the value of the discoveries of Campanella and GafTarell.

In 1629, he published “Rabbi Flea, de fine mundi, Latine versus, cum notis,” Paris, 8vo, i. e. “A Latin version of Rabbi Elea’s treatise concerning the end of the world, with notes;” and the same year came out his “Curiositez Inouez, c. Unheard-of Cariosities concerning the talismanic sculpture of the Persians -, the horoscope of the Patriarchs, and the reading of the stars.” This curious piece went through three editions in the space of six months. In it the author undertakes to shew that talismans, or constellated figures, had the virtue to make a man rich and fortunate, to free a house and even a whole country from certain insects and venomous creatures; and from all the injuries of the air. He started many other bold assertions concerning the force of magic; and having also made some reflections upon his own country, and mentioned the decalogue according to the order of the Old Testament, and the protestant doctrine, he was censured by the Sorbonne, and therefore retracted these and Some other things advanced as errors submitting his faith; in all points to the doctrine of the catholic and apostolic church. In 1633 he was at Venice, where, among other things, he took an exact measure of the vessels brought from Cyprus and Constantinople, that were deposited in the treasury of St. Mark, at the request of the learned Peiresc, with whom he had been long acquainted, and who had a great esteem for him. During his abode in this city, he was invited to live with M. de la Thuillerie, the French ambassador, as a companion. He accepted the invitation, but was not content with the fruitless office of merely diverting the ambassador’s leisure hours by his learned conrersation. He aimed to make himself of more importance, and to do this friend some real service. He resolved therefore to acquaint himself with politics, and in that view wrote to his friend Gabriel Naude“, to send him a list of the authors upon political subjects; and this request it was, that gave birth to Naude’s t( Bibliographia Politica.” Gaffarell at this time was doctor of divinity and canon law, prothonotary of the apostolic see, and commendatory prior of St. Giles’s. After his return home, he was employed by his patron cardinal Richelieu, in his project for bringing back all the protestants to the Roman church, which he calls are-union of religions; and to that end was authorized to preach in Dauphin6 against the doctrine of purgatory. To the same purpose he also published a piece upon the pacification of Christians.

In the latter part of his life he was employed in writing a history of the subterranean world; containing an account of the caves, grottos, mines, vaults, and catacombs, which he had met with in thirty years’ travel; and the work was, so nearly finished, that the plates were engraven, and it was just ready to go to the press, when he died at Sigonce, of which place he was then abbot, in his eightieth year, 1681; being also dean of canon law in the university of Paris, prior of le Revest de Brousse, in the diocese of Sisteron, and commandant of St. Omeil. His works shew him to have been a man of prodigious reading, and uncommon subtilty of genius; but he unfortunately had also a superstitious credulity, as appears from the following passage in his “Unheard-of Curiosities.” Treating of omens, he cites Camerarius, affirming that some people have an apprehension and knowledge of the death of their friends and kindred, either before or after they are dead x by a certain strange and unusual restlessness within themselves, though they are a thousand leagues off. To support this idle notion, he tells us that his mother Lucrcce de Bermond, when she was living, had some such sign always given her; for none of her children ver died, but a little before she dreamt either of hair, eggs, or teeth mingled with earth; this sign, says he, was infallible. “I myself, when I had heard her say she had any such dream, observed the event always to follow.” His '< Curiosities" was translated by Chi I mead into English, Lond. 1650, 8vo.

, an English clergyman and traveller, was descended from Robert Gage of Haling, in Surrey, third son of sir John Gage, of Firle, in Sussex, who died in 1557. He was the son of John Gage, of Haling, and his brother was sir Henry Gage, governor of Oxford, who was killed in battle at Culham-bridge,' Jan. 11, 1644. Of his early history we are only told that he studied in Spain, and became a Dominican monk. From thence he departed with a design to go to the Philippine islands, as a missionary, in 1625; but on his arrival at Mexico, he heard so bad an account of those islands, and became so delighted with New Spain, that he abandoned his original design, and contented him with a less dangerous mission. At length, being tired of this mode of life, and his request to return to England and preach the gospel among his countrymen being refused, he effected his escape, and arrived in London in 1637, after an absence of twentyfour years, in which he had quite lost the use of his native language. On examining into his domestic affairs, he found himself unnoticed in his father’s will, forgotten by some of his relations, and with difficulty acknowledged by others. After a little time, not being satisfied with respect to some religious doubts which had entered his mind while abroad, and disgusted with the great power of the papists, he resolved to take another journey to Italy, to “try what better satisfaction he could find for his conscience at Rome in that religion.” At Loretto his conversion from popery was fixed by proving the fallacy of the miracles attributed to the picture of our Lady there; on which he immediately returned home once more, and preached his recantation sermon at St. Paul’s, by order of the bishop of London. He continued above a year in. London, and when he saw that papists were entertained at Oxford and other parts of the kingdom attached to the royal cause, he adopted that of the parliament, and received a living from them, probably that of Deal, in Kent, in the register of which church is an entry of the burials of Mary daughter, and Mary the wife of “Thomas Gage, parson of Deale, March 21, 1652;” and in the title of his work he is styled “Preacher of the word of God at Deal.” We have not been able to discover when he died. His work is entitled “A new Survey of the West-Indies; or the English American his Travail by sea and land, containing a journal of 3300 miles within the main land of America. Wherein is set forth his voyage from Spain to St. John de Ulhua; and from thence to Xalappa, to Flaxcalla, the city of Angels, and forward to Mexico, &c. &c. &c.” The second edition, Lond. 1655, thin folio, with maps. The first edition, which we have not seen, bears date 1648. Mr. Southey, who has quoted much from this work in the notes on his poem of “Madoc,” says that Gage’s account of Mexico is copied verbatim from Nicholas’s “Conqueast of West-India,” which itself is a translation from Gomara. There is an Amsterdam edition of Gage, 1695, 2 vols. 12mo, in French, made by command of the French minister Colbert, by mons. de Beaulieu Hues O'Neil, which, however, was first published in 1676, at Paris. There are some retrenchments in this edition. Gage appears to be a faithful and accurate relator, but often credulous and superstitious. His recantation sermon was published at London, 1642, 4to; and in 165L he published “A duel between a Jesuite and a Dominican, begun at Paris, fought at Madrid, and ended at London,” 4to.

In 1717 he was appointed to read the Arabic lecture at' Oxford, in the absence of the professor Wallis. In 1718 appeared his “Vindiciae Kircherianae, seu defensio concordantiarum Graecarum Conradi Kircheri, adversus Abr. Trommii animadversiones;” and in 1723, he published Abulfeda’s “Life of Mohammed,” in Arabic, with a Latin translation and notes, at Oxford, in folio. He also prepared for the press the same Arabic author’s Geography, and printed proposals for a subscription, but the attempt proved abortive, for want of encouragement. Eighteen sheets were printed, and the remainder, which was imperfect, was purchased of his widow by Dr. Hunt. It is said that he wrote a life of Mahommed, in French, published at Amsterdam, in 1730, in vols. 12mo. But this wa.s probably a translation of the former life, Gagnier had before this inserted Graves’s Latin translation of AbulfedaY description of Arabia, together with the original, in the third volume of Hudson’s “Geographiae veteris scriptores Grseci minores,” in 1712, 8vo, and had translated from the Arabic, Rhases on the Small-pox, at the request of Dr. Mead. He died March 2, 1740. By his wife he left a son, Thomas, or as in the Oxford graduates, John Gagnier, who was educated at Wadham-college, Oxford, and commenced M. A. July 2, 1743. Entering into holy orders, he was preferred by bishop Clavering to the rectory of Marsh-Gibbon, in Buckinghamshire, and afterwards obtained that of Stranton, near Hartlepool, in the. bishopric of Durham, where he was living in 1766, but the historian of Durham having concluded his list of vicars with Mr. Gagnier at the year of his induction, in 1745, we are not able to ascertain the time of his death. Preceding accounts of his father mention his being chosen Arabic professor in room of Dr. Wallis, which never was the case. Dr. Hunt was successor to Wallis.

, an elegant French historian, member of the old French academy, of that of inscriptions and belles-lettres, and of the third class of the institute, was born at Ostel, near Soissons, March 20, 1728. On his education or early pursuits, the only work in which we find any notice of him is totally silent, and we are obliged for the present to content ourselves with a list of his works, all of which, however, have been eminently successful in France, and procured to the author an extensive reputation and many literary honours, he wrote, 1. “Rhetorique Franchise, a l'usage des jeunes demoiselles,” Paris, 1746, 12mo, which has gone through six editions. 2. “Poetique Françoise,” ibid. 1749, 2 vols. 3. “Parallele des quatre Electre, de Sophocle, d'Euripide, de Crebillon, et de Voltaire,” ibid. 1750, vo. 4. * Melanges litteraires en prose et en vers,“ibid. 1757, 12mo. 5.” Histoire de Marie de Bourgogne,“ibid. 1757, 12mo. 6.” Histoire de Francois I.“1769, 7 vols. 12mo; of this there have been several editions, and it is not without reason thought to be Gaillard’s principal work; but Voltaire is of opinion that he softens certain obnoxious parts of Francis’s conduct rather too much, but in general his sentiments are highly liberal, and more free from the prejudices of his country and his religion than could have been expected. Indeed, it may be questioned whether he was much attached to the latter. 7.” Histoire des rivalités de la France et de l'Angleterre,“1771—1802, 11 vols. 12mo, a work in which the author, not altogether unsuccessfully, struggles to be impartial. 8.” Histoire de Charlemagne,“4 vols. 12mo. Gibbon, our historian, who availed himself much of this history, says that” it is laboured with industry and elegance.“9.” Observations sur l'Histoire de France de Messieurs Velly, Villaret, et Gamier,“1807, 4 vols. 12mo, a posthumous work. Besides these he was the author of various eloges, discourses, poems, odes, epistles, &c. which were honoured with academical prizes; and several learned papers in the memoirs of the academy of inscriptions. He wrote also in the” Journal des Savans“from 1752 to 1792, and in the” Mercure“from 1780 to 1789, and in the new Encyclopedic he wrote three fourths of the historical articles. His last performance, which bore no mark of age, or decay of faculties, was an” Eloge historique" on M. de Malesherbes, with whom he had been so long intimate, that perhaps no man. was more fit to appreciate his character. This writer, the last of the old school of French literati, died at St. Firmin, near Chantilly, in 1806.

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

When the royal academy was founded, Gainsborough was chosen among the first members, but being then resident at Bath, he was too far distant to be employed in the business of the institution. When he came to London, his conduct was so far disrespectful to the members of that body, that he never complied with their invitations, whether official or convivial. In 1784, he sent to the exhibition a whole-length portrait, which he ordered to be placed almost as low as the floor; but as this would have been a violation of the bye-laws of the academy, the gentlemen of the council ventured to remonstrate with him upon the impropriety of such a disposition. Gainsborough returned for answer, that if they did not chuse to hang the picture as he wished, they might send it, which they did immediately. He soon after made an exhibition of his works at his own house, which did not, however, afford trhe expected gratification; and after this circumstance, he never again exhibited.

His style of execution, as well as choice of subjects, was original, although considerably resembling that of Watteau, more particularly in his landscapes. His pictures are generally wrought in a loose and slight manner, with great freedom of hand, and using very little colour, with a great body of vehicle; which gives to his works great lightness and looseness of effect; properties extremely valuable in a picture, and too easily lost in the endeavour to give more strict and positive resemblance of substance. Sir Joshua Reynolds in his fourteenth lecture says of this hatching manner of Gainsborough, that his portraits were often little more than what generally attends a dead colour as to finishing or determining the form of the features; but, “as he was always attentive to the general effect, or whole together, 1 have often imagined (says he) that this unfinished manner contributed even to that striking resemblance for which his portraits are so remarkable. At the same time it must be acknowledged that there is one evil attending this mode; that if the portrait were seen previously to any knowledge of the original, different persons would form different ideas; and all would be disappointed at not finding the original correspond with their own conceptions, under the great latitude which indistinctness gives to the imagination, to assume almost what character or form it pleases.”

In the same lecture, which principally treats of the acquirements of Gainsborough, and which was delivered at the royal academy soon after his death, by its truly exalted president, it is said of him, “that if ever this nation should produce genius sufficient to acquire to us the honourable distinction of an English school, the name of Gainsborough will be transmitted to posterity in the history of the art among the first of that rising name.” " Whether he most excelled in portraits, landscapes, or fancy pictures, it is difficult to determine: whether his portraits were most admirable fAr exact truth of resemblance, or his landscapes for a portrait-like representation of nature, such as we see in the works of Rubens, Rysdael, or others of these schooJsi In his fancy pictures, when he had fixed upon his object of imitation, whether it was the mean and vulgar form of a wood-cutter, or a child of an interesting character, as he tlid not attempt to raise the one, so neither did he lose any of the natural grace and elegance of the other; such a grace and such an elegance as are more frequently found in cottages than in courts. This excellence was his own, the result cJ his particular observation and taste. For this he was certainly not indebted to any school; for his grace was not academical, or antique, but selected by himself from the great school of nature; where there are yet a thousand modes of grace unselected, but which lie open in the multiplied scenes and figures of life, to be brought out by skilful and faithful observers.

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

The subjects he chose for representation were generally rery simple, to which his own excellent taste knew how to give expression and value. In his landscapes a rising mound and a few figures seated upon, or near it; with a cow or some sheep grazing, and a slight marking of disstance, sufficed for the objects; their charm was the purity of tone in the colour; the freedom and clearness of thfc touch; together with an agreeable combination of the forms; and with these simple materials, which appear so easy as to be within every one’s grasp, but which constantly elude the designer who is not gifted with his feeling and taste, does he always produce a pleasing picture. In his fancy pictures the same taste prevailed. A collage girl; a shepherd’s boy; a woodman; with very slight materials in the back-ground, were treated by him with so much character, yet so much elegance, that they never fail to delight.

Mr. Edwards mentions three etchings by the hand of Gainsborough. The first is small, and was done as a decoration to the first “Treatise on Perspective,” which was published by his friend Mr. Kirby; but it is curious to observe, that what little of perspective is introduced, is totally false; but from the date of that work Gainsborough must have been at that time very young. The second is an oak tree, with gypsies sitting under it boiling their kettle; the size 11 J inches by 17. Both these were finished by the graver, though not improved, by Mr. Wood. The third, a more extensive view, represents a man ploughing on the side of a rising ground, upon which there is a windmill; the sea terminates the distance. This he called the Suffolk Plough. It is extremely scarce, for he spoiled the plate by impatiently attempting to apply the aquafortis, before his friend, Mr. Grignion, could assist him, as was agreed. Its size 16 inches by 14. He also attempted two or three small plates in aqua tinta, but was not very successful with them, as he knew little of the process.

, or Galateus Liciensis, an eminent Italian writer, whose proper name was Ferrari, isgenerally known by that of Galateo, from his native place, Galatina, in Otranto, where he was born in 1444. His father dying in his infancy, he was taken in to the protection of his grandfather, who had him educuted at Nardo. He afterwards studied medicine, which, after taking his degrees at Ferrara, he practised at Naples with great reputation, and was appointed physician to the king, in consequence of the recommendation of Sannazarius and Pontanus. The air of Naples, however, not agreeing with him, he removed to Gailipoli, near Galatina, where he resumed his practice. He died Nov. 12, 1517. He was not only eminent as a physician, but his natural and moral philosophy is said to have risen beyond the level of the age in which he lived. He is also said to have indicated the possibility of the navigation to the East by the Cape of Good Hope, in his treatise “De situ Elementorum,” published in 1501, but written some years prior to that period. He also illustrated the topography of his native country with accurate maps and descriptions; and was reputed a poet of considerable merit. His works are, besides what we have mentioned, 1. “De situ lapygiae,” Basil, 1558, but the best edition is that of 1727, with the notes of Tasneri, and some lesser pieces by Galateo. 2. “A Description of Gailipoli.” 3. “Successi dell‘ armata Turchescanella citta d’Otranto dell' anno 1480,” 4to, 1480. He had accompanied the son of the king of Naples on this expedition. He published also some poems in Latin and Italian.

In the mean time the publication of his “Court of the Gentiles” had- proceeded gradually, in consequence of the great care he took to complete and digest his collections, and to make the work in all respects a masterly production. The first part was published at Oxford in 1669, and, being received with great applause, was followed by the other three, the last of which came out in 1677, the year when he succeeded Mr. Rowe. But this work, large 'and laborious as it was, did not prove sufficient to employ his spare hours: he wrote also, within the same period, several other works; namely, 2. “The true Idea of Jansenism,” 1669, 4to; with a large preface by Dr. John Owen. 3. “Theophilus, or a Discourse of the Saints’ amity with God in Christ,” 1671, 8vo. 4. “The Anatomy of Infidelity, &c.”' 1672, 8vo. 5. “A Discourse of Christ’s coming, &c.” 1673, 8vo. 6. “Idea Theologiae tarn contemplative quam activoe, ad formam S. S. delineata,” 1673, 12mo. 7. “A Sermon, entitled, Wherein the Love of the World is inconsistent with the Love of God,” 1674; printed also in the supplement to the morning exercise at Cripplegate. 8. “Philosophia generalis in duas partes disterminata, &c.” 1676, 8vo. 9., “A Summary of the two Covenants,” prefixed to a piece published by him, entitled “A Discourse of the two Covenants,” written by William Strong, sometime preacher at the Abbey church at Westminster. “The Life and death of Thomas Tregosse, minister of the gospel at Milar and Mabe in Cbrnwal, with his Character,” was also written by him, and published in 1671, though he seems to have concealed the circumstance as much as possible. Such were the fruits of our author’s studies; for the sake of prosecuting which, with the privacy requisite, he chose Newington for his retreat; where he instructed a few young persons under his own roof. But he was frequently visited hy persons of distinction, and some of a different opinion from him in religious matters, out of a desire to testify their esteem for unaffected piety and extensive learning. In 1678 he published proposals for printing by subscription, “Lexicon Grreci Testamenti Etymologicon, Synonymum, sive Glossarium Homonymum.” This, as the title imports, was intended by him for a lexicon and concordance together: he finished it as far as the letter Iota, and the most considerable words were also placed under other letters. But he was prevented from carrying it further by his death; which happened in March that year, when he was not quite fifty. As to his character, besides what has been already mentioned, he was a most zealous non-conformist, stedfast in those opinions, and warm in the defence of them. His zeal this way extended itself beyond the grave; he wished, he resolved, to perpetuate them as far as he was able. In that spirit he bequeathed all his estate to young students of his own principles, and appointed trustees to manage it for their support. He bequeathed also his well-chosen library toward promoting useful learning in New England, where those principles universally prevailed. But, notwithstanding this warm concern for supporting and propagating his own communion, he was not without charity for those who differed from him, whom he would labour to convince, but not to compel; being as much an enemy to sedition as he was to persecution. Hence we find even Wood giving him all his just commendations without those abatements and restrictions which are usual in his characters. It was allowed also, that, in hit “Court of the Gentiles,” and other works, he shewed extensive learning, and considerable abilities.

He accumulated the degrees of B. and D. D. in 1675; and June 7, 1676, was collated to the prebend Consumpt. per mare in the cathedral of St. Paul. He was also elected in 1677 into the royal society, of which he became a very constant and useful member, was frequently of the council, and presented them with many curiosities, particularly a Roman urn with the ashes, found near Peckham in Surrey (part of these burnt bones he gave to Mr. Thoresby); and in 1685, the society having resolved to have honorary secretaries, who would act without any view of reward, Dr. Gale was chosen with sir John Hoskyns into that office, when they appointed the celebrated Halley for their clerkassistant, or under-secretary, who had been a distinguished scholar of our author’s at St. Paul’s school. Dr. Gale continued at the head of this school with the greatest reputation for 25 years, till 1697, when he was promoted to the deanry of York; and being admitted into that dignity Sept. 16, that year, he removed thither. This preferment was no more than a just reward of his merit, but he did not live to enjoy it many years. On his admission, finding the dean’s right to be a canon-residentiary called in question, he was at the expence of procuring letters patent in 1699, to annex it to the deanry, which put the matter out of all dispute. On his removal from London,' he presented to the new library, then lately finished at hi9 college in Cambridge, a curious collection of Arabic manuscripts. During the remainder of his life, which was. spent at York, he preserved an hospitality suitable to his station and his good government of that church is mentioned with honour. Nor has that care which he took, to repair and adorn that stately edifice, passed without a just tribute of praise.

1. “Antonini Iter Britanniarum Commentariis illnstratutn Thomae Gale, S, T. P. nuper Decani Ebor. Opus posthumum revisit, auxit, edidit R. G. Accessit Anonymi Ravennatis Britannia; Chorographia, cum amographo Regis Galliae Mss. & cociice Vaticano collata adjiciuntur conjecturse plurimae, cum nominibus locorum Anglicis, quotquot iis assignari potuerint,” Lond. 1709, 4to. In the preface to this book, Mr. Gale very properly points out what parts of it were his father’s and what his own. Mr. Gough had, among the books which he bequeathed to the Bodleian library, three copies of this edition, enriched with many valuable ms notes by Mr. Roger Gale, Nicholas Man, esq. and Dr. Abraham Francke, fellow of Trintycollege, Cambridge, and rector of West Dene in Wiltshire, 1728; and a fourth with ms various readings from the two Mss. whence H. Stephens first printed this Itinerary . 2. “The Knowledge of Medals, or Instructions for those who apply themselves to the study of Medals both ancient and modern, by F. Jobert,” translated from the French, of which two editions were published without his name; one of them in 1697, the other in 1715, 8vo. 3. “Registrum Honoris de Richmond,” Lond. 1722, folio. His discourse on the four Roman Ways in Britain, is printed in the sixth volume of Leland’s Itinerary. His “Remarks on a Roman Inscription found at Lanchester,” in the Philosophical Transactions, vol. XXX. p. 823 and in vol. XLIII. p. 265, extracts of two of his letters to Mr. Peter Collinson, F. R. S. concerning “the vegetation of melon seeds 33 years old,” and of “a fossil skeleton of a man found at Lathkill-dale near Bakewell, in the county of Derby,” dated in 1743 and 174-1-f. “Explanation of a Roman altar found at Castle Steeds in Cumberland,” in Gent. Mag. vol. XII. p. 135. In Horsley’s “Britannia Romana,” p. 332, &c. is published, “An Account of a Roman Inscription found at Chichester. By Roger Gale, esq.” “Observations on an Inscription at Spello, by Fred. Passarini and Roger Gale, esq.” are printed in the Archaeologia, vol. II. p. 25. He presented to Mr. Drake’s History of York a plate of a beautiful little bronze female bust, which he supposed to be a Lucretia, found at York, and in his possession, engraved by Vertue. To him also Mr. Drake acknowledges himself obliged for a discovery that fixes the building of the Chapter-house at York to archbishop Grey. He died at Scruton, June 25, 1744, in his 72d year, universally esteemed, and much lamented by all his acquaintance; and left all his Mss. by will to Trinity-college, Cambridge, of which he was once fellow, and his cabinet of Roman coins to the public library there, with a complete catalogue of them drawn up by himself, of which Mr. Nichols printed twenty copies in 1780, for the use of particular friends. His correspondence included all the eminent antiquaries, of his time; and the late Mr. George Allan of Darlington possessed, by the gift of his grandson, a large collection of letters to and from him, the principal of which are printed in the “Reliquiae Galeanae,” as a valuable addition to antiquarian literature. The originals are still in the possession of Henry Gale, esq. The “Bibliotheca Topographica Britannica,” No. II. contains many other fragments and notices of the labours of Mr. Gale.

Having exhausted all the sources of literature -that could be found at home, he resolved to travel, in order to improve himself among the most able physicians in all parts; intending at the same time to take every opportunity, which his travels would give him, of inspecting on the spot the plants and drugs of the several countries through which he passed. With this view he went first to Alexandria, where he continued some years, induced by the flourishing state of the arts and science^ in that city. From thence he passed into Cilicia; and? J travelling through Palestine, visited the isles of Crete and Cyprus, and other places. Among the rest, he made two voyages to Lemnos, on purpose to view and examine the Lemnian earth, which was spoken of at this time as a considerable medicine. With the same spirit he went into the lower Tyria, to get a thorough insight into the true nature of the Opobalsamum, or balm of Gilead. Having completed his design, he returned home by the way of Alexandria.

He was now only twenty-eight years of age, and had made some considerable advances toward improving his art. He had acquired a particular skill in the wounds of the nerves, and was possessed of a method of treating them never known before; for Galen, as well as all other ancient physicians, united surgery to medicine. The pontiff of Pergamus gave him an opportunity of, trying his new method upon the gladiators, and he was so successful that not a single man perished by any wounds of this kind. He had been four years at Pergamus, exercising his faculty with unrivalled fame, when, being made uneasy by some seditious disturbances, he quitted his country and went to Rome, resolving to settle in that capital. But his views were disappointed. The physicians there, sensible of the danger of such a competitor, found means by degrees so completely to undermine him, that he was obliged, after a few years, to leave the city. He had, however, in that time made several acquaintances, both of considerable rank, and the first character for learning. Among others, he had a particular connection with Eudemus, a peripatetic philosopher of great repute. This person he cured of a fever, which from a quartan, bad degenerated into a triple quartan, by the ill-judged application which the patient had made of the theriacum; and what is somewhat remarkable, Galen cured the malady with the same medicine that had caused it; and even predicted when the fits would first cease to return, and in what time the patient would entirely recover. Indeed, so great was his skill and sagacity in these fevers, that if we may believe his own words, he was able to predict from (he first visit, or from the first attack, what species of a fever would appear, a tertian, quartan, or quotidian. He was also greatly esteemed by Sergius Paulus, praetor of Reme; as also by Barbarus, uncle to the emperor Lucius; by Severus, then consul, and afterwards emperor; and last^ by Boethus, a person of consular dignity, in whose presence he had an opportunity of making dissections, and of shewing, particularly, the organs of respiration and the voice, His reputation, likewise, was much increased by the success which he had in recovering the wife of Boethus, who on that occasion presented him with four hundred pieces of gold. But that on which he valued himself most, was the case of a lady, who was said to lie in a very dangerous condition; whose disorder he discovered to be love, the object of which was a rope-dancer thus rivalling th discovery of the luve of Antiochus for Stratonice, which had given so much celebrity to Krasistratus.

After a residence of about four or five years at Rome, he returned to Pergamus *. But he had not been there long, when the emperors Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, who had heard of his fame, sent for him to Aquileia, where they then resided. He bad no sooner arrived in this city, than the plague, which had shewn itself a little before, broke out with fresh and greater fury, so that the emperors were obliged to remove, attended by a very small retinue. Lucius died on the road, but his corpse was carried to Rome; and Galen found means, though not without some trouble, to follow soon after. He had

Galen is the writer that contains by far the most anatomy of all the ancients. He has given a much more complete anatomical account of the human body than any of his predecessors, or even successors for a thousand years after. There can be no doubt that he dissected the bodies of the inferior animals. But Vesalius, the first of the moderns who ventured to call in question his infallibility, affirmed that he had never dissected a human subject; and this seems now the general opinion, particularly of Haller, and other learned historians of the art.

Thus we have exhibited the bright side of this physician’s character, but we must not close this memoir without shewing the other side also: for the greatest geniuses have their blemishes and defects, which too are often in proportion greater, or at least are seen more conspicuously by being linked to so much splendour. The foible which stands foremost on this side of Galen’s character, is his vanity, which was so excessive as to carry him beyond the bounds of prudence and decency. His writings are fulsomely filled with his own praises, and he magnifies himself in the same degree as he debases other physicians who differed from him; in refuting whom, he throws out the flowers of an acrimonious rhetoric with an unsparing hand. We have already given a convincing proof of the good opinion he entertained of himself, and how little scrupulous he was to make his own eulogium in his recital of M. Aurelius’s disorder. That whole book abounds with stories of the same cast, which also at the same time serve to impeach him of pride, and a disdain and contempt of every body else. In this spirit we see him giving way to most injurious reproaches against the methodists, whom he calls “the asses of Thessalus,” who was the principal founder of the sect. He observed, indeed, more decency towards Erasistratus, Asclepiades, and others of the more ancient physicians; but still, among the praises he bestows upon them, there escapes from him haughtiness enough. But he grows absolutely insupportable, in the ostentatious parade which he makes of having done in physic something what Trajan had done in the Roman empire. “No person whatsoever before me (says he) hath shewn the true method of treating diseases. Hippocrates, indeed, pointed out the same road; hut as he was the first who discovered it, so he went not so far therein as was to be wished.”

He is also charged with bearing a particular enmity to the Christians; it is true, that speaking of the methodists and other sects in physic, he says, “That their several followers were as obstinately attached to their parties, as the disciples of Moses and Christ were to theirs.” But this does not imply any particular ill will against the Christians, or that he thought worse of them than the pagans generally did. As to the story that is told, of Galen’s hearing in his old age of the miracles wrought in Juduea by the name of Jesus, and resolving to take a journey thither to see them, but that he died on the road, or upon the borders of the country, after lying ill ten days of a fever; it is merely a monkish forgery.

, or Galeotus Martius, was born at Narni, in the pupal territory, and was for some time an instructor of youth at Bologna, but removed and kept a private school in Hungary. Being there distinguished by Matthias Corvinus, king of Hungary, he was admitted into his family, made his private secretary, and, it is supposed, presided over the education of his son John Coryinus. He was also keeper of the library at Buda. In this situation his fame reached Louis the Xlth, king of France, who invited him into that kingdom. Galeoti went accordingly to meet the king at Lyons, but Louis happening to come out of the city, they met a litjtle without the gates, and Galeoti, attempting to descend hastily to pay due honours to the king, fell, and being very fat, was so much hurt, that he died very soon 'after. In 1478, Galeoti published a collection of the bon-mots of Matthias Corvinus, “De jocose dictis ac factis regis Matt. Corvini,” inserted in the folio collection of writers on the history of Hungary. There is also by him a treatise in 4to, entitled “De nomine interiore et de corpore ejus,” and others, “De incognitis vulgo,” never printed; “De doctrina promiscua,” Lyons, 1552, 8vo, which is a miscellany of physical, medical, and astronomical questions. For some of his sentiments the monks accused him of heresy, and he had contentions with them, but he was protected by pope Sixtus IV. who had been his pupil.

