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

He remained at Lausanne about a year, before he resumed his history, which he concluded in 1787. This event is recorded by him in language which it would be absurd to change, because it is personally characteristic, and of which no change could be an improvement. “I have presumed to mark the moment of conception: I shall now commemorate the hour of iny final deliverance. It was on the day, or rather night, of the 27th of June, 1787, between the hours of eleven and twelve, that I wrote the last lines of the last page, in a summer-house in my garden. After laying down my pen, I took several turns in a bcrceau, or covered walk of acacias, which commands a prospect of the country, the lake, and the mountains. The air was temperate, the sky was serene, the silver orb of the moon was reflected from the waters, and all nature was silent. I will not dissemble the first emotions of joy on the recovery of my freedom, and, perhaps, the establishment of my fame. But my pride was soon humbled, and a sober melancholy was spread over my mind, by the idea that I had taken an everlasting leave of an old and agreeable companion, and that whatsoever might be the future date of my History, the life of the historian might be short and precarious. I will add two facts, which have seldom occurred in the composition of six, or at least of five quartos. 1. My rough manuscript, without any intermediate copy, has been sent to press. 2. Not a sheet has been seen by any human eyes, excepting those of the author and the printer; the faults and merits are exclusively my own.”

The sale of these volumes was rapid, but the author had a more formidable host of critics to encounter than when he first started, and his style underwent a more rigid examination. He tells us himself that a religious clamour was revived, and the reproach of indecency loudly echoed by the censors of morals. The latter, he professes he could never understand. Why he should not understand what was equally obvious to his admirers and to his opponents, and has been censured with equal asperity by both, is a question which cannot be answered by supposing Mr. Gibbon defective in the common powers of discernment. Persisting, however, in his surprize, he offers a vindication of the indecent notes appended to these volumes, which probably never made one convert. He says that all the licentious passages are left in the obscurity of a learned language; but he forgets that Greek and Latin are taught at every school; that sensuality may be effectually censured without being minutely described; and that it is not historically just to exhibit individual vices as a general picture of the manners of an age or people.

In the preface to his fourth volume, he announced his approaching return to the neighbourhood of the lake of Lausanne, nor did his year’s visit to England once induce him to alter his resolution. He set out accordingly, a few weeks after the publication of his history, and soon regained his habitation, where, he informs us, after a full repast on Homer and Aristophanes, he involved himself in the philosophic mazes of the writings of Plato. But the happiness he expected in his favourite retreat was considerably lessened by the death of, his friend Deyverdun; while the disorders of revolutionary France began to interrupt the general tranquillity that had long prevailed in Switzerland. Troops of emigrants flocked to Lausanne, and brought with them the spirit of political discussion, not guided by reason, but inflamed by passion and prejudice. The language of disappointment on the one hand, and of presumption on the other, marked the rise of two parties, between whom the peaceful enjoyments of nearly three centuries were finally destroyed. Mr. Gibbon arrived at Lausanne, July 30, 1788. Of his employment during his stay, we have little account. It appears by his correspondence that he amused himself by writing a part of those “Memoirs of his Life” which lord Sheffield has since given to the public, and he projected a series of biographical portraits of eminent Englishmen from the time of Henry VIII. but in this probably no great progress was made. His habits of industry, he tells us, became now much impaired, and he had reduced his studies to be the loose amusement of his morning hours. He remained here, however, as long as it was safe, and until the murder of the king of France, and the war in which Great Britain was involved, rendered Switzerland no longer an asylum either for the enthusiast of literature, or the victim of tyranny.

He left Lausanne in May 1793, and arrived in June at lord Sheffield’s house in Downing-street, and soon after settled, for the summer, with that nobleman at Sheffield place. In October he went to Bath, to pay a visit of affection to Mrs. Gibbon, the widow of his father, and to Althorp, the seat of lord Spenser, from which he returned to London, and for the first time avowed to his friend lord Sheffield, by letter, the cause of the decay of his health, which he had hitherto concealed from every human being, except a servant, although it was a complaint of about thirtythree years standing. This was originally a rupture, which had now produced a hydrocele, and required immediate chirurgical aid. Tapping procured some relief for a time, but his constitution could no longer divert, or support the discharge. The last events of his life are thus related by his biographer:

"After I left him, on Tuesday afternoon (Jan. 14, 1794), he saw some company, lady Lucan and lady Spenser, and thought himself well enough at night to omit the opium draught, which he had been used to take for some time. He slept very indifferently; before nine the next morning he rose, but could not eat his breakfast. However, he appeared tolerably well, yet complained at times of a pain in his stomach. At one o‘clock he received a visit of an hour from madame de Sylva, and at three, his friend Mr. Crauford of Auchinames (whom he always mentioned with particular regard), called, and stayed with him till past five o’clock. They talked, as usual, on various subjects; and twenty hours before his death, Mr. Gibbon happened to fall into a conversation, not uncommon with him, on the probable duration of his life. He said, that he thought himself a good life for ten, twelve, or perhaps twenty years. About six, he ate the wing of a chicken, and drank three glasses of Madeira. After dinner he became very uneasy and impatient; 'complained a good deal, arul appeared so weak, that his servant was alarmed. Mr. Gibbon had sent to his friend and relation, Mr. Robert Darell, whose house was not far distant, desiring to see him, and adding, that he had something particular to say. But, unfortunately, this desired interview never took place.

“During the evening he complained much of his stomach, and of a disposition to vomit. Soon after nine, he took his opium draught, and went to bed. About ten he complained of much pain, and desired that warm napkins might be applied to his stomach. He almost incessantly expressed a sense of pain till about four o‘clock in the morning, when he said he found his stomach much easier. About seven, the servant asked, whether he should send for Mr. Farquhar? he answered, No; that he was as well as he had been the day before. About half past eight, he got out of bed, and said that he was ’ plus adroit” 1 than he had been for three months past, and got into bed again, without assistance, better than usual, x About nine, he said that he would rise. The servant, however, persuaded him to remain in bed till Mr. Farquhar, who was expected at eleven, should come. Till about that hour he spoke with great facility. Mr. Farquhar came at the time appointed, and he was then visibly dying. When the valet dc chambre returned, after attending Mr. Farquhar out of the room, Mr. Gibbon said Pourauoi est ce que vous me guides? This was about half past eleven. At twelve, he drank some brandy and water from a tea-pot, and desired his favourite servant to stay with him. These were the last words he pronounced artijculately. To the last he preserved his senses; and when he could no longer speak, his servant having asked a question, he made a sign, to shew him that he understood him. He was quite tranquil, and did not stir; his eyes half-shut. About a quarter before one, he ceased to breathe. The valet de chambre observed, that Mr. Gibbon did not, at any time, shew the least sign of alarm, or apprehension of death; and it does not appear that he ever thought himself in danger, unless his desire to speak to Mr. Darell may be considered in that light.' 7 Other reports of Mr. Gibbon’s death were circulated at the time, But the above proceeds from an authority which cannot be doubted. The religious public was eager to know the last sentiments of Mr. Gibbon on the important point which constituted his grand defect, but we find that there were no persons near him at his death to whom that was a matter of curiosity; and it appears that he did not think his end approaching until he became incapable of collecting or expressing his thoughts. If he has, therefore, added one more to the number of infidels who have died in full possession of their incredulity, let it be remembered that, as he saw no danger, he had no room to display the magnanimity which has been ostentatiously ascribed to dying sceptics.

Mr. Gibbon was a man of so much candour, or so incapable of disguise, that his real character may be justly appreciated from the Memoirs he left behind him. He discloses his sentiments there without the reserve he has put on in his more laboured compositions, and has detailed his mental failings with an ingenuous minuteness which is seldom met with. He candidly confesses to the vanity of an author, and the pride of a gentleman; and we may allow that it is the vanity of one of the most successful authors of modern times, and the pride of a gentleman of amiable manners and high accomplishments. At the same time, it cannot be denied that his anxiety of fame sometimes obscured the lustre of his social qualities, parted him too widely from his brethren in literature, and led him to speak of his opponents with an arrogance which, although uniformly characteristic of the cause he supported, was yet unworthy of his general cast of character. His conversation is said to have been rich in various information, communicated in a calm and pleasant manner, yet his warmest admirers do not give him the praise of excelling in conversation. He seldom brought his knowledge forwards, and was more ambitious in company to be thought a man of the world than a scholar. In parliament he never ventured to speak, and this probably lessened his value in the eyes of an administration that required the frequent and ready support of eloquence.

But although he has disclosed much of his character in his Memoirs, there are some points left unexplained about which it would be important to be better informed. He appears to be anxious to exhibit the peculiarities of his temper, and the petty habits of his life, and he has givetj such ample details of the progress of his studies, from the first cjuPil perusal of a book, to the completion of his history as no scholar can peruse without interest and admiration. But he has not told us much of the progress of opinions in his mind. His conversion to popery is a boyish whim, which can never be contemplated in the grave light in which he has represented it. His returned to protestantism is related with more brevity and obscurity. What passed in his mind during his first years of maturity, we know not, but on the publication of his History, we find him an implacable enemy to Christianity, without the pretence of a quarrel, or any previous declaration of hostilities. It has been justly remarked by professor Porson, that “he often makes, where he cannot readily find, an occasion to insult our religion, which he hates so cordially, that be might seem to revenge some personal injury.” But by what train of reading, or interchange of sentiments, he acquired this inveteracy, he has not thought proper to inform us. Left to conjecture, it is not unreasonable for us to suppose, that his intimacy with the French writers on the side of infidelity, and particularly with Helvetius; and the correspondence he carried on with Hume, to whom he looked up with the reverence of a pupil, induced him to> think that the more he departed from the Christian belief, the nearer he approached to the perfection of the philosophical character.

As a historian, the universal acknowledgment of the literary world has placed him in the very highest rank; and in that rank, had his taste been equal to his knowledge, if his vast powers of intellect could have descended to simplicity of narrative, he would have stood without a rival. But in all the varied charms of an interesting an-d pathetic detail, and perhaps in the more important article of fidelity, he is certainly inferior to Robertson as much as he excels that writer in extent of knowledge, and in the comprehensive grasp of a penetrating mind. If he is likewise superior to Hume in these respect^ he falls short of what he has himself so admirably characterised as “the careless, inimitable beauties” of that writer. Hume told him very candidly and justly, that his study of the French writers led him into a style more poetical and figurative, and more highly coloured than our language seems to admit of in historical composition. We find, in his correspondence, that during his first residence abroad, he had ajmost entirely lost his native language, and although he recovered it afterwards, during die twenty years he passed in England, yet his reading was so much confined to French authors, that when he attempted English composition, he every where discovered the turns of thought and expression by which his mind was imbued. It has been asserted that his style has the appearance of labour, yet we know not how to reconcile much effort with his declaration, that the copy sent to the press was the only one he ever wrote. His labour might be bestowed in revolving the subject hi his mind; and as his memory was great, he might commit it to paper, without the necessity of addition or correction. By whatever means, he soon formed a style peculiar to himself, a mixture of dignity and levity, which, although difficult at first, probably became easy by practice, and even habitual, for his Memoirs are written in the exact manner of his History, and the most trivial events of his life are related in the same stately periods with which he embellishes the lives of heroes, and the fate of empires. His epistolary correspondence is in general more free from stiffness, and occasionally assumes the gaiety and familiarity suited to this species of composition.

In 1796, Mr. Gibbon’s friend, lord Sheffield, published, in two volumes quarto, his “Miscellaneous Works,” with those “Memoirs” composed by himself, to which we have so often referred. This publication contains likewise, a large collection of letters written by, or to, Mr. Gibbon; abstracts of the books he read, with reflections; extracts from the journal of his studies; a collection of his remarks and detached pieces on different subjects; outlines of his History of the World; a republication of his “Essai sur l'Etude;” critical observations on the design of the sixth book of the Æneid; a dissertation on the subject of l'Homme au Masque de Fer; “Memoir Justificatif pour servir de Reponse a PExpos6 de la Cour de France;” his vindication of his History; antiquities of the house of Brunswick; and an address to the public, on the subject of a complete edition of our ancient historians.

, an ancestor of the preceding, and a heraldic writer, was born November 3, 1629. He was son of Robert Gibbon, a woollen-draper in London, and a member of the Cloth-workers’ company, by a daughter of the Edgars of Suffolk. Having spent some time in Jersey, he was sent to Jesus college, Cambridge, but afterwards became a soldier, and went to the Netherlands, to France, and in 1659 and 1660 was in Virginia. He procured the appointment of blue-mantle by the patronage of sir William Dugdale, then norroy. His patent was given only during pleasure, and he never received any other. Ab his death, in 17 he was the oldest officer at arms, but thought himself ill-treated in never having farther promotion. To assist in maintaining his family he kept a school. He was a learned, but imprudent man, injuring his best interests by an arrogant insolence to his superiors in the college, filling the margins of the books belonging to the library with severe reflections upon their conduct, couched in quaint terms, and with silly calculations of his own nativity. He despised them for not having had so classical an education as himself, and he supposed his destiny so fixed by the stars which presided at his birth, that good or ill behaviour could never alter it. These were weaknesses which shaded his excellencies. His “Introductio ad Latinam Blazoniam, an essay towards a more correct Blazon in Latin than formerly hath been used,” was a work which did him the highest credit: it was printed in octavo, in 1682. He wrote two small tracts also, in the French language, entitled, “Christian Valour encouraged,” exhorting the king of France to join the Venetians in their design upon the Morea, and to attack the Turks, and leave Germany alone. He likewise wrote “Day Fatality” “Unio Pissidentium” “Prince-protecting Providences;” “Edivardus Confessor redivivus.” “Satan’s welcome,” 1679, and “Flagellum Mercurii Antiducales.” He also diligently collected, out of various authors, a particular account of the great and important services of heralds of former times, which he styled “Heraldo Memoriale,” the heads of which came afterwards into the hands of Maitland, to be inserted in his History of London.

He became an author very early, publishing in 1743 “Poems on several occasions,” which were followed by other productions in the same style. It was perhaps Dr. Gibbons’s foible that he fancied himself a poet, and in consequence was all his life composing hymns, elegies, c. on occasional subjects, without any of the inspiration of genius. In 1754 he was elected one of the tutors of the dissenting academy at Mile-end; the sciences he taught were logic, metaphysics, ethics, and rhetoric, and he is said to have taught them with applause and success. In 1759 he was chosen one of the Sunday evening lecturers at Monkwell-street, which he probably held as long as that lecture continued to be preached. The following year he received the degree of M. A. from the college of New Jersey in America; and in 1764, that of D. D. from one of the colleges in Aberdeen. Among his most useful publications were, his “Rhetoric,” published in 1767, 8vo, and his “Female Worthies, or the Lives and Memoirs of eminently pious’ women,” 1777, 2 vols. 8vo. In 1780 ha published “Memoirs of the rev. Isaac Watts, D. D.” 8vo, and assisted Dr. Johnson with some materials for the life of Watts in the “English Poets.” Dr. Johnson always spoke of Gibbons with respect. He died Feb. 22, 1785, of a stroke of apoplexy. Dr. Gibbons was a Calvinist of the old stamp, and a man of great piety and primitive manners. After his death three volumes of his “Sermons on evangelical and practical subjects,” were printed by subscription. He published also, in his life-time, besides what have been mentioned, various sermons preached on funeral and other occasions and some practical tracts.

As he was a bachelor, and had but few relations, and was unknown to these, he bequeathed the bulk of his fortune, amounting to about 14 or I5,000l. sterling, to those he esteemed his friends. He made a grateful return to the generosity of his noble patron the earl of Mar, by bequeathing to his son the lord Erskine, estates which yielded 280l. per annum, 1000l. in money, and all his plate. His religious principles were the same with those of his father, a nonjuror; but he was justly esteemed by good men of all persuasions, being courteous in his behaviour, moderate with regard to those who differed from him, humane, and charitable. He died on the 5th of August, 1754, and was buried in Marybone church.

, an eminent patron of literature, was born at Palermo, and in his youth distinguished himself in the literary court of Leo X. Clement VII. appointed him bishop of Verona at an early age; but as he was long resident at Rome, or employed on missions of the highest importance at the ecclesiastical state, Caraffi, who was afterwards Paul IV. was deputed to manage the concerns of his bishopric. At length, in the pontificate of Paul III. Gibertus returned to his diocese, where his public and private virtues rendered him an ornament to his station. His palace was always open to men of learning, whether Italians or strangers; and a considerable part of his great revenues was munificently employed in the encouragement of letters. He was a liberal patron of Greek literature, and had new Greek types cast at his own expence. He also employed under his roof, a number of persons in transcribing Mss. and defrayed the charge of publishing several excellent editions of the works of the Greek fathers, particularly a beautiful edition of Chrysostom’s Homilies on the epistles of St. Paul. He died Dec. 30, 1543. His works, with his life, were published at Verona, 1733. He is deservedly celebrated in the “Galateo” of Casa, and is the subject of the poem of Bembus, entitled “Benacus” and various other contemporary poets have paid him the tribute of praise which he so well merited; nor is it small praise that he was the firm opponent of Peter Aretin, and used all h.is efforts to strip the mask from that shameless impostor.

, bishop of London, son of Edward Gibson, of Knipe in Westmorland, was born at Bampton in the same county, in 1669; and, having laid the foundation of classical learning at a school in that county, entered a scholar of Queen’s-college, Oxford, in 1686. The study of the Northern languages being then particularly cultivated in this university, Gibson applied himself vigorously to that branch of literature, in which he was assisted by Dr. Hickes. The quick proficiency that he made appeared in a new edition of William Drummond’s “PolemoMiddiana,” and James V. of Scotland’s “Cantilena Rustica:” which he published at Oxford, 1691, in 4to, with notes. His observations on those facetious tracts afford proofs both of wit and learning. But his inclination led him to more solid studies; and, in a short time after, he translated into Latin the “Chronicon Saxonicum,” and published it, together with the Saxoa original, and his own notes, at Oxford, 1692, in 4to. This work he undertook by the advice of Dr. Mill, the learned editor of the “Greek Testament,” in folio and it is allowed by the learned to be the best remains extant of Saxon antiquity. The same year appeared a treatise, entitled, “Librorum Manuscriptorum in duabus insignibus Bibliothecis, altera Tenisoniana Londoni, altera Dugdaliana Oxonii, Catalogus.” Edidit E. G. Oxon, 1692, 4to. The former part of this catalogue, consisting of some share of sir James Ware’s manuscript collection, was dedicated to Dr. Thomas Tenison, then bishop of Lincoln, as at that time placed in his library. He had an early and strong inclination to search into the antiquities of his country; and, having laid a necessary foundation in the knowledge of its original languages, he applied himself to them for some years with great diligence, which produced his edition of Camden’s “Britannia,” and other works, no-' ticed hereafter and he concluded, in thisbranch of learning, with “Reliquiffi Spelmannianae, or the Posthumous works of sir Henry Spelman, relating to the laws and antiquities of England,” which, with a life of the author, he published at Oxford, 1698, folio. This he likewise dedicated to Dr. Tenison, then Abp. of Canterbury; and probably, about that time, he was taken as domestic chaplain into the archbishop’s family: nor was it long after, that we find him both rector of Lambeth, and archdeacon of Surrey. Tenison dying Dec. 14, 1715, Wake, bishop of Lincoln, succeeded him; and Gibson was appointed to the see of Lincoln. After this advancement, he went on indefatigably in defence of the government and discipline of the Church of England: and on the death of Robinson, in 1720, was promoted to the bishopric of London. Gibson’s talents seem to have been perfectly suited to the particular duties of this important station; upon the right management of which the peace and good order of the civil, as well as the ecclesiastical, state of the nation so much depend. He had a particular turn for business, which he happily transacted, by means of a most exact method that he used on all occasions: and this he pursued with great advantage, not only in the affairs of his own diocese in England, which he governed with the most precise regularity, but in promoting the spiritual affairs of the church of England colonies, in the West-Indies. The ministry, at this time, were so sensible of his great abilities in transacting business, that there was committed to him a sort of ecclesiastical ministry for several years; and especially during the long illness of Abp. Wake, almost every thing that concerned the church was in a great measure left to his care.