At the age of twenty, about 1740, he published a ludicrous work, which evinced the turn of his genius for wit and humour. It was a prevailing custom at that time in Naples (as well as in other cities of Italy), on the decease of any great or eminent person, to make a large collection of songs, sonnets, epigrams, elegies, and inscriptions, in praise of the real or reputed talents and virtues of the deceased. The abuse to which such a practice is liable, called loudly for reformation, and Galiani catching the opportunity of the death of a famous public executioner, named Jannaccone, sported a droll funereal collection of prose and verse in his praise, in which the manner and style of the respective authors, accustomed to that sort of compositions, were ingeniously personated and burlesqued. Much about the same time, Galiani had an opportunity in another work, of producing another specimen of his humour. Pope Benedict XIV. had applied to his uncle, the great almoner, to procure him a complete collection of the various materials which compose mount Vesuvius. This prelate intrusted the commission to his nephew, who actually undertook to make the collection, accompanying each article with a short philosophical comment. Soon after, he addressed them in a box to the pontiiT, with an humorous inscription to the whole, “Si filius Dei es, fae ut Lapides isti Panes fiant.” The turn of this motto was easily apprehended by the pope, who was himself one of the wittiest men of his age, and it could not fail to procure Galiani what he hinted at. He accordingly received soon afterwards a rich abbey, worth four thousand ducats (nearly seven hundred pounds) per annum. Galiani soon afterwards displayed his abilities in philosophy, by publishing about 1745, his well-known political tract “Trattato della Moneta,” (a Treatise on Money). This was unanimously pronounced in Italy an original and capital publication, which firmly established his reputation in the world. He was now appointed secretary to the Neapolitan ambassador in Paris, where he soon exhibited other specimens of his philosophical abilities, by publishing an “Essay on the Commerce of Corn.” This new work was very favourably received in France, where some of their philosophers were candidly wont to say, “Le petit Italien est en cela plus instruit que nous.” By the word -petit, they allude to the diminutive stature of the author.

, the celebrated astronomer and mathematician, was the son of Vincenzo Galilei, a nobleman of Florence, not less distinguished by his quality and fortune, than conspicuous for his skill and knowledge in music; about some points in which science he maintained a dispute with the famous Zarlinas. His wife brought him this son, Feb. 10, 1564, either at Pisa, or, which is more probable, at Florence. Galileo received an education suitable to his birth, his taste, and his abilities. He went through his studies early, and his father then wished that he should apply himself to medicine;. but having obtained at college some knowledge of mathematics, his genius declared itself decisively for that study. He needed no directions where to begin. Euclid’s Elements were well known to be the best foundation in this science. He therefore set out with studying that work, of which he made himself master without assistance, and proceeded thence to such authors as were in most esteem, ancient and modern. His progress in these sciences was so extraordinary, that in 1589, he was appointed professor of mathematics in the university of Pisa, but being there continually harrasted by the scholastic professors, for opposing some maxims of their favourite Aristotle, he quitted that place at the latter end of 1592, for Padua, whither he was invited very handsomely to accept a similar professorship; soon after which, by the esteem arising from his genius and erudition, he was recommended to the friendship of Tycho Brache. He had already, even long before 1586, written his “Mechanics,” or a treatise of the benefits derived from that science and from its instruments, together with a fragment concerning percussion, the first published by Mersennus, at Paris, in 1G34-, in “Mersenni Opera,” vol. I. and both by Menoless, vol. I. as also his “Balance,” in which, after Archimedes’s problem of the crown, he shewed how to find the proportion of alloy, or mixt metals, and how to make theuaid instrument. These he had read to his pupils soon after his arrival at Padua, in 1593.

While he was professor at Padua, in 1609, visiting Ve>­nice, then famous for the nrt of making glass, he heard of the invention of the telescope by James Metius, in Holland. This notice was sufficient for Galileo; his curiosity was raised; and the result of his inquiry was a telescope of his own, produced from this hint, without having seen the Dutch glass. All the discoveries he made in astronomy were the easy and natural consequences of this invention, which opening a way, till then unknown, into the heavens, gave that science an entirely new face. Galileo, in one of his works, ridicules the unwillingness of the Aristotelians to allow of any discoveries not known to their master, by introducing a speaker who attributes the telescope to him, on account of what he says of seeing the stars from the bottom of a deep well. “The well,” says he, “is the tube of the telescope, the intervening vapours answer to the glasses.” He began by observing the moon, and calculating the height of her mountains. He then discovered four of Jupiter’s satellites, which he called the Medicean stars or planets, in honour of Cosmo II. grand duke of Tuscany, who was of that noble family. Cosmo now recalled him from Padua, re-established him at Pisa, with a very handsome stipend, in 1610; and the same year, having lately invited him to Florence, gave him the post and title of his principal philosopher and mathematician.

It was not long before Galileo discovered the phases of Venus, and other celestial phenomena. He had been, however, but a few years at Florence, before he was convinced by sad experience, that Aristotle’s doctrine, however ill-grounded, was held too sacred to be called in question. Having observed some solar spots in 1612, be printed that discovery the following year at Rome; in which, and in some other publications, he ventured to assert the truth of the Copernican system, and brought several new arguments to confirm it. This startled the jealousy of the Jesuits, who procured a citation for him to appear before the holy office at Rome, in 1615, where he was charged with heresy, for maintaining these two propositions; 1. That the sun is in the centre of the world, and immoveable by a local motion; and, 2. That the earth is not the centre of the world, nor immoveable, but actually moves by a diurnal motion. The first of these positions was declared to be absurd, false in philosophy, and formally heretical, being contrary to the express word of God; the second was also alleged to be philosophically false, and, in a theological view, at least erroneous in point of faith. He was detained in the inquisition till Feb. 1616, on the 25th of which month sentence was passed against him; by which he was enjoined to renounce his heretical opinions, and not to defend them either by word or writing, nor even to insinuate them into the mind of any person whatsoever; and lit obtained his discharge only by a promise to conform himself to this order. It is hard to say whether his sentence betrayed greater weakness of understanding, or perversity of will. Galileo clearly saw the poison of both in it; and therefore following the known maxim, that forced oaths anil promises are not binding to the conscience, he went on, making further new discoveries in the planetary system, and occasionally publishing them with such inferences and remarks as necessarily followed from them, notwithstanding they tended plainly to establish the truth of the above-mentioned condemned propositions.

He continued many years confidently in this course, no juridical notice being taken of it; till he had the presumption to publish at Florence his “Dialogi della duomassime Systeme del Mondo, Tolemaico et Copernicano;” dialogues of the two greatest systems of the world, the Ptolemaic and Copernican, in 1632. Here, in examining the grounds upon which the two systems were built, he produces the most specious as well as strongest arguments for each of those opinions; and leaves, it is true, the question undecided, as not to be demonstrated either way, while many phenomena remained insolvable; bnt all this is done in such a manner, that his inclination to the Copernican system might be easily perceived. Nor had he forborne to enliven his production by several smart strokes of raillery against those who adhered so obstinately, and were such devotees to Aristotle’s opinions, as to think it a crime to depart from them in the smallest degree. This excited the indignation of his former enemies, and he was again cited before the inquisition at Rome; the congregation was convened, and, in his presence, pronounced sentence against him and his books. They obliged him to abjure his errors in the most solemn manner, committed him to the prison of their office during pleasure, and enjoined him, as a saving penance, for three years, to repeat once a week the seven penitential psalms; reserving, however, to themselves the power of moderating, changing, or taking away altogether, or in part, the abovementioned punishment and penance. Upon this sentence he was detained a prisoner till 1634, and his “Dialogues of the System of the World” were burnt at Rome. We rarely meet with a more glaring instance of blindness and bigotry than this 5 and it was treated with as much contempt by our author as consisted with his safety.

He lived ten years after it, seven of which were employed in making still further discoveries with his telescope; but, by continual application to that instrument, added to the damage he received in his sight from the nocturnal air, his eyes grew gradually weaker, till, in 1639, he became totally blind. He bore this great calamity with patience and resignation, worthy of a philosopher. The loss neither broke his spirit, nor hindered the course of his studies. He supplied the defect by constant meditations, by which he prepared a large collection of materials; and began to dictate his own conceptions, when, by a distemper of three months continuance, wasting away by degrees, be expired at Arcetri near Florence , Jan. 8, 1642, in the same year that Newton was born. In stature he was small, but in aspect venerable, and his constitution vigorous; in company he was affable, free, and full of pleasantry. He took great delight in architecture and painting, and designed extremely well. He played exquisitely, on the lute; and whenever he spent any time in the country, he took great pleasure in husbandry. His learning was very extensive; and he possessed in a high degree a clearness and acuteness of wit. From the time of Archimedes, nothing had been done in mechanical geometry till Galileo, who, being possessed of an excellent judgment, and great skill in the most abstruse points of geometry, first extended the boundaries of that science, and began to reduce the resistance of solid bodies to its laws. Besides applying geometry to the doctrine of motion, by which philosophy became established on a sure foundation, he made surprising discoveries in the heavens by means of his telescope. He made the evidence of the Copernican system more sensible, when he shewed from the phases of Venus, like to those of the moon, that Venus actually revolves about the sun. He proved the rotation of the sun on his axis from his spots; and thence the diurnal rotation of the earth became more credible. The satellites that attend Jupiter in his revolution about the sun, represented, in Jupiter’s smaller system, a just image of the great solar system; and rendered it more easy to conceive how the moon might attend the earth, as a satellite, in her annual revolution. By discovering hills and cavities in the moon, and spots in the sun constantly varying, he shewed that there was not so great a difference between the celestial bodies and the earth as had been vainly imagined. He rendered no less service to science by treating, in a clear and geometrical manner, the doctrine of motion, which has justly been called the key of nature. The rational part of mechanics had been so much neglected, that hardly any improvement was made in it for almost 2000 years. But Galileo has given us fully the theory of equable motions, and of such as are uniformly accelerated or retarded, and of these two compounded together. He was the first who demonstrated that the spaces described by heavy bodies, from the beginning of their descent, are as the squares of the times; and that a body, projected in any direction not perpendicular to the horizon, describes a parabola. These were the beginnings of the doctrine of the motion of heavy bodies, which has been since carried to so great a height by Newton. In geometry, he invented the cycloid, or trochoid; though the properties of it were afterwards chiefly demonstrated by his pupil Torricelli. He invented the simple pendulum, and made use of it in his astronomical experiments he li ul also thoughts of applying it to clocks; but did not execute that design the glory of that invention was reserved for his son Vicen210, who made the experiment at Venice in 1649; and Huygens afterward carried this invention to perfection. Of Galileo’s invention also, was the machine, with which the Venetians render their Laguna fluid and navigable. He also discovered the gravity of the air, and endeavoured to compare it with that of water, besides opening up several other inquiries in natural philosophy. In short, he was rtot esteemed and followed by philosophers only, but was honoured by persons of the greatest distinction of all nations. Galileo had scholars too that were worthy of so great a master, by whom the gravitation of the atmosphere was fully established, and its varying pressure accurately and conveniently measured, by the column of quicksilver of equal weight sustained by it in the barometrical tube. The elasticity of the air, by which it perpetually endeavours to expand itself, and, while it admits of condensation, resists in proportion to its density, was a phenomenon of a new kind (the common fluids having no such property), and was of the utmost importance to philosophy. These principles opened a vast field of new and useful knowledge, and explained a great variety of phaenomena, which had been accounted for before that time in a very absurd manner. ‘ It seemed as if the air, the fluid in which men lived from the beginning, had been then but first discovered. Philosophers were every where busy inquiring into its various properties and their effects; and valuable discoveries rewarded their industry. Of the great number who distinguished themselves on this occasion, may be mentioned Torricelli and Viviani in Italy, Pascal in France, Otto Guerick in Germany,’ and Boyle in England.

, or Gallæus, a Dutch writer, who was born at Rotterdam, according to the inscription on his portrait, or according to other authorities, at Zuriczee, in 1627, and died at Campen in 1709, was a clergyman and an able philologist. His principal work is his treatise on the “Sybilline Oracles,” 2 vols. 4to, the first of which,containing the Oracles, was published at Amsterdam in 1689, and the second, which consists of dissertations, appeared soon after. In this he has brought together every thing relating to these celebrated fictions, but neither with success, nor judgment, according to Fabricius and his biographer Reimar, who speak with harshness of his abilities, and give us an extraordinary instance of his ignorance in classing Agathias and Jamblicus among Latin writers. They also seem to intimate that he frequently borrows without acknowledgment. Galle was more successful in a very correct edition of “Lactantius,” published at Leyden in 1660. He had also begun an edition of “Minutius Felix,” but did not live to complete it.

, a native of Italy, a cele brated stage-dancer and dancing-ma&ter, some time patentee of the opera-house, and always proprietor of the concert-rooms in Hanover-square, seems to merit some notice, although rather from the fashion, than the worth of his character. He came into this country early in life, after having obtained considerable distinction as a dancer at Paris, and first appeared on our opera stage in 1759, where his style of dancing pleased very much, and performed in 1759 in the opera of “Farnase,” composed by Perez, where he is styled “II Signer Giovanni Andrea Gallini, director of the balli, and principal dancer,” and occasionally appeared on the same stage until 1763, after which his name is no longer to be found in books of the lyric theatre, either as ballet-master or principal dancer.

Although he was extremely worldly, dextrous at a bargain, and cautious in his dealings with mankind, he became an unfortunate projector in his attempt at a rapid increase of his property. The rooms in Hanover-square, we believe, were very productive, as he let every floor and every room, not only to concerts, balls, and assemblies, but to exhibitions, lectures, and lodgers of all kinds, scarcely allowing himself a habitable apartment for his own residence. When the opera house was burned down in 1789, he advanced 30,000l. towards rebuilding it, and sent an architect to Italy to procure plans of all the great theatres of that country, out of which to choose the most eligible for the new construction; but it has been generally believed, that by some jumble of clashing interests, or chicane of law, the management was taken out of his hands, and he not only lost his power but his money. While the great theatre in the Hay market was rebuilding, sir John fitted up the opposite little theatre as a temporary opera house, but it was so small and inconvenient, that it could not contain an audience sufficient to cover his expences. The next year the Pantheon was transformed into an opera house before that in the Haymarket was finished; and the unfortunate knight of the golden spur, tired of the squabbles and accidents which happened previous to the opening of his new theatre, sold his patent, and afterwards wholly confined himself to the produce of his Hanoversquare rooms, and the exercise of his profession as a dancjng-master, to the end of his life.

Indeed, at the time of the French revolution, he could not resist the temptations which were thrown out in that country for turning the penny in the purchase of the estates of the guillotined and emigrant nobility and gentry under the title of national domains. And he bought an estate near Boulogne, which cost him 30,000l.; but of which, by the artifice of French lawyers, and connivance of the usurpers, he was never able to obtain secure possession, and at length abandoned all hopes of the estate or his money. This loss had much less effect upon his avaricious character than could be expected, considering that he was so rigid an economist, that his private life would furnish materials for a new drama on the subject of frugality. It has, however, been justly said of him, that he was generally considered as the most able teacher of his art that ever appeared in this country; and is supposed, by his incessant labours in this respect, notwithstanding his great losses, to have left money and effects to the Amount of lOO,Ooo/. to portion his family, which consisted of' a son and two daughters. He was a very shrewd, intelligent man, who perfectly knew the world; and, if he was not generous, he was, however, honourable in his dealings; and if few had cause to be grateful for his bounty, no one had a right to complain of his injustice.

In the height of his professional practice and favour he published a book, in which he gave a history of dancing, from its origin, and the manner in which it is practised in various parts of the world. It appeared in 1762, under the title of “A Treatise on the art of Dancing, by Giovanni Andrea Gallini, director of the dancers at the royal theatre in the Haymarket,” 8vo. Until the more elegant “Lettres sur la Dance” of the celebrated ballet-master Noverre, published at Stutgard in 1760, had penetrated into this country, Gallini’s book was much read and talked of as a literary performance; but unluckily, in a work of M. Cahusac, published at the Hague, in three small volumes, 1754, 12mo, we find all the historical part of Gallini’s treatise, with the same stories of the wonderful powers of the ancient mimics Bathyllus and Pylades, at Rome, their quarrel, and the feuds it occasioned; and his biographer seems to think that he never had literature sufficient to write an original work in his own language, or even to translate such a one as that of Noverre or Cahusac into any language. Gallini, by temperance and exercise, enjoyed a good state of health, and escaped decrepitude to the last: for it was said in the printed accounts that “sir John Gallini, on Saturday, 5th of January, 1805, rung his bell at eight o‘clock, and, upon his servant entering his chamber, ordered his breakfast to be prepared immediately, his chaise to be at the door at nine o’clock, and his chariot in waiting at three.” A few minutes after giving these directions, he complained of not being well, and said, “I will rest till nine o'clock.” In half an hour he rang his bell again, and ordered medical assistance, as he had a violent pain in his stomach. Dr. Hayes and Dr. Wood immediately attended; butatnineo'clock he expired without a groan, aged about? I.

, a learned Frenchman, was born of a good family, at Paris, in 1632. He bad studied divinity, ecclesiastical and profane history, philosophy, mathematics, the Oriental, together with the Italian, Spanish, English, and German languages; and was deemed an universal scholar. He is now memorable chiefly for having been the first who published the “Journal des Sgavans,” in conjunction with M. de Sallo, who had formed the design of this work. The first journal was published on Jan. 5, 1665; but these gentlemen censured new books with so much severity, that the whole tribe of authors rose up against their work, and effectually cried it down. De Sallo abandoned it entirely, after having published a third journal, in March following. Gallois was determined to continue' it, yet did not venture to send out a fourth journal till Jan. 1666, and then not without an humble advertisement in the beginning of it, in which it is declared, that the author “will not presume to criticize, but only simply to give an account of books.” This, and the protection shewn by the minister Colbert, who was much pleased with the work, gradually reconciled the public to the Journal. Thus began literary journals, which have been continued from that time to this under various titles, and by various authors; among whom are the names of Bayle and Le Clerc. Gallois continued his journal to 1674, when more important occupations obliged him to drop it, or rather transfer it to another person. Colbert had taken him into his house the year before, with a view of being taught Latin by him; and the minister of state, it is said, took most of his lessons in his coach, as he journeyed from Versailles to Paris, Voltaire observes on this occasion, that “the two men, who have been the greatest patrons of learning, Louis XIV. and Colbert, neither of them understood Latin.” ' Gallois had been made member of the academy of sciences in 1668, and of the French academy in 1675. He lost his patron by death in 1683; and then, being at liberty, was first made librarian to the king, and afterwards Greek professor in the royal college. He died of the dropsy in 1707; and in 1710 a catalogue of his books was printed at Paris, consisting of upwards of 12,000 volumes. It is remarkable of this learned man, that though he had served many friends by his interest with Colbert, yet he had neglected to make any provision for himself: whence it happened, that, at the death of that minister, he was but in poor circumstances, although an abbé.

, an ancient Roman poet, and a person of distinction, was born at Frejus, in Provence, or as some think Friuli, in Italy. He was the particular favourite of Augustus Caesar, who made him governor of Egypt, after the death of Antony and Cleopatra; but he was guilty of such mal-administration in his government, that he was condemned to banishment, and deprived of his estate. This disgrace so afflicted him that he put an end to his life, when he was aged about forty-three, in the year 26. Virgil has complimented him in many places; and the whole tenth eclogue is on the subject of his love to Lycoris, the poetical name of Callus’s mistress, whose cruel disdain is there lamented. Gallus had written four books of elegies on his amour, which Propertius commends; but Quintilian thinks him not so tender as Tibullus or Propertius. As to those six elegies which have been published under his name, the critics are agreed that they are spurious, and that they were written by Maximus Etruscus, a contemporary with Boethius. Aldus Manutius met with some fragments at Venice ascribed to Gallus; which, though written in a better taste than the former, Joseph Scaliger has proved to be also spurious. Some think he is the author of the little poem called “Cms,” found among the works attributed to Virgil. His fragments have been printed with the editions of Catullus, printed in 1659, 1755, &c.

, an English divine, born at Beckenham, in Kent, in August 1696, was admitted pensioner of Bene't college, under the tuition of Mr. Fawcett, May 8, 1714, and became scholar of the house in July following. He took the degree of M. A. in 1721, and was upon tbfc king’s list for that of D. D. (to which he was admitted April 25, 1728) when his majesty honoured the university of Cambridge with his presence. In 1721 he was chosen lecturer of St. Paul’s Covent-garden, and instituted the same year to the rectory of Wavenden, or Wanclen, in Buckinghamshire. The lord chancellor King appointed him his domestic chaplain in 1725, preferred him to a prebend in the church of Gloucester in 1728, and to another in that of Norwich ahout three years after. He presented him likewise to the rectory of Ashney, alias Ashton, in Northamptonshire, in 1730; and to that of St. Giles’s in the fields, in 1732; his majesty made him also one of his chaplains in ordinary in October 1735. Dr. Gaily died August 7, 1769. He was the author of, 1. “Two sermons on the Misery of Man, preached at St. Paul’s Covent-garden, 1723,” 8vo. 2. “The Moral Characters of Theophrastus, translated from the Greek, with notes, and a Critical Essay on Characteristic Writing,” 1725, 8vo. 3. “The Reasonableness of Church and College Fines asserted, and the Rights which Churches and Colleges have in their Estates defended,” 1731, 8vo. This was an answer to a pamphlet called “An Enquiry into the Customary Estates and Tenants of those who hold Lands of Church and other Foundations by the tenure of three Lives and twenty-one years. By Everard Fleet wood, esq.” 8vo. 4. “Sermon before the House of Commons, upon the Accession, June 11, 1739,” 4to. 5. “Some Considerations upon Clandestine Marriages,” 1750, 8vo. This was much enlarged in a second edition the year following, and had the honour afterwards to be noticed in the house of commons in the debates on the marriage act. 6. “A Dissertation against pronouncing the Greek language according to Accents,” 1754, 1755, 8vo. 7. “A Second Dissertation,” on the same subject, 8vo.

In conjunction with his physiological inquiries, the duties of his professorship, and his employment as a surgeon and accoucheur, in which practice he was very eminent, gave full occupation to the industry of Galvani. Besides a number of curious observations on the urinary organs, and on the organ of hearing in birds, which were published in the Memoirs of the Institute of Bologna, he drew up various memoirs on professional topics, which have remained inedited. He regularly held learned conversations with a few literary friends, in which new works were read and commented upon. He was a man of most amiable character in private life, and possessed of great sensibility, insomuch that the death of his wife, in 1790, threw him into a profound melancholy* His early impressions on the subject of religion remained unimpaired, and he was always punctual in practising its minutest rites. During the troubles in Italy he had espoused the side of the old established government, and was stript of all his offices, because he refused to take the oaths of allegiance to the new Cisalpine republic; and most of his relations perished by sudden or violent deaths, many of them in defence of their country. In a state of melancholy and poverty he retired to the house of his brother James, a man of very respectable character, and fell into an extreme debility. The republican governors, probably ashamed of their conduct towards such a man, passed a decree for his restoration to his professional chair and its emoluments: but it was now too late. He expired Dec. 5, 1798.

, a pious bishop among the Moravian brethren, was born near Haverford Wes in SouthWales, and became a member of Christ- church, Oxford, where he took the degree of M. A. May 30, 1734; and was afterwards vicar of Stanton Harcourt, in Oxfordshire, to which he was presented by Dr. Seeker, when bishop of Oxford. At this place, in 1740, he wrote “The Martyrdom of Ignatius, a Tragedy,” published after his death by the rev. Benjamin La Trobe with the Life of Ignatius, drawn from authentic accounts, and from the epistles written by him from Smyrna and Troas in his way to Rome, 1773, 8vo. A sermon, which he preached before the university of Oxford, was published under the title of “Christianity, Tidings of Joy,” 1741, 8vo. In 1742 he published at Oxford, from the university-press, a neat edition of the Greek Testament, but without his name, “Textu per omnia Milliano, cum divisione pericoparum & interpunctura A. Bengelii,” 12mo. Joining afterwards the Church of the Brethren, established by an act of parliament of 1749, and known by the name of “Unitas Fratrum,” or, the United Brethren; he was, for many years, the regular minister of the congregation settled at London, and resided in Neville’s-court, Fetter-lane, where he preached at the chapel of the society. His connexion with these sectaries commenced in 1748, when Peter Boehler visited Oxford, and held frequent meetings with John and Charles Wesley, for the edification of awakened people, both learned and unlearned. His discourses were in Latin, and were interpreted by Mr. Gambold. He was consecrated a bishop at an English provincial synod held at Lindsey house in Nov. 1754, and was greatly esteemed for his piety and learning by several English bishops, who had been his contemporaries in the university of Oxford. In 1765 a congregation was settled by bishop Gatnbold, at Cootbill, in Ireland. Soon after he had joined the brethren, he published a treatise, written while he was at Stariton Haiv.ourt, and which proves his steady attachment to the church of England, entirely consistent with his connexion with, and ministry in, the church of the brethren. The title of it is, “A short summary of Christian Doctrine, in the w.iy ol question and answer; the answers being all made in the sound and venerable words of the Common-? prayer-book of the church of England. To which are added, some extracts out of the Homilies. Collected for the service of a few persons, members of the established church i but imagined not to be unuseful to others.” We know not the exact date of this treatise; but a second edition of it was printed in 1767, 12mo. Mr. Gam-bold also published in 1751, 8vo, “Maxims and Theological Ideas and Sentences, collected out of several dissertations and discourses of count Zinzendorf, from 1738 till 1747*” His “Hymns for the use of the Brethren” were printed in 174-8, 1749, and 1752; Some Hymns, and a small hymnbook for the children belonging to the brethren’s congregations, were printed entirely by Mr. Gambold’s own hand in Lindsey house at Chelsea. A letter from Mr. Gambold to Mr. Spangenberg, June 4, 1750, containing a concise and well-written character of the count of Zinzendorf, was inserted in Mr. James Mutton’s “Essay towards giving some just ideas of the personal character of count Zinzendorf, the present advocate and ordinary of the brethren’s churches,” 1755, 8vo. In 1752 he was editor of “Sixteen Discourses on the Second Article of the Creed, preached at Berlin by the ordinary of the Brethren,” 12mo. In June 1753 appeared “The ordinary oi' the Brethren’s churches his short and peremptory remarks on the way and manner wherein he has been hitherto treated in controversies, &c. Translated from the High Dutch, with a preface, by John Gambold, minister of the chapel in Fetterlane.” In the same year he published, “Twenty-one discourses, or dissertations, upon the Augsburg Confession, which is also the Brethren’s Confession of Faith; delivered by the ordinary of the Brethren’s churches before the seminary. To which is prefixed a synodical writing relating to the subject. Translated from fche High Dutch, by F. Okeley, A. B.” In 1754 he was editor of “A clest Plea for the Church of the Brethren,” &c. 8vo with a preface hy himself. In the same year, in conjunction with Mr. Hutton, secretary to the brethren, he also drew up 4< The representation of the committee of the English congregation in union with the Moravian church,“addressed to the archbishop of York; and also” The plain case of the representatives of the people known by the name f the Unitas Fratrum, from the year 1727 till these times, with regard to their conduct in this country under misrepresentation.“And in 1755 he assisted in the publication of” A letter from a minister of the Moravian branch of the Unitas Fratrum, together with some additional notes by the English editor, to the author of the Moravians compared and detected;“and also of” An exposition, or true state of the matters objected in England to the people known by the name of Unitas Fratrutn; by the ordinary of the brethren; the notes and additions by the editor.“In 1756 he preached at Fetter-lane chapel, and printed afterwards, a sermon upon a public fast and humiliation, setting forth” the reasonableness and extent of religious reverence.“He was not only a good scholar, but a man of great parts, and of singular mechanical ingenuity. It was. late in both their lives before the learned Bowyer was acquainted with his merits; but he no sooner knew them, than he was happy in his acquaintance, and very frequently applied to him as an occasional assistant in correcting the press; in which capacity Mr. Gambold superintended (among many other valuable publications) the beautiful and very accurate edition of lord chancellor Bacon’s works in 1765; and in 1767 he was professedly the editor, and took an active part in the translation from the High Dutch, of” The History of Greenland;“containing a” description of the country and its inhabitants; and particularly a relation of the mission carried on for above these thirty years by the Unitas Fratrum at New Herrnhut and Lichtenfels in that country, by David Crantz; illustrated with maps and other copper-plates: printed for the brethren’s society for the furtherance of the Gospel among the Heathen," 2 vols. 8vo. In the autumn of 1768 he retired to his native country, where he died, at Haverford West, universally respected, Sept. 13, 1771.

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

, a French engraver and letter-founder, was a native of Paris, and began to distinguish himself about 1510; when he founded his printing types, clear from all remains of the gothic, or, as it is usually called, the black letter. He brought them to so great a degree of perfection, that he can neither be denied the glory of having surpassed whatever had been done in this way before, nor that of not being excelled by any of his successors in this useful mechanic art. His types were prodigiously multiplied, as well by the great number of matrices which he engraved of every size, as by the letters which were founded from these, so that all parts of Europe were supplied with them; and as often as they were used by foreigners, they took care, by way of recommending their works, to distinguish them by his name, both in Italy, Germany, England, and even in Holland; particucularly the small Roman, by way of excellence, was known among the printers in all these countries, by the name of Garamond’s small Roman. He likewise, by the special command of Francis I. founded three species of Greek tj-pes for the use of Robert Stephens, who printed with them all his beautiful editions, both of the New Testament, and several Greek authors. Garamond died in 1561; and all his fine types came into the hands of Fournier the elder, an eminent letter- founder at Paris.