The writer of his life, among many instances which he declares might be assigned of his making a proper use of that spiritual ministry he was honoured with, specifies some few of a more eminent kind. One was his occasional recommendation of several worthy and learned persons to the favour of the secular ministry, for preferments suited to their merits. Another, that of procuring an ample endowment from the crown, for the regular performance of divine service in the royal-chapel, at Whitehall, by a succession of ministers, selected out of both universities, with proper salaries, who are continued until this day, under the name of Whitehall preachers, in number twenty-four, who officiate each a fortnight. A third, that he constantly guarded against the repeated attempts to procure a repeal of the corporation and test acts. By baffling the attacks made on those fences of the church, he thought he secured the whole ecclesiastical institution; for, it was his fixed opinion, that it would be an unjustifiable piece of presumption to arm those hands with power, that might possibly employ it, as was done in the days of our fathers, against the ecclesiastical constitution itself. He was entirely persuaded, that there ought always to be a legal establishment of the church, to a conformity with which some peculiar advantages might be reasonably annexed: and at the same time, with great moderation and temper, he approved of a toleration of protestant dissenters; especially as long as they keep within the just limits of conscience, and attempt nothing that is highly prejudicial to, or destructive of, the rights of the establishment in the church. But he was as hearty an enemy to persecution, in matters of religion, as those that have most popularly declaimed against it.

His works in the order of publication were: 1. An edition of Drummond’s “Polemo-middiana, &c. 1691,” 4to, already mentioned. 2. The “Chronicon Saxonicum,” 1692, 4to. 3. “Librorum Manuscriptorum Catalogus,” printed the same year at Oxford, 4to. 4. “Julii Caesaris Portus Iccius illustratus,” a tract of W. Somner, with a dissertation of his own, 1694. 5. An edition of “Quintilian de Arte Oratoria, with notes,” Oxon. 1693, 4to. 6. A translation of Camden’s “Britannia” into English, 1695, folio, and again with large additions in 1722, and 1772, two vols. folio. 7. “Vita Thomae Bodleii Equitis Aurati, & Historia Bibliothecae Bodleianae,” prefixed to “Catalog! Librorum Manuscriptorum in Anglia & Hibernia in unum collecti,” Oxon. 1697,“folio. 8.” Reliquiae Spelmannianae, &c.“1698, folio. 9.” Codex Juris Ecclesiastic! Anglicani, &c.“1713, folio. 10.” A Short State of some present Questions in Convocation,“1700, 4to. 11.” A Letter to a Friend in the Country, concerning the Proceedings in Convocation, in the years 1700 and 1701,“1703, 4to. 12.” The Right of the Archbishop to continue or prorogue the whole Convocation. A Summary of the Arguments in favour of the said right.“13.” Synodus Anglicana, &c.“1702. 14.” A Parallel between a Presbyterian Assembly, and the new Model of an English Provincial Synod,“4to. 15.” Reflections upon a paper entitled The Expedient proposed,'“4to. 16.” The Schedule of Prorogation reviewed,“4to. 17.” The pretended Independence of the Lower House upon the Upper House a groundless notion,“1703, 4to. 18.” The Marks of a defenceless Cause, in the proceedings and writings of the Lower House of Convocation,“4to. If.” An Account of the Proceedings in Convocation in a Cause of Contumacy, upon the Prolocutor’s going into the country without the leave of the archbishop, commenced April 10, 1707.“All these upon the disputes in convocation, except the” Synodus Anglicana,“&c. are printed without his name, but generally ascribed to him. 20.” Visitations parochial and general, with a Sermon, and some other Tracts,“1717, 8vo. 21. Five Pastoral Letters, &c. Directions to the Clergy, and Visitation Charges, &c. 8vo. To these may be added his lesser publications and. tracts, viz. Family Devotion; a Treatise against Intemperance; Admonition against Swearing; Advice to persons who have been sick; Trust in God; Sinfulness of neglecting the Lord’s Day; against Lukewarmness in Religion; several occasional Sermons. Remarks on part of a Bill brought into the house of lords by the earl of Nottingham, in 1721, entitled” A Bill for the more effectual Suppression of Blasphemy and Profaneness,“is also ascribed to the bishop; as is also” The Case of addressing the Earl of Nottingham, for his treatise on the Trinity,“published about the same time. Lastly,” A Collection of the principal Treatises against Popery, in the Papal Controversy, digested into proper heads and titles, with some Prefaces of his own," Lond. 1738, 3 vols. folio.

, commonly called the Dwarf, was a painter of some eminence in the time of sir Peter Lely, to whose manner he devoted himself, and whose picture’s he copied very faithfully. He was originally servant to a lady at Mortlake, who, observing that his genius led him to painting, put him to De Cleyn, to be instructed in the? rudiments of that art. De Cleyn was master of the tapestry-works at Mortlake, and famous for the cuts which he designed for some of Ogilby’s works, and for Sandys’s translation of Ovid. Gibson’s paintings in water-colours were well esteemed; but the copies he made of Lely’s portraits gained him the greatest reputation. He was greatly in favour with Charles I. to whom he was page of the back -stairs; and he also drew Oliver Cromwell several times. He had the honour to instruct in drawing queen Mary and queen Anne, when they were princesses, and he went to Holland to wait on the former for that purpose. He married one Mrs. Anne Shepherd, whb was also a dwarf. Charles I. was pleased, out of curiosity or pleasantry, to honour their marriage with his presence, and to give away the bride. Waller wrote a poem on this occasion, “of the marriage of the dwarfs.” Fenton, in his notes on it, tells us, that he had seen this couple painted by sir Peter Lely; and that they appeared to have been of an equal stature, each of them measuring three feet ten inches. They had, however, nine children, five of which attained to maturity, and were proportioned to the usual standard of mankind. To recompense the shortness of their stature, nature gave this little couple an equivalent in length of days for Gibson died in Covent-garden, in his 75th year, in 1690; and his wife, surviving him almost 20 years, died in 1709, aged 89. Gibson’s nephew, William, was instructed in the art of painting both by him and sir Peter Lely, and became also eminent. His excellence, like his uncle’s, lay in copying after sir Peter Lely; although he was a good limner, and drew portraits for persons of the first rank. His great industry was much to be commended, not only for purchasing sir Peter Lely’s collection after his death, but likewise for procuring from the continent a great variety of valuable works, which made his collection of prints and drawings equal to that of any person of his time. He died of a lethargy in 1702, aged 58. There was also one Edward Gibson, William’s kinsman, who was instructed by him, and first painted portraits in oil; but afterwards, finding more encouragement in crayons, and his genius lying that way, he applied himself to them. He was in the way of becoming a master, but died when he was young.

, a remarkable instance of the strength of natural powers usefully directed, and assiduously employed, was born in 1720 at Boulton, a few miles from Appleby in Westmoreland. By the death of his father, he became an orphan, without friends, or education even of the humblest kind, and hired himself to a farmer in the neighbourhood, with whom he remained some years, and then removed to superintend a farm at Kendal. Here, when in his eighteenth year, being informed that his father had been possessed of some landed property, he spent his savings in making inquiry, and at last found that it had been mortgaged beyond its value. He therefore continued his occupation, and soon after was enabled to rent and manage a little farm of his own, at a place called Hollios in Cartmell Fell, where he began to apply himself to study, without perhaps knowing the meaning of the word. A short time previous to this, he had admired the operation of figures, but laboured under every disadvantage for want of education. His first effort therefore wad to learn to read English and having accomplished that to a certain degree, he purchased a treatise on arithmetic. This he carefully perused, and although he could not write, soon went through common arithmetic, vulgar and decimal fractions, the extraction of the square and cube roots, &c. by his memory only, and became so expert, that he could tell, without setting down a figure, the product of any two numbers multiplied together, although the multiplier and the multiplicand, each of them, consisted of nine places of figures; and he could answer, in the same manner, questions in division, in decimal fractions, or in the extraction of the square or cube roots, where such a multiplicity of figures is often required in the operation.

Finding himself, however, still labouring under difficulties, from not being able to write, he applied to that art with such success as to be able to form a legible hand, which he of course found an acquisition of great importance. Still his knowledge went no farther than this. He did not at this time know the meaning of the word mathematics, nor had the least notion of any thing beyond the very little he had learned. Something was now proposed to him about Euclid, but he took no notice of this, until told that it meant a book, containing the elements of geometry, when he immediately purchased it, and studying it with his usual diligence, found that he could extend his knowledge beyond what he had before conceived possible. He therefore continued his geometrical studies, and as the demonstration of the different propositions in Euclid depends entirely upon a recollection of some of those preceding, his memory was of the utmost service to him, and as it required principally the management of straight lines, it became a study exactly suited to his circumstances. While attending the business of his farm, and apparently only whistling a tune, he used to be deeply engaged in some geometrical proposition, and with a piece of chalk upon the lap of his breeches-knee, or any other convenient spot, he would clear up very difficult parts of the science in a most masterly manner.

As he had paid a similar attention to all the intermediate parts, he was now become so conversant in every branch of the mathematics, that no question was ever proposed to him which he did not answer. In particular he answered all the questions in the Gentleman’s and Ladies’ Diaries, the Palladium, and other annual publications, for several years; but his answers were seldom inserted except by, or in, the name of some other persons, as he had neither vanity nor ambition, and no wish but to satisfy himself that nothing passed him which he did not understand. He frequently had questions sent from his pupils and other gentlemen in London, the universities, and different parts of the country, as well as from the university of Gottingen in Germany, which he never failed to answer; and from the minute inquiry he made into natural philosophy, there was scarcely a phenomenon in nature, that ever came to his knowledge or observation, for which he could not in some degree reasonably account.

He went by the name of “Willy o' the Hollins” many years after he left that place and removed to Tarngreen, where he lived about fifteen years, and from thence into the neighbourhood of Cartmell, where he was familiarly known by the name of “Willy Gibson,” and continued his occupation as before. For the last forty years of his life he kept a school of about eight or ten gentlemen, who boarded and lodged at his farm-house; and having a happy art of explaining his ideas, he was very successful in teaching. He also took up the business of land-surveying, and having acquired some little knowledge of drawing, could finish his plans in a very neat manner. He was often appointed, by acts of parliament, a commissioner for the inclosing of commons, for which he was well qualified in every respect. His practice was to study incessantly, during the greatest part of the night; and in the day-time, when in the fields, his pupils frequently went to him to have their difficulties removed. He appears to have been, altogether a very extraordinary character, and in private life amply deserving the great respect in which he was held by all who knew him. His death, occasioned by a fall, took place Oct. 4, 1791. He left a numerous family by his wife, to whom he had been happily united for nearly fifty years.

, D. D. son of Emanuel, and grandson of Andrew Gifford, both dissenting ministers of the baptist persuasion, was born Aug. 17, 1700, and educated at Tewkesbury in Gloucestershire, under the Rev. Mr. Jones, author of the “History of the Canon of the Scripture,” whose seminary produced, among other eminent men, archbishop Seeker, bishop Butler, and Dr. Chandler. Mr. Gifford finished his studies under the celebrated Dr. Ward, and being afterwards baptised, was joined to his father’s church at Bristol, but in 1723 removed to the baptist meeting in Devonshire-square, London. In 1725 his first ministerial duties appear to have been performed at Nottingham, where he was very popular. In Feb. 1730 he was invited to London and ordained. The following year he commenced an intimacy with sir Richard Ellys, bart. (see Ellys) and became his chaplain, taking the lead in family worship. Lady Ellys continued him in the same office, with an annual present of forty guineas, until her second marriage in 1745. One of Mr. Gifford’s sermons preached in commemoration of the great wind in 1703, and published in 1734, was dedicated to sir Richard. In 1754 Mr. Gifford received the degree of D.D. from Marischal college, Aberdeen. His favourite study was that of antiquities, and although at no time a man of opulence, he made a very large collection of curious books, Mss. coins, &c. for which he gave liberal prices. It is said that his collection of coins, which was a very valuable one, was purchased by George II. as an addition to his own cabinet. His reputation as an antiquary, recommended him to the situation of assistant librarian of the British Museum in 1757, in which he was placed by the interest of the lord chancellor Hardwicke, and some other friends, but not, as his biographer says, by that of sir Richard Ellys, who had been dead some years before this period. To a man of literary curiosity and taste, no situation can be more interesting than that of librarian in the British Museum, and Mr. Gifford knew how to improve the opportunities which it affords. Having the talent to receive and communicate information with unaffected politeness, his acquaintance among the nobility and gentry soon became extensive. Some of them honoured him by a mutual exchange of friendly visits, and others of the first rank discovered their respect for him, either by an occasional attendance on his ministry, or by an obliging correspondence and intimacy. Amongst these were the marquis of Lothian, the earl of Halifax, lord Dartmouth, lady Buchan, lady Huntingdon, &c.

, knt. lord chief baron of the exchequer, and an eminent law writer, was born Oct. 10, 1674. Of his family, education, or early life, it has been found impossible to recover any information* Either in 1714, or 1715, for even this circumstance is not clearly ascertained, he was appointed one of the judges of the court of king’s bench in Ireland, and within a year was promoted to the dignity of chief baron of the exchequer in that kingdom, which office he held till the beginning of 1722, when he was recalled. During his residence there, he was engaged in an arduous and delicate contest concerning the ultimate judicial tribunal to which the inhabitants were to resort, which was disputed between the English house of lords and the Irish house of lords; and he appears to have been taken into custody by the order of the latter, for having enforced an order of the English house in the case of Annesley versus Sherlock, “contrary to the final judgment and determination of that house.” It appears by the style of this last order of the Irish house of lords, that he was a privy counsellor of that kingdom; and it is noticed in his epitaph, that a tender was made to him of the great seal, which he declining, returned to England. Here he was first called to the degree of an English serjeant at law, preparatory, according to ancient usage, to his taking his seat as one of the barons of the exchequer, in which he succeeded sir James Montague in June 1722. Having remained in that station for three years, he was in Jan. 1724 appointed one of the commissioners of the great seal in the room of lord Macclesfield, his colleagues being sir Joseph Jekyll and sir Robert Raymoqd. The great seal continued in commission till June 1, 1725, when sir Peter King was constituted lord keeper, and on the same day sir Jeffray Gilbert became, on the appointment of sir Rpbert Eyre to the chief-justiceship of the commonpleas, lord chief baron, which office he filled until his death, Oct. 14, 1726, at an age which may be called early, if compared with the multitude and extent of his writings, which were all left by him in manuscript.

In the only character extant of him, it is said that “he filled up every station of life with the greatest integrity and most untainted honour; and discharged the duties of his profession to the general satisfaction of all that had any opportunity of observing his conduct. Nor did his speedy advancement from one post to another procure him the envy even of the gentlemen of the long robe, who constantly paid him the regard that is due to the greatest merit when he was alive, and by whom the loss of him is now as generally regretted. The skill and experience he had in the laws of fads country, and the uncommon penetration he discovered in the decision of such causes of equity as came before him, were not more known in Westminster-hall, than his unwearied pursuit of mathematical studies (when his affairs would permit), as well as his fine taste of the more polite parts of learning, were to men of the most exalted genius in either.” He was interred in a vault built for the purpose in the abbey church at Bath, in which city he died. A monument was afterwards erected to his memory in the Temple church, London. His works are, 1. “Law of Devises, last Wills, and Revocations,” Lond. 1730, 8vo^ reprinted 1756 and 1773. 2. “The Law of Uses and Trusts,” 1734, 8vo, reprinted 1741. 3. “The Law and Practice of Ejectments,” 1734, 8vo, reprinted 1741 and 1781, by Charles Runnington, esq. 4. “Reports of Cases in Equity and Exchequer,” 1734, reprinted 1742, fol. 5. “Law and Practice of Distresses and Replevins,” no date, reprinted 1780, and 1794, by William Hunt, esq. 6. “History and Practice of Civil Actions in the Common-pleas,” 1737, 1761, and 1779. 7. “Treatise of the Court of Exchequer,” partly printed in 1738, 8vo, but completely in 1753. 8. “Treatise of Tenures,” third edition, 1757, 8vo. 9. “Treatise of Rents,” 8vo. 10. “History and Practice of the high court of Chancery,” 1758, 8vo. An erroneous Irish edition had preceded this. 11.“Cases in Law and Equity,” 1760, 8vo. 12. “The Law of Executions,” &c. 1763, 8vo. 13. “Theory or Law of Evidence,” 1761, 8vo, reprinted a fourth time in 1777, again in 1791, 1792, and 1796, 4 vols. 8vo, by Capel Lofft, esq. with some account of the life of the author, from which the present article is taken, Gilbert’s “Abridgment of Locke’s Essay on the Human Understanding,” and his argument in a case of homicide. 'The first volume was again reprinted in 1801, by J. Sedg. wick, esq. Besides these there are in Mr. Hargrave’s collection two manuscripts of lord chief baron Gilbert, the one a “History of the Feud,” the other “A Treatise of Remainders.”

, a nonconformist divine of very considerable abilities, was the son of William Gilbert of Priss, in Shropshire, and was born in 1613. In 1629 he was admitted a student of Edmund-hall, Oxford, where he took his bachelor’s degree, and after a short residence in Ireland, returned and took that of master in 1638. By the favour of Philip lord Wharton, he became minister of Upper Winchington, in Buckinghamshire; and in 1647, having taken the covenant, and become a favourite with the usurping powers, he was appointed vicar of St. Lawrence’s, Reading, and next year was created B. D. at the parliamentary visitation of the university of Oxford. About the same time he obtained the rich rectory of Edgemond, in his native county, where he was commonly called the bishop of Shropshire. In 1654 he was appointed an assistant to the commissioners of Shropshire, Middlesex, and the city of Westminster, for the ejection of such as were styled “scandalous, ignorant, and insufficient ministers and schoolmasters;” and according to Wood, was not sparing of the power which this sweeping commission gave him. After the restoration, he was ejected for nonconformity, and, retiring to Oxford, lived there very obscurely, with his wife, in St. Ebbe’s parish, sometimes preaching in conventicles, and in the family of lord Wharton. Nor was he without respect from some gentlemen of the university on account of his talents. Calamy informs us that, in a conversation with the celebrated Dr. South on the subject of predestination, he so satisfied him, that South became ever after an assertor of that doctrine. When a toleration or temporary indulgence was granted to the nonconformists in 1671, although a professed independent, he joined with three presbyterians in establishing a conventicle in Thames street, in the suburbs of Oxford; but this indulgence was soon called in. In his last days he was reduced to great distress, and was supported by the contributions of private persons, and of several heads of colleges. He died July 15, 1694, and was buried in the church of St. Aldate. He was esteemed a good philosopher, disputant, and philologist, and a good Latin poet. He published, 1. “Vindicise supremi Dei dominii,” against Dr. Owen, Lond. 1655, 8vo. 2. “An Assize Sermon,” ibid. 1657, 4to. 3. “England’s Passing-Bell, a poem written soon after the year of the plague, the fire of London, and the Dutch war,” 1675, 4to. 4. “Super auspicatissimo regis Gulielmi in Hiberniam descensu, et salva ex Hibernia reditu, carmen gratulatorium,” 1690, 4to, written in his eightieth year. 5. “Epitapbia diversa,” chiefly on persons not of the church of England. 6. “Julius Secundus,” a dialogue, Ox. 1669, 12mo, and 168O, 8vo. To this is prefixed a preface, also in the form of a dialogue, proving that piece to have been written by Erasmus. Dr. Jortin seems of the same opinion, and has reprinted it in his Life of Erasmus, pointing out some curious omissions by Gilbert. With the second edition, Gilbert republished “Jani Alex. Ferrafii Euclides catholicus,” an ironical work against the Romish church, written by an English convert who chose to conceal his true name. Gilbert translated into Latin a considerable part of Francis Potter’s book entitled “An interpretation of the number 666,” printed at Amsterdam, 1677. He is likewise supposed to have been concerned in the pamphlets called “Anni mirabiles,” printed in 1661, 1662, and the following years."