As he had a great deal of spirit and imagination, and a strong voice, he became a popular preacher in the chief cities of France. He acquitted himself in the pulpit with uncommon vivacity, and had a peculiar turn for the wit then in vogue, which, being enforced by a suitable delivery, made deep impressions upon his audience. But he was not content with the honour he thus did to his order. His ambition led him to aim at being more extensively serviceable by his writings. With that spirit, while yet in his noviciate, he published in 1614 a defence of the Jesuits against three of their adversaries at once. This piece he entitled “The Horoscope of Anti-Coton, together with the life, death, burial, and apotheosis of his two cousingermans Marteliere and Hardeviliere.” The treatise appeared under a feigned name, and was drawn up in the ironical style, but too much vitiated by buffoonery; and, in the same name and style, he printed in 1615, “The Calvinistic Elixir, or Reformed Philosopher’s Stone, first dug up by Calvin at Geneva, and afterwards polished by Isaac Casaubon at London, with the testamentary codex of Anti-Coton, lately found upon Charenton-bridge.” The first of these is entitled “Andrew Schioppii Casparis fratris horoscopus,” &c. Antwerp, 1614, 4to. The second “Andres Schioppii Casparis fratris Elixir Calvinisticum,” &c. ibid. 1651, 8vo. In the first he attacked the three following pieces; 1. “L'Anticoton, on refutation de la Lettre declaratoire du Pere Colon,” 1610, 8vo. 2. “Playdoye du Pierre de la Martiliere Avocat en Parlement pour le Recteur de l'University de Paris contre lesJe-r suits,” Paris, 1612, 8vo. 3. “Petri Hardovilierii Actiopro Academia Parisiensi adversus Presbyteros & Scholasticos Collegii Claromontanii habita in Senatu Parisiensi. ann. 1611,” Paris, 1612, 8vo. Niceron observes, that our author’s satirical style was very like that of the famous Schioppius, which was apparently the reason of his chusing that mask, which suited him exactly well.

In 1618, he took the four vows, and became a father or his order. This is the highest title conferred on that or any other of the monastic institutions; and our author, being thereby admitted to read and study the sublimest mysteries of his religion, in a few years appeared upon the stage of the public in the character of a zealous champion for the faith, against the infidels and prophaners of those mysteries. But in the mean time his pen was far from lying idle. In 1620 he printed a piece entitled “Rabelais reformed by the ministers, particularly Peter du Moulin, minister of Charenton, in answer to the buffooneries inserted in his book” (of the invocation of pastors); and two years afterwards he ventured to attack the ghost of Stephen Pasquier, in another piece, entitled “Recherches des Recherches & autres ceuvres d'Etienne Pasquier.” There cannot be given a better specimen of the peculiar strain of his satirical wit, than is furnished by the epistle dedicatory to this book. It is addressed to the late Stephen Pasquier, wherever he may be “for,” says he, “having never been able to find out your religion, I know not the route or way you took at your departure out of this life; and therefore I am forced to write to you at a venture, and to address this packet wherever you may be.”

Garassethe next year, 1628, published “La Doctrine curieuse des beaux esprits de ce temps, &c. The curious doctrine of the wits, or pretenders to wit, of this age, containing several maxims pernicious to the state of religion and good manners, refuted and overthrown.” He took occasion in several places of this work, to throw out rough and abusive raillery upon Pasquier; and went on in the same strain, in a third production, printed in 1625, 4to. The sons of Pasquier were at last provoked beyond all patience, to see the manes of their father so irreligiously disturbed. Resolving to revenge his memory, and to pay our author in his own coin, they published a treatise, in which Garasse was thus accosted: having recounted the words of his dedication just mentioned; “This,” say they, in the singular number, “has made me use the same freedom with you, and forced me to address this packet to you, in what place soever you may be. For, not knowing whether you may be at the service-tree, which you call a tavern of honour, and where you confess you have had many a good meal free-cost; or at the town of Clomar, in the suburbs of St. Germain, where your name is written in such fair characters on all the mantle-trees of the chimnies; or in some other place of the same kind; -I am constrained to send you this book at a venture, and to direct it to you in what place soever you be.” The truth was, that in general the free course of Garasse' s life ran parallel to that of his wit, which he had indulged to such a height in his “Doctrine Curieuse,” that notwithstanding the specious title against atheists and atheistical libertines prefixed by the author, a very different one was bestowed upon it by others, particularly Naude, who distinguished it by the title of “Atheism reduced to an art.” Prior Ogier, in particular, having observed that our author was better qualified for a satirical poet or a merry Andrew, than for a catholic doetor, exclaimed against the whole order, for making choice of such a champion. This was made public the same year; and in the following our author issued a defence, entitled “Apologie de F. Garasse,” &c. To this the prior immediately prepared for a reply; but here the fraternity stepped in, and procured such mediators as found means to end the dispute in an amicable way. The Jesuit prevented his antagonist by a letter full of civilities, which was answered in the same way by the prior, 1 and care was taken to let the public see those letters, as soon as they were written, in 1624. By the same method our author was also reconciled to Balzac, with whose character he had made free, having provided a seat, for him among the atheists of the times.

The “Doctrine Curieuse,” carried the strongest marks of a most busy and active temper; vivacity was the characteristic of the author, and he had no sooner escaped the difficulties which that treatise brought upon him, but he plunged into another, of a much more threatening aspect. This was created by a book he published in 1625, under the title of “La Somme Theologique des verites capitales de la religion Chretienne.” It was this book which first excited the war between the Jansenists and the Jesuits, and in the following manner. The abbot of St. Cyran, observing in Garasse’s book a prodigious number of falsifications of Scripture and the fathers, besides many heretical and impious opinions, thought the honour of the church required a refutation of them. Accordingly, he wrote an answer at large, in four parts. But while the first part was in the press, the noise it every where made occasioned Garasse’s book to be more carefully examined. March 2, 1626, the rector of the Sorbonne declared before that society that he had received several complaints of it; and, proposing to have it examined, a committee was appointed for that purpose, who should give their opinion of it on the 2d of May following. This matter alarming Carasse, he presently after this appointment published at Paris, “L'abus decouverte,” &c. In this piece he drew up a list of 111 propositions the most easy to maintain that he could find, and having composed a censure of them, which he pretended was that of the abbot St. Cyran, he refuted that answer with ease. This coming to the hands of St. Cyran, March 16, he wrote some notes upon it the same day, which were printed with the title of “A refutation of the pretended abuse, and discovery of the true ignorance and vanity of father Francis Garasse;” and the committee of the Sorbonne made their report on the day appointed. But some persons who approved the book desired more time, and that the propositions censured might be communicated to them. This was granted; and on the 1st of July, attempting partly to defend, and partly to explain it, they found themselves under a necessity of confessing that there were some passages in it which could not be excused; and that F. Garasse had promised to correct them, without performing his promise. On this, the doctors agreeing that the book ought to be censured, the censure was accordingly passed Sept. 1, and immediately published, with the title of “Censura S. Facultatis Theofogicse, &c. The Censure of the sacred Faculty of the Clergy at Paris, upon a book entitled Theological Summary of F. Francis Garasse.” The sentence was to this effect, that the summary contained several heretical, erroneous, scandalous, and rash propositions; several falsifications of passages of Scripture, and of the holy fathers, falsely cited, and wrested from their true sense; and an infinite number of expressions unfit to be written or read by Christians and divines.

, or Garcias Lasso de La Vega, a celebrated Spanish poet, was born of a noble family at Toledo, in 1500 or 1503. His father was a counsellor of state to Ferdinand and Isabella, and employed by them on several important negociations, particularly in an embassy to pope Alexander VI. Garcilasso was educated near the emperor Charles V. who had a particular regard for him, and took him with him in his military expeditions, where he became as renowned for his courage as for his poetry. He accompanied that emperor into Germany, Africa, and Provence; and it was in this last expedition, in 1536, that he commanded a “battalion, when he received a wound, of which he died at Nice, about three weeks after, aged only thirty -three. The wound was made by a stone thrown by a countryman from a turret, and falling upon his head. The Spanish poetry was greatly obliged to Garcilasso, not only for extending its bounds, but also for introducing new beauties into it. He had strong natural talents for poetry; and he did not fail to improve them by culture, studying the best poets ancient and modern. His poems are full of fire; have a nobleness and majesty without affectation; and, what is somewhat singular, there is in them a great deal of ease, united with much subtilty. Paul Jovius has not scrupled to say that his odes have all the sweetness of Horace. Though his imitations of the ancients may be traced throughout almost all his works, yet, as they are conspicuous for good taste and harmonious versification, and were written amidst many distracting occupations, there can be no doubt that he would have gained great celebrity if he had lived longer. The learned grammarian Sanctius has written commentaries upon all his works, and has illustrated him every where with very learned and curious notes. They were all printed at Naples in 1661, with this title,” Garcilasso de la Vega Obras Poeticas con annotationes de Franc. Sanchez,“in 8vo. We must not confound this poet with another person of the same name, a native or” Cusco, who wrote in Spanish the History of Florida, and that of Peru and the Incas.

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

, a brave officer of the army, and not less celebrated for his piety, was born at Carriden, in Linlithgow shire, in Scotland, Jan. 10, 1687-8. He was the son of captain Patrick Gardiner, of the family of Torwoodhead, by Mrs. Mary Hodge, of the family of GladsKiitir. His family was military, his father, his uncle by the mother’s side, and his elder brother, all fell in battle. He was educated at the school of Linlithgow, but was soon removed from it, owing to his early zeal to follow his father’s profession. At the age of fourteen he had an ensign’s commission in the Dutch service, in which he continued until 1702; when he received the same from queen Anne, and being present at the battle of Ramillies, in his nineteenth year, was severely wounded and taken prisoner by the French. He was carried to a convent, where he resided until his wound was cured; and soon after was exchanged. In 1706 he obtained the rank of lieutenant, and after several intermediate promotions, was appointed major of a regiment commanded by the earl of Stair, in whose family he resided for several years. In January 1730, he was advanced to the rank of lieutenant-colonel in the same regiment, in which he continued until April 1743, when he received a colonel’s commission over a regiment of dragoons. During the rebellion in Scotland, in 1745, his regiment being in that country, and the rebel army advancing to Edinburgh, he was ordered to march with the utmost expedition to D unbar, which he didj and that hasty retreat, with the news soon afterwards received of the surrender of Edinburgh to the rebels, struck a visible panic into the forces he commanded. This affected his gallant mind so much, that on the Thursday before the battle of Preston-pans, he intimated to an officer of considerable rank, that he expected the event would be as it proved; and to a person who visited him, he said, “I cannot influence the conduct of others as I could wish; but I have one life to sacrifice to my country’s safety, and I shall not spare it.” On Friday Sept. 20th, the day before the fatal battle, when the whole army was drawn up, about noon, the colonel rode through the ranks of his regiment, and addressed them in an animated manner, to exert themselves with courage in defence of their country. They seemed much affected by his address, and expressed a very ardent desire of attacking the enemy immediately, a desire in which he, and another gallant officer of distinguished rank, would have gratified them, had it been in their power, but their ardour and their advice were overruled by the strange conduct of the commander-in-chief, sir John Cope, and therefore all that colonel Gardiner could do, was to spend the remainder of the day in making as good a disposition as the circumstances would allow. He continued all night under arms, wrapped Mp in his cloak, and sheltered under a rick of barley which happened to be in the field. By break of day the army was roused by the noise of the approach of the rebels; and the attack was made before sun -rise. As soon as the enemy came within gun-shot, they commenced a furious fire; and the dragoons which constituted the left wing immediately fled. The colonel at the beginning of the attack, which lasted but a few minutes, received a ball in his left breast, which made him give a sudden spring in his saddle; upon which his servant, who had led the horse, would have persuaded him to, retreat; but he said it was only a flesh-wound, and fought on, though he presently after received a shot in his right thigh. The colonel was for a few moments supported by his men, and particularly by about fifteen dragoons, who stood by him to 'the last; but after a faint fire, the regiment in general was seized with a panic; and though their colonel and some other brave officers did what they could to rally them, they at lust took to a precipitate flight. Just in the moment when colonel Gardiner seemed to be making a pause to deliberate what duty required him to do in such a circumstance, he saw a party of the foot fighting bravely near him, without an officer to lead them, on which he rode up to them immediately, and cried out aloud, “Fire on, my lads, and fear nothing.” As he had uttered these words, a Highlander advanced towards him with a scythe fastened to a long pole, with which he gave him such a deep wound in his right arm, that his sword dropped from his band, and several others coming about him at the same time, while he was thus dreadfully entangled with that savage weapon, he was dragged from his horse. The moment he fell, another Highlander gave him a stroke either with a broad -sword, or a Lochaber axe, on the hinder part of the head, which was the mortal blow. All that his faithful servant, John Forster, who furnished this account, saw further at this time, was, that as his hat was falling olf, he took it in his left hand, waved it as a signal for him to retreat, and added, which were the last words he ever heard him speak, “Take care of yourself.” The servant immediately fled to a mill, about two miles distant, where he changed his dress, and disguised like a miller’s servant, returned with a cart about two hours after the engagement. He found his master not dnly plundered of his watch and other things of value, but even stripped of his upper garments and boots. He was, however, still breathing, and from appearances, not altogether insensible. In this condition he was conveyed to the church of Tranent, and from that to the clergyman’s house, where he expired about eleven o'clock in the forenoon, Saturday Sept. 21, 1745. The rebels entered his house before he was carried off from the field, and plundered it. His remains were interred on the Tuesday following, Sept. 24, at the parish church of Tranent. Even his enemies spoke honourably of him, and seemed to join in lamenting the fall of so brave and so worthy a man. Nor was it for bravery only that colonel Gardiner was distinguished. He was perhaps one of the most pious men of his age and country. He was, says his biographer, in the most amazing manner, without any religious opportunity, or peculiar advantage, deliverance, or affliction, reclaimed on a sudden, in the vigour of life and health, from a life of licentiousness, not only to a steady course of regularity and virtue, but to high devotion, and strict, though unaffected sanctity of manners. All this is amply illustrated in Dr. Doddridge’s well-known life of this gallant hero, whose death was as much a loss, as the cause of it, the battle of Preston-pans, was a disgrace to his country.

, bishop of Winchester, and chancellor of England, was the illegitimate son of Dr. Lionel Woodvill or Wydville, dean of Exeter, and bishop of Salisbury, brother to Elizabeth, queen consort to Edward IV. He was born in 1483, at Bury St. Edmonds, in Suffolk, and took his name from his reputed father , whom his mother married, though in a menial situation, to conceal the incontinence of the bishop. After a proper education at school, he was sent to Trinity-hall, in Cambridge; where pursuing his studies with diligence, he soon obtained reputation by the quickness of his parts, and was particularly distinguished for his elegance in writing and speaking Latin, as well as for his uncommon skill in the Greek language . In the former he made Cicero his pattern, and became so absolute a master of his style, as to be charged with affectation in that respect. With these attainments in classical learning, he applied himself to the civil and canon law; and took his doctor’s degree in the first of these, in 1520; in the latter, the following year; and it is said, was the same year elected master of his college.

As this step proved the ruin of Wolsey, in his distress he applied to his old servant the secretary, who on this occasion is said by the writer of his life in the Biog. Britannica, to have afforded an eminent proof of his gratitude, in soliciting his pardon; which was followed in three days by his restoration to his archbishopric, and 6000l. sent him, besides plate and furniture for his house and chapel. It is certain, however, that Gardiner did not interpose before Wolsey had supplicated him more than once in the most humble manner, to intercede for him, and it is equally certain that Gardiner did not risk much in applying to the king, who for some time entertained a considerable regard for the fallen Wolsey. Gardiner also, at the cardinal’s recommendation, in 1530, introduced the provost of Beverly to the king, who received him graciously, and shewed him that he was his good and gracious lord, and admitted and accepted him as his orator and scholar. These were matters of easy management. But the year had not expired, when the king’s service called the secretary to a task of another nature, which was to procure from the university of Cambridge their declaration in favour of his majesty’s cause, after Cranmer’s book should appear in support of it. In this most difficult point his old colleague Fox was joined with him; and they spared no pains, address, or artifice in accomplishing it. To make amends for such an unreserved compliance with the royal will, a door was presently opened in the church, through which, by one single step (the archdeaconry of Leicester, into which he was installed in the spring of 1531), Gardiner advanced to the rich see of Winchester, and was there consecrated the November following. Gardiner was not, at the time, apprized of the king’s design of conferring on him this rich bishopric; for Henry, in his caprice, would sometimes rate him soundly, and when he bestowed it on him said, “I have often squared with you, Gardiner, but I love you never the worse, as the bishopric I give you will convince you.” As bishop of Winchester he now assisted in the court when the sentence, declaring Katharine’s marriage null and void, was passed by Cranmer, May 22, 1533. The same year he went ambassador to the French king at Marseilles, to discover the designs of the pope and that monarch in their interview, of which Henry was very suspicious; and upon his return home, being called, as other bishops were, to acknowledge and defend the king’s supremacy, he readily complied, and published his defence for it, with this title, “De vera Obedientia.” His conduct was very uniform in this point, as well as in that of the divorce and the subsequent marriage, and he acquired great reputation by his writings in defence of them.

In 1535, Cranmer visiting the see of Winchester, in virtue of his metropolitan power, Gardiner disputed that power with great warmth. Some time afterwards, he resumed his embassy to France, where he procured the removal of Pole (then dean of Exeter, afterwards cardinal) out of the French dominions, having represented him as his master’s bitter enemy; and this was the original root of that disagreement between them, which in time became public. Before his return this second time, being applied to by Cromwell for his opinion about a religious league with the protestant princes of Germany, he declared himself against it, and advised a political alliance, which he judged would last longer, as well as answer the king’s ends better, if strengthened by subsidies. In 1538 he was sent ambassador to the German diet at Ratisbon, where he incurred the suspicion of holding a secret correspondence with the pope. Whatever truth there may be in this charge, it is certain that Lambert this year was brought to the stake by his instigation, for denying the real presence in the sacrament. This instance of a sanguinary temper was then shown before the statute of the six articles was enacted; a law on which many were put to death, and which he undeniably framed and promoted in the house of lords to the utmost extent of his influence. This act passed in 1540; and the first person condemned by it, and burnt in Smithfield, the same year, was Robert Barnes, who at his death declared his suspicion of Gardiner’s having a hand in it . Upon the death of Cromwell, his rival long in the king’s favour, the university of Cambridge, where he still held his mastership of Trinity-hall, chose him their vice-chancellor; and in return he shewed his sense of it by an assiduity in his office among them, and a warm zeal to assist them on all occasions with his interest at court; which, as long as the sunshine of any signal service lasted, was very good. But in this, his case, like other courtiers, was subject to the sudden vicissitudes of light and shade which so remarkably checquered the series of that reign; and this minister was no more excepted than his fellows from complying with those conditions of ministerial greatness, which were indispensable as long as Henry sat at the helm: and, though he tells us himself that, after the king had let him into the secret, that he could look sour and talk roughly, without meaning much harm, he ever after bore those sallies with much less anxiety, and could stand a royal rattling pretty well ; yet this was only sometimes, and on some occasions. For upon others, we rind him submitting to very disagreeable supplications and expressions of deep humility, and great sense of his failings, directly contrary to the convictions of his own conscience and understanding. Of this we have the following remarkable instance. The bishop had for his secretary a relation of his own name, Gardiner, who, in some conferences with Fryth the martyr, had acquitted himself so well that they were judged fit for the public view. This young clergyman was much in his master’s favour, yet he fell under a prosecution upon the act of supremacy; and being very obstinate, was executed as a traitor, March 7, 1544. This was made an engine against the bishop by his enemies, who whispered the king that he was very likely of his secretary’s opinion, notwithstanding all he had written; and that if he was once in the Tower, matter enough would come out against him. On this suggestion, his majesty consented to his proposed imprisonment. But the bishop being informed of it in time, repaired immediately to court; confessed all that his majesty had charged him with, whatever it was; and thus, by complying with the king’s humour, and shewing the deepest concern for real or pretended failings, obtained full pardon, to the great mortification of his enemies. We have selected this instance from many others of a similar nature, all which are evident proofs of Gardiner’s want of honest and sound principle, because it may be of use in discovering his real principles upon the subject of the supremacy, which will at last be found to be nothing more, in fact, than an engine of his political craft. It has indeed been alleged in his behalf, that he was not always so servile and ready an instrument of the king’s will, especially upon the matter of the supremacy, and Strype publishes (Memorials, vol. I. p. 215) a letter in the Cottonian library, which Gardiner wrote to the king in consequence of his majesty’s being angry with him for approving some sentiments in a book that seemed to impugn his supremacy. But if this letter, as Strype conjectures, was written about 1535, this was the time when the king had some thoughts of a reconciliation with the see of Rome, and of returning the supremacy to the pope, which being very well known to Gardiner, might encourage him to speak with the more freedom on that subject. Gardiner, than whom no man seems to have more carefully studied the king’s temper, was not accustomed to look upon himself as undone because he sometimes received such notices of his majesty’s displeasure as threw some other courtiers into the most dreadful apprehensions. This knowledge and his artful use of it taught him to seek his own safety, in taking a share with others, in the divorce of Anne of Cleves, and that of queen Catherine Howard; the first of which, if we consider his skill in the law, must have been, against his conscience, and the second as much against his inclination, on account of his attachment to that noble family. The same regard for himself might also, had he been in the kingdom at the time, have led him to take a part against queen Anne Boleyn, sir Thomas More, and bishop Fisher.

All his sagacity, subtlety, and contrivance, however, were not sufficient to save him from a cloud, which shewed itself in the close of this reign; a change which might be attributed to the unsteadiness of the master, were there not facts sufficient to throw the imputation in some measure upon the servant.' Certain it is, though upon what particular provocation is not known, that he engaged deeply in a plot against the life of Cranmer; which being discovered and dispersed by the king, his majesty, fully satisfied of the archbishop’s innocence, left all his enemies, and among the rest Gardiner, to his mercy. The malice, though forgiven by Cranmer, cannot be supposed to be forgotten by Henry. But this did not hinder him from making use of this willing servant, against his last queen, Katharine Parr. That lady, as well as her preceding partners of the royal bed, falling under her consort’s distaste, he presently thought of a prosecution for heresy; upon which occasion he singled out Gardiner, whose inclinations that way were well known, as a proper person for his purpose to consult with. Accordingly the minister listened to his master’s suspicions, improved his jealousies, and cast the whole into the form of articles; which being signed by the king, it was agreed to sendKatherine to the Tower. But she had the address to divert the storm from breaking upon her head, and to throw some part of it upon her persecutors. The paper of the articles, being entrusted to chancellor Wriothesly, was dropt out of his bosom, and carried to her; and she, with the help of this discovery to her royal consort, found charms enough left to dispel his suspicions: the result whereof was, severe reproaches to the chancellor, and a rooted displeasure to the bishop, insomuch that the king would never see his face afterwards. His behaviour to him corresponded with that resentment. In the draught of his majesty’s will, before his departure on his last expedition to France, the bishop’s name was inserted among his executors and counsellors to prince Edward. But after this, when the will came to be drawn afresh, he was left out; and though sir Anthony Brown moved the king twice, to put his name as before into it, yet the motion was rejected, with this remark, that “if he (Gardiner) was one, he would trouble them all, and they should never be able to rule him.” Besides this, when the king saw him once with some of the privy- counsellors, he shewed his dislike, and asked his business, which was, to acquaint his majesty with a benevolence granted by the clergy: the king called him immediately to deliver his message, and having received it, went away. Burnet assigns Gardiner’s known attachment to the Norfolk family for the cause of this disgrace: but, whatever was the cause, or whatever usage he met with on other occasions, this justice is undeniably due to him, that he ever shewed a high respect to his master’s memory, and either out of policy or gratitude, he always spoke and wrote of him with much deference.

In this unhinged situation he stood when Edward VI. ascended the throne; and his behaviour under the son more than justified the father’s censure upon the unruliness of his temper. Being prevented from disturbing the council within doors, he opposed all their measures without. The reformation was the great object of this reign; and that, as planned by Cranmer, he could not by any condescension of the archbishop be brought to approve, or even to acquiesce in. He condemned the diligence in bringing it on as too hasty, which would cause a miscarriage; observing, that under a minority, all should be kept quiet, and for that reason no alterations attempted; and this served him also for a ground to oppose the war with Scotland, as too hazardous and expensive. From the same principle, he no sooner heard of the intended royal visitation, than he raised objections to it: he both questioned its legality, and censured its imprudence as an innovation; alledging that it would tend to weaken the prerogative as assumed by Henry, in the eyes of the meanest, when they saw all done by the king’s power as supreme head of the church (on the due use of which all reformation must depend) while he was a child, and could know nothing at all, and the protector, being absent, not much more. These, however, were words only, and he did not stop there; for when the homilies and injunctions for that visitation were published, he insisted, on the perusal of them, that he could not comply with them, though at the expepce of losing his bishopric; asserting, at the same time, that all their proceedings were framed against the law both of God and the king, of the danger of which, he said, he was well apprized.

Upon his coming to London he was called before the council, Sept. 25, 15-17; and there refusing to promise either to receive the homilies, or pay obedience to the visitors, if they came into his diocese, he was committed close prisoner to the Fleet. Some days after, he was sent for to the deanery of St. Paul’s by Cranmer, who, with other bishops, discoursed in defence of the hornily upon justification; which he had censured, as excluding charity from any share in obtaining it. The archbishop proceeded to apologize for Erasmus’s “Paraphrase on the New Testament,” as the best extant; which, being ordered by the injunctions to be set up in all churches, had been objected to by Gardiner. His grace, seeing no hopes from arguments, which made no impression, let fall some words of bringing him into the privy-council, in case of his concurrence with them; hut that too having no effect, he was remanded to the Fleet, where he continued till the parliament hroke up, Dec. 24, and then was set at liberty by the general act of amnesty, nsuajly passed on the accession of a prince to the throne. He was never charged with any offence judicially, every thing being done in virtue of that extent of prerogative which had been assumed by Henry VIII. which was thought necessary for mortifying the pre r late’s haughty temper, as well as to vindicate their proceedings from the contempt he had shewn them.

After his discharge he went to his diocese;and,- though he opposed, as much as possible, the uew establishment in its first proposal, yet now it was settled by act of parliament, he knew how to conform; which he not 'only did himself, but took care that others should do the same. Yet he no sooner returned to town than he received an order, which brought him again before the council; where, after some rough treatment, he was directed not to stir from his house till he went to give satisfaction in a sermon, to be preached before the king and court in zt public audience; for the matter of which he was directed both what, he should, and what he should not say, by sir William Cecil. He did not refuse to preach, which was done on St. Peter’s day but so contrarily to the purpose required , that he was sent to the Tower the next clay, June 3O, 1548, where he was kept close prisoner for a year. But his affairs soon after put on a more pleasing countenance. When the protector’s fall was projected, Gardiner was deemed a necessary implement for the purpose; his head and hand were both employed for bringing it about, and the original draught of the articles was made by him. Upon this change in the council he had such assurances of his liberty, aid entertained so great hopes of it, that it is said he provided a new suit of clothes in order to keep that festival; but in all this he was disappointed: his first application for a discharge was treated with contempt by the council, who laughing said, “the bishop had a pleasant head;” for reward of which, they gave him leave to remain five or six weeks longer in prison, without any notice taken to him of his message. Nor did the lords shew any regard to his next address: and he had been almost two years in the Tower, when the protector, restored to that high office, went with others by virtue of an order of council, June 9, 1550, to confer with him in that place. In this conference they proposed to release him upon his submission for what was past, and promise of obedience for the future, if he would also subscribe the new settlement in religion, with the king’s complete power and supremacy, though under age; and the abrogation of the six articles. He consented to, and actually subscribed, all the conditions except the first, which he refused, insisting on his innocence. The lords used him with great kindness, and encouraged him to hope his troubles should be quickly ended, and upon this, seeing also the protector among them, he flattered himself with the hopes of being released in two days, and in that confidence actually made his farewell feast But the contempt he had at first shewn to the council, being still avowed by his refusing to make a submission. now, was not so readily overlooked. On the contrary, this first visit was followed by several others of the like tenor; which meeting with the same refusal, at length the lords Herbert, Petre, and bishop Ridley, brought him new articles, in which the required acknowledgement, being made more general, runs thus: “That he had been suspected of not approving the king’s proceedings, and being appointed to preach, had not done it as he ought to have done, and so deserved the king’s displeasure, for which he was sorry;” and the other articles being enlarged were, “besides the king’s supremacy, the suppression of abbies and chanteries, pilgrimages, masses, and images, adoring the sacrament, communion in both kinds, abolishing the old books, and bringing in the new book of service, with that for ordaining priests and bishops, the completeness of the scripture, and the use of it in the vulgar tongue, the lawfulness of clergymen’s marriage, and for Erasmus’s Paraphrase, that it had been on good considerations ordered to be set up in churches.” These being read, foe insisted first co be released from his imprisonment, and said that he would then freely give his answer, such as he would stand by, and suffer if he did amiss; but he vvoukl trouble himself with no more articles while he was detained in prison, since he desired not to be delivered out of his imprisonment in the way of mercy, but of justice. On July ly, he was brought before the council, who having told him that they sat by a special commission to judge him, asked whether he would subscribe these last articles or no? which he answering in the negative, his bishopric was sequestered, and he required to conform in three months on pain of deprivation. Upon this the liberty he had before of walking in some open galleries, when the duke of Norfolk was not in them, was taken from him, and he was again shut up in his chamber. At the expiration of the limited time, the bishop still keeping his resolution, was deprived for disobedience and contempt, by a court of delegates, in which Cranmer presided, after a trial which lasted from Dec. 15 to Feb. 14 following, in twenty-four sessions. He appealed from the delegates to the king; but no notice was taken of it, the court being known to be final and unappealable.