, a learned physician, who first discovered several of the properties of the load -stone, was born at Colchester, where his father was recorder, in 1540; and after an education at a grammarschool, was sent to Cambridge. Having studied physic for some time, he went abroad for his farther improvement; and in one of the foreign universities, had the degree conferred upon him of M. D. He returned to England with a considerable reputation for his learning in general, and had especially the character of being deeply skilled in philosophy and chemistry; and resolving to make his knowledge useful to his country by practising in this faculty, be presented himself a candidate to the college of physicians in London, and was elected a fellow of that society about 1573. Thus, every way qualified for it, he practised in this metropolis with great success and applause; which being observed by queen Elizabeth, whose talent it was to distinguish persons of superior merit, she sent for him to court, and appointed him her physician in ordinary; and gave him, besides, an annual pension, to encourage him in his studies. In these, as much as his extensive business in his profession would permit, he applied himself chiefly to consider and examine the various properties of the load-stone; and proceeding in the experimental way, a method not much used at that time, he discovered and established several qualities of it not observed before. This occasioned much discourse; and spreading his fame into foreign countries, great expectations were raised from his treatise on that subject, which were certainly not disappointed when he printed it, in 1600, under the following title, “De Magnete, magneticisque Corporibus & de rnagno magnete Tellure, Physioiogia nova,” i.e. “Of the Magnet (or Loadstone) and magnetical Bodies, and of that great magnet the Earth.” It contains the history of all that had been written on that subject before his time, and is the first regular system on this curious subject, and may not unjustly be styled the parent of all the improvements that have been made therein since. In this piece our author shews the use of the declination of the magnet, which had been discovered by Norman in finding out the latitude, for which purpose also he contrived two instruments for the sea. This invention was published by Thomas Blondeville, in a book entitled “Theoriques of the Planets, together with the making of two Instruments for Seamen, For finding out the Latitude without Sun, Moon, or Stars, invented by Dr. Gilbert,” 1624. But the hopes from this property, however promising at first, have by a longer experience beeo found to be deceitful.

, a Scotch physician of eminence, was born at Dumfries in 1707. He began the study of medicine at Edinburgh, which he afterwards prosecuted at London and Paris. He obtained his degree of M. D. from the university of Rheims; and in 1732 he returned to the place of his nativity, where he afterwards constantly resided, and continued the practice of medicine till his death in 1774. Few physicians of the last century have been more successful in the exercise of their profession, or have contributed more to the improvement of the healing art. Having engaged in business at an early period of life, his attention was wholly devoted to observation. Endowed by nature with a judgment acute and solid, with a genius active and inventive, he soon distinguished himself by departing, in various important particulars, from established but unsuccessful modes of practice. Several of the improvements which he introduced have procured him deserved reputation both at home and abroad. In different medical collections are to he found several of his performances) which prove that he had something new and useful to offer upon every subject to which he applied his attention. But those writings which do him most credit are two long dissertations on “Neivous Fevers,” in the “Medical Essays and Observations” published by a society at Edinburgh and a “Treatise on the use of Sea-voyages in medicine,” which first made its appearance in 1756, and was reprinted in 1771. In the former, his recommendation of wine in nervous fevers^ and in the latter, of sea-voyages in cases of consumption, has been generally attended t in modem practice, and with great advantage.

At nineteen years of age he returned to England, and when he was otage, and by the entrance into his paternal fortune, which was not inconsiderable, rendered in every respect capable of enjoying the gaieties and pleasures of this polite twn, he came up to London. Here he soon spent the best part of what he had, and crowned his imprudences by marrying a young lady without any fortune, at about the age of twenty-three, adding to his other incumbrances that of a growing family, without any way of improving his reduced finances. During the reign of James II. he studied the religious controversies of that period, which ended in his becoming an infidel. In 1693 he ushered into the world “The Oracles of Reason,” written by Charles Blount, esq. after that author’s unhappy end, with a pompous eulogium and a defence of self-murder. He was afterwards, however, as Dr. Leland informs us, “convinced of his error; of which he gave a remarkable proof, in a good book whijch he published in 1705, entitled * The Deist’s Manual; or, a rational enquiry into the Christian Religion;' the greatest part of which is taken up in vindicating the doctrines of the existence and attributes of God, his providence and government of the world, the immortality of the soul, and a future state.”

Having greatly injured his fortune by thoughtlessness and dissipation, he was now obliged to consider on some method for retrieving it; or, indeed, rather for the means of sdbsistence; and he himself candidly owns, in his essays, that necessity was his first motive for venturing to be an author; nor was it till he had arrived at his two-and-thirtieth year, that he made any attempt in the dramatic way.

Much of this is certainly true. His plays, enumerated in the “Biog. Dramatics,” procured him little reputation. He had some talent, however, for criticism, and Pope was weak enough to believe that Addison employed Gildon to write against him. Pope introduced him into the Dunciad for another reason, his “New Rehearsal, or, Bays the Younger; containing an examen of Mr. Rowe’s plays, and a word or two on Mr. Pope’s ‘ Rape of the Lock,’” 1714. Gildon wrote the “Life of Betterton,” published in 1710.

, head master of St. Paul’s school, was born in Lincolnshire, Feb. 27, 1564, and admitted scholar of Corpus college, Oxford, in Sept. 1583. He took his master’s degree in 1590, when he left college, and is supposed to have taught school at Norwich, as he was in that city in 1597, and there wrote his “Treatise concerning the Trinity,” 8vo, to which Wood gives the date of 1601. In 1608 he became chief master of St. Paul’s sf hool, in which his method of education is said to have been eminently successful. He was not more esteemed as a man of learning, and an excellent Latin scholar, than as a divine and critic. He died at his house in St. Paul’s church-yard, Nov. 17, 1635, and was buried in the antichapel belonging to Mercers’ hall. His other works are, 1. “Logonomia Anglica,” 1721, 4to; and 2. “Sacred Philosophy of Holy Scripture; or a Commentary on the Creed,” fol. 1635.

, D. D. an eminent dissenting divine, and the most able and learned baptist writer of the last century, was born at Kettering in Northamptonshire, Nov. 23, 1697, of parents in humble life. His father was a deacon of the baptist meeting at Kettering; and having, from various causes, some of which appear rather imaginary, a strong impression on his mind that this son would become a preacher, and an eminent character, exerted his utmost to give him a suitable education. His first attempts were crowned with such success as to confirm his father’s hopes. Being sent to the grammar school, he soon exceeded his equals in age, and even his seniors. At his eleventh year, he had not only gone through the common school books, but had read the principal Latin classics, and made considerable proficiency in the Greek language. Such was at the same time his avidity of knowledge, that he constantly frequented a bookseller’s shop (which was open only on market-days), where his acquirements became noticed by some c.f the neighbouring clergy; and he repaired so regularly to this repository of books, that it became a sort of asseveration, “such a thing is as sure as John Gill is in the bookseller’s shop.” Unfortunately, however, his progress at school was interrupted by an edict of the master, requiring that all his scholars, without exception, should attend prayers at the church on week-days. This, of course, amounted to an expulsion of the children of dissenters, and of young Gill among the rest. His parents not being able to send him to a distant school, some efforts were made to get him upon one of the dissenting funds of London, that he might be sent to one of their seminaries. In order to procure this favour, his progress in literature was probably stated as very extraordinary, and the application produced an answer fully as extraordinary namely, “that he was too young and, should he continue, as it might be supposed he would, to make such rapid advances in his studies, he would go through the common circle of learning before he could be capable of taking care of himself, or of being employed in any public service.” Notwithstanding this illiberal and absurd repulse, young Gill went on improving himself in Greek and Latin, by eagerly studying such books in both languages as he could procure, and added to his stock a knowledge of logic, rhetoric, moral and natural philosophy. Without a master also, he made such progress in the Hebrew as soon to be able to read the Bible with facility; and ever after this language was his favourite study. He read much in the Latin tongue, and studied various systematic works Oh divinity; but all this appears to have been done at such hours as he could spare from assisting his father in his business. In November 1716, he made a public profession of his religious sentiments before the baptist meeting, and was baptised according to the usual forms; soon after which he commenced preacher, and officiated first at Higham Ferrars, where in 1718 he married; he also preached occasionally at Kettering until the beginning of 1719, when he was invited to become pastor of the baptist congregation at Horslydovrn, Southwark, and soon became very popular in the metropolis.

In 1724 he appeared as an author by the publication of two sermons; but in 1726 he first distinguished himself as a champion for the peculiar tenet which divides the baptists from other denominations, by engaging in a controversy with Mr. Maurice, an independent minister. Zealously, however, as Dr. Gill was attached to the baptist tenets, and frequently as he wrote in favour of them, it was for the most part in his own defence. “Intimate witli him as I was,” says Mr. Toplady, “I never so much as once ueard him drop a single hint, in all our conversations, directly or indirectly, concerning the article of baptism.” In 1728 he published his “Exposition of the Song of Solomon,” folio. The year before it appeared, Whiston had published a pamphlet in which he endeavoured to prove that the Song of Solomon was a spurious book, and not fit to stand in the canon of scripture. To all this Gill answered with great ability. It does not appear whether Whiston had seen this answer, but he himself informs us that in 17 J-& he had heard a great character of Dr. Gill for his skill in the Oriental languages, and had a mind to hear him preach, but being informed that he had written a folio book, on the Canticles, he declined to go and hear him; a proof that Whiston’s dislike to bigotry was to the bigotry of others only. In 1751 a new edition of the "Exposition*' was published in 4 to, with corrections and additions, and a third, likewise: with additions, in 1767.

If at this time, from perusing the writings of Erasmus, or by any other means, he entertained scruples respecting the religion of the Romish church, in which he had been bred up, he had the discretion to suppress his sentiments, and before he said any thing which might shake the faith of others, he determined to establish his own. He had not been long settled in his fellowship before a very public testimony was given to the reputation he had acquired, by his being one of the first in Oxford who were recommended to cardinal Wolsey for Christ Church college, which he had just founded, and accordingly Mr. Gilpin removed thither from Queen’s, and continued his former studies. From the nature of these, and the ingenuity and honesty of his disposition, it is not improbable that he might in time have been led by his own reasonings to that discovery of truth he aimed at; but Providence rewarded a pious endeavour, by throwing in his way the means of an earlier attainment of it. Under the patronage of Edward VI. who had now succeeded Henry VIII. Peter Martyr went to Oxford, where he read divinity lectures in a strain to which the university had been hitherto little accustomed, and particularly refuted the doctrine of tl^e corporal pretence. This occasioned a controversy of much warmth, such was Mr. Gilpia't credit at the university that the popish party were very solicitous to engage him on theic side. But, although he was as yet but imperfectly acquainted with the arguments of the reformers, he had, it seems, lately discovered, through a dispute he had been engaged in with Dr. Hooper, afterwards bishop of Worcester, that several of the Romish doctrines were not so well supported by Scripture as was commonly imagined; and, with a mind in this unsettled condition, he thought himself but ill qualified to espouse either side publicly. lit consequence, however, of repeated importunities, he ventured to appear in a public disputation against Peter Martyr, the consequence of which was, his ingenuously owning that he could not maintain his opinions, and a determination to enter into no more controversies until he had gained the full information he was in pursuit of. Peter Martyr acknowledged this candid behaviour, so different from that of Gilpin’s fellow disputants, Chedsey, Morgan, Tresham, &c. and often told his friends that it was the subject of his daily prayers that God would be pleased at length to touch the heart of this pious papist with the knowledge of true religion. Nor, says his biographer, did he pray in vain; for Mr. Gilpin from this time became every day more reconciled to the reformers.