In the course of the proceedings, Gardiner always behaved himself contemptuously toward the judges, and particularly called them sacramentarians and heretics; on which account he was ordered to be removed to a meaner lodging in the Tower; to be attended by one servant only, of the lieutenant’s appointment to have his books and papers taken from him to be denied pen, ink, or paper; and nobody suffered to visit him. However, as he continued a close prisoner here during the rest of Edward’s reign, the severity of this order was afterwards mitigated; as appears from various pieces written by him in this confinement. He is said to have kept up his spirits and resolution, and it is not improbable, that he foresaw the great alteration in affairs which was speedily to take place. The first dawning of this began to appear on the demise of king Edward, when Mary was publicly proclaimed queen July 19, 1553. On Aug. 3 she made her solemn entry into the Tower, when Gardiner, in the name of himself and his fellow-prisoners, the duke of Norfolk, duchess of Somerset, lord Courtney, and others of high rank, made a congratulatory speech to her majesty, who gave them all their liberty. The spokesman took his seat in council the same day, and on the 8th performed the obsequies for the late king in the queen’s presence. On the 9th he went to Winchester-house in Southwark, after a confinement of somewhat more than five years; and was declared chancellor of England on the 23d. He had the honour of crowning the queen Oct. I, and on the 5th opened the lirst parliament in her reign. By these hasty steps Gardiner rose to the prime ministry; and was possessed at this time of more power, civil and ecclesiastical, than any English minister ever enjoyed, except his old master cardinal Wolsey. He was also re-chosen chancellor of Cambridge, and restored to the mastership of Trinity-hall there, of which, among his other preferments, he had been deprived in the former reign.

Gardiner, says an excellent modern biographer, was one of those motley ministers, half statesman and half ecclesiastic, which were common in those needy times, when the revenues of the church were necessary to support the servants of the crown. It was an inviduous support; and often fastened the odium of an indecorum on the king’s ministers; who had, as ministers always have, opposition enough to parry in the common course of business; and it^is very probable that Gardiner, on this very ground, has met with harder measure in history, than he might otherwise have done. He is represented as having nothing of a churchman about him but the name of a bishop. He had been bred to business from his earliest youth; and was thoroughly versed in all the wiles of men, considered either as individuals, or embodied in parties. He knew all the modes of access to every foible of the human heart; his own in the mean time was dark, and impenetrable. He was a man, “who,” as Lloyd quaintly says, “was to be traced like the fox; and, like the Hebrew, was to be read backwards;” and though the insidious cast of his eye indicated, that he was always lying in wait, yet his strong sense, and persuasive manner, inclined men to believe he was always sincere; as better reasons could hardly be given, than he had ready on every occasion. He was as little troubled with scruples as any man, who thought it not proper entirely to throw off decency. What moral virtues, and what natural feelings he had, were all under the influence of ambition; and were accompanied by a happy lubricity of conscience, which ran glibly over every obstacle. Such is the portrait, which historians have given us of this man; and though the colouring may be more heightened in some than in others; yet the same turn of feature is found in all.

, a physician at Caen, but a native of Paris, received his degree before the age of twenty, and came over to England, where he abjured the Roman catholic religion. He was incorporated in the university of Oxford on the 10th of March, 1657, and having settled in London, was appointed physician to the French ambassador: but fortune was altogether adverse to him, and he died overwhelmed with poverty and distress, in some part of Westminster, occasioned, as Wood says, “by the ill usage of a certain knight,” whose name, however, he does not mention, nor the time of our author’s death.He was a man of some science, as his works evince. They consist of a treatise, in English, on the nature and properties of the tincture of coral, printed in 1676, in 12iuo; and another in Latin, entitled “Angiiae Flagellum, seu, Tabes Anglica numeris omnibus absolute,” 1647, in iSmo. He also translated into English, “The true Prophecies or Prognostics of Michael Nostradamus, physician to Henry II. Francis II. and Charles IX. kings of France,” 1672, folio.

, or Joannes de Garlandia, a grammarian, is said to have been a native of Garlande en Brie in Normandy; hut as he came into England soon after the Conquest, Bale, Pitts, Tanner, have supposed him an Englishman, and Prince has enrolled him among the “Worthies of Devon.” He was not dead in 1081. His works have not all b.een printed but among those that have, are, 1. “A Poem on the contempt of the World,” improperly attributed to St. Bernard, Lyons, 1489, 4ta 2. Another poem, entitled “Floretus, or Liber Floreti;” on the Doctrines of Faith, and almost the whole circle of Christian morality. 3. A treatise on “Synonimes,” and another on Equivoques,“or ambiguous terms, Paris, 149O, 4 to, and reprinted at London by Pynson in 149.6, and again in 1500. 4. A poem in rhymed verses, entitled” Facetus,“on the duties of man towards God, his neighbour, and himself, Cologne, 1520, 4to the three poems are often printed together. 5.” Dictionarium artis Alchymiae, cum ejusdem artis compendio," Basle, 1571, 8vo.

, a person memorable in English history for having been privy to the celebrated conspiracy called “The Gunpowder Plot,” was born in Nottinghamshire in 1555, and bred at Winchester school; whence he went to Rome, and took the Jesuit’s habit in 1575. After studying under Bellarmin, Saurez, and Christopher Clavius, he was for some time professor of philosophy and Hebrew in the Italian college at Rome; and when Clavius, professor of mathematics, was disabled by old age, he supplied his place in the schools. He returned to England in 1586, as provincial of his order; although it was made treason the year before, for any Romish priest to come into the queen’s dominions. Here, under pretence of establishing the catholic faith, he laboured incessantly to raise some disturbance, in order to bring about a revolution; and with this view held a secret correspondence with the king of Spain, whom hs solicited to project n expedition against his country. This not proceeding so fast as he would have it, he availed himself of the zeal of some papists, who applied to him, as head of their order, to resolve this case of conscience; namely, “Whether, for the sake of promoting the catholic religion, it might be permitted, should necessity so require, to involve the innocent in the same destruction with the guilty?” to which this casuist replied without hesitating, that, “if the guilty should constitute the greater number, it might.” This impious determination gave the first motion to that horrible conspiracy, which was to have destroyed at one stroke the king, the royal family, and both houses of parliament; but the plot being providentially discovered, Garnet was sent to the Tower, and was afterwards tried, condemned to be hanged for high-treason, and executed at the west end of St. Paul’s, May 3, 1606. He declared just before his execution, that he was privy to the gunpowder plot; but, as it was revealed to him in confession, thought it his duty to conceal it. But besides this miserable subterfuge, it was proved that he knew something of it, out of confession. He has been placed by the Jesuits among their noble army of martyrs. He was pyobably an enthusiast, and certainly behaved at his execution in a manner that would have done credit to a better cause. It is said, however, upon other authority, that he declined the honour of martyrdom, exclaiming, “Me niartyretn O quale martyrem” “I a martyr! O what a martyr!” Dodd’s account of his execution is rather interesting. He published some works, among which are enumerated, i. “A treatise of Christian Renovation or Birth,” London, 1616, 8vo. 2. “Canisius’s Catechism, translated from the Latin,” ibid. 1590, 8vo, and St. Omers, 1622. Several works were published in defence of the measures taken against, him.

, an ingenious English physician, was born at Caste rton, near Kivkby Lonsda'le, Westmoreland, April 21, 1766. About the age of fourteen, after having received the first rudiments of education at his native village, he was placed as an apprentice under the tuition of Mr. Dawson, at Sedbergh, in Yorkshire, a celebrated mathematician, who was at that time a surgeon and apothecary, Here he laid the foundation of his medical and philosophical knowledge. After this he proceeded to Edinburgh, and took his degree about 1758. During his residence there, he became the pupil of Dr. Brown, whose new system of medicine Dr. Garnet, from this time, held in the highest estimation. Soon after he visited London, and attended the practice of the hospitals. He had now arrived at an age which made it necessary for him to think of some permanent establishment. With this view he left London, and settled at Bradford in Yorkshire, where he gave private lectures on philosophy and chemistry, and wrote a treatise on the Horley Green Spa. In 179J he removed to Knaresborough, and in summer to Harrogate, and was soon engaged in an extensive practice. As this, however, was necessarily limited to the length of the season, which lasted only three or four months, Dr. G. soon after his marriage, which took place in 1795, formed the design of emigrating to America. At Liverpool, where he was waiting to embark, he was strongly solicited to give a chemical course of lectures, which met with a most welcome reception, as did also another course on experimental philosophy. He then received a pressing invitation from Manchester, where he delivered the same lectures with equal success. These circumstances happily operated to prevent his departure to America, and he became a successful candidate for the vacant professorship of Anderson’s institution at Glasgow, in 1796. In Scotland, his leisure hours were employed in collecting materials for his “Tour through the Highlands;” which work was in some degree impeded by the sudden death of his wife in child-birth; an event which so strongly affected his feelings, that he never thought of it but with agony. Dr. G. was induced to relinquish the institution at Glasgow, by favourable offers from the new Royal Institution in London, where, for one season, he was professor of natural philosophy and che-p mistry, and delivered the whole of the lectures. On retiring from this situation, which was far too laborious for the state of his health, at the close of 1801, he devoted himself to his professional practice, and took a house in Great Marlborough-street, where he built a new and convenient apartment, completed an expensive apparatus, and during the winter of 1801 and 1802, he gave regular courses on experimental philosophy and chemistry, and a new course on “Zoonomia,” or, “the Laws of Animal Life, arranged according to the Brunonian theory.” These were interrupted in February, for some weeks, by a dangerous illness, which left him in a languid state; though he not only resumed and finished the lectures he had begun, but also commenced two courses on botany, one at his own house, and the other at Brompton. In the midst of these, he received, by infection, from a patient whom he had attended, the fever which terminated his life, June 28, 1802. His “Zoonomia” was afterwards published for the benefit of his family. “Thus,” says his biographer, “was lost to society a man, the ornament of his country, and the general friend of humanity. In his personal attachments, he was warm and zealous. In his religion he was sincere, yet liberal to the professors of contrary doctrines. In his political principles he saw no end, but the general good of mankind; and, conscious of the infirmity of human judgment, he never failed to make allowances for error. As a philosopher and a man of science, he was candid, ingenuous, and open to conviction; he never dealt in mystery, or pretended to any secret in art; he was always ready in explanation, and desirous of assisting every person willing to acquire knowledge.” Besides his “Tour in Scotland,” and the other works mentioned before. Dr. Garnet contributed many papers to the Memoirs of the Medical Society of London, the Royal Irish Academy, and other scientific societies.

, an English divine, was born at Bury St. Edmund’s, May 1, 1753, and was the only surviving child of the rev. Robert G. many years master of the free grammar-school at Bury, and rector of Nowton and Hargrave, in Suffolk . His mother was Mary, daughter of Mr. Benton, and sister of the late Edward Benton, esq. secondary in the court of king’s-bench. He was educated partly by his father, who supported a considerable reputation for classical learning, and partly at Bury school, whence he was admitted of Trinity-college, Cambridge, in 1770, and the following year was elected scholar. In 1774 he was admitted to his degree of B. A. which he obtained with credit to his college and himself; and was elected fellow in 1775, and proceeded M. A. in 1777. In 1793 he was elected college preacher, and in November 1797, was advanced into the seniority. He was ordained deacon March 3, 1776, and afterwards entered on the curacies of Newton and Great Welivatham, in the neighbourhood of Bury. On June 15, 1777, he was ordained priest, but having imbibed some scruples as to the articles of the church, of the Socinian cast, he determined sever to repeat his subscription to the articles for any preferment which he might become entitled to from the college patronage, or which might be offered to him from any other quarter. Agreeably to, and consistently with, this state of mind, be resigned, at Midsummer, 1789, the curacies in which he was then engaged, and resolved thenceforward to decline officiating in the ministry. Mr. Garnham’s health was never robust, and, during the last five or six years of his life, suffered much from sickness, which prevented his residing at Cambridge after the death of his father, in 1798, and indisposed and disqualified him from pursuing his former application to his studies. His indisposition and infirmities continued to increase; and, in the summer of 1801, he evidently appeared to be much broken. For some short time he had complained of an asthma; and, on the Saturday preceding his death, was attacked with an inflammation on the lungs and breast. He continued till the morning of the following Thursday, June 24, 1802, when he expired in the- 50th year of his age, and was buried in the chancel of Nowtoa church. His writings were numerous, but all anonymous. 1. “Examination of Mr. Harrison’s Sermon, preached in the cathedral church of St. Pawl, London, before the lord mayor, on May 25, 1788, 1789.” 2. “Letter to the right rev. the bishop of Norwich (Dr. Bagot), requesting him to name the prelate to whom he referred as * contending strenuously for the general excellence of our present authorized translation of the Bible,' 1789.” 3. “Letter to the right rev. the bishop of Chester (Dr. Cleave*), on the subject of two sermons addressed by him to the clergy of his diocese comprehending also a vindication of the late bishop Hoadly, 1790.” 4. “Review of Dr. Hay’s sermon, entitled, t Thoughts on the Athanasian Creed,' preached April 12, 1790, at the visitation of the archdeacon of Bucks,” 1790. 5. “Outline of a Commentary on Revelations xi. 114,” 1794. 6. “A Sermon preached in the chapel of Trinity-college, Cambridge, on Thursday, Dec. 19, 1793, the day appointed for the commemoration of the benefactors to that society,” 1794. He wrote also the papers in “Commentaries and Essays” signed Synergus: and some in “The Theological Repository,” signed Ereunetes, and Idiota.

, a Jesuit, professor of classical learning, philosophy, and rhetoric, was born at Paris ifl 1612, and died at Bologna in 1681, in a deputation to Rome from his order. His principal works are, 1. An edition of “Mercator,” folio, 1673. 2. An edition of the “Liberat,” in 8vo, Paris, 1675, with learned notes. 3. An edition of the “Liber diurnus,” or Journal of the Popes, with historical notes, and very curious dissertations, 168Q, 4to. 4. “The supplement to the works of Theodoret,” 1685, 4to. 5. “Systemæ Bibliothecæ Collegii Parisiensis, societatis Jesu,” Paris, 1678, 4to; a very useful book to those who are employed in arranging large libraries.

, an ingenious French writer, was born at Goron in the Maine, March 13, 1729. After b.eing educated, probably in his own country, he came to Paris, withput money or interest, and depending only on his learning. This soon recommended him, however, to a place in the college of Harcourt, and in 1760 he was appointed coadjutor to the abbé Sellier in the royal college, and was made before 1764 Hebrew professor, and chosen a member of the academy of inscriptions au4 belles lettres. His useful studies were interrupted by the revolution, and in 1793 he was compelled ta fly, for refusing the republican oaths. He then went to Bougival, where he died in 1795. All he could save from confiscation was his library; but his friend Lalande, the celebrated astronomer, so effectually represented to the government, the disgrace of suffering a man of so much merit to want bread, that a pension was granted him. He wrote, 1. “L'Homme de lettres,” Paris, 1764, 2 vols. 12mo, in which the method he lays down to form a map of letters is highly liberal and ingenious. 2. “Traité” de l'origine du gouveruement françoise,“1765, ib. 12 mo. 3.” De l'education civile,“1765, 12mo. 4.” De commerce remis a sa place." In 1770 he published the 9th vol. 4to of Velly and Villaret’s History of France, beginning with the year 1469, and continuing his labours in this work, produced the 15th vol. in 1786, displaying throughout the whole more erudition than his predecessors. He wrote several papers in the memoirs of the academy of inscriptions, relative, among other subjects, to the philosophy of the ancients, and especially to that of Plato, of which he was perhaps rather too fond, though less fanciful than some modern Platonists.

, a French tragic poet, was born at Ferte" Bernard in the province of Maine, in 1534. He was designed for the law, which he studied some time at Toulouse; but afterwards quitted it for poetry, in which he succeeded so well, that he was deemed by his contemporaries not inferior to Sophocles or Euripides. Thuanus says, that Ronsard himself placed nobody above Gamier in this respect: what Ronsard says, however, is no more than that he greatly improved the French drama.

Se change en or, qui n'etoit que de bois.

, or Gerards, a Flemish painter, was born at Bruges in 1561, and practised history, landscape, architecture, and portrait. He also engraved, illuminated, and designed for glass-painters. His etchings for Esop’s fables, and view of Bruges were much esteemed. He came to England not long after the year 1580, and remained here until his death in 1635, having been painter to queen Elizabeth and Anne of Denmark. His works are numerous, though not easily known, as he never used any peculiar mark. In general they are neat, the ruffs and liabits stiff, and rich with pearls and other jewels. His flesh-colours are thin and light, tending to a blueish tincture. His procession of queen Elizabeth to Hunsdonhouse has been engraved by Vertue, who thought that part of the picture of sir Thomas More’s family at Burford might have been completed by this painter.

About the beginning of 1735, Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Samuel Johnson, undertook to instruct some young gentlemen of Lichfield in the belles lettres; and David Garrick, then turned eighteen, became one of his scholars, or (to speak more properly) his friend and companion. But the master, however qualified, was not more disposed to teach, than Garrick was to learn; and, therefore, both growing weary, after a trial of six months, agreed to try the,ir fortunes in the metropolis. Mr. Walmsley, register of the ecclesiastical court at Lichfield, a gentleman much respected, and of considerable fortune, was Garrick’s friend upon this occasion, recommended him to Mr. Colson, an eminent mathematician, to be boarded and instructed by him in mathematics, philosophy, and polite learning; with a view of being sent within two or tlireft years to the Temple, and bred to the law. But when Garrick arrived in London, he found that his finances would not suffice to put him under Mr. Colson, till the death of his uncle; who, about 1737, left Portugal, and died in London soon after. He bequeathed his nephew 1000l. with the interest of which, he prudently embraced the means of acquiring useful knowledge under Mr. Colson. His proficiency, however, in mathematics and philosophy was not extensive; his mind was still theatrically disposed; and, both father and mother living but a short time after, he gave himself up to his darling passion for acting from which, says his historian, “nothing but his tenderness for so dear a relation as a mother had hitherto restrained him.” During the short interval, however, between his mother’s death and his commencing comedian, he engaged in the wine trade, with his brother Peter Garrick; and they hired vaults in Durham-yard.

In 1763, he undertook a journey into Italy, and set out for Dover, in his way to Calais, Sept. 17. His historian assigns several causes of this excursion, and among the chief, the prevalence of Covent-garden theatre under the management of Mr. Beard, the singer; but the real cause probably was, the indifferent health of himself and Mrs. Garrick, to the latter of whom the baths of Padua were afterwards of service, During his trayels, he gave frequent proofs of his theatrical talents; and he readily complied with requests of that kind, because indeed nothing was more easy to him. He could, without the least preparation, transform himself into any character, tragic or comic, and seize instantaneously upon any passion of the human mind. He exhibited before the duke of Parma, by reciting a soliloquy of Macbeth; and had friendly contests with the celebrated mademoiselle Clairon at Paris. He saw this actress when he paid his first visit to Paris in 1752; and though mademoiselle Dumesnil was then the, favourite actress of the French theatre, he ventured to pronounce that Clairon would excel all competitors; which prediction was fulfilled.

Mr. Garrick in his person was low, yet well-shaped and neatly proportioned, and, having added the qualifications of dancing and fencing to his natural gentility of manner, his deportment was constantly easy and engaging. His complexion was dark, and the features of his face, which were pleasingly regular, were animated by a full black eye, brilliant and penetrating. His voice was clear, melodious, and commanding, with a great compass of variety; and, from Mr. Garrick’s judicious manner of conducting it, enjoyed that articulation and piercing distinctness, which rendered it equally intelligible, even to the most distant parts of an audience, in the gentle whispers of murmuring love, the half-smothered accents of infelt passion, or the professed and sometimes aukward concealments of an aside speech in comedy, as in the rants of rage, the darings of despair, or all the open violence of tragical enthusiasm. As to his particular fort or superior cast in acting, it would be perhaps as difficult to determine it, as it would be minutely to describe his several excellencies in the very different casts in which he at different times thought proper to appear. Particular superiority was swallowed up in his universality; and although it was sometimes contended, that there were performers equal to him in their own respective forts of playing, yet even their partizans could not deny that there never existed any one performer that came near his excellence in so great a variety of parts. Tragedy, comedy, and farce, the lover and the hero, the jealous husband who suspects his wife’s virtue without cause, and the thoughtless lively rake who attacks it without design, were all alike open to his imitation, and all alike did honour to his execution. Every passion of the human breast seemed subjected to his powers of expression^ nay, even time itself appeared to stand still or advance as he would have it. Rage ‘and ridicule, doubt and despair, transport and tenderness, compassion and contempt, love, jealousy, fear, fury, and simplicity, all took in turn possession of his features, while each of them in turn appeared to be the sole possessor of those features. One night old age sat on his countenance, as if the wrinkles she had stampt there were indelible; the next the gaiety and bloom of youth seemed to o’erspread his face, and smooth even those marks which time and muscular conformation might have really made there. These truths were acknowledged by all who saw him in the several characters of Lear or Hamlet, Richard, Dorilas, Romeo, or Lusignan; in his Ranger, Bays, Drugger, Kitely, Brute, or Benedict. In short, nature, the mistress from whom alone this great performer borrowed all his lessons, being in herself inexhaustible, and her variations not to be numbered, it is by no means surprizing, that this, her darling son, should find an unlimited scope for change and diversity in his manner of copying from her various productions; and, as if she had from his cradle marked him out for her truest representative, she bestowed on him such powers of expression in the muscles of his face, as no performer ever yet possessed; not only for the display of a single passion, but also for the combination of those various conflicts with which the human breast at times is fraught; so that in his countenance, even when his lips were silent, his meaning stood pourtrayed in characters too legible for any to mistake it.

His conduct as a manager, and his private character, have been variously estimated. No man perhaps had more friends, or more admirers, but he could not fail to create enemies by a superiority which so frequently bid defiance to rivalship. On the other hand it is allowed that as he excelled all other performers in dramatic merit, so he also excelled them in jealousy of fame. This seems to have accompanied him through the whole course of his life, and formed a perpetual source of uneasiness to himself, and ridicule to his enemies. As by his vast riches he had the power of doing good, his liberality, has been asserted by one party, and denied by another. But it is impossible to refuse credit to the many instances of generosity which his biographers have produced, and as impossible to reconcile them with the common notions of avarice. This, however, and other questions respecting the public and private character of Garrick, will be found amply discussed in our references. As. a performer it has been again and again said, that we “shall ne'er look on his like again,” a sentence sufficiently mortifying to the lovers of the drama, but which perhaps may be confirmed without any positive defect in the merit of his successors. If another Garrick in all respects equal to the former should appear, and we may form the supposition, there would always be an indistinct, traditionary idea of the original English Roscius, which would obstruct the fame of a new candidate. The idea of Garrick must soon become of this description, as the generations who admired him are fast decaying, and in a few years criticism will be able to do no more than strike a balance between the contending opinions of his friends and foes.

As a writer, Garrick claims but a second place. There is in the Biog. Dramatica a list of about forty dramatic pieces, some original, but chiefly alterations of old plays, or light temporary pieces. Besides these he wrote some minor poems, and a vast number of prologues and epilogues. The general character of all these is vivacity, neatness, and a happy adaptation to the occasion.

The college at this time was engaged in that charitable project, of prescribing to the sick poor * gratis, and furnishing them also with medicines at prime cost. The foundation of this charity was first begun by an unanimous vote passed July 28, 1687, ordering all their members to give their advice gratis, to all their sick neighbouring poor, when desired, within the city of London, or seven miles round. With the view of rendering this vote more effectual, another was passed August 13, 1688, that the laboratory of the college should be fitted up for preparing medicines for the poor, and also the room adjoining, for a repository. But the apothecaries found means to raise a party afterwards in the college against it; so that the design could not be carried into execution. The college was in this embroiled state, when our author became a fellow; and concurring heartily with those members who resolved, notwithstanding; the discouragements they met with, to promote the charity, an order was made by the unanimous consent of the society in 1694, requiring strict obedience from til their members to the order of 1688. This new order was presented to the City on June 18, 169,:, for their assistance but this too being defeated by the dissolution of the common- council at the end of the year, a proposition was made to the college, Dec. 22, 1696, for a subscription by the fellows, candidates, and licentiates, for carrying on the charity, by preparing medicines in a proper dispensatory for that purpose.

In the same year, Dr f Garth, detesting the behaviour of the apothecaries, as well as of some members of the faculty in this affair, resolved to expose them, which he accordingly executed, with peculiar spirit and vivacity, in his admirable poem entitled “The Dispensary.” The first edition came out in 1699, and it went through three impressions in a few months. This extraordinary encouragement induced him to make several improvements in it; and, in 1706, he published the sixth edition, with several descriptions and episodes never before printed . In 16y? he spoke the annual speech in Latin before the college, on St. Luke’s day; which being soon after published, left it doubtful, whether the poet or the orator was most to be admired. In his poem he exposed, in good satire, the false and mean-spirited brethren of the faculty. In the oration, he ridiculed the multifarious classes of the quacks, with spirit, and not without humour.

Garth had a very extensive practice, but was extremely moderate in his views of advancing his own fortune; hi humanity and good-nature inclining him more to make use of the great interest he had with persons in power, for the support and encouragement of other men of letters. He chose to live with the great in that degree of independency and freedom, which became a man possessed of a superior genius, of which he was daily giving fresh proofs to the public. One of these was addressed to the late duke or Newcastle, in 1715, entitled “Claremont;” being written on the occasion of giving that name to a villa belonging to that nobleman, who was then only earl of Clare, which he had adorned with a beautiful and sumptuous structure. Among the Latin writers, Ovid appears to have been the doctor’s favourite; and it has been thought that there was some resemblance in their dispositions, manners, and poetry. One of his last performances, was an edition of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, translated by various hands, in which he rendered the whole 14th book, and the story of Cippus in the 15th. It was published in 1717, and he prefixed a preface, wherein he not only gives an idea of the work, and points out its principal beauties, but shews the uses of the poem, and how it may be read to most advantage.

The distemper which seized him the ensuing year, and ended not but with his life, caused a general concern, and was particularly testified by lord Lansdown, a brother poet, though of a different party, in a copy of verses written on the occasion. He died after a short illness, which he bore with great patience, January 18, 1718-19. His loss was lamented by Pope, in a letter to a friend, as follows: “The best-natured of men,” says this muchadmired poet, “Sir Samuel Garth, has left me in the truest concern for his loss. His death was very heroical, and yet unaffected enough to have made a saint or a philosopher famous. But ill tongues and worse hearts have branded even his last moments, as wrongfully as they did his life, with irreligipn. You must have heard many tales on this subject; but if ever there was a good Christian, without knowing himself to be so, it was Dr. Garth.” This, however, is nothing against positive evidence, that Dr. Garth was a free-thinker, and a sensualist; and the latter part of it, his being a good Christian without knowing himself to be so, if it be not nonsense, is a proof that Pope cannot deny what he is angry to hear, and loth to confess. Dr. Johnson observes, that “Pope afterwards declared himself convinced that Garth died in the communion of the church of Rome,” and adds a sentiment of Lowth’s, “that there is less distance than is thought between scepticism and popery and that a mind, wearied with perpetual doubt, willingly seeks repose in the bosom of an infallible church.” If Dr. Johnson took this declaration of Pope’s from Spence’s “ms Anecdotes,” to which it is known he had access, he did not transcribe the whole. What Pope said is thus given by Spence: “Garth talked in a less libertine manner than he had been used about the three last years of his life. He was rather doubtful and fearful than irreligious. It was usual for him to say, that if there was any such thing as religion, it was among the Roman catholics. He died a papist, (as I was assured by Mr. Blount, who called the father to him in his last moments) probably from the greater efficacy, in which we give the sacraments. He did not take any care of himself in his last illness, and had talked for three or four years as one tired of living.” The same ms. insinuate* that this impatience of life had nearly at one time prompted him to suicide.

, an Italian writer of some note, was born in 1549, at Bagnacavallo, near Ferrara; he was a regular canon lateran, and died in his own country, 1589, set. 40. He had chiefly educated himself, and learned Hebrew and Spanish without a master. He was author of several moral works, printed at Venice, 1617, 4to. But the principal production of this active writer and general reader is entitled “La Piazza universale di tutti le profession! del mondo,” a work of infinite labour and considerable use at the time it was written, as the author had almost all the materials to seek, there being no direct model on so extensive a scale then extant. It seems first to have been published at Venice, the year in which he died, and afterwards went through innumerable editions. Superficial knowledge only is to be found in his book; but it points out where more and better information may be found. It has been truly said by Niceron, that the works of Garzoni prove him to have dipped into all the sciences, and sufficiently manifest the extent of his knowledge, and of what he would have been capable with a regular education and a longer life. His reflections, when he allows himself time to make them, and room in his book for their insertion, are excellent. But the task he had set himself was too great for a single mind, or the bodily labour of an individual. It is extremely difficult to render the title of this book in English; the word Piazza, has twelve or fourteen different meanings and shades of meaning in the Crusca; it implies a square or market-place appropriated to commerce. Perhaps “the universal commerce of all the arts and professions in the world” may nearly express the author’s meaning. 1

Ga.Scoigne (George), an old English poet of considerable merit, was born of an ancient 'and honourable family in Essex, and was son and heir of sir John Gascoigne, who, for some reason not assigned by his biographer, Whetstone, chose to disinherit him. Previously 10 this harsh step, he had been privately educated under a clergyman of the name of Nevinson, perhaps Stephen Nevinson, LL. D. prebendary, and commissary of the city and diocese of Canterbury. After this he was removed, either to Oxford or Cambridge. Wood says, he “had his education in both the universities, though chiefly, as he conceives, in Cambridge;” but Gascoigne himself, in his “Steele-Glasse,” informs us that he was a member of the university of Cambridge, without mentioning Oxford. His progress at Cambridge is unknown, but he removed from it to Gray’s-inn, for the purpose of studying the law. It is probable that in both places he wrote a considerable number of his poems, those of the amatory kind particu1 Niceron, vol. XXXVI. Moreri. Raes’s Cyclopedia. larly, as he seems to include them among his youthful follies.