He now began with great diligence to read over the Scriptures, and the writings of the fathers, the result of which was a more favourable opinion of the doctrines of the reformers. He also communicated some of his doubts to Cuthbert Tonstal, bishop of Durham, who was his mother’s uncle, and had always expressed a great regard for him, and to other learned men of the university, whose answers appear to have had a tendency to increase his scruples, and finally to make him declare himself a protestant; and it is certain, that while at Christ Church, he became fully convinced of the errors of popery. Such, however, was his diffidence in his own acquirements, and such his fear lest protestantism might suffer by the inexperience of its teachers, that he resisted many solicitations to leave the university, and undertake the cure of souls. These scruples detained him at Oxford until the thirty-fifth year of his age; about which time he yielded so far to the earnest solicitations of his friends as to accept the vicarage of Norton, in the diocese of Durham, in Nov. 1552. Before he went to Beside he was appointed to preach before the king, who was at Greenwich, which appears then to have been a custom before being presented to any benefice. On this occasion, with the true spirit of a reformer, he inveighed against the luxurious and corrupt manners of the times among all ranks, and although the king was not then present, delivered what he intended as an address to his majesty, not doubting, as he said, but that it would be carried to him. This courage recommended him to the notice of many persons of the first rank; particularly to sir Francis Russel, and sir Robert Dudley, afterwards earls of Bedford and Leicester, who from that time professed a great regard for him; and, when in power, were always ready to patronize him. Gilpin received their offered friendship with humility and gratitude, but never solicited it on his own account. He sometimes indeed applied to lord Bedford in behalf of his friends, but does not appear to have once asked any favour of the earl of Leicester, whose real character could not be unknown, or agreeable to him. He is likewise said to have been noticed by secretary Cecil, afterwards lord Burleigh, who obtained for him a general licence for preaching, a matter of great favour in those days. This licence he sometimes used in oilier parts of the country, but confined his services chiefly to his parish of Norton.

Here he made it his principal endeavour to inculcate moral virtue, and to dissuade from those vices which he observed most prevalent. He seldom handled controversial points, for he was still scarcely settled in some of his religious opinions. Hence by degrees a diffidence of himself arose, which gave him great uneasiness. He thought he had engaged too soon in his office, that he could not sufficiently discharge it, that he should not rest in giving his hearers only moral instructions, and that, overspread as the country was with popish doctrines, he did ill to pretend to be a teacher of religion, if he were unable to oppose such errors. These thoughts made every day a greater impression on him. At length, quite unhappy, he wrote his relation bishop Tonstal an account of his situation. The bishop very liberally told him, that as he was so uneasy, he should think of nothing till he had fixed his religion, and that, in his opinion, he could do no better than put his parish into the hands of some person, in whom he could confide, and spend a year or two in Germany, France, and Holland; by which means he might have an pportunity of conversing with some of the most eminent professors on both sides of the question. He acquainted him likewise, that his going abroad at this time would do him also a considerable service; for, during his confinement, he had written two or three books, particularly one upon the Lord’s Supper, which he had a desire to publish; and as this could nor be so conveniently done at home, he would be glad to have it done under his inspection at Paris.

How long he continued unbeneficed, does not appear. It could not, however, be very long, because the rectory of Houghton-le-spring fell vacant, before Easington and the archdeaconry were disposed of; and the bishop, in a jocular way, made him an offer of all the three, which it was not likely he would listen to. He thanked the bishop, however, and accepted Houghton. This rectory was of considerable value, about 400l. per annum, but the duty of it was proportionably laborious, it being so extensive as to contain no less than fourteen villages, overrun with the darkness of popish ignorance and superstition. Gilpin, however, did not despair. He implored the assistance of God, and his sincere endeavours met with it. The people crowded about him, and heard him with attention, perceiving him a teacher of a different kind from those to whom they had hitherto been accustomed. This very cause, however, increased the malice of his enemies, and he was again formally accused before the bishop of Durham. How the bishop behaved at this time, we are not particularly informed; but no man knew better how to act upon an emergency; and it is certain that Mr. Gilpin was acquitted. The malice of his enemies succeeded, however, in part, for the bishop’s favour to him from this time visibly declined; though it is questionable, whether he really felt the indifference he expressed; or perhaps he might think it advisable thus far to temporize; hpping to deduct the sum of his own from the ill-will of others. Be this as it may, Mr. Gilpin acknowledged his great obligations to the bishop; was sorry to see him disgusted; and would have given up any thing to have him satisfied, except his conscience.

Soon after queen Elizabeth’s accession, a general visitation was held. An assembly of divines, among whom were Parker, Grindal, and Sandys, having finished a body of injunctions aud articles, commissions were issued out, impowering proper persons to enforce them; the oath of supremacy was to be tendered to the clergy, and a subscription imposed. When the visitors came to Durham, Mr. Gilpin was requested to preach before the clergy, against the pope’s supremacy. To this he had no objection, but did not like the thoughts of subscribing, having some doubts with regard to one or more of the articles. His curate having not these scruples, he hoped that his subscription might satisfy the visitors; but next clay, when the clergy were assembled to subscribe, as an instance of respect Mr. Gilpin was first called upon. The emergency allowed him no time for reflection. He just considered with himself, that upon the whole these alterations in religion were certainly right; that he doubted only in a few immaterial points; and that, if he should refuse, it might be a means to keep others back. He then took up the pen, and, with some hesitation, at length subscribed. Afterwards retiring, he sent a letter to the visitors, acquainting them in what sense he subscribed the articles; which they accepted very favourably.

When in order to enlighten the nation in true learning and religion, public schools began to be recommended, Mr. Gilpin endeavoured to promote the good work with the utmost of his ability. As his manner of living was most affluent and generous, and his hospitality and charities made daily a larger demand upon him, it was thought extraordinary, that, amidst such great expences, he should entertain the design of building and endowing a grammar school; yet his exact ceconomy soon enabled him to accomplish this, and the effects of his endowment were very quickly seen: his school was no sooner opened than it began to flourish, and to afford the agreeable prospect of a succeeding generation rising above the ignorance and errors of their forefathers. He not only placed able masters in his school, whom he procured from Oxford, but himself constantly inspected it, and took an active part in the education of the scholars. Such was his benevolence that whenever he met with a poor boy upon the road, he would make trial of his capacity l)y a few questions; and if he found it such as pleased him, he would provide for his education. From the school also he sent several to the universities, where he maintained them wholly at his own expence. Nor was this munificent and uncommon care unrewarded. Many of his scholars became great ornaments to the church, and exemplary instances of piety, among whom have been particularly mentioned, Henry Ayray, afterwards provost of Queen’s college; George Carleton, bishop of Chichester; and Hugh Broughton. It was also at Mr. Gilpin’s suggestion that his friend bishop Pilkington founded a school at the place of his nativity in Lancashire, the statutes of which he revised and corrected at the bishop’s request. Mr. Gilpin’s general reputation for learning and piety, made it the desire of persons of all religious persuasions to have their cause credited by his authority; and among others, the first dissenters, or puritans, who had contracted prejudices against certain church ceremonies, habits, &c. made early applications to Mr. Gilpin, but without effect. The reformation, he said, was just; essentials were there concerned; hut at present he saw no ground for disaffection. " The church of England, he thought, gave no reasonable offence. Some things there might be in it, which had been perhaps as well avoided (probably meaning the use of the vestments), but to disturb the peace of a nation for such trifles, he thought, was quite unchristian. And what indeed appeared to him chiefly blameable in the dissenters, was, that heat of temper with which they propagated their opinions, and treated those who differed from them. Such was not his practice, for he confined all his dislike to their sentiments, urged with intemperate warmth, but bore not the least ill-will to their persons. One of the most intimate friends he ever had was Mr. Lever, a minister of their persuasion, and a sufferer in their cause. It is almost needless to add, that he found it equally or more easy to resist the solicitations of the papists, who lamented, as they well might, that so good a man had forsaken their communion, and consequently they left no methods untried to bring him back.