Wood now informs us, that Gascoigne “having a rambling and unfixed head, left Gray’s-inn, went to various cities in Holland, and became a soldier of note, which he afterwards professed as much, or more, as learning, and therefore made him take this motto, Tarn Marti quam Mercurio. From thence he went to France to visit 'the fashions of the royal court there, where he fell in love with a Scottish dame.” In this there is a mixture of truth and error. The story of the Scottish dame has no better foundation than some lines in his “Herbes,” written probably in an assumed character. His being in France is yet more doubtful, and perhaps the following is nearly the fact. While at Gray’s-inn, he incurred the expences of a fashionable and courtly life, and was obliged to sell his patrimony, whatever that might be, and it would appear that his father, dissatisfied with his extravagance, refused him any farther assistance, and probably about this, disinherited him.

Although he enjoyed the esteem of many of his poetical contemporaries, and the patronage of lord Grey of Wilton, the earl of Bedford, sir Walter Rawleigh, and other persons of distinction; yet during this period, he complains bitterly of the envy of rivals, and the malevolence of critics, and seems to intimate that, although he apparently bore this treatment with patience, yet it insensibly wore him out, and brought on a bodily distemper which his physicians could not cure. In all his publications, he takes every opportunity to introduce and bewail the errors of his youth, and to atone for any injury, real or supposed, which might have accrued to the public from a perusal of his early poems, in which, however, the proportion of indelicate thoughts is surely not very great. His biographers, following the Oxford historian, have hitherto placed his demise at Walthamstow in 1578; but Whetstone, on whom we can more certainly rely, informs us that he died at Stamford in Lincolnshire, Oct. 7, 1577. He had perhaps taken a journey to this place for change of air, accompanied by his friend Whetstone, who was with him when he died, so calmly, that the moment of his departure was not perceived. He left a wife and son behind him, whom he recommended to the liberality of the queen, whether successfully, or what became of them, cannot now be known. The registers of Stamford and of Walthamstow have been examined without success.

A pamphlet of uncommon rarity has lately been brought to light, after a concealment of nearly a century. Bishop Tanner is the first who notices this pamphlet, under the title of “A Remembrance of the well-employed life and godly end of George Gascoigne, esq. who deceased at Stamford in Lincolnshire, 7th October, 1577, reported by George Whetstone.” But it is very extraordinary that the learned prelate should inform us of this pamphlet being in his possession, and at the same time express his doubt whether it was the life of this, or of another George Gascoigne, when a very slight inspection must have convinced him that it could be no other, and that, in its principal ftcts, it agreed with the account he had just transcribed from Wood. Since the antiquities of poetry have become a favourite study, many painful inquiries have been made after this tract, but it could not be found in Tanner’s library, which forms part of the Bodleian, or in any other collection, private or public, and doubts began to be entertained whether such a pamphlet had ever existed. About six or seven years ago, however, it was discovered in the collection of a deceased gentleman, a Mr. Voight of the Custom-house, London, and was purchased at his ale by Mr. Malone. It consists of about thirteen pages small quarto, black letter, and contains certainly not much life, but some particulars unknown to his biographers. A transcript of the whole is given in the late edition of the English Poets.

, chief justice of the king’s bench in the reign of Henry IV. was descended of a noble family, originally from Normandy, and born at Gawthorp in Yorkshire, about 1350. Being designed for the law, he became a student either at Gray’s-inn or the Inner Temple; and growing eminent in his profession, was made one of the king’s Serjeants at law, Sept. 1398. In October following, he was appointed one of the attornies to Henry IV. then duke of Hereford, on his going into banishment: and upon the accession of that prince to the throne, in 1399, sat as judge in the court of common-pleas. In Nov. 1401, he was made chief justice of the king’s bench; and how much he distinguished himself in that office, appears from the several abstracts of his opinions, arguments, distinctions, and decisions, which occur in our old hooks of law-reports.

In July 1403, he was joined in a commission with Ralph Nevil, earl of Westmoreland, and others, to issue their power and authority, for levying forces in Yorkshire and Northumberland, against the insurrection of Henry Percy, earl of that county, in favour of Richard II. and, after that earl had submitted, was nominated April 1405, in another commission to treat with his rebellious abettors, a proclamation to the purpose being issued next day by the king at Pontefract. These were legal trusts, which he executed from a principle of gratitude and loyalty, with spirit and steadiness. But, on the taking of archbishop Scroop in arms the same year, when the king required him to pass sentence upon that prelate as a traitor, in his manor-house at Bishopthorp near York, no prospect of fear or favour was able to corrupt him to any such violation of the subjects’ rights, or infringement of those laws, which suffered no religious person to be brought to a secular or lay trial, unless he were a heretic, and first degraded by the church. He therefore refused to obey the royal command, and said to his majesty: “Neither you, my lord the king, nor any liege subject of yours in your name, can legally, according to the rights of the kingdom, adjudge any bishop to death.” Henry was highly displeased at this instance of his intrepidity; but his anger must have been short, if, as Fuller tells us, Gascoigne had the honour of knighthood conferred on him the same year. However that be, it is certain, the king was fully satisfied with his fidelity and circumspection in treating with the rebels; and on that account joined him again in a commission as before, dated at Pontefract- castle, April 25, 1408.

, a very eminent mathematician and philosopher, was born Jan. 22, N. S. 1592, at a village called Chantersier, about three miles from Digne in Provence, in France. His father, Antony Gassendi, a Roman catholic, educated him with great piety, and the first words he learned to pronounce were those of his prayers. This practice made such an impression upon his infant mind, that at four years of age he demonstrated the good effects of it in reproving or exhorting his playfellows, as occasion prompted. In these first years of his youth he likewise took particular delight in gazing at the moon and stars, in clear uncloudy weather, and was so intent on these observations in solitary places, that his parents had him often to seek, not without many anxious fears. At a proper age they put him to school at Digne, to Godfrey Wendeline, an excellent master, under whose care he made a quick and extraordinary progress in learning. In a very short time he learned not only the elements of the Latin language, but was so far advanced in rhetoric as to be superior to all the boys in that school; and some friends who had witnessed his proficiency, recommended to have him removed, in order to study philosophy under Fesay, a very learned Minorite friar, then at Aix. This proposal was not much relished by his father, whose design was to breed up his son in his own way to country business, or farming, as a more profitable employment than that of a scholar, nor would he consent but upon condition that the boy should return home in two years at farthest. Young Gassendi accordingly, at the end of his allotted time, repaired to Chantersier; but he did not stay there long, being invited to be a teacher of rhetoric at Digne, before he was full sixteen years of age; and he had been engaged in this not above three years, when his master Fesay dying, he was made professor of philosophy in his room at Aix.

He was scarcely yet past the bounds of childhood, when his merit raised him also above this professorship. Having at his leisure hours composed his “Paradoxical Exercitations,” they came into the hands of the famous Nicolas Peirese, who joined with Joseph Walter, prior of Valette, in a resolution to take him out of the way of losing his time in empty scholastic squabbles, and procure him a place in the church, which would afford him such leisure and quiet as was necessary for cultivating more useful researches. Being now of years sufficient to receive the priesthood, he entered into holy orders; and after being first made a canon of the church of Digne, and D. D. he obtained the wardenship or rectory of the same church, which was carried by the interest^>f his two friends, though not without some difficulty, against several competitors. He held this place for the space of twenty years; and during that time several of those pieces were written which make up th collection of his works.

The sound judgment, extensive reading, and capacious memory of Gassendi, indeed qualified him to attain great distinction among philosophers. He is also ranked by Barrow among the most eminent mathematicians of the age, and mentioned with Galileo, Gilbert, and Des Cartes. His commentary on the tenth book of Diogenes Laertius is a sufficient proof of his erudition. With uncommon abilities for the task, he undertook to frame from Lucretius, Laertius, and other ancient writers, a consistent scheme of Epicurean doctrine, in which the phenomena of nature are immediately derived from the motion of primary atoms. But he was aware of the fundamental defect of this system, and added to it the important doctrine of a Divine superintending Mind, from whom he conceived the first motion and subsequent arrangement of atoms to have been derived, and whom he regarded as the wise governor of the world. Gassendi strenuously maintained the atomic doctrine in opposition to the fictions of the Cartesian philosophy, which were at that time obtaining great credit; and particularly asserted, in opposition to Des Cartes, the doctrine of a vacuum. On the subject of morals, Gassendi explained the permanent pleasure or indolence of Epicurus, in a manner perfectly consistent with the purest precepts of virtue.

, a distinguished English bishop, was born about 1662, at Slapton in Northamptonshire; and, being sent to Westminster school in 1676, was admitted on the foundation, and elected to Christ Church, in Oxford, where he of course became a student in 1680. He took the degrees in arts in 1687; after which, entering into orders, and proceeding in divinity, he took a bachelor’s degree in that faculty, June 23, 1694. The same year he was made preacher to the hon. society of Lincoln’s Inn, in which station he acquitted himself so well that he was appointed to preach Mr. Boyle’s lecture in 1697. Having finished those eight sermons, he drew them up in the form of a continued discourse, which he published the same year. The subject of this piece being a defence of religion in general against atheism, Gastrell prosecuted the design further, in asserting the truth of the Christian religion against the deists. This he published in another discourse, in 1699, by way of continuation, or second part of the same subject. He commenced D. D. July 13, 1700; being then chaplain to Robert Harley, esq. speaker of the house of commons. The ferment that had been raised by the dispute between South and Sherlock upon the Trinity, being still kept up, Dr. Gastrell, in 1702, published“Some Considerations concerning the Trinity, and the ways of managing that Controversy:” and the same year was collated to a canonry of Christ Church in Oxford. Meanwhile, he continued to give public proofs of his hearty concern for religion; and published, in 1707, his excellent work entitled “The Christian Institutes, or the sincere Word of God, &c.” collected out of the Old and New Testament, digested under proper heads, and delivered in the words of scripture. This has been repeatedly printed. The same year also, being appointed to preach the sermon at the aniversary meeting of the charity-schools in London, he printed that discourse; in which the peculiar advantage of these charities is set in a new light, by contrasting them with the popish monasteries. Mr. Collins, in his “Essay concerning the use of Reason,” having animadverted on some things in the doctor’s “Considerations concerning the Trinity,” which had gone through two editions, he this year published a third, subjoining a vindication of the work, in answer to Collins. In 1711 he was chosen proctor in convocation for the chapter of Christ Church, and appointed one of the chaplains in ordinary to the queen. In 1714 he published “Remarks upon the Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, by Dr. Samuel Clarke,” who acknowledged that the objections to his doctrine were there set forth to particular advantage, by the skill of a very able and learned writer, and proposed with a reasonable and good spirit. He resigned the preacher’s place at Lincoln’s-inn this year, upon his promotion to the see of Chester; and he was allowed to hold his canonry of Christ Church in commendam. He had for some time before been appointed one of the commissioners for building the fifty new churches in and about London; and had become a member of the society for propagating the gospel in foreign parts.

Thus his merit found all the reward and encouragement which he could expect, from the court and ministry of queen Anne; but this brought him under the displeasure of the administration in the succeeding reign, "which, being shewn, as he conceived, without any just or reasonable grounds, was resented by him. At this period he became a patron to the university; and appeared warmly in its vindication in the house of lords, when it was attacked there for a pretended riot on the birth-day of the prince of Wales in 1717. At the same time he testified the greatest abhorrence of this and all other marks of disloyalty, and used all his influence to prevent and check them.

This step was conformable to the statutes of his new college; and as soon as the building was finished, about 1599, he settled there, and became an eminent tutor. At the same time he engaged with Mr. William Bedell, afterwards bishop of Kilmore, in a design, then set on foot, of preaching in such places adjacent to the university as were destitute of ministers. In performing this engagement he preached every Sunday at Everton, a village upon the borders of Cambridge, Bedford, and Huntingdonshires; the vicar of which parish was said to be one hundred and thirty years old. He had not executed this charitable office above six months, when he went to London, and resided as chaplain in the family of sir William Cook, at Charing-cross, to whose lady he was nearly related. This situation made him known to several persons of fashion and fortune, and, among others, to some principal members of Lincoln’s-inn; of which society he was chosen preacher, about 1601. He thought it his duty to reside there during term-time, when he was obliged to attend the chapel; but in the vacations he went down to sir William Cook’s in Northamptonshire, and constantly preached there, either in their private chapel or in the parish-church, without any salary, but afterwards sir William settled on him an annuity of 20l. a year. In 1603 he commenced B. D. and was afterwards often solicited to proceed to doctor; but he declined it. He did not at all approve of pluralities; and upon that principle refused a considerable benefice in Kent, which was offered him by sir William Sedley, while he held the preachership at Lincoln’s-inn. Having married in 1611, he quitted that place for the rectory of Rotherhithe in Surrey: yet yielded to the acceptance of this living, only in the view of keeping it out of the hands of a very unworthy person.

After his arrival at Rotherhithe, several objections having been made to his vindication of lusorious lots, he published a defence of it in 1623. In 1624 he printed a tract against transubstantiation; and his short catechism came out the same year. In 1640, and the following years, he engaged in the controversy concerning justification; and being appointed one of the assembly of divines who met at Westminster, he gave his attendance there, and among other conferences supported his opinion upon the lastmentioned article; but the point being determined by the majority against his sense, he submitted, and subscribed the covenant also, though he declared his opinion in favour of episcopacy. He engaged likewise with the assembly in writing annotations upon the Bible; and the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Lamentations, fell to his share, which, in the opinion of Calamy, are exceeded by no commentator, ancient or modern, on those books. In the mean time, upon the removal of Dr. Comber, he was offered the mastership of Trinity-college, Cambridge; but declined it on account of his health. Yet the ill state of this did not hinder him from prosecuting his studies. Though confined to his chamber, he drew up his treatise “De Nomine Tetraqrammato,” in defence of the common way of pronouncing the word Jehovah in England. Tin’s was printed in 1645, and was followed the next year by another discourse, “De Diphthongis sive Bivocalibus;” wherein he endeavours to show, that there are no diphthongs, and that two vowels can never unite in such a manner as to form one syllable/^but in this has certainly not given universal satisfaction. Mr. John Saltmarsh having /published a treatise, the preceding year, in defence of the Antinomian doctrine concerning “free grace,” Gataker this year, 1646, wrote an answer to it, entitled “A Mistake or Misconstruction removed, &c.” In 1647 he recovered in strength so far, as to be able to go to church, and he ventured into the pulpit, where in preaching he burst a vein in his lungs, the mischief of which was however prevented for the present, by letting blood. He soon after resumed his preaching; but this threw him again into a spitting of blood, which, though relieved again by opening a vein, made the pulpit duty too dangerous. Yet he continued to administer the sacraments, and to give his usual short discourses at funerals, suitable to the occasion. Being thus disabled from preaching, he supplied that defect as far as possible, by publishing several learned works; most of which, besides others already mentioned, were printed among his “Opera Critica,” at Utrecht, in 169$, folio. He was the first of the forty-seven ministers, who in 1648, subscribed the remonstrance to the army and the general, against the design of trying and executing the king. He was not at all pleased with the principles and proceedings of the independent faction, which prevailed then and afterwards; and declared his opinion in defence of the doctrine and discipline of the presbyterian polity, both in private conferences, and openly from the pulpit. Among these he had some friends still in power, that maintained him in the possession of his legal rights. But, as soon as it appeared that he was rather suspected than countenanced by the state, some of his parishioners refused payment of their share of the composition for the tithes of their houses; which, upon an amicable law-suit, had been decreed him in the court of exchequer, and in satisfaction for which, he consented to accept of 40l. per ann. This refusal he bore with patience, and diverting himself in his study, produced several other learned works; among which his edition of “Marcus Antoninus’s Meditations, with his Preliminary Discourse of the Philosophy of the Stoics, and Commentary,” is most esteemed, and the first edition of Cambridge 1652 is far preferable to the subsequent one printed at London.

Mr. Ashe gives him the following character. As to his person, he was of a middle stature, a thin habit of body, a lively countenance, and fresh complexion, of a temperate diet, of a free and chearful conversation, addicted to study, but not secluding himself from useful company; of a quick apprehension, sharp reason, solid judgment, and so extraordinary a memory, that though he used no common- place book, yet he had all his reading in readiness, as his prodigious number of quotations shew. He was a man so moderate and conscientious, that he would not go the length of any party, which was the true reason of his not accepting preferment, and also of his being disliked successively by all parties. In the reigns of James and Charles I. he disliked the high notions of churchmen, an4 the maxims of the government, which he rightly foresaw would be fatal both to them and the church. When he came amongst the divines at Westminster, for which he never received any thing, he drew upon himself the displeasure at least, if not the hatred, of such as were zealous for the hierarchy: but when he declared himself in that assembly in favour of episcopacy, and excepted against the solemn league and covenant, till the words were so altered as to be understood only of ecclesiastical courts, and the exorbitant power of bishops, he lost the affections of the other party, who were for destroying episcopacy root and branch. His open declaration against the subsequent proceedings of those who resolved all power and authority into that of the sword, heightened the aversion of the predominant faction, and exposed him to much ill-treatment from their tools; who charged him with inconstancy, changing sides, and squaring his doctrine to the times: whereas he was always consistent in his principles, and, instead of shifting from party to party, was never the instrument of any; but lived contented upon a very small provision, almost 100l. a year, and was reviled for keeping that. Echard says “he was remarkable for his skill in Greek and Hebrew, and the most celebrated among the assembly of divines;” and adds, “it is hard to say which was most remarkable, his exemplary piety and charity, his polite literature, or his humility and modesty in refusing preferment.”

, son of the preceding, was bora at Rotherhithe in, Surrey about 1614, and educated at St. Paul’s school, from whence he was sent to Sidney college in the university of Cambridge at about sixteen years of age, and put- under the tuition of Mr. Richard Dugard, B. D. fellow pf that college, and afterwards rector of Fulletby in Lincolnshire. After he had taken the degree of bachelor of arts, he retired to Oxford, and was entered a commoner of Pembroke college, and took the degree of master of arts June 30, 1636. About that time he became acquainted with Lucius lord viscount Falkland, who having a respect for his ingenuity and learning made him his chaplain, with intention to procure him preferment; but the civil wars breaking out, in which that nobleman lost his life, the expectation of our author was frustrated. At last, by the favour of Charles earl ofCaernarvon, he became rector of Hoggeston, near Winslow in Buckinghamshire, about 1647, and continued there till his death, which happened on the 20th of November 1680, in the sixty-seventh year of his age. He was interred in the chancel of the church of Hoggeston. He wrote 'several treatises upon Calvinistical principles, of which the following are the principal: 1. At the end of his father’s “Antidote against errour concerning Justification,” which he published at London 1670, in 4to, he subjoined a piece written by himself, entitled “The Way of Truth and Peace: or, a reconciliation of the holy Apostles St. Paul and St. James, concerning Justification, &c.” The imprimatur is dated December the 6th, 1669.

3. “The Papists’ bait; or their usual method in gaining proselytes answered,” London, 1674, 4to. To which is added a Letter of the Lord Viscount Falkland to the same gentleman. 4. “Examination of the case of the Quakers concerning Oaths, propounded by them, ann. f673, to the consideration of the king and both houses of parliament,” c. London, 1675, 4to. 5. “Ichnographia doctrinae de Justificationesecundum typum in monte,” London, 1681, 4to. Our author wrote likewise some animadversions on Mr. Bull’s “Harmonia Apostolica,” which Mr. Gataker, concealing his name, communicated to several bishops, stirring them up by letter to make use of their authority against the doctrines maintained by Mr. Bull, as pernicious and heretical, and contrary to the decrees of the Church of England, andof all other reformed churches. These “Animadversions,” which are commonly cited by Mr. Bull under the name of Censura, were communicated to him in 1670 by Dr. Nicholson, bishop of Gloucester; angl in 1671 they were discovered to Mr. Bull to have been written by Mr. Charles Gataker, who in these “Animadversions,” endeavours to reconcile St. Paul with St. James by the distinction of a twofold Justification, as respecting a twofold accusation, according to the different conditions of the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. For he maintains, that we are accused before God, either as sinners or as unbelievers; and that we are justified against the first accusation by faith alone, laying hold on the grace and righteousness of Christ; and against the second by works, and not by faith only, as these are the signs and evidences of our being true believers. Mr. Nelson observes, that Mr. “Gataker” appears to have been a person of great violence in his temper, but one well-intentioned, and a very zealous protestant; and had he had but more coolness of thought, and had he withal read more of the ancients, and fewer of the moderns, he would have made no inconsiderable writer.“Mr. Bull wrote an answer to these” Animadversions,“which he entitled” Examen Censurae," in which he reflects severely on Mr. Charles Gataker for publishing his father’s posthumous tract abovementioned, since he had not thereby consulted the reputation of a parent, who by his great critical knowledge and other learning had made himself more considerable, than to deserve that such crudities should be published under his name, at least by a son.

He went still further: for, having got into his hands his majesty’s meditations, &c. written by himself, he took a copy of the ms. and immediately resolving to print it with all speed, he prevailed with Mr. Royston, the king’s printer, to undertake the work. But when it was about half printed, a discovery was made, and all the sheets then wrought off were destroyed. However, this did not damp Gauden’s spirit. He attempted to print it again, but could by no possible means get it finished, till some few days after his majesty’s destruction; when it came out under the title of “Emuv B<r<xuo),” or, “The Portraiture of his sacred majesty in his solitude and sufferings.” Upon its first appearance, the powers then at the helm were immediately sensible, how dangerous a book it was to their cause; and therefore set all their engines at work to discover the publisher; and having seized the ms. which had been dispatched to the king, they appointed a committee to examine into the business. Gauden, having notice of this proceeding, withdrew privately in the night from his own house to sir John Wentworth’s, near Yarmouth, with a design to convey himself beyond sea: but Mr. Symonds, his majesty’s chaplain, and rector of Raine in Essex, near Bocking, who had communicated the ms. to the doctor, and had been taken up in a disguise, happening to die before his intended examination, the committee were not able to make any discovery. Upon this, the doctor changed his resolution, and stayed in England; where he directed his conduct with so much policy, as to keep his preferments during the several periods of the usurpation, although he published several treatises in vindication of the Church of England and its ministers, among which are, 1. “Hieraspistes, or An Apology of the Ministers of the Churcii of England,” 1653. 2. “The Case of Ministers’ maintenance by tithes (as in England) plainly discussed in conscience and prudence,” 1653. N. B. Tithes were abolished about this time. 3. “Christ at the Wedding, or, a treatise of Christian marriages to be solemnly blessed by ministers.” N. B. Justices of the peace were empowered to perform that rite in those times. 4. “A Petitionary Remonstrance presented to O. P. by John Gauden, D. D. a son, servant, and supplicant for the Church of England, in behalf of many thousands, his distressed brethren, ministers of the gospel, and other good scholars, who were deprived of all public employment,” 1659. Abp. Usher went to the protector at the same time to intercede for them. Besides these, he published, with the same spirit of vindicating the doctrine of the Church of England, “A Discourse concerning public oaths, and the lawfulness of swearing in judicial proceedings, in order to answer the scruples of the Quakers,” 1649.

But he did not sit down content here; thinking his services deserved something more. He had already published his “Anti'-sacrilegus,” or, “A Defensative against the plausible or gilded poison of that nameless paper, supposed to be the plot of Cornelius Surges and his partners, which tempts the king’s majesty by the offer of 500,000l. to make good by an act of parliament, to the purchasers of Bishops’ Lands, &c. their illegal bargain for 99 years, 1660,” 4to: As also, his “Analysis, against the covenant in defence of the Hierarchy” and his '< Anti-Baal-Berith, or, the binding of the covenant and all the covenanters to their good behaviour, &c. With an answer to that monstrous paradox of no sacrilege, no sin, to alienate church lands, without, alid against all laws of God and man.“These were all printed before his promotion to the see of Exeter. His zeal continued to glow with equal ardour the two following years; in his” Life of Hooker,“prefixed to an edition of Hooker’s works, published by him in 1661; and, again, in his” Pillar of Gratitude, humbly dedicated to the glory of God, the honour of his majesty, &c. for restoring Episcopacy,“in 1662. But, above all, he particularly pleaded his merit in respect to the” Euuav BcwjXixw.“He applied to the earl of Clarendon, in a letter dated Dec. 28, 1661, with a petition to the king; in which having declared the advantages which had accrued to the crown by this service, he adds, that what was done like a king, should have a king-like retribution. In another letter to the duke of York, dated Jan. 17, the same year, he strongly urges the great service he had done, and importunately begs his royal highness to intercede for him with the king. Chancellor Hyde thought he had carried his merit too far, with regard to the king’s book: and, in a letter to him, dated March 13, 1661, writes thus:” The particular you mention, has indeed been imparted to me as a secret: I am sorry I e-'er knew it; and when it ceases to be a secret, it will please none but Mr. Milton."

He adhered, however, closely to the court, and in compliance with the measures which were then pursued, drew up a declaration for liberty of conscience extending to papists, of which a few copies were printed off, though presently called in; he was about the same time employed to draw up 'another declaration of indulgence to the quakers, by an exemption from all oaths. He also wrote, “Considerations touching the Liturgy of the Church of England, in reference to his Majesty’s late Declaration, and in order to a happy union in church and state,” 1660. He then obtained a removal to the see of Worcester, to which he was elected May 23, 1662. But with this promotion he was so far from being satisfied, that he looked upon it as an injury; he had, it seems, applied to the king for the rich bishopric of Winchester, and flattered himself with the hopes of a translation thither; and the regret and vexation at the disappointment is thought to have hastened his end, for he died on September 2O, that year. After his death, his widow, being left with five children, in consideration of the short time he had enjoyed Worcester, and the charge of removing from Exeter, petitioned the king for the half year’s profits of the last bishopric; but her petition was rejected as unreasonable, on account of his large revenues and profits at his first coming to Exeter. As to his character, it is certain he was an ambitious man; which, as is usually the case, occasioned the moral part to be severely sifted; and in this respect the behaviour of his relict, though otherwise intended, was far from being of service to his memory. In a letter to one of her sons, after the bishop’s death, she calls the Emov B<Wixj*J, “The Jewel;” said her husband had hoped to make a fortune by it; and that she had a letter of a very great man’s, which would clear up that he wrote it. This assertion, as Clarendon had predicted, was eagerly espoused by the anti-royalists, in order to disparage Charles I. This, on the other hand, kindling the indignation of those who thought his majesty greatly injured, they took every opportunity to expose the dark side of the bishop’s character; and represented him as an inconstant, ambiguous, and lukewarm man, covetous of preferment, hasty and impatient in the pursuit of it, and deeply tinctured with folly and vanity; upon the whole, an unhappy blemish and reproach of the sacred order. Nor is bishop Kennet’s censure less severe, though conveyed in a somewhat less intemperate language, when he tells us that Dr. Gauden was capable of underwork, and made himself a tool to the court, by the most sordid hopes of greater favour in it. This charge is supported by two instances, namely, his drawing up the two declarations already mentioned; one for liberty of conscience to the papists, the other for indulgence to the quakers in respect to taking an oath; the latter of which we have seen passed into an act of parliament, and the policy and justice of the former attested by a connivance to all loyal papists, or such as deny the pope’s power of dissolving their allegiance to their lawful sovereign, which was the express motive for making the declaration. The most candid character of him is that left us by Wood, who says, “that he was esteemed by all who knew him, to be a very comely person, a man of vast parts, and one that had strangely improved himself by unwearied labour; and was particularly much resorted to for his most admirable and edifying way of preaching.” It is certain, however, he had too luxuriant an imagination, which betrayed him into an Asiatic rankness of style; and thence, as bishop Burnet argues, that not he, but the king himself, was the true author of the Eixuv Boktixjkw; in. which there is a nobleness and justness of thought, with a greatness of style that caused it be esteemed the best written book in the English language. But Burnet had not the advantage of proofs which have since been published, particularly in Clarendon’s State Papers, vol. III. from which an opposite conclusion may be drawn. Those, however, who would examine this question in all its bearings, may be referred to Nichols’s “Literary Anecdotes” for the arguments against Gauden, and to Laing’s “History of Scotland,” for what can be alleged in favour of Gauden’s being the real author of the “Icon.” Our own opinion is, that the matter may still be questioned, nor can we agree with Mr. Laing in presuming “that no one will now venture to defend the authority of the Icon.” We think there is a strong probability that it was composed from materials written by the king; and that Gauden, a man so ambitious and avaricious as to claim high rewards for all his services, was very likely to attribute the whole to himself. We agree, however, with Mr. Laing, that “if ever a literary imposture were excusable, it was undoubtedly Gauden’s, and had it appeared a week sooner, it might have preserved the king.”

These qualities recommended him to such company and acquaintance as delighted him most; and among others to Swift and Pope, who were struck with the sincerity, the simplicity of his manners, and the easiness of his temper. To the latter he addressed the first-fruits of his muse, entitled “Rural Sports, a Georgic,” printed in 1711. This piece discovered a rich poetical vein, peculiar to himself, and met with some agreeable attestations of its merit, that would have been enjoyed with a higher relish, had not the pleasure been interrupted by the state of his finances; which, by an uncommon degree of thoughtlessness and Gullibility , were reduced now to a low ebb. Our poet’s purse was an unerring barometer of his spirits; whifch, sinking with it, left him in the apprehension of a servile dependence, a condition he dreaded above any thing that could befal him. The clouds were, however, shortly dispelled by the kindness of the duchess of Monmouth, who appointed him her secretary in 1712, with a handsome salary. This seasonable favour seating him in a coach, though not his own, kindled his muse to new efforts. He first produced his celebrated poem called “Trivia or the Art of Walking the Streets,” and the following year, at the instance of Pope, he formed the plan of his “Pastorals.” There is not perhaps in history a more remarkable example of the force of friendship in an author, than was the undertaking and finishing of this inimitable poem. Pope, in the subscription of the Hanover-club to his translation of the “Iliad,” had been ill used by Philips their secretary, and his rival in this species of poetry. The translator highly resented the affront; and, meditating revenge, intimated to Gay how greatly it was in his power to pluck the bays from this envied rival’s forehead. Gay immediately engaged in his friend’s quarrel, and executed his request even beyond his expectation. The rural simplicity neglected by Pope, and admired in Philips, was found, though mixed with some burlesque, only in the “Shepherd’s Week.” This exquisite piece of nature and humour came out in 1714, with a dedication to lord Bolingbroke, which Swift facetiously called the author’s original sin against the court.

Upon the accession of George II. to the throne, he was offered the place of gentleman-usher to the then youngest princess Louisa; a post which he thought beneath his acceptance: and, resenting the offer as an affront, in that ill-humour with the court, he wrote the “Beggar’s Opera;” which, being brought upon the stage Nov. 1727, was received with greater applause than had ever been known on 4iiy occasion. For, besides being acted in London 63 dpys without interruption, and renewed the next season with success, it spread into all the great towns of England, was played in many places to the 30th and 40th time; at Bath and Bristol 50, &c. It made its progress into Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, where it was performed 24 days successively; and lastly, was acted in Minorca. The ladies carried about with them the favourite songs of it in fans, and houses were furnished with it in screens. The fame of it was not confined to the author only: Miss Lavinia Beswick, who acted Polly, till then obscure, became at once the favourite of the town; her pictures were engraved, and sold in great numbers; her life written; books of letters and verses to her published, and pamphlets made of her sayings and jests; and, to crown all, after being the mother of several antenuptial children, she obtained the title and rank of a duchess by her marriage with Charles third duke of Bolton. There is scarcely to be found in history an example, where a private subject, undistinguished either by birth or fortune, had it in his power to least his resentment so richly at the expence of his sovereign. But this was not all; Gay went on in the same humour, and cast a second part in a similar mould; which, being excluded from the stage by the lord chamberlain, he was encouraged to print with the title of “Polly,” by subscription; and this too, considering the powers employed against it, was incredibly large; and in tact he got nearly 1 200l. by it, while the Beggar’s Opera did not yield more than 400l. Neither yet did it end here. The duke and duchess of Queensberry took part in resenting the indignity put upon him by this last act of power; resigned their respective places at court; took the author into their house and family; and treated him with all the endearing kindness of an intimate and much-beloved friend.

These noble additions to his fame, his fortune, and his friendships, inspired him with fresh vigour, raised him to a degree of confidence and assurance, and he was even prompted to think that “The Wife of Bath,” despised and rejected as it had been in 1714, when first acted, might, with some improvements which he could now give it, be made to taste the sweets of this happy change in his fortune. In this temper he revised and altered it, and brought it again upon the stage in 1729, but had the mortification to see all his sanguine hopes of its success blasted; it met with the same fate in the play-house as formerly. This rebuff happened in March 1729-30; and as he was easily depressed, produced a degree of melancholy, which, with the return of his constitutional distemper the colic, gave a new edge to the sense of his disappointments at court, with respect to the “Beggar’s Opera.” By that satire, he had flattered himself with the hopes of awing the court into a disposition to take him into favour, in order to keep so powerful a pen in good humour. But this last refinement upon his misery, added to former indignities, threw him into a dejection, which he in vain endeavoured to remove, by another tour into Somersetshire, in 1731. The state both of his body and mind cantiot be so forcibly described, as it is in his own account of it to Pope. “My melancholy,” says he, “increases, and every hour threatens me with some return of my distemper. Nay, I think I may rather say, I have it on me. Not the divine looks, the kind favours and expressions of the divine duchess, who hereafter shall be in place of a queen to me, nay, she shall be my queen, nor the inexpressible goodness of the duke, can in the least chear me. The drawing: room no more receives light from these two stars. There is now (what Milton says in hell) darkness visible. O that I had never known what a court was! Dear Pope, what a barren soil (to me so) have I been striving to produce something out of! Why did not I take your advice before my writing fables for the duke, not to write them, or rather to write them for some young nobleman? It is my hard fate, I must get nothing, write for them or against them.” In this disposition, it is no great wonder that we find him rejecting a proposal, made to him by this last-mentioned friend in 1732, of trying his muse upon the hermitage, then lately built by queen Caroline in Richmond-gardens; to which he answers with a fixed despondency, that “he knew himself unworthy of royal patronage.”

The character of Gay may be fairly estimated from the preceding facts. He wanted firmness and consistency; and knew not, when it was in his power, to support the independence which he affected. Pope said “he was quite a natural man, wholly without art or design, and spoke just what he thought, and as he thought it.” From the same authority we learn that his affectionate friend, the duke of Queensberry, finding what a wretched manager he was, took his money into his keeping, beginning with what he got by the “Beggar’s Opera” and “Polly,” and let him have only what was necessary, which, as he lived with the duke, could never be much. It is this only that can account for his dying worth 3000l. Pope also informs us that “he was remarkable for an unwillingness to offend the great by any of his writings. He had an uncommon timidity in relation to any thing of that sort; and yet you see what ill luck he had in that way, after all his care not to offend.” Gay’s character seems in many respects to have resembled that of Goldsmith.

Gay’s merit as a poet has not been rated very high by modern critics. He wrote with terseness and neatness, but without any elevation, and frequently without any spirit. “Trivia” appears to be the best of his poems, and his “Fables” the most popular of all his works. The “Beggar’s Opera” has, on the other hand, been extolled beyond its merits, and its immoral tendency cannot be denied. Dr. Johnson says, “We owe to Gay the ballad opera, and whether this new drama was the product of judgment or good luck, the praise of it must be given to the inventor.” Dr. Warton, more justly in our opinion, arraigns it as the parent of that most monstrous of all dramatic absurdities, the “Comic Opera,” which, it is certain, has deluged the stage with more nonsense than could have gained admittance under any other name.

, a French author, remarkable rather for the magnitude of his work entitled “Causes Cé1ebres,” in twenty volumes duodecimo, than for any merit as a writer, was born at Lyons in 1673, of a noble family of the robe, and was educated at Paris, but seemed destined to fail in every walk of life. He began by taking orders, and became an abbé; he then quitted the church for the army, where he obtained no distinction, and at the age of fifty, became an advocate. Not succeeding in this occupation, he applied himself diligently to his pen; in which employment he rather proved his assiduity than his powers. His great work, though interesting in its subject, is rendered intolerable by the heaviness and badness of the style, with the puerilities and bad verses interspersed. It has been two or three times, abridged. His other works are not more admired. They are, 1. “An Account of the Campaigns of 1713 and 1714;” a compilation from the Memoirs of Vilbart 2. “The Art of adorning and improving the Mind,” a foolish collection of witticisms and 3. A compilation entitled “Bibliotheque des Gens de Cour.” He died in 1743, after repeated strokes of palsy.

, or, as he sometimes styled himelf, de Speciosa Villa, one of those authors of the seventeenth century, who contributed somewhat to the amusement of the republic of letters, without adding much to its credit, was the son of George Gayton of Little Britain, in London, where he was born in 1609. He was educated at Merchant Taylors’ school, whence, in 1625, he was elected scholar of St. John’s college, Oxford, became a fellow of that house, and master of arts. He was afterwards superior beadle of arts and physic, and took the degree of M. B. in 1647; but next year the parliamentary visitors ejected him from the beadleship. He now went to London, married, and maintained himself and wife by his writings. After the restoration, he was replaced in his office of beadle; but, according to Wood’s account, followed more “the vices of poets.” His residence, however, was still at Oxford, where he died in Cat-street, Dec. 12, 1666, and was buried in St. Mary’s church, at the expence of the vice-chancellor, Dr. Fell, not having “but one farthing in his pocket when he died.” Among his works Wood enumerates, 1. “Chartse Scriptae, or a New Game at cards, called Play by the Book,” 1645, 4to. 2. “Pleasant notes upon Don Quixote,” 1654, folio, which have been often reprinted, and are not without humour, although not of the most refined cast. Prior’s story of the ladle was taken from this work. 3. “Hymna de febribus,” Lond. 1655, 4to. 4. “Will Bagnal’s Ghost, or the Merry Devil of Gadmunton,” ibid. 1655, 4to. 5. “The Art of Longevity, or a dietetical institution,” Lond. 1659. 6. “Walk, Knaves, walk,” a discourse intended to have been spoken at court; the name of Hodge Turbervil is in the title of this work, but it was written by Gayton, when in the king’s bench prison, and published in 1659. 7. “Wit revived; or a new excellent way of Divertisement, digested into most ingenious questions and answers,” Lond. 1660, 12mo, published under the name, very allusive to the author’s habits, of Asdryasdust Tossoff-t acan. 8. “Poem upon Mr. Jacob Bobart’s Yew-men of the Guards to the Physic garden, &c.” Oxon. 1662. Most of the above are in prose and verse, and he wrote also many single songs for satirical or festival purposes, which are now objects of expensive curiosity with collectors.

, a very eminent promoter of the revival of letters in Europe, was born at Thessalonica in Greece in 1398. Some have erroneously called him Theodore de Gaza, as if he had been a native of that village. His country being invaded by the Turks in 1430, he went into Italy, and applied himself, immediately on his arrival there, to learn the Latin tongue, under the tuition of Victorinus de Feltre, who taught it at Mantua. He was, indeed, past the age when languages are usually attained, yet he made himself such a master of Latin, that he spoke and wrote it with the same facility and elegance as if it had been his native tongue: though Erasmus is of opinion, that he could never fairly divest himself of his Greek idiotn. His uncommon parts and learning soon recommended him to public notice; and particularly to the patronage of cardinal Bessarion. Gaza had taken a very fair and exact copy of Homer’s “Iliad,” which the cardinal was extremely desirous to purchase; and he obtained either that, or one like it, which was long extant in his library at Venice. About 1450, Gaza went to Rome, in consequence of an invitation from pope Nicholas V. with many other professors of the Greek language, scattered about Italy, to translate the Greek authors into Latin, but unfortunately jealousies and dissensions arose among them, and in particular a quarrel between Gaza and George Trapezuntius. Panl Jovius assures us, that Gaza not only far surpassed all the Greeks, his fellow-labourers and contemporaries, in learning and solidity of judgment, but also in the knowledge of the Latin: which, says Jovius, he attained to that degree of perfection, that it was not easy to discern, whether he wrote best in that or his native tongue. On account of these extraordinary qualities probably, he was admitted to such a familiarity with cardinal Bessarion, as to be called by him in some of his writings his friend and companion.

His works may be divided into original pieces and translations. Of the former are, 1. “Grammaticae Graecoe Libri quatuor.” Written in Greek, and printed first at Venice in 1495: afterwards at Basil in 1522, with a Latin translation by Erasmus. 2. “Liber de Atticis Mensibus Greece;” by way of supplement to his grammar, with which it was printed with a Latin version. 3. “Epistola ad Franciscum Phiielphum de origine Turcarum, Graece, cum Versione Leonis Allatii.” Printed in the Symmicta of the translator at Cologne in 1653. His translations are also of two sorts; from Greek into Latin, and from Latin into Greek. Of the latter sort are Cicero’s pieces, “De Senectute,” and “De Somnio Scipionis:” both printed in Aldus’s edition of Cicero’s works in 1523, $vo. Of the former sort are, “Aristotelis Libri novem Historise Animalium de Partibus Animalium Libri quatuor & de Generatione Animalium Libri quinque. Latine versi. Venet. 1476.” It was Aristotle’s “History of Animals,” which is said to have caused the enmity between Gaza and Trapezuntius. Trapezuntius, it was alleged, had translated the same work before Gaza: and though Gaza had made great use of Trapezuntius’s version, yet in his preface he boasted, that he had neglected to consult any translations whatever; and declared contemptuously, that his design was not to enter the list with other translators, or to vie with those whom it would be so easy to conquer. This conduct, if the statement be true, Trapezuntius might very justly resent. The same “History of Animals,” or rather, as P. Valerianus says, his divine lucubrations upon it, were memorable on another account; for it is said to have been the work which he presented in a Latin translation to pope Sixtus, and for which he underwent so severe a disappointment. He translated also other Greek books into Latin: as, “Aristotelis Problemata,” Theophrasti Historiae Plantarum Libri decem,“” Alexandri Problematum Libri duo,“” JEAiani Liber de Instraendis Aciebus,“”J. Chrysostomi Homiliae quinque de incomprehensibili Dei Natura." There are extant also some works of Gaza which have never been published.

The love of study and retirement was so strong in him, that he entirely neglected opportunities of making his way in the world. “I like better,” he used to say, “to pay court to the public, than to individuals whom that public despises.” In his need, for he was long unprovided for, he knew how to contract his wants, and never was ashamed to own that in the first years of his residence at Paris he brought himself to live on bread and water, which he preferred to the more painful necessity of soliciting his friends. His modesty was equal to his learning, which all acknowledge was extensive and profound. In the first volume of his great work, “Le monde primitif,” we find him acknowledging with the greatest exactness, as well as gratitude, every assistance he derived from books, or living authors. The French academy, knowing his merit and modesty, adjudged him twice the prize of 1200 livres, which was founded by count de Valbelle as a recompense to authors who had made the best use of their talents.

, a physician and astronomer, who wrote a commentary on the “Syntaxis Magna” of Ptolemy, in nine books, and several other works, is supposed to have been a Greek by nation; some call him “the Arabian,” and others say that he was born at Seville in Spain of Arabian parents. There is as much diversity of opinion as to the age in which he flourished, some contending for the seventh, some for the eighth, and some for the ninth century. His commentary above mentioned was published at Nuremburg in 1533. In it he endeavoured to correct the astronomy of Ptolemy, but Copernicus called him rather the calumniator of Ptolemy. He was a learned chemist, and as such has been mentioned with respect by the great Boerhaave; but he was also addicted to the reveries of Alchemy, and condescended to use occasionally a jargon suited to the mystic pretensions of those fanciful writers. Dr. Johnson was of opinion, that gibberish is best derived from this unintelligible cant of Geber and his followers: anciently, he alledges, it was written gebrish. Notwithstanding this, it is allowed that his writings contain much useful knowledge, and that the accuracy of many of his operations is surprizing. The other works of Geber now extant are, 1. “His Astronomy, or demonstrative work of Astrology” in nine books, printed at Nuremberg in 1533. 2; “His three Books on Alchymy,” published at Strasburg, with one “De investigatione perfect! Magisterii,” in 1530 and also in Italy from a ms. in the Vatican. 3. “On the Investigation of the truth of Metals, and on Furnaces, with other works,” Nuremberg, 1545. 4. “A book called Flos Naturarum,” published in 1473. 5. Also his “Chymica” printed by Perna, with the chemical works of Avicenna. All these were published in English at Leyden, by Richard Russel in 1668. His Almagest is also extant in Arabic. As a specimen of his language, he used to say, “my object is to cure six lepers,” meaning that he wished to convert six inferior metals into gold.

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

In 1764 he returned to Scotland, and was ordered to Dundee to officiate as priest among the catholics in the county of Angus, but was scarcely settled when he received, an invitation to become a resident in the family of the earl of Traquaire, in what capacity, unless as a friend, does not appear. He accepted, however, an offer so favourable to the pursuit of his studies; and here,. as well as at Paris, he regulated his inquiries so as to be preparatory to the plan he had long conceived, of giving a new translation of the Bible. His residence here was unfortunately interrupted by an attachment he formed for a female relative of the earl of Traquaire’s, and which was reciprocal; but regarding his vow of celibacy as sacred, and his passion, otherwise invincible, he left the family, and went again to Paris, where he continued about eight or nine months, and returned to Scotland in the spring of 1769. He now accepted the charge of a catholic congregation at Auchinhalrig in the county of Bamff, where he engaged the affections of his flock by many pastoral offices, reconciling differences, administering to the poor, and rebuilding their ruinous chapel. All this, however, seems to have involved him in pecuniary difficulties, from which he was extricated by the late duke of Norfolk, the last catholic peer of that illustrious family. To prevent similar embarrassments, Mr. Geddes now took a small farm, which again involved him in debts, which he endeavoured to discharge by an application to the muses. “Some daemon,” he says, “whispered him' that he had a turn for poetry,” which produced in 1779, “Select Satires of Horace,' translated into English verse, and for the most part adapted to the present times and manners,” 4to. The impression of this work extended only to 750 copies, yet he reaped a profit of 100l. which he received with exultation, and applied to the liquidation of his arrears. This success determined him also to relinquish his retirement, and -try what his abilities might obtain for him in London, and his removal was probably accelerated by his having incurred the displeasure of the bishop of his diocese, Dr. Hay, on account of his attending trie ministry of a presbyterian friend. The bishop had before warned him to desist, and finding him refractory, deposed him from his office, and prohibited him from preaching within the extent of his diocese. He left his charge accordingly, and previous to his leaving Scotland, received the degree of LL. D. from one of the colleges of Aberdeen. His reputation for learning, indeed, was very considerable in Scotland, and he was one of the literati who took a very active part in the institution of a society of antiquaries at Edinburgh. In their volume for 1792 he wrote “A dissertation on the Seoto-Saxon Dialect,” and “The first Eklog of Virgil,” and “The first Idyllion of Theocritus, translatitt into Scottis vers,” in the former of which the Edinburgh dialect is chiefty imitated, and in the latter the Buchan. He also composed a “Caruien Seculare” for the society’s anniversary of 1788.

He arrived in London in the beginning of 1780, and was soon invited to officiate as priest in the Imperial ambassador’s chapel, and preached occasionally at the chapel in Duke-street, Lincoln’s Inn Fields, until the Easter holidays, 1782, after which he voluntarily withdrew from every stated ministerial function, and seldom officiated in any chapel whatever. The principal reason was, that on his arrival in London he was introduced to men of literature of every class, obtained easy access to public libraries, and in his design of translating the Bible, obtained the patronage of lord Petre. This nobleman engaged to allow him a salary of 200l. and took upon himself the entire expence of whatever private library Dr. Geddes might judge requisite to collect in the prosecution of his favourite object. With such munificent encouragement, he published in 1780 his “Idea of a New Version of the Holy Bible, for the use of the English Catholics.” This was an imperfect sketch, as he had not settled what versions to follow. Among his encouragers, who then thought favourably of him, were Dr. Kennicott, and bishop Lowth. To the latter he presented, in 1785, his “Prospectus,” who returned it with a polite note, in which he recommended him to publish it, not only as an introduction to his work, bifC > as a useful and edifying treatise for young students in divinity. He accordingly published it at Glasgow, and it was very favourably received by biblical scholars in general. Being thus encouraged, he first published “A Letter to the right rev. the bishop of London, containing queries, doubts, and difficulties, relative to a vernacular version of the Holy Scriptures.” This was designed as an appendix to his Prospectus, and was accompanied with a success equal to that of his former publication. After this he published several pamphlets on temporary topics, of wliich it will be sufficient to give the titles in our list of his works. In 1788 appeared his “Proposals for printing by subscription, a New Translation of the Bible, from corrected texts of the original; with various readings, explanatory notes, and critical observations.” In this he solicited the opinion, hints, &c. of literary characters, and received so many that, in July 1790, he thought proper to publish “Dr. Geddes’ general Answer to the queries, counsels, and criticisms that have been communicated to him since the publication of his Proposals for printing a New Translation of the Bible.” In this pamphlet, while he resists the generality of counsels and criticisms communicated to him, from motives which he very candidly assigns, he yields to several, and liberally expresses his obligations to the correspondents who proposed them. It appears, however, that his brethren of the catholic persuasion were already suspicious, and that he lost whatever share of popularity he formerly had 'within the pale of his own church. He acknowledges that he received more encouragement from, the established church and the protestant dissenters. His subscribers amounted to 343, among which were very few Roman catholics. In 1792 the first volume of the translation appeared, under the title of “The Holy Bible, or the books accounted sacred by Jews and Christians; otherwise called the Books of the Old and New Covenants, faithfully translated from corrected texts of the originals, with various readings, explanatory notes, and critical remarks: Tr and a second volume appeared in 1797. The manner in which Dr. Geddes executed his translation, brought upon him attacks from various quarters, but especially fromhis catholic brethren. The opposition and difficulties he had, on this account, to encounter, were stated by him m a An Address to the Public.” Indeed, his orthodoxy having been questioned before his volume appeared, he wassummoned by those whom he admitted to be the organs of legitimate authority. His three judges, however, were either satisfied or silenced, much to the doctor’s satisfaction. Shortly after the first volume of his translation was published, an ecclesiastical interdict, under the title of “A Pastoral Letter,” signed by Walmsley, Gibson, and Douglas, as apostolic vicars of the western, northern, and London districts, was published, in which Geddes’s work was prohibited to the faithful. Against this prohibition (whjch bishop Thomas Talbot refused to subscribe) the doctor, first giving bishop Douglas notice, published a remonstrance in a letter addressed to him; but notwithstanding this, he was suspended from all ecclesiastical functions. In 1800 he published the first, and only volume he lived to finish, of “Critical Remarks on the Hebrew Scriptures; corresponding with a New Translation of the Bible,” 4to. How far Dr. Geddes merited the cen>­sures bestowed upon him both by Roman catholics and protestants, in his translation and Critical Remarks, the reader may judge, when he is told that in this volume he attacks the credit of Moses in every part of his character, as an historian, a legislator, and a moralist. He even doubts whether he was the author of the Pentateuch; but the writer, whoever he might be, is one, he tells us, who upon all occasions gives into the marvellous, adorns hisnarration with fictions of the interference of the Deity, when every thing happened in a natural way; and, at other times, dresses up fable in the garb of true history. The history of the creation is, according to him, a fabulous cosmogony. The story of the fall a mythos, in which nothing but the mere imagination of the commentators, possessing more piety than judgment, could have discovered either a seducing devil, or the promise of a Saviour. It is a fable, he asserts, intended for the purpose of persuading the vulgar, that knowledge is the root of all evil, and the desire of it a crime. Moses was, it seems, a man of great talents, as Numa and Lycurgus were. But like them, he was a false pretender to personal intercourse with the Deity, with whom he had no immediate communication. He had the art to take the advantage of rare, but natural occurrences, to persuade the Israelites that the immediate power of God was exerted to accomplish his projects. When a violent wind happened to lay dry the head of the Guiph of Suez, he persuaded them that God had made a passage for them through the sea; and the narrative of their march is embellished with circumstances of mere fiction. In the delivery of the ten commandments, he took advantage of a thunder-storm to persuade the people that Jehovah had descended upon mount Sinai; and he counterfeited the voice of God, by a person^ in the height of the storm, speaking through a trumpet, &c. &c. Without proceeding farther in accumulating the proofs of arrogance, ignorance, and impiety, with which this “Translation 11 and” Critical Remarks“abound, we shall only add, that even Dr. Priestley seemed to doubt” if such a man as Geddes, who believed so little, and who conceded so much, could be a Christian."

“M. St. Martin found the doctor extremely comatose, and believed him to be in the utmost danger he endeavoured to rouse him from his lethargy, and proposed to him to receive absolution, Dr. Geddes observed, that in such case it was necessary he should first make his confession. M. St. Martin was sensible that he had neither strength nor wakefulness enough for such an exertion, and replied that in extremis this was not necessary; that he had only to examine the state of his own mind, and to make a sign when he was prepared. M. St. Martin is a gentleman of much liberality of sentiment, but strenuously attached to what are denominated the orthodox tenets of the catholic church; he had long beheld with great grief of heart what he conceived the aberrations of his learned friend; and had flattered himself that in the course of this last illness he should be the happy instrument of recalling him to a full belief of every doctrine he had rejected; and with this view he was actually prepared upon the present occasion with a written list of questions, in the hope of obtaining from the doctor an accurate and satisfactory reply. He found, however, from the lethargic state of Dr. Geddes, that this regular process was impracticable. He could not avoid, nevertheless, examining the state of his mind as to several of the more important points upon which they differed. ‘You fully,’ said he, ‘believe in the Scriptures?’ He roused himself from his sleep, and said, ‘Certainly.’ ‘In the doctrine of the trinity?’ ‘Certainly, but not in the manner you mean.' ‘In the mediation of Jesus Christ?’ ‘No, no, no not as you mean; in Jesus Christ as our saviour but not in the atonement.’ I inquired of M. St. Martin, if in the course of what had occurred, he had any reason to suppose that his religious creed either now, or in any other period of his illness, had sustained any shade of difference from what he had formerly professed. He replied, that he could not positively flatter himself with believing it had; that the most comfortable words he heard him utter were immediately after a short pause, and before the administration of absolution,” I consent to all;“but that to these he could affix no definite meaning. I showed him the passage to which I now refer, in the Gentleman’s Magazine: he carefully perused it, and immediately added that it was false in every respect. ‘ It would have given me great pleasure,’ said he, * to have heard him recant, but I cannot with certainty say that I perceived the least disposition in him to do so; and even the expression ‘ I consent to all,’ was rather, perhaps, uttered from a wish to oblige me as his friend, or a desire to shorten the conversation, than from any change in his opinions. After having thus examined 'himself, however, for some minutes, he gave a sign of being ready, and received absolution as I had proposed to him. I then left him; he shook my hand heartily upon quitting him, and said that he was happy he had seen me.”

Dr. Geddes died the day after this interview, Feb. 26, 1802, and was buried in Paddington church-yard. IJe was unquestionably a man of extensive learning, although, not entitled to the superiority which his friends have assigned to him, and which indeed he too frequently arrogated to himself. It was this want of knowledge of his real powers, and the vanity superinduced upon it, that made him ambitious of the character of a wit and a poet, without either temper or genius. His wit was mere flippancy, and his poetry had rarely any other attribute than that of rhyme. The list of his works will show that in the employment of his talents there was something undignified and trifling, that showed a mind vexed with restlessness, rather than seriously anduniformly employed for the public good. While engaged in so important a work as the translation of the Bible., he was perpetually stooping to pick up any little paltry anecdote of the day, as the subject -for a pamphlet or <a poem, and while he was suffering: by the neglect or censure of those whose religious opinions he had shocked, he was seeking comfort in ridiculing the characters of men who had never offended him by any species of provocation. Of his private character, while he is praised for his benevolence and catholic 1 spirit, we find also, and not very consistently, that its leading feature was irritability upon the most trifling provocations, if they deserved the name, which discovered itself in the most gross and offensive language. One instance of this species of insanity, for such it appeared to be in him, is given by his biographer, which we shall throw into a note, for its excellence as a genuine portrait of the man . Dr. Geddes published, 1. “Select Satires of Horace,” &c. London, 1779, 4to. 2. “Linton, a Tweedale Pastoral,” Edinburgh, 4to. 3. “Cursory Remarks on a late fanatical publication entitled a Full Detection of Popery,” Lond. 1783, 8vo. 4. Prospectus of a New Translation of the Bible,“&c. ibid. 1786, 4to. 5.” Letter to the Bishop of London, containing doubts, queries, &c. relative to a vernacular translation of the Holy Scriptures,“ibid. 1787, 4to. 6.” Letter to the Rev. Dr. Priestley, in which the author attempts to prove by one prescriptive argument, that the divinity of Jesus Christ was a primitive tenet of Christianity,“ibid. 1787, 8vo. 7.” Letter to a, member of parliament on the case of the Protestant Dis-' senters, and the expediency of a general repeal of all penal statutes that regard religious opinions,“ibid. 1787, 8vo. 8.” Proposals, &c.“for his translation, ibid. 1788, 4to. 9.” Dr. Geddes’s general answer to queries, counsels,“&c. ibid. 1790, 4to. 10.” An answer to the bishop of Comana’s pastoral letter; by a protesting catholic,' 1 1790, 8vo. II. “A Letter to the right rev. the archbishops and bishops of England; pointing out the only sure means of preserving the church from the dangers that now threaten her. By an Upper Graduate,” 1790, 8vo. 12. “Epistola macaronica ad fratrem, de iis quo; gesta stint in nupero Dissentientium conventu,” 1790, 4to. 13. “Carmen seculare pro Gallica gente tyrannicli aristocraticae erepta,” 1790, 4to. 14. “Encyclical letter of the bishops of Rama, Acanthos, and Centuriæ, to the faithful clergy and laity of their respective districts, with a continued commentary for the use of the vulgar,” 1791, 8vo. 15. “An (ironical) apology for Slavery,” 1792, 8vo. 16. “The first book of the Iliad of Homer, verbally rendered into English verse; being a specimen of a new translation of that poet; with critical annotations,” 1792, 8vo. This was intended to rival Cowper’s Homer. 1*7. “L'Avocat du Diable the Devil’s Advocate,” &c. 1792, 4to. 18. “The Holy Bible, translation of, vol. I.” 1792, 4to. 19. Carmina Saecularia tria, pro tfibus celeberrirnis libertatis Gallicae epochis,“1793, 4to. 20.” Ver-Vert,“from the French of Gresset, 1793, 4to. 21.” Dr. Geddes’s address to the public on the publication of the first volume of his new Translationof the Bible,“1793. 22.” Letter to the right rv. John Douglas, bishop of Centurice, and vicar-apostolic in the London district/' 1794, 4to. 23. “A Norfolk Tale; or a Journal from London to Norwich,” 1794, 4to. 24. “Ode to the Hon. Thomas Pelham, occasioned by his speech in the Irish House of Commons on the Catholic bill,” 1795, 4to. 25. “A Sermon preached before the university of Cambridge, by H. W. C(6ulthurst)> D. D. &c.” in doggrel rhymes, 1796, 8vo. 26. “The Battle of B(a)ng(o)r; or the Church’s triumph a comic-heroic poerh,” 1797, 8vO. 27. “Translation of the Bible, vol. II.” 1797. 28. “A New-year’s gift to the good people of England, being a sermon, or something like a sermon, in defence of the present War,” &e. 1798, 8vo. 29. “A Sermon preached on the day of the general fast, Feb. 27, 1799, by Theomophilus Brown,” &c. 1799, 8vo. 30. “A Modest Apology for the Roman Catholics of Great Britain, addressed to all moderate Protestants,” &c. 1800, 8vo. 31. “Critical Remarks,” before mentioned, vol. I. 1800, 4to. 32. “Bardomachia, poema macaronico-Latinum,” 1800, 4tb. 33. “Paci feliciter feduci Ode Sapphica,” 1801, 4to. Besides these Dr. Geddes wrote many fugitive pieces, essays, poems in the riews- papers and magazines, and was a considerable contributor to the Analytical Review. After his death appeared in 1807, his “Translation of the Book of Psalms,” as far as Psalm CXVIII. In this, as may be expected, he gives up the prophetic sense of the Psalms.