His hospitable manner of living was the admiration of the whole country, and strangers and travellers met with a cheerful reception. Even their beasts had so much care taken of them, that it was humorously said, “if a horse was turned loose in any part of the country, it would immediately make its way to the rector of Moughton’s.” Every Sunday, from Michaelmas to Easter, was a sort of public day with him. During this season, he expected to see all his parishioners and their families, whom he seated, according to their ranks, at three tables; and when absent from home, the same establishment was kept up. When lord Burleigh, then lord treasurer, was sent on public affairs into Scotland, he unexpectedly paid a visit to Mr. Gilpin, but the reconomy of his house was not easily disconcerted, and he entertained the statesman nnd his retinue in such a manner as made him acknowledge “he could hardly have expected more at Lambeth.” On looking back from an eminence, after he had left Houghton, Btirleigh eould not help exclaiming, “There is the enjoyment of life indeed! who can blame that man for not accepting of a bishopric! what doth he want to make him greater, or happier, or more useful to mankind!” Mr. Gilpin’s labours extended beyond his own parish; he every year visited divers neglected parishes in Northumberland, Yorkshire, Cheshire, Westmoreland, and Cumberland; and that his own flock might not suffer, he was at the expence of a constant assistant. In all his journeys he did not fail to visit the gaols and places of confinement; and by his labours and affectionate manner of behaviour, he is said to have reformed many abandoned persons in those abodes of human misery. He had set places and times for preaching in the different parts of the country, which were as regularly attended as the assize towns of a circuit. If he came to a place in which there was a church, he made use of it; if not, of barns, or any other large building, where great crowds of persons were sure to attend him, some for his instructions, more, perhaps, to partake of his bounty; but in his discourses he had a sort of enthusiastic warmth, which roused many to a sense of religion who had never thought of any thing serious before. The dangers and fatigues attending this employment were, in his estimation, abundantly compensated by the advantages which he hoped would accrue from them to his uninstructed fellow-creatures. He did not spare the rich; and in a discourse before Barnes, bishop of Durham, who had already conceived a prejudice against him, he spoke with so much freedom, that his best friends dreaded the result; they rebuked him for giving the prelate a handle against him, to which he replied, “If the discourse should do the good he intended by it, he was regardless of the consequences to himself.” He then waited on the prelate, who said, “Sir, I propose to wait upon you home myself.” When they arrived at the rectory, and entered the house, the bishop turned suddenly round, and grasped him eagerly by the hand, saying, “Father Gil pin, I know you are fitter to be bishop of Durham, than I am to be parson of this church of yours. I ask forgiveness for past injuries. Forgive me, father, I know you have enemies, but while I live bishop of Durham, none of tjiem shall cause you any further trouble.”

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

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

, an eminent painter, sculptor, and architect, was born in 1276, at a village near Florence, of parents who were plain country people. When a boy, he was sent out to keep sheep in the fields; and, having a natural inclination for design, he used to amuse himself with drawing his flock after the life upon sand, in the best manner he could. Cimabue travelling once that way, found him at this work, and thence conceived so good an opinion of his genius for painting, that he prevailed with his father to let him go to Florence, and be brought up under him. He had not applied himself long to designing, before he began to shake off the stiffness of the Grecian masters. He endeavoured to give a finer air to his heads, and more of nature to his colouring, with proper actions to his figures. He attempted likewise to draw after the life, and to express the different passions of the mind; but could not come up to the liveliness of the eyes, the tenderness of the flesh, or the strength of the muscles in naked figures. What he did, however, had not been done in, two centuries before, with any skill equal to his. Giotto’s reputation was so far extended, that pope Benedict IX. sent a gentleman of his court into Tuscany, to bring him a just report of his talents; and withal to bring him a design from each of the Florentine painters, being desirous to have some notion of their skill. When he came to Giotto, he told him of the pope’s intentions, which were to employ him in St. Peter’s church at Rome; and desired him to send some design by him to his holiness. Giotto, who was a pleasant ready man, took a sheet of white paper, and setting his arm close to his hip to keep it steady, he drew with one stroke of his pencil a circle so round and so equal, that “round as Giotto’s O” afterwards became proverbial. Then, presenting it to the gentleman, he told him smiling, that “there was a piece of design, which he might carry to his holiness.” The man replied, “I ask for a design:” Giotto answered, “Go, sir, I tell you his holiness asks nothing else of me.” The pope, who understood something of painting, easily comprehended by this, how much Giotto in strength of design excelled all the other painters of his time; and accordingly sent for him to Rome. Here he painted many pieces, and amongst the rest a ship of Mosaic work, which is over the three gates of the portico, in the entrance to St. Peter’s church, and is known to painters by the name of Giotto’s vessel. Pope Benedict was succeeded by Clement V. who transferred the papal court to Avignon; whither, likewise, Giotto was obliged to go. After some stay there, having perfectly satisfied the pope by many fine specimens of his art, he was largely rewarded, and returned to Florence full of riches and honour in 1316. He was soon invited to Padua, where he painted a new-built chapel very curiously; thence he went to Verona, and then to Ferrara. At the same time the poet Dante, hearing that Giotto was at Ferrara, and being himself then in exile at Ravenna, got him over to Ravenna, where he executed several pieces; and perhaps it might be here that he drew Dante’s picture, though the friendship between the poet and the painter was previous to this. In 1322, he was again invited abroad by Castruccio Castrucani, lord of Luca; and, after that, by Robert king of Naples. Giotto painted much at Naples, and chiefly the chapel, where the king was so pleased with him, that he used very often to go and sit by him while he was at work: for,Giotto was a man of pleasant conversation and wit. One day, it being very hot, the king said to him, “If I were you, Giotto, I would leave off working this hot weather” “and so would I, Sir,” says Giotto, “if I were you.” He returned from Naples to Rome, and from Rome to Florence, leaving monuments of his art in almost every place through which he passed. There is a picture of his in one of the churches of Florence, representing the death of the blessed Virgin, with the apostles about her: the attitudes of which story, Michael Angelo used to say, could not be better designed. Giotto, however, did not confine his genius altogether to painting: he was both a sculptor and architect. In 1327 he formed the design of a magnificent and beautiful monument for Guido Tarlati, bishop of Arezzo, who had been the head of the Ghibeline faction in Tuscany: and in 1334 he undertook the famous tower of Sancta Maria del Fiore; for which work, though it was not finished, he was made a citizen of Florence, and endowed with a considerable yearly pension. His death happened in 1336: and the city of Florence erected a marble statue over his tomb. He had the esteem and friendship of most of the excellent men of the age in which he lived and among the rest, of Dante and Petrarch. He drew, as already noticed, the picture of the former and the latter mentions him in his will, and in one of his familiar epistles.

, in Latin Gy raid us, an ingenious and learned Italian critic, was born at Ferrara in 1479, of an ancient and reputaWe-family. He learned the Latin tongue and polite literature under Baptist Guarini; and afterwards the Greek at Milan under Demetrius Chalcondyles. He retired into the neighbourhood of Albert Picus, prince of Carpi, and of John Francis Picus, prince of Mirandula; and, having by their means access to a large and well-furnished library, he applied himself intensely to study. He afterwards went to Modena, and thence to Rome, but being unfortunately in this city when it was plundered by the soldiers of Charles V. in 1527, he lost his all in the general ruin; and soon after his patrou cardinal Rangone, with whom he had lived some time. He was then obliged to shelter himself in the house of the prince of Mirandula, a relation of the great Picus, but had the misfortune to lose this protector in 1533, who was assassinated in a conspiracy headed by his nephew. Giraldi was at that time so afflicted with the gout, that he had great difficulty to save himself from the hands of the conspirators, and lost all which he had acquired since the sacking of Rome. He then returned to his own country, and lived at Ferrara, where he found a refuge from his misfortunes. The gout, which he is said to have heightened by intemperance, tormented him so for the six or seven last years of his life, that, as he speaks of himself, he might be said rather to breathe than to live. He was such a cripple in his hands and feet, that he was incapable of moving himself. He made, however, what use he could of intervals of ease, to read, and even write: and many of his books were composed in those intervals. He died at length of this malady in 1552 and was interred in the cathedral of Ferrara, where an epitaph, composed by himself, was inscribed upon his tomb.

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

, a Benedictine monk, first of St. Germaine d'Auxerre, and afterwards of Cluni, and a man of superstitious credulity, flourished in the eleventh century, and wrote a “Chronicle or History of France,” in the Latin language. It consists of five books, of which the first relates to the events of the monarchy previously to Hugh Capet, and the four subsequent ones to those following it, as far down as 1046. This work is defective as a composition, and, at the same time, full of fabulous stories, yet it contains much valuable information relative to those remote ages. It was printed in the collections of Pithou and Duchesne. He was author of a life of William, abbot of St. Benignus at Dijon.

, a writer of the fourteenth century, was an English Minorite, or Franciscan, of the family of the earls of Suffolk. He is said to have studied at Oxford, Paris, and Rome, and to have been very familiar with the writings of Aristotle, Plato, and Pliny; from which, with his own observations, he compiled his celebrated work “De Proprietatibus rernrn,” a kind of general history of nature; divided into nineteen books, treating of God, angels, and devils, the soul, the body, animals, &c. In some copies there is an additional book, not of his writing, on numbers, weights, measures, sounds, &c. Some v “Sermons” of his were printed at Strasburgh in 1495. But his work “De Proprietatibus*' appears to have been the chief favourite, and was one of the first books on which the art of printing was exercised, there being no fewer than twelve editions, or translations, printed from 1479 to 1494. The English translation printed by Wynkyn de Worde is the most magnificent publication that ever issued from the press of that celebrated printer, but the date has not been ascertained. A very copious and exact analysis of this curious work is given by Mr. Dibdin in the second Volume of his” Typographical Antiquities."

, younger son of John Glanvil of Tavistock in Devonshire, one of the justices of the common pleas (who died in 1600), was educated at Oxford, and after serving for some time in an attorney’s office, studied law in Lincoln’s-inn, where he preserved the reputation of legal ability for which his family had long beendistinguished. When he had been a barrister of some years standing, he was elected recorder of Plymouth, and burgess for that place in several parliaments. In the 5tU of Charles I. he was Lent reader of his inn, and in May 1639 was made serjeant at law. Being chosen speaker of the parliament which assembled in April 1640, he shewed himself more active in the king’s cause, than formerly, when he joined in the common clamour against the prerogative. In August 1641, being then one of the king’s serjeants, he received the honour of knighthood; and when his majesty was obliged to leave the parliament, sir John followed him to Oxford. In 1645, being accused as a delinquent, or adherent to the king, he was deprived of his seat in parliament, and afterwards committed to prison, in which he remained until 1648, when he made a composition with the usurping powers. After the restoration he was made king’s serjeant again, and would have probably attained promotion had he not died soon after, on Oct. 2, 1661. He was buried in the church of Broad H in ton in Wiltshire, the manor of which he had bought some years before. His works consist chiefly of speeches and arguments, most of which are in Rnshworth’s “Collections.” His “Reports of Cases of controverted Elections,” were published in 1775, by John Topham, esq.