, a French writer and classical scholar, was born at Orleans June 17, 1667, whence he v/ent to study at Paris, and was a Jesuit for ten years; but returning back to the world, became one of the friends of the celebrated Ninon de PEnclos, and figured as a man of wit and letters, which, however, did not impede his ecclesiastical career, as in 1701 he was appointed canon of thfe holy chapel at Paris. In 1711 he was received into tho academy of belles lettres; in 1719, into the French academy; and 1732, he was named to the abbey of Notredame de Beaugency. He died Aug. 10, 1744. He is distinguished by two excellent French translations, of Quintilian, 4to, or 4 rols. 8vo, and Pausanias, 2 vols. 4to. There were also published in 1745, “CEuvres diverses,” or a collection of little essays by him upon subjects of morality and literature, edited by the abbé Olivet, with a life of the author, by Bachaumont. Gedoyn was besides author of many ingenious dissertations in the memoirs of the French academy.

, or, as by some called, Gayler Keiserspergius, an eminent Swiss divine, was born in 1445, at Schaffhausen, where his father was a notary, but he dying about three years afterwards, his son was adopted by a relation who lived at Keysersberg, and educated there in his infancy. He afterwards pursued his more serious studies at Fribourg and Basil. When admitted into the church he was invited to preach at Wurzburgh, where he became so celebrated for pulpit oratory, that Augsbourg, Basil, and Strasburgh contended which should persuade him to settle among them. At length he gave the preference to Strasburgh, where he resided thirty-three years, edifying the people by his discourses and his example. Here he died March 10, 1510. He is said to have been the first who proposed that the sacrament should be administered to condemned persons. He was much admired by Wimpheliugius, Beatus Rhenanus, and many of the eminent men of his time. His works, the principal of which are enumerated by Clement, as books of rare occurrence, are in German and Latin, and consist principally of “Sermons,” often surcharged with metaphors and allegories, and sometimes with facetious remarks, but in general they are learned, and serve very much to illustrate the manners of the time, which he had the courage to censure, when erroneous, before persons of the highest rank or power, with intrepid boldness. Oberlin published in 1786, a curious life of Geiler, which we have not seen; the preceding account being taken from the authorities below.

, also bishop of Cæsarea, flourished about the year 476. He compiled a history of the Nicene council, in three books, partly from an old manuscript of Dalmatius archbishop of Cyzicus, and from other authorities. It was published at Paris, Gr. & Lat. 1559. His style, according to Photius, was extremely low and bad, and the credit of his account, whether from himself or his manuscript, is according to Dupin, as bad as possible. Two books of pope Gelasius I. on the double nature in Christ, have been erroneously ascribed to him.

bishop of Rome, elevated to that see in the year 492, was successor to Felix II. He was engaged, as his predecessor had been, in the disputes between the eastern and western churches; and particularly contended with Euphemius, patriarch of Constantinople, about the name of Acacius, which the latter refused to expunge from the sacred list. He is said to have assembled a /council of seventy bishops at Rome, in the year 494, where a decree was passed onthe subject of canonical and apo-' cryphal books but the existence of the decree, if not of the council, is doubted by Cave, for very strong reasons. He died Nov. 19, 046. Several works of his are extant, among which are, 1. Epistles. 2. A volume on the power of Anathema. 3. Against some Romans who continued to celebrate the Lupercalia. 4. Against the Pelagian heresy. 5. A book against Eutyches and Nestorius, all which are in the “Bibl. Patrum,” or in the “Collectio Conciliorum.” Dupin seems to have a very indifferent opinion of his writings, and there is little in his life that can be interesting unless in its connection with the history of the papal struggles for power.

As Gellibrand was inclined to puritan principles, while he was engaged in this work, his servant, William Beale, by his encouragement, published an al manack for the year 1631, in which the popish saints, usually put into our kalendar, and the Epiphany, Annunciation, &c. were omitted; and the names of other saints and martyrs, mentioned in the book of martyrs, were placed in their room as they stand in Mr. Fox’s kalendar. This gave offence to Dr. Laud, who, being then bishop of London, cited them both into the high-commission court. But when the cause came to a hearing, it appeared, that other almanacks of the same kind had formerly been printed; on which plea they were both acquitted by abp. Abbot and the whole court, Laud only excepted; which was afterwards one of the articles against him at his own trial. This prosecution jdid not hinder Geliibrand from proceeding in his friend’s work, which he completed in 1632; and procured it to be printed by the famous Ulacque Adrian, at Gouda in Holland, in 1633, folio, with a preface, containing an encomium of Mr. Brigg’s, expressed in such language as shews him to have been a good master of the Latin tongue. Geliibrand wrote the second book, which was translated into English, and published in an English treatise with the same title, “Trigonometria Britaonica, &c.” the -first part by John Newton in 1658, folio. While he was abroad on this business, he had some discourse with Lansberg, aa eminent astronomer in Zealand, who affirming that he was fully persuaded of the truth of the Cop^ernican system, our author observes, “that this so styled a truth he should receive a an hypothesis; and so be easily led on to the consideration of the imbecility of man’s apprehension, as not able rightly to conceive of this admirable opifice of God, or frame of the world, without falling foul on so great an absurdity:” so firmly was he fixed in his adherence to the Ptolemaic system. He wrote several things after this, chiefly tending to the improvement of navigation, which would probably have been further advanced by him, had his life been continued longer; but he was untimely carried offby a fever in 1636, in his thirty-ninth year, and was buried in the parish church of St. Peter le Poor, Broadstreet. He had four younger brothers, John, Edward, Thomas, and Samuel; of whom John was his executor, and Thomas was a major in the parliamentary army, was an evidence in archbishop Laud’s trial; and was grandfather to Samuel Gellibrand, esq. who, about the middle of last century, was nnder-secretary in the plantation-office.

, or, as some have improperly called him, Agellius, a celebrated grammarian of antiquity, who, according to the best authorities, was born in the year 130, in the reign of Trajan, was a youth in that of Adrian, passed his manhood under Antoninus Pius, and died soon after Marcus Aurelius had been raised to the imperial throne. His instructor in grammar was Sulpitius Apollinaris. He studied rhetoric under Titus Castritius and Antonius Julianus. After taking the toga virilis, he went from Rome to Athens, where he lived on terms of familiarity with Calvisius Taurus, Peregrinus Proteus, and the celebrated Herodes Atticus. While he was at Athens he began his “Noctes Atticse.” After traversing the greater part of Greece he returned to Rome, where he applied himself to the law, and was appointed a judge. He was deeply versed in the works of Ælius Tubero, Caecilius Gall us, Servitius Sulpitius, and other ancient writers on the Roman law. His “Attic Nights” contain a curious collection of observations on a vast variety of subjects, taken from books and discourses with learned men, and are particularly valuable for preserving many facts and monuments of antiquity which are not elsewhere to be found. His matter has rendered him an object of curiosity to the most distinguished scholars; and his style, though not perfectly pure, is, in the judgment of the most acute critics, rather to be commended for its beauties, than blamed for its singularities. Macrobius frequently copies from him without acknowledgment. There are twenty books of the “Noctes Atticae;” but of the eighth, only the titles of the chapters remain. After many editions of this author, he was published by Proust for the use of the dauphin, at Paris, in 1681, 4to; and by James Gronovius at Leyden in 1706, 4to; and since by Conradus at Leipsic, in 1762. The eclitio princeps and other early editions are minutely described by Mr. Dibdin in his “Bibliotheca Spenceriana.” An excellent English translation with notes, was published by Mr. Beloe, in 1795.

Dr. Burney, who has enumerated his various works, says that, with all his harmonical abilities, he was so circumscribed in his invention, that he was obliged to have recourse to all the arts of musical cookery, not to call it quackery, for materials to publish. In his younger days, when imagination is most fertile, sixteen years elapsed between the publication of his first book of solos and his first six concertos. Indeed, during that period, he atchieved what a plodding contrapuntist of inferior abilities might bave done as well; he transformed Corelli’s solos and six of his sonatas into concertos, by multiplying notes, and loading, and deforming those melodies, that were more graceful and pleasing in their light original dress. After the publication of his second set of solos, his productions seem to have been the offspring of whim, caprice, expedients, and an unprincipled change of style and taste, which neither pleased the public, nor contributed to his own honour or profit. One day he would set up French music against all other; the next English, Scots, Irish any thing but the best compositions of Italy or Handel. He was certainly a great master of harmony, and very useful to our country in his day; but though he had more variety of modulation, and more skill in diversifying his parts than Corelli, his melody was even inferior, and there is frequently an irregularity in his measures and phraseology, and a confusion in the effect of the whole, from the too great business and dissimilitude of the several parts, which gives to each of his compositions the effect of a rhapsody or extemporaneous flight, rather than a polished and regular production, His sixth concerto of the second set is always to be excepted, which is the most pleasing and perfect composition of the kind.

, a French historian, was born of an obscure family at Rouen, in 1659, and educated and patronized by Harlay, archbishop of Rouen, and afterwards of Paris. This patron gave him first a canonry of Notre-Dame, and afterwards he was made abbé of ClaireFontaine, in the diocese of Chartres. He died at Paris, Feb. 1, 1733. Le Gendre was author of several works, of which the most important were the following: 1. “A History of France, from the commencement of the Monarchy, to the Death of Louis XIII.” in 3 vols. folio, or 8, 12mo, published in 1718. This history, which is considered as an abridgement, is much esteemed by his countrymen. The style is simple, and rather low, but it contains many curious particulars not recorded in other histories. It is reckoned more interesting than Daniel’s, though less elegant. His first volumes, from the nature of the subject, were less admired than the last. 2. “Manners and Customs of the French, in the different periods of the monarchy,” 1755, a single volume, in 12mo, which may serve as an introduction to the history. 3. “The Life of Francis Harlay,” 1695, 8vo, a work dictated by gratitude, but more esteemed for its style than its matter. 4. “An Essay on the Reign of Louis the Great;” a panegyric, which ran through four editions in eighteen months, but owed its popularity to the circumstance of being presented to the king in person. 5. “A Life of cardinal d'Amboise, with a parallel of other cardinals who have been ruling statesmen,” Paris, 1724, 4to; an instructive, but not very laboured work. 6. “Life of Peter du Bosc,” 1716, 8vo, At his death he left five histories of his own life, each composed in a different style and manner, which he directed to be published. He left also bequests for various singular foundations, some of which, being disputed as to the testator’s meaning, it was decided that they should be applied to the institution of prizes in the university of Paris.

, a celebrated doctor of physic of the faculty at Montpellier, physician in ordinary to Monsieur brother of Louis XIV. and to the duke of Orleans, regent of France, descended from a respectable family in Beaure, and was born in 1663. By a skill, peculiar to himself, he restored great numbers of persons to health whose cases appeared hopeless, and gained great reputation, particularly in the cure of cancers, and disorders of the eyes. Having acquired a handsome fortune, he went to reside at Auteuil, near Paris, in a house which formerly belonged to his friend, the celebrated Boileau, but had been his own near thirty years, where noblemen, ministers, ambassadors, chief magistrates, the learned, and numerous persons of both sexes, went frequently to visit, or to consult him. In this retreat he acquired a high character for integrity, being scrupulously just, and abhorring every species of dissimulation, or flattery. He died September 3, 1750. He left all his Mss. by will to his nephew, who was also a doctor of physic, of the faculty at Montpcllier. The principal are entitled, “Recherches sur POrigine, le Devellopement, et la Reproduction dc tous les Etres vivans,” which is said to be an excellent work; and “Recherches sur la nature et la guerison du Cancer,” Paris, 1601.

, an ecclesiastical writer, was a priest of Marseilles, but not a bishop, as some have imagined and died about the year 492 or 493. There are two works of his remaining; one, “De Dogmatibus Ecclesiasticis,” which was falsely attributed to St. Augustin, and has been printed in some editions of his works; another, “De II­lustribus Ecclesiae Scriptoribus,” in St. Jerome’s Works, Antwerp, 1639, fol. and Hamburgh, 1718, fol. Some chapters of it appear to have been added by a more modern hand. Gennadius has been accused of adhering some time to the errors of Pelagius; but, as is now agreed, without any reasonable foundation.

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

, or, as styled in his Latin works, Antonius Genuensis, an Italian writer of much reputation on subjects of political ceconomy in Italy, was born at Castelione, in November 1712. It not being probably the custom to educate the. eldest sons of Italian families for the church, his biographer, Fabroni, seems to complain of this as an act of severity on the part of Genovesi’s father. He received, however, a suitable education for this profession, and in due time was consecrated a priest; but his views of preferment being obstructed, he attempted the practice of the law, in which he was equally unsuccessful, and at length, when at Naples in 1741, was appointed professor of metaphysics. Some bold opinions delivered in the course of his lectures created a clamour against him, as advancing infidel principles, but he appears to have been befriended by Galiani, who was superintendant of the universities of Naples, and removed him to the professorship of ethics. In 1748 he was a candidate for the professorship of theology, but his notions had given such offence that he was rejected, which seems to have induced him to turn his mind to subjects of political oeconomy, particularly agriculture, in which there was less risk of offending either the principles or prejudices of his countrymen. A professorship was now founded for political ceconorny, and bestowed upon him with a handsome salary. This he continued to hold with the greatest reputation until his death in 1769. His private character appears to have been very amiable, and his works, although little known, and indeed little wanted in this country, were of essential service in the schools of Italy, and directed the attention of youth to subjects more connected with patriotism and public spirit than those they had been accustomed to study. They are, according to Fabroni, 1. “Disciplinarum metaphysicarum Elementa mathematicum in morem adornata,” 1744 1751, 4 vols. 8vo. 2. “Elementorum artis logico-criticte libri quinque,” Naples, 1745. 3. “Discorso sopra alcuni trattati d'Agricoitura,” ibid. 1753. 4. “Lettere Accademiche,” ibid. 1764. 5. A translation of Carey’s History of English Trade, under the title “Storia del Commercio della Gran Brettagna,” &c. 1757. 6. “Delle Lezioni di Commercio.” 7. “Discorso sopra rAgricoltura,” with a translation of Tull’s Husbandry. 8. “Discorso sul volgarizzamento del Saggio Francese’sulT Economia de‘ grain,’,' Naples, 1765. 9.” Meditazioni Filosoficbe sulla religione e sulla morale,“ibid. 1766, a work in which Fabroni says there is nothing new, or worthy of the author. 10.” Della Diceosina, o sia della filosofia del giusto e dell' onesto,“1766 1776, 3 rols. 11.” Universae Christiana Tbeologise elementa dogmatica, historica, critica," a posthumous work, Venice, 1771, 2 vols. 4to, on which the author had been employed from the year 1742, but leaving it imperfect, it was completed by the editor, with much trouble.

, a native of York, and an industrious collector of antiquities, was born in 1691, and educated as a printer, which trade he first exercised in London, sometimes as a servant, and sometimes as a master. In 1724 he began the same business at York, where he remained the whole of his long life, dying there May 17, 1778, in the eighty-seventh year of his age. He was at this time supposed to be the oldest master printer in Britainj and was a freeman of London, York, and Dublin. He compiled various articles respecting the antiquities of Yorkshire, which, although printed in an humble form, and generally with mean cuts, contain some particulars not to be found in larger histories, and of late have risen considerably in price. Among these are, 1. The ancient and modern history of the famous City of York,“12mo. 2.” Compendious History of England and Rome,“York, 1741, 2 vols. 12mo: in this are some additions concerning York, Pontefract, &c. 3.” The ancient and modern History of the loyal town of Rippon,“ibid. 1733, 8vo. 4.” Annales Regioduni Hullini, or the History of Kingstonupon-Hull,“ibid. 1735, 8vo. 5.” Piety displayed; in the holy life and death of the ancient and celebrated St. Robert, hermit at Knaresborough, &c.“12 mo. 6.” The most delectable, scriptural, and pious history of the famous and magnificent great Eastern Window in St. Peter’s cathedral, York," ibid. 1762, 8vo.

, an eminent civilian at Oxford, was the son of Matthew Gentilis, an Italian physician, the descendant of a noble family of the Marcbe of Ancona, who left his country about the end of the sixteenth century, on account of his having embraced the protestant religion. Taking with him his sons Albericus and Scipio, he went into the province of Carniola, where he received his doctor’s degree, and then into England, after his eldest son Albericus, who was born in 1550. He was educated chiefly in the university of Perugia, where, in 1572, he was made doctor of civil law. He came into England probably about 1580, as in that year he appears to have been kindly received by several persons here; and among others, by Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester, then chancellor of the university of Oxford, who gave him letters of recommendation to the university, stating that he had left his country for the sake of his religion, and that it was his desire to bestow some time in reading, and other exercises of his profession, at the university, &c. He accordingly went to Oxford, and by favour of Dr. Donne, principal of New inn Hall, had rooms allowed him there, and at first was maintained by contributions from several colleges, but afterwards had an allowance from the common funds of the university. In the latter end of the same year, 1580, he was incorporated LL. D. and for some years employed his time on his writings, most of which were published at London or Oxford. He resided also some time either in. Corpus or Christ Church, and, as Wood says, “became the flower of the university for his profession.” In 1587 queen Elizabeth gave him the professorship of civil law, on which he lectured for twenty-four years with great xeputation. Hre he died, in the latter end of March or the beginning of April 1611, although others say at London, June 19, 1608, and was buried near his father, who also died in England, but where is uncertain. Wood’s account seems most probable. He left a widow, who died at Rickmansworth in 1648, and two sons, one of which will be noticed in the next article. Wood enumerates twentyseven volumes or tracts written by him, all in Latin, and mostly on points of jurisprudence, on which, at that time, his opinion appears to have had great weight. Grotius praises and acknowledges his obligations to his three books “De Jure Belli” and his “Lectiones Virgilianae,” addressed to his son, prove that he had cultivated polite literature with success.

, a native of Cosenza, in the kingdom of Naples, left his country on account of religion about the middle of the sixteenth century, and retired to Geneva, where several Italian families had already formed a church. Among those Italian refugees there weie some who began to subtilize with regard to the mystery of the Trinity, and the words essence, person, coessential, &c. Blandrata, and John Paul Alciatus, were the chief of these innovators, with an advocate named Matthew Gribaud. But although the subject was treated without noise, and by private writings, their zeal occasioned the articles of faith, which were drawn up in the Italian consistory, the 18th of May 1558, and contained the most pure and orthodox doctrine with relation to that mystery, and by which the subscribers promised in precise terms, and on pain of being reputed perjured and perfidious, to do nothing, directly or indirectly, which might wound it, Gentilis subscribed these articles, and yet persisted in propagating his errors clandestinely. The magistrates then took cognizance of the affair, and he was convicted of having violated his subscription; which he endeavoured to excuse by pleading his conscience. He presented several writings, at first to palliate his opinions, and afterwards to confess and abjure them; in consideration of which the magistrates of Geneva sentenced him only to throw his writings into the fire with his own hands, and to engage not to stir out of the city without permission. This sentence was executed the 2d of September 1558. He was discharged from prison a few days after; and on the petition which he presented, alleging his inability to give bail, he was excused from it; but they obliged him to swear that he would not go out of Geneva without the consent of the magistrates. Notwithstanding all this, he made his escape, and went to Lyons, and afterwards wandered about from place to place in Dauphirie and Savoy; but being every where obnoxious, he returned to the village whither he first retired, in the territory of the canton of Bern. He was quickly known there, and put in prison; but he was set at liberty in a few days, and published a confession of faith supported by some proofs, and some invectives against St. Athanasius. About the same time he was imprisoned at Lyons for his doctrine; but, being artful enough to persuade them that his design was against Calvin, and not against the mystery of the Trinity, he was discharged. Blandrata and Alciatus, who used their utmost efforts in Poland to establish their errors, invited him to come to them, and assist them in their work; but the king of Poland in 1566 published an edict for the banishing of all strangers who should teach such doctrines. Gentilis retired into Moravia, from whence he went to Vienna, in Austria, and then resolved fo return tp Savoy, where he was again apprehended in June 1566, and the cause being carried to Bern, it was under examination from the 5th of August to the 9th of September. Gentilis being duly convicted of having obstinately and contrary to his oath attacked the mystery of the trinity, was condemned to lose his head, which sentence was accordingly executed at a time when the principles of toleration were little understood.

, a Protestant lawyer, and an able defender of the reformed religion against the Roman catholics and Socinians, was born at Vienne, in Dauphiny, in the sixteenth century; but we have no dates of his birth or death. Some of the works we are about to mention have been attributed to his son Vincent, although improperly, and he is with equal impropriety called Valentine in some biographical works. He was president of the chamber of the edict at Grenoble, established in 1576; and published an Apology for the Protestant Religion, in Latin; the best edition of which is that of Geneva, 1588, 8vo, and several other works; the principal of which are, “Le Bureau du Concile deTrente,” Geneva, 1586, 8vo, maintaining that this council was contrary to the ancient canons, and to the royal authority; “L'Anti Machiavel,” Leyden, 1547, 12mo; “Anti Socinus,” 1612, 4to. The learning and vigour of argument in these works procured him great reputation among the protestants. He was obliged to quit his country, and is said to have been syndic of the republic of Geneva; but this last, as well as some other particulars of his history, rests on doubtful authority.

, a dramatic and poetical writer of the minor order, was born in Ireland, October 23, 1728, and received his education at Dublin. At the age of fifteen he obtained a commission in the same regiment with his father, who likewise belonged to the army; but, making an exchange to a new-raised company, he was dismissed the service on his regiment being reduced at the conclusion of the war in 1748. On this event he indulged his inclination for the stage, and appeared at Dublin in the character of Aboan, in the play of Oroonoko. Notwithstanding an unconsequential figure, and uncommon timidity, he says he succeeded beyond his most sanguine expectations; but, having some property, and hearing that a legacy had been left him by a relation, he determined to come to London, where it appears he dissipated what little fortune he possessed. He then engaged to perform at the theatre in Bath, and remained there some time. From thence he went to Edinburgh, and afterwards belonged to several companies of actors at Manchester, Liverpool, Chester, and other places. Growing tired of a public -life, he settled at Malton, a market-town about twenty miles from York, where he married, and had some expectation of being provided for by the marquis of Granby, to whom he was recommended by a gentleman who had known his father. With this hope he removed to London, but soon had the mortification to find all his prospects clouded by the sudden death of his patron. In 1770 he performed at the Hay-market, under the management of Mr. Foote, and continued with him three seasons, during which time, and afterwards, he wrote some of his dramatic pieces and poems. He returned to his native country probably about 1777, and struggled for the remainder of his life under sickness and want, from which death at last relieved him Dec. 21, 1784. The editor of the “Biographia Dramatica” enumerates fifteen dramatic pieces, either written or altered for the stage by him, none of which are now remembered, or had originally much success. He wrote also “Characters, an Epistle,” 1766, 4to, and “Royal Fables,” 1766, 8vo, poetical productions of very considerable merit. But his best performance was the “Dramatic Censor,” 1770, 2 vols. 8vo, in which he criticises about fifty of the principal acting plays, and the chief actors of his time, with much impartiality and judgment. The latter, however, seems entirely to have forsaken him when he became editor of Shakspeare’s plays, published by Bell in 1774-5, unquestionably the worst edition that ever appeared of any English author.

, or rather Gerard Tenque, founder of the order of St. John of Jerusalem, was born either in a small island in Provence, or, as is thought more probable, at Amain". He was the institutor, and the first grand master of the knights hospitalers of Jerusalem, who afterwards became knights of Malta. Some Italian merchants, while Jerusalem was yet in the hands of the infidels, ob-. tained permission to build a Benedictine monastery opposite to the holy sepulchre for the reception of pilgrims. In 1081, an abbot of that monastery founded also an hospital, the direction of which he gave to Gerard, who Was distinguished for his piety. In 1100 Gerard took a religious habit, and associated with others under a particular yew to relieve all Christians in distress, besides the three great vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience. Gerard died in 1120. His order was protected by the church from the beginning, and in 1154 was confirmed by a bqll of Anastasius IV. which distinguished the subdivisions of the order into knights, companions, clerks, and serving brothers. The successor of Gerard, as grand master, was Raymond du Puy.

Gerarde lived in Holborn, and had there a large botanic garden of his own, of which he published a catalogue in 1596, and again in 1599. Of this work scarcely an impression is known to exist, except one in the British Museum, which proved of great use in preparing the Hortus Kewensis of Mr. Aiton, as serving to ascertain the time when many old plants were first cultivated. It contains, according to Dr. Pulteney, 1033 species, or at least supposed such, though many doubtless were varieties; and there is an attestation of Lobel subjoined, asserting his having seen nearly all 6f them growing and flowering. This was one of the earliest botanic gardens in Europe.

The great work of our author, is his “Herbal, or General History of Plants,” printed in 1597, in folio, by John Norton, who procured the wooden cuts from Francfort, originally done for the German herbal of Tabernaemontanus. The basis of the text was the work of Dodonaeus entitled “Pemptades,” for which also probably the same cuts, had been used. Lobel asserts that a translation of the “Pemptades” had been made by a Dr. Priest, at the expence of Mr. Norton; but the translator dying soon after, the manuscript was used by Gerarde, without acknowledgment. The intelligent reader of the Herbal will observe that most of the remarks relative to the places in which certain plants are found, their common uses, &c. belong to the original work, and refer to the country in which Dodonaeus wrote, not to England. Gerarde is also accused of having been no Latin scholar, and of having made many mistakes in the additional matter which he translated from the works of Clusius, Lobel, &c. He also certainly misapplied many of the cuts. Yet he had the great merit of a practical knowledge of plants, with unbounded zeal, and indefatigable perseverance, and contributed greatly to bring forward the knowledge of plants in England, and his name will be remembered by botanists with esteem, when the utility of his Herbal is superseded. A second edition of Gerarde’s Herbal was published by Dr. Thomas Johnson, in 1636, who, like many other editors, censured his author with great freedom, and undoubtedly made many essential corrections. He was a man of far more learning than Gerarde, although by no means so good a botanist.

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

, an English divine of the puritan cast, was born in Yorkshire in 1600, and in 1615 entered as a servitor of Magdalen-hall. In 1621 he took his degree of M. A. and being ordained, became minister of Tewkesbury, in Gloucestershire, where he was afterwards silenced by bishop Goodman for objecting to certain ceremonies of the church. In 1641 this suspension was removed by one of the parliamentary committees which took upon them to new-model the church. In 1645 he became by the same interest minister of St. Albans, and about four years afterwards that of St. Faith’s, under St. Paul’s, London. Although a puritan' in matters of the ceremonies and discipline, -he appears soon to have penetrated into the designs of the reformers of his age, and opposed the civil war, aad especiaMy the murder of the king, the barbarity of which is said to have hastened his death. He died at his house in Ivy-lane, Paternoster-row, in February 1649. Wood gives a long list of sermons and tracts published by this author, against the baptists and independents; one of them is entitled “An exercise, wherein the evil of Health-drinking is by clear and solid arguments convinced,” 1648, 4to. Another, more useful in that age, was his “AstrologoMastix; or, the vanity of judicial astrology,” 1646. He had an elder brother, Stephen, also a puritan divine, who wrote against Dr. Crisp, in the Antinomian controversy.

, son of Drusus and of Antonia the virtuous niece of Augustus, inherited the excellent qualities of his mother. Tib.erius, who was his paternal uncle, adopted him, and he was gradually raised to the consulship, the twelfth year of the Christian tera. When Augustus died, he was in Germany, where the soldiers would have raised him to the empire, had he not declined it. He recalled the rebellious to their duty, defeated the Germans under Arminius, and retook a Roman eagle which the Marsi had kept from the defeat of Varus. Being recalled to Rome, he obtained the honours of a triumph, and was appointed commander in the East, whither he returned soon after, to quell the enemies of Rome in that quarter. He was there so successful, that he defeated the king of Armenia, and placed another on his throne. But the splendor of his victories is supposed to have cost him his life; for Tiberius became jealous of him, and if he did not actually poison him, as many thought, contrived to wear out his life with fatigue and vexation. He died at Daphne of Antioch, aged 34, in the 29th year of the Christian sera. His widow, Agrippina, by whom he had nine children, received his ashes with sincerity, as well as solemnity of grief, in which all Rome, except the tyrant, deeply partook. One of his sons was Caligula, who proved so dreadfully unworthy of his excellent father. Germanicus had all the qualities and talents which could conciliate universal affection aod esteem: courage, probity, military skill, pleasing mariners in society, fidelity in friendship, and even abilities for literature, eloquence, and composition. Some specimens of his Latin poetry are still extant; and he wrote comedies in Greek, and a version of Ararus. In the midst of arms he cultivated polite studies. It is seldom that so many admirable qualities unite in a person of such rank; and it must have been, therefore, with the most poignant regret, that, the Romans saw him so early cut off by the dark suspicions, or unfeeling treatment, of Tiberius.

, a celebrated Jesuit, was born at Orleans June 17, 1663, and entered the society of Jesuits in 1680. Much of his life appears to have passed in controversy. He was a man of unquestionable learning, and an elegant Latin writer, but not so much admired as a critic. He entered the lists of controversy, with two men of great abilities, Mabillon and Coustant, in consequence of father Mabillon' s work on diplomas, in which he thought he discovered that Mabillon had advanced some things on the authority of forgeries. This produced Germon’s first work, “De veteribus regum Francorum Diplomatibus, et arte secernendi antiqua' diplomata vera a falsis,” Paris, 1703, 12mo, which was followed by two other treatises on the same subject. Mabillon answered in his “Supplement a la Diplomatique,” 1704, but without naming Germon; and the controversy employed other pens, but appears to have ended at last in favour of Mabillon. Germon afterwards engaged in the disputes on grace, &c. and is thought to have been the author of a “Traite Theologique sur les 101 propositions enoncees dans le bulle Unigenitus,” 2 vols. 4to, published by the cardinal de Bissy, as his own. One of his most curious publications appears to be “De Yeteribus Hsereticis Ecclesiasticorum codicum corruptoribus,” Paris, 1713, 8vo. In this he takes a view of the many forgeries, interpolations, &c. that have occurred, either in editions of the bible, or in the writings of the ancient divines. Germon died Oct. 2, 1718, at Orleans, whither he had gone to pay a visit.

His original destination was the church, but having from his infancy a great inclination to physic, he now resolved to apply to that study as a means of livelihood. After a suitable course of reading, he resigned his school, and went to Basil, his pension being still continued, and entered on a regular course of medical instructions. From a desire to be able to read the Greek physicians, he contitinued to improve himself in that language, and was so well known for his critical skill in it, that he was promoted, in about a year, to be Greek professor at Lausanne, where an university had been just founded by the senate of Berne. The advantages of this professorship not only enabled him to maintain his family, but to proceed in his medical studies and botanical pursuits, which ended at last in his taking a doctor’s degree at Basil. He then returned to Zurich, and entered upon practice, and in a short time was made professor of philosophy, a charge which he filled with great reputation for twenty-four years, at the end of which he fell a victim to the more immediate duties of his profession, having caught the plague, of which he died Dec. 13, 1565, when only in his forty-ninth year. When he found his end approaching, he requested to be carried into his museum, where he expired amid the monuments of his labours. His piety and benevolence were no less eminent than his talents, which were great and universal. He wrote, with much ability, on grammar, botany^ pharmacy, medicine, natural philosophy, and history; but his fame now rests chiefly on the following works: l.“Bibliotheca universalis,” or a catalogue of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew books, printed at Zurich, 1545, in one volume folio, with criticisms, and often specimens of each. Of this there have been various abridgments and continuations. The edition of 1583 by Frisius, is usually reckoned the best. Gesner’s “Pandectarum, sive partitionum universalium,” should also be added as a second volume to his “Bibliotheca.” It was printed in 1548. 2. “Historiee Animalium,” comprised in five books, making three folio vols. with numerous wooden cuts. The first was published at Zurich in 1551, the last in 1587, after the decease of the author. There is also an edition in German. This vast compilation, containing a critical revisal of all that had been done before him in zoology the^ work of a physician, who raised and maintained himself by his practice, and who was cut off in the middle of a most active and useful life might be supposed the labour of a recluse, shut up for an age in his study, and never diverted from his object by any other cares. Although it does not extend to insects or shells, his observations respecting the former make apart of the work of Mouflet, entitled “Insectorum sive Minimorum Animalium Theatrum,” published at London in 1634, the earliest book on entomology. The “Icones Animalium,” with their nomenclature, form a separate publication from the above, consisting of the wooden cuts and names only. 3. “Aquatilium Animautiuin Enumeratio juxta Plinium,” a little 8ro, printed at Zurich in 1556. 4. “De Lacte,” treating of milk and its preparations, from various authors, Zurich, 1541, in 8vo. 5. “De Secretia Remediis Thesaurus;” a Pharmacopeia, which has gone through a number of editions in various languages. 6. “De raris et admirandis herbis, quse sive quod noctu luceant, sive alias ob causas, Lunariae nominantur,” with wooden cuts, Zurich, 1555, in 4to, accompanied with a description of the celebrated mount Pilat, or Mons Fractus, the northern extremity of the Alps, which Gesner visited in 1555. 7. “De oinni rerum Fossiliuin genere, Zurich, 1565, 8vo. Also” De rerum Fossilium, Lapidum et Gemmarum maxiiue figuris.“The botanical remarks relative to the scientific arrangement of plants, on which the supereminent merits of this great man are founded, are chiefly to be gathered from his letters, which were published after his death. From the number of wooden cuts, and of drawings, which he had prepared) it is probable he meditated a general” History of Plants," the future arrangement of which frequently occupied his thoughts, and prompted many of these letters. Gesner’s wife survived him, and notwithstanding the dangerous nature of his disease, which was accompanied with a pestilential carbuncle, she did not desert his death-bed, for he expired in her arms. He left no offspring, but at his death there remained alive of Andrew Gesner, his father’s brother, one hundred and thirty-five descendants, in children, grand-children, and great grand-children. From the latter are descended the modern family of Gesners, some of whom we are about to notice. His remains were honourably interred the day after his decease, in the cloister of the great church at Zurich, near those of his intimate friend, Frysjus, who died the preceding year. Abundance of Latin, and some Greek verses, were composed to his honour, and his life, written by his countryman Josias Sirnler, was published in the ensuing year. Haller mentions Gesner as probably the first person who, being short-sighted, found the advantage of concave glasses.

His works of greatest importance are various editions of the classics, both Greek and Latin; and, above all, a Thesaurus of the Latin tongue, Leipsic, 1749, 4 or 2 vols. fol. which, whoever possesses, will probably not require the aid of any other Latin lexicon. The editions of the classics which received the correcting hand of Gesner, and which are more popular, are the “Horace” and the “Claudian.” The work which he himself valued the most, and which was not published till after his death, is the “Argonautics of Orpheus,” with the tracts “De lapidibus,” and the “Hymns.” Many ingenious and learned men have not thought it beneath them to write in recommendation of Gesner' s talents and virtues; but our readers will receive more various and particular information from a narrative on this subject written by Ernestus, and addressed to Ruhnkenius. An excellent portrait of Gesner is prefixed to his Latin Thesaurus.

, or, as some spell the name, Gessner (Solomon), a distinguished German poet, was born at Zurich in 1730. His youth afforded no remarkable symptoms of his future fame, but his father was assured that the boy had talents, which would one day or other exalt him above his school-fellows. As. these, however, were not perceptible at that time, and the progress he made in school-learning at Zurich was unpromising, he was sent to Berg, and put under the care of a clergyman, where he appears to have made greater proficiency. In about two years he returned to his father, who was a bookseller at Zurich, and, probably encouraged by the men of genius who frequented his father’s shop, our author now began to court the muses. His success, however, not being such as to induce his father to devote him to a literary life, he preferred sending him to Berlin in 1749 to learn the trade of a bookseller. Young poets are not easily confined by the shackles of commercial life, and young Gesner soon eloped from his master, while his father, irritated at this step, discontinued his remittances as the most effectual mode of recalling him ta his duty.

, an English lady of uncommon parts, was the daughter of sir George Norton, of AbbotsLeigh, in Somersetshire, and born in 1676. She had all the advantages of a liberal education, and became the wife of sir Richard Gethin, of Gethin-grott, in Ireland. She was mistress of great accomplishments natural and acquired, but did not live long enough to display them to the world, for she died in her twenty-first year, Oct. 11, 1697. She was buried, not in Westminster-abbey, as Ballard mistakes, but at Hollingbourne, in Kent, In Westminster-abbey, however, a beautiful monument with an inscription is erected over her; and for perpetuating her memory, provision was made for a sermon to be preached in the abbey, yearly, on Ash-Wednesday for ever. She wrote, and left behind her in loose papers, a work, which, soon after her death was methodized and published under the title of “Reliquiae Gethinianae; or, some remains of the most ingenious and excellent lady, Grace lady Gethin, lately deceased; being a collection of choice discourses, pleasant apophthegms, and witty sentences. Written by her, for the most part, by way of essay, and at spare hours, 1700,” 4to, with her portrait before it. This work consists of discourses upon various subjects of religion, morals, manners, &c. and is now very scarce. Among Mr. Congreve’s poems are some encomiastic “Verses to the memory of Grace lady Gethin,” occasioned by reading her book: and Dr. Birch, in his anniversary sermon on her death, says, that to superior talents and endowments of mind, she joined meekness, candour, integrity, and piety. Her reading, observation, penetration, and judgment, were extraordinary for her years, and her conduct in every relation of life correct and exemplary.

, or in Latin Jannonius (Peter), was born at Ischitella, a small town in Apulia, in the month of May 1676, and practised the law, but was much more distinguished as an historian. In 1723 he wrote a “History of Naples,” in 4 vols. 4to. The style is pure, but the freedom with which he discussed several topics relating to the origin of the papal power gave so much offence to the court of Rome, that he was obliged to exile himself from his native country. He found an asylum with the king of Sardinia, who did not, however, dare to avow himself his protector, but chose rather to represent his situation as that of a prisoner. Giannone died in Piedmont in April 1748. Extracts from his history were afterwards printed in Holland, under the title of “Anecdotes Ecclesiastiques.” His posthumous works were given to the world in a 4to volume, 1768, containing, among other miscellaneous matter, his profession of faith, and a justification of his history; and a life of him, by Leonard Panzini. There is a correct, but not very elegant French translation by Desmonceaux, Hague, 4 vols. 4to, and an English one, by capt. Ogilvie, in 1729 1731, in 2 vols. fol.

In 1756, on the failure and flight of the Impresario, or undertaker of the opera, Vaneschi, Mingotti, and Giardini joined their interests, and became managers, but found themselves involved at the end of the season in such difficulties, that they were glad to retire. Giardini, while in the opera management, besides arranging pasticcios, set several entire dramas; but though he had so great a hand on his instrument, so much fancy in his cadences and solos, yet he had not sufficient force or variety to supply a whole evening’s entertainment at the Lyric theatre, although he continued to throw in a single air or rondeau into the operas of other masters, which was more applauded than all the rest of the drama. In 1762, in spite of former miscarriages, Giardini and Mingotti again resumed the reins of opera government. But, after struggling two years, they again resigned it, and from this period Giardini was forced to content himself with teaching ladies of rank and fashion to sing, and the produce of a great annual benefit* He continued here unrivalled as a leader, a solo player, and a composer for his instrument, still augmenting the importance of his instrument and our national partiality for the taste of his country, till the admirable productions and great performers of Germany began to form a Teutonic interest and Germanic body here, which, before Giardini’s departure from London, became very formidable rivals to him and his Roman legion.

Edward Gibbon, the more immediate subject of thii article, was born at Putney April 27, O. S. 1737. His mother was Judith Porten, the daughter of a merchant of London. He was the eldest of five brothers and a sister, all of whom died in their infancy. During his early years, his constitution was uncommonly feeble, but he was nursed with much tenderness by his maiden aunt, Mrs. Catherine Porten, and received such instruction during intervals of health, as his years admitted. At the age of seven he was placed under the care of Mr. John Kirkby, the author of “Automathes,” a philosophical fiction. In his ninth year, January 1746, he was sent to a school at Kingston upon Thames, kept by Dr. Woodeson and his assistants; but even here Ins studies were frequently interrupted by sickness, nor does he speak with rapture either of his proficiency, or of the school itself. In 1747, on his mother’s death, he was recalled home, where, during a residence of two years, principally under the eye of his affectionate aunt, he appears to have acquired that passion for reading which predominated during the whole of his life.

To Oxford, he informs us, he brought “a stock of erudition that might have puzzled a doctor, and a degree of ignorance of which a school-boy would have been ashamed.” During the last three years, although sickness interrupted a regular course of instruction, his fondBess for books increased, and he was permitted to indulge it by ranging over the shelves without plan or design. His indiscriminate appetite fixed by degrees in the historical line, and he perused with greatest avidity such historical books as came in his way, gratifying a curiosity of which he could not trace the source, and supplying wants which he could not express. In this course of desultory reading be seems inconsciously to have been led t6 that particular branch in which he was afterwards to excel. But whatever connection this had with his more distant life, it was by no means favourable to his academical pursuits. He was exceedingly deficient in classical learning, and went to Oxford without either the taste or preparation which could enable him to reap the advantages of academical education. This may probably account for the harshness with which he speaks of the English universities. He informs us that he spent fourteen months at Magdalencollege, which proved the most idle and unprofitable of his whole life; but why they were so idle and unprofitable, we cannot learn from his Memoirs. To the carelessness of his tutors, indeed, he appears to have had some reason to object, but he allows that he was disposed to gaiety and to late hours, and therefore complains with little justice, that he was not taught what he affected to despise. The truth seems to be, that when he sat down to write his Memoirs, the memoirs of an eminent and accomolisued seholar, he found a blank which is seldom found in the bicM graphy of English scholars; the early displays of genius, the laudable emulation, and the well-earned honours; he found that he owed no fame to his academical residence, and therefore determined that no fame should be derivable from an univefsity education.

His ad vantages in other respects were so important during his residence at Lausanne, that here, for the first time, he appears to have commenced that regular process of instruction which laid the foundation of all his future improvements. His thirst for general knowledge returned, and while he was not hindered from gratifying his curiosity in his former desultory manner, certain hours were appropriated for regular studies. His reading had now a fixed object, and that attained, he felt the value of the acquisition, and became more reconciled to regularity and system. He opened new stores of learning and taste, by acquiring a knowledge of the Greek, Latin, and French languages. Of this proficiency, although his tutor ought not to be robbed of his share of the merit, it is evident that Mr. Gibbon’s unwearied industry and laudable avidity of knowledge were at this time uncommon, and bespoke a mind capable of the/ji'vghest attainments, and deserving of the highest honours! wkhin the compass of literature. To mathematics only, he showed a reluctance; contenting himself with understanding the principles of that science. At this early age it is probable he desisted merely from finding no pleasure in mathematical studies, and nothing to gratify curiosity; but as in his more mature years it was his practice to undervalue the pursuits which he did not choose to follow, he took an opportunity to pass a reflection on the utility of mathematics, with which few will probably agree. He accuses this science of “hardening the mind by the habit of rigid demonstration, so destructive of the finer feelings of moral evidence, which must determine the actions and opinions of our lives.” So easy is it to find a plausible excuse for neglecting what we want the power or the inclination to follow.

To his classical acquirements, while at Lausanne, he added the study of Grotius, and Puffendorff, Locke, and Montesquieu; and he mentions Pascal’s “Provincial Letters,” La Bleterie’s “Life of Julian,” and Giannone’s civil “History of Naples,” as having remotely contributed to form the historian of the Roman empire. From Pascal, he tells us that he learned to manage the weapon of grave and temperate irony, even on subjects of ecclesiastical solemnity, forgetting that irony in every shape is beneath the dignity of the historical style, and subjects the historian to the suspicion that his courage and his argument are exhausted. Jt is more to his credit that at this time he established a correspondence with several literary characters, to whom he looked for instruction and direction, with Crevier and Breitinger, Gesner and Allamand; and that by the acuteness of his remarks, and his zeal for knowledge, he proved himself not unworthy of their confidence. He had an opportunity also of seeing Voltaire, who received him as an English youth, but without any peculiar notice or distinction. Voltaire diffused gaiety around him by erecting a temporary theatre, on which he performed his own favourite characters, and Mr. Gibbon became so enamoured of the French stage, as to lose much of his veneration for Shakspeare. He was now familiar in some, and acquainted in many families, and his evenings were generally devoted to cards and conversation, either in private parties, or more numerous assemblies.

About the time when this essay appeared, Mr. Gibbon was induced to embrace the military profession. He was appointed captain of the south battalion of the Hampshire militia, and for two years and a half endured “a wandering life of military servitude.” It is seldom that the memoirs of a literary character are enlivened by an incident like this. Mr. Gibbon, as may be expected, could not divest his mind of its old habits, and therefore endeavoured to unite the soldier and the scholar. He studied the art of war in the Memoires Militaires of Quintus Icilius (M. Guichardt), while from the discipline and evolutions of a modern battalion, he was acquiring a clearer notion of the phalanx and the legion, and what he seems to have valued at its full worth, a more intimate knowledge of the world, and such an increase of acquaintance as made him better known than he could have been in a much longer time, had he regularly passed his summers at Buriton, and his winters in London. He snatched also some hours from his military duties for study, and upon the whole, although he does not look back with much pleasure on this period of his life, he permits the reader to smile at the advantages which the historian of the Roman empire derived from the captain of the Hampshire grenadiers. At the peace in 1762-3, his regiment was disbanded, and he resumed his studies, the regularity of which had been so much interrupted, that he speaks of now entering on a new plan. After hesitating, probably not long, between the mathematics and the Greek language, he gave the preference to the latter, and pursued his reading with vigour. But whatever he read or studied, he appears to have read and studied with a view to historical composition, and he aspired to the character of a historian long before he could fix upon a subject. The time was favourable to Mr. Gibbon’s ambition. He was daily witnessing the triumphs of Hume and Robertson, and he probably thought that a subject only was wanting to form his claim to equal honours.

During his service in the militia, he revolved several subjects for historical composition, and by the variety of them, it does not appear that he had any particular purpose to serve, or preconceived theory to which facts were to bend. Among the subjects he has enumerated, we find the expedition of Charles VIII. of France into Italy the crusade of Richard I. the barons 1 wars against John and Henry III. the history of Edward the Black Prince the lives, with comparisons of Henry V. and the emperor Titus the life of sir Philip Sidney, and that of the marquis of Montrose. These were rejected in their turns, but he dwelt with rather more fondness on the life of sir Walter Raleigh; and when that was discarded, meditated either the history of the Liberty of the Swiss; or that of the republic of Florence under the house of Medicis.

In France, however, the fame of his essay had preceded him, and he was gratified by being considered as a man of letters, who wrote for his amusement. Here he mixed in familiar society with D'Alembert, Diderot, count de Caylus, the abbé de Bleterie, Barthelemy, Raynal, Arnaud, Helvetius, and others, who were confessedly at the head of French literature. After passing fourteen weeks in Paris, he revisited (in the month of May 1763) his old friends at Lausanne, where he remained nearly a year. Among the occurrences here which he records with most pleasure, is his forming an acquaintance with Mr. Holroyd, now lord Sheffield, who has since done so much honour to his memory, and whom he characterises as “a friend whose activity in the ardour of youth was always prompted by a benevolent heart, and directed by a strong understanding.” In 1764 he set out for Italy, after having studied the geography and ancient history of the seat of the Roman empire, with such attention as might render his visit profitable. Although he disclaims that enthusiasm which takes fire at every novelty, the sight of Rome appears to have conquered his apathy, and at once fixed the source of his fame. “It was at Rome, on the 15th of October 1764, as he sat musing amidst the ruins of the capitol, while the bare-footed friars were singing vespers in the temple of Jupiter (now the church of the Zoccolants, or Franciscan friars) that the idea of writing the Decline and Fall of the city first started to his mind.” But this appears to hate been merely the effect of local emotion, for his plan was then confined to the decay of the city. In the month of June 1765, he arrived at his father’s house, and seems to have entered on a life which afforded no incident, or room for remark. The five years and a half which intervened between his travels and his father’s death in 1770, he informs us, were the portion of his life which he passed with the least enjoyment, and remembered with the least satisfaction. By the resignation of his father, and the death of sir Thomas Worsley, he was promoted to the rank of major and lieutenant-colonel commandant of his regiment of militia, but was, each year that it was necessary to attend the monthly meeting and exercise, more disgusted with “the inn, the wine, the company, and the tiresome repetition of annual attendance and daily exercise.”

Another source of uneasiness arose from reflections on his situation. He belonged to no profession, and had adopted no plan by which he could, like his numerous acquaintance, rise to some degree of consequence. He lamented that he had not, at a proper age, embraced the lucrative pursuits of the law, or of trade, the chances of civil office, or of India adventure, or even “the fat slumbers of the church.” Still, however, such a mind as his was not formed to be inactive, and a greater portion of his dissatisfaction appears to have arisen from an impatience to acquire fame, and from the extreme length of those prospects which the various designs he formed had presented. He yet contemplated the Decline and Fall of Rome, but at an awful distance; and in the mean time, as something more within his grasp, he resumed his study of the revolutions of Switzerland, so far as to execute the first book of a history. This was read in the following winter (1767) to a literary society of foreigners in London, who did not flatter him by a very favourable opinion; yet it was praised by Hume, who endeavoured only to dissuade him from the use of the French language. The opinion, however, of the foreign critics to whom he had submitted this attempt, prevailed over that of Hume, and he renounced the design of continuing it. The manuscript is now in the possession of lord Sheffield.

In 1767 he joined with Mr. Deyverdun, a Swiss gentleman then in England, and a man of taste and critical knowledge, to whom he was much attached, in publishing a literary Journal, in imitation of Dr. Maty’s “Journal Britannique. 1 * They entitled it” Memoires Literaires de la Grand Bretagne.“Two volumes only of this work were published, and met with very little encouragement. Mr. Gibbon acknowledges having reviewed lord Lyttelton’s History in the first volume. The materials of a third volume were almost completed, when he recommended his coadjutor Deyverdun as travelling governor to sir Richard Worsley, an appointment which terminated the” Memoires Literaires.“Mr. Gibbon’s next performance was an attack on Dr. Warburton, which he/ condemns for its severity and for its cowardice, while he brings the testimony of some eminent scholars to prove that it was successful and decisive. Warburton’s hypothesis on the descent of yEneas to hell had long been applauded, and if not universally adopted, had not been answered during a space of thirty years. It was the opinion of this learned writer, that the descent to hell is not a false, but a mimic scene which represents the initiation of Æneas, in the character of a law-giver, to the Eleusinian mysteries. Mr. Gibbon, on the contrary, in his” Critical Observations on the Sixth Book of the Æneid,“1770, endeavoured to prove, that the ancient law-givers did not invent the mysteries, and that Æneas never was invested with the office of law-giver that there is not any argument, any circumstance, which can melt a fable into allegory, or remove the scene from the Lake Avernos to the temple of Ceres; that such a wild supposition is equally injurious to the poet and the man; that if Virgil was not initiated he could not, if he were, be would not, reveal the secrets of the initiation; and that the anathema of Horace (vetabo qui Cereris sacrum vulgarity &c.) at once attests his own ignorance and the iimocence of his friend. All this might have been argued in decent and respectful language, but Mr. Gibbon avows that his hostility was against the person as well as the hypothesis of” the dictator and tyrant of the world of literature," and with the acuteness of the critic, he therefore determined to join the acrimony of the polemic. In his more advanced years he affects to regret an unmanly attack upon one who was no longer able to defend himself, but he is unwilling to part with the reputation to which he thought his pamphlet entitled, or to conceal the praise which professor Heyne bestowed on it.

After the death of his father in 1770, an event which left him the sole disposer of his time and inclinations, he sat down seriously to the composition of his celebrated history. For some years he had revolved the subject in his mind, and had read every thing with a view to this great undertaking, which his election for the borough of Leskeard in 1775 did not much interrupt. The first volume was published Feb. 17, 1776, and received by the public with such avidity, that a second edition,in June, and a third soon after, were scarcely adequate to the demand. To use his own language, his book was on every table, and almost on every toilette: the historian was crowned by the taste or fashion of the day. From the ample praises of Dr. Robertson, and of Mr. Hume, he appears to have derived more substantial satisfaction. Hume anticipates the objections that would be made to the fifteenth and sixteenth chapters, with his usual arrogance and contempt of religion. *' When I heard of your undertaking (which was some time ago) I own I was a little curious to see how you would extricate yourself from the subject of your two last chapters. I think you have observed a very prudent temperament; but it was impossible to treat the subject so as not to give grounds of suspicion against you, and you may expect that a clamour will arise. This, if any thing, will retard your success with the public; for in every other respect your work is calculated to be popular. But among many other marks of decline, the prevalence of superstition in England prognosticates the fall of philosophy and decay of taste; and though nobody be more capable than you to revive them, you will probably find a struggle in your first advances."

Mr. Gibbon’s reflections on this subject, in his Memoirs, are not very intelligible, unless we consider him as employing irony. He affects not to have believed that the majority of English readers were so fondly attached even to the name and shadow of Christianity; and not to have foreseen that the pious, the timid, and the prudent would feel, or affect to feel, with such exquisite sensibility. If he had foreseen all this, he condescends to inform us that “he might have softened the two invidious chapters.” He seems to rejoice that “if the voice of our priests was clamorous and bitter, their hands were disarmed from the power of persecution;” and adhered to the resolution of trusting himself and his writings to the candour of the public, until Mr. Davis, of Oxford, presumed to attack, ' not the faith, but the fidelity of the historian.“He then published his” Vindication,“which, he says,” expressive of less anger than contempt, amused for a while the busy and idle metropolis.“Of his other antagonists he speaks with equal contempt,” A victory over such antagonists was a sufficient humiliation.“It is not, however, quite certain that he obtained this victory; the silence of an author is nearly on a par with the flight of a warrior, and it is evident that the contempt which Mr. Gibbon has so lavishly poured on his antagonists, in his” Memoirs,“has more of passionate resentment than of conscious superiority.' Of his first resentment and his last feelings, he thus speaks” Let me frankly own, that I was startled at the first discharge of ecclesiastical ordnance but, as soon as I found that this empty noise was mischievous only in the intention, my fear was converted into indignation; and every feeling of indignation or curiosity has long since subsided into pure and placid indifference."

The prosecution of his history was for some time checked by an employment of a different nature, but for which his talents were thought preferable to that of any writer connected with administration. At the request of the ministers of state, he was induced to answer a manifesto which the French court had issued against Great Britain, preparatory to war. This Mr. Gibbon ably accomplished in a “Memoire Justificatif,” composed in French, which was delivered as a state paper to the courts of Europe. For this service he was appointed one of the lords commissioners of trade and plantations, a place worth about 700l. or 800l. a year, the duties of which were not very arduous. His acceptance of this place, he informs us, provoked some of the leaders of the opposition, with whom he had lived in habits of intimacy, and he was unjustly accused of deserting a party in which he had never enlisted. At the general election, however, in 1780, he lost his seat in parliament, the voters of Leskeard being disposed to favour an oppositioncandidate.

Soon after the meeting of the new parliament, he was chosen, on a vacancy, to represent the borough of Lymington in Hampshire, but the administration to which he had attached himself was now on its decline, and with itsfall the board of trade was abolished, and “he was stripped of a convenient salary, after having enjoyed it about three years.” Amidst the convulsions of parties which followed the dissolution of lord North’s administration, he adhered to the coalition from a principle of gratitude, but he obtained in return only promises of distant advancement, while he found that an additional income was immediately necessary to enable him to maintain the style of living ta which he had been accustomed. Andsuch at the same time was his indifference towards public business, and such his eagerness to pursue his studies, that no additional income would have been acceptable, if earned at the expence of parliamentary attendance, or official duties.

In this dilemma, Mr. Gibbon turned his thoughts once more to his beloved Lausanne. From his earliest knowledge of that country, he had always cherished a secret wish, that the school of his youth might become the retreat of his declining age, where a moderate fortune would secure the blessings of ease, leisure, and independence. His old frieud Mr. Deyverdun was now settled there, an inducement of no small attraction; and to him he communicated his designs. The arrangements of friends are soon adjusted, and Mr. Gibbon, having disposed of all his effects, except his library, bid adieu to England, in September 1783, and arrived at Lausanne nearly twenty years after his second departure. His reception was such as he expected and wished, and the comparative advantages of his situation are thus stated, nearly in his own words. His personal freedom had been somewhat impaired by the house of commons and by the board of trade, but he was now delivered from the chain of duty and dependence, from the hopes and fears of political adventure; his sober mind was no longer intoxicated by the fumes of party, and he rejoiced in his escape, as often as he read of the midnight debates which preceded the dissolution of parliament. His English oeconomy had been that of a solitary bachelor, who might afford some occasional dinners. In Switzerland he enjoyed, at every meal, at every hour, the free and pleasant conversation of the friend of his youth; and his daily table was always provided for the reception of one or two extraordinary guests. In London he was lost in the crowd; but he ranked with the first families of Lausanne, and his style of prudent expence enabled him to maintain a fair balance of reciprocal civilities. Instead of a small house between a street and a stable-yard, he occupied a spacious and convenient mansion, connected on the north side with the city, and open, to the south, to a beautiful and boundless horizon.

In this catalogue of advantages, we may perceive somewhat of caprice and weakness, and it may certainly be conjectured that a man of his internal resources might have discovered situations in England, both adapted to the purposes of ceconomy and retirement, and yielding intervals of society. But from his subsequent remarks, it appears that he was, either from pride or modesty, averse to the company of his literary associates, and preferred, in his hours of relaxation, that company in which the conversation leads, not to discussion, but to the exchange of mutual kindness and endearments. In this perhaps he is not singular; and in disliking the polemical turn which literary conversation too frequently takes, he is not to be blamed. What was most commendable, however, and what constantly predominated in the mind of Gibbon, was increase of knowledge. From that aim no opulence of itation could have diverted him, and whatever his friends or the state might have done for him, his own scheme, the constant wish and prayer of his heart, was for a situation in which books might be procured.