Accordingly, he had the prudence to take a different method; and turning his thoughts to a subject not only inoffensive in itself, but entirely popular at that time, viz. a defence of experimental philosophy against the notional way of Aristotle and the schools, he published it this year, under the title of “The Vanity of Dogmatizing, or confidence in opinions, manifested in a discourse of the shortness and uncertainty of our knowledge and its causes, with some reflections on Peripateticism, and an apology for philosophy,” 1661, 8vo. These meetings, which gave rise to the Royal Society, were much frequented at this time, and encouraged by learned men of all persuasions; and this small discourse introduced him to the knowledge of the literary world in a very favourable light. He had an opportunity of improving by the weakness of an antagonist, whom he answered in an appendix to a piece called “Scepsis Scientifica, or confessed ignorance the way to science, in an Essay on the Vanity of Dogmatizing, and confident opinion,” 1665, 4to. Our author dedicated this piece to the royal society, in terms of the highest respect for that institution; and the society being then in a state ef infancy, and having many enemies, as might be expected in an undertaking which seemed to threaten the ruin of the old way of philosophizing in the schools, the “Scepsis” was presented to the council by lord Brereton, at a meeting, Dec. 7, 1664; when his lordship also proposed the author for a member, and he was elected accordingly in that month.

His defence of the royal society having procured him many friends, some of them obtained for him the rectory of the abbey church at Bath, into which he was inducted June the same year, 1666. From this time he fixed his residence in that city; and, continuing on all occasions to testify his zeal for the new philosophy, by exploding Aristotle, he was desired to make a visit to Mr. Robert Crosse, vicar of Chew, near Pcnsford, in Somersetshire, a great zealot for the old established way of teaching in the schools. Our author accepted the invitation, and going to Pensford in 1677, happened to come into the room just as the vicar was entertaining his company with the praises of Aristotle and his philosophy. After their first civilities were paid, he went on with his discourse, and, applying himself to Mr. Glanvil, treated the royal society and modern philosophers with some contempt. Glanvil, not expecting so sudden an attack, was in some measure surprized, mud did not answer with that quickness and facility as he otherwise might probably have done. But afterwards, both in conversation and by letters, he attacked his antagonist’s assertion, that Aristotle had more advantages for knowledge than the royal society, or all the present age had or could have, because, “totam peragravit Asiam,” he trarelled over all Asia.

Glanvil likewise laid the plan of a farther defence of the royal society; but bishop Sprat’s history of it being then in the press, he waited to see how far that treatise should anticipate his design. Upon its. publication, in 1667, finding there was room left for him, he pursued his resolution, and printed his piece the following year, with this title, expressing the motives of writing it: “Plus Ultra, or the Progress and Advancement of Knowledge since the days of Aristotle, in an account of some of the most remarkable late improvements of practical useful learning, to encourage philosophical endeavours, occasioned by a conference with one of the notional way,” 1668, 12mo. In some parts of this piece he treated the Somersetshire yicar with rough raillery, and this the vicar returned, in a piece which was denied the press both at Oxford and London, for its scurrility. Glanvil somehow obtaining the contents, printed them at London, with proper remarks of his own, under the title of “The Chew-Gazette,” but of these there were only 100 taken off, and those dispersed into private hands, in order, as Glanvil said, that Crosse’s shame might not be made public, &c. After this letter was published, Crosse wrote ballads against our author and the royal society; while other wags at Oxford, pleased with the controversy, made doggrel ballads on them both.

, a celebrated chemist of Amsterdam, and called the Paracelsus of his age, was born in Germany in the beginning of the sixteenth century. He travelled much in the pursuit of chemical knowledge, and collected many secret processes; and his experiments contributed to throw much light on the composition and analysis of the metals, inflammable substances, and salts. In fact he passed the greater part of his life in the laboratory. He did not always see the proper application of his own experiments, and vainly fancied that he had discovered the panacea, and the philosopher’s stone, which were at that time objects of pursuit; and the disappointment of many persons who had been seduced by his promises, contributed to bring the art of chemistry into contempt. His theory is full of obscurity; but his practice has perhaps been misrepresented by those who listened to his vain and pompous pretensions; and who accuse him of a dishonourable traffick, in first selling his secrets to chemists at an enormous price, of again disposing of them to other persons, and lastly, of making them public in order to extend his reputation. Glauber published about twenty treatises; in some of which he appears in the character of physician, in others in that of an adept or metallurgist; in the latter he most particularly excelled. However, it would be unjust not to give him the praise of acuteness of mind, of facility and address in the prosecution of his experiments, and of extensive chemical knowledge. He was the inventor of a salt which to this day retains his name in the shops of our apothecaries. The works of Glauber have appeared in different languages; the majority of editions are in German, some in Latin, and others in French. A collection of the whole in Latin was published at Francfort in 1658, in 8vo, and again 165y, in 4to. An English translation was published by Christopher Pack, London, 1689, fol.

, an English poet, the son of Richard Glover, a Hamburgh merchant in London, was born in St. Martin’s-lane, Cannon-street, in 1712. Being prot>ably intended for trade, he received no other education than what the school of Cheam, in Surrey, afforded, which he was afterwards induced to improve by an ardent love of learning, and a desire to cultivate his poetical talents according to the purest models. His poetical efforts were very early, for in his sixteenth year he wrote a poem to the memory of sir Isaac Newton, which was supposed to have merit enough to deserve a place in the view of that celebrated author’s philosophy, published in 1728, by Dr, Henry Pemberton. This physician, a man of much science, and of some taste, appears to have been warmly attached to the interests of our young poet, and at a time when there were few regular vehicles of praise or criticism, took every opportunity of encouraging his efforts, and apprizing the nation of this new addition to its literary honours.

Amidst this high encouragement, the services of Dr. Pemberton must not be forgotten. Soon after the appearance of “Leonidas,” this steady friend endeavoured to fix the public attention on it, by a long pamphlet, entitled “Observations on Poetry, especially Epic, occasioned by the late poem upon Leonidas,” 1738, 12mo. In this, with, many just remarks of a general kind, the author carries his opinion of Glover’s production beyond all reasonable bounds. In the following year, Glover published “London, or the Progress of Commerce,” and the more celebrated ballad of “Hosier’s Ghost,” both written with a view to rouse the nation to resent the conduct of the Spaniards, and to promote what had seldom been known, a war called for by the people, and opposed by the ministry. During the same political dissentions, which, as usual, were warmest in the city of London, Glover presided at several meetings called to set aside, or censure the conduct of those city magistrates or members of parliament who voted for the court. His speeches at those meetings, if we may trust to the report of them in the periodical journals of 1739 and 1740, were elegant, spirited, and calculated to give him considerable weight in the deliberative assemblies of his fellow-citizens. The latter were, indeed, so fully convinced of his talents and zeal, as to appoinfe him to conduct their application to parliament, on the subject of the neglect shewn to their trade by the ruling administration. His services in this last affair may be seen in a pamphlet published in 1743, under the title of A short Account of the late application to parliament made by the merchants of London upon the neglect of their trade; with the substance of the evidence thereupon, as summed up by Mr. Glover."

In 1753, he began to try his talents in dramatic composition, and produced the tragedy of “Boadicea,” which was performed for nine nights at Drury-lane theatre. Dr. Pemberton, with his accustomed zeal, wrote a pamphlet to recommend it, and among the inferior critics, it occasioned a temporary controversy. Great expectations were formed of its success from the reputation of an author who had acquired so much praise from his “Leonidas.” At the rehearsal, he read his < Boadicea“to the actors, but his manner of conveying the meaning of his poem was very unhappy; his voice was harsh, and his elocution disagreeable. Mr. Garrick was vexed to see him mangle his own work, and politely offered to relieve him by reading an act or two; but the author imagining that he was the only person lit to unfold his intention to the players, persisted to read the play to the end, to the great mortification of the actors. In 1761 he published his” Medea," a tragedy, written on the Greek model, and therefore unfit for the modern stage. The author, indeed, did not intend it for representation, but Mrs. Yates considered the experiment as likely to procure a full house at her benefit, and brought it forward upon that occasion. It was afterwards acted a few nights, but without exciting much interest.

His character was drawn up by the late Dr. Brocklesby for the Gentleman’s Magazine, and as far as respects his amiable disposition, was confirmed to us by Dr. VVarton, who knew him well. “Through the whole of his life Mr. Glover was by all good men revered, by the wise esteemed, by the great sometimes caressed and even flattered, and now his death is sincerely lamented by all who had the happiness to contemplate the integrity of his character. Mr. Glover, for upwards of 50 years past through every vicissitude of fortune, exhibited the most exemplary simplicity of manners; having early attained that perfect equanimity, which philosophy often recommends in the closet, but which in experience is too seldom exercised by other men in the test of trial. In Mr. Glover were united a wide compass of accurate information in all mercantile concerns, with high intellectual powers of mind, joined to a copious flow of eloquence as an orator in the house of commons. Since Milton he was second to none of our English poets, in his discriminating judicious acquaintance with all ancient as well as modern literature witness his Leon i das, Medea, Boadicea, and London for, having formed his own character upon the best models of the Greek writers, he lived as if he had been bred a disciple of Socrates, or companion of Aristides. Hence his political turn of mind, hence his unwarped affection and active zeal for the rights and liberties of his country. Hence his heartfelt exultation whenever he had to paint the impious designs of tyrants in ancient times frustrated, or in modern defeated in their nefarious purposes to extirpate liberty, or to trample on the unalienable rights of man, however remote in time or space from his immediate presence. In a few words, for the extent of his various erudition, for his unalloyed patriotism, and for his daily exercise and constant practice of Xenophou’s philosophy, in his private as well as in public life, Mr. Glover has left none his equal in the city, and some time, it is feared, may elapse before such another citizen shall arise, with eloquence, with character, and with poetry, like his, to assert their rights, or to vindicate with equal powers the just claims of freeborn men. Suffice this testimony at present, as the wellearned meed of this truly virtuous man, whose conduct was carefully marked, and narrowly watched by the writer of the foregoing hasty sketch, for his extraordinary qualities during the long period in human life of upwards of 40 years and now it is spontaneously offered as a voluntary tribute, unsolicited and unpurchased but as it appears justly due to the memory of so excellent a poet, statesman, and true philosopher, in life and death the same.”

Glover’s “Leonidas” amply entitles him to a distinguished place among the poets of his country, but the public has not held it in uniform estimation. From the time of its first appearance in 1737, it went through six, if not seven editions; but for nearly forty years there has not been a demand for another, although that published in 1770 was highly improved and enlarged. Its history may probably account in part for this singular fate, and public taste must explain the rest. On its first publication, it was read and praised with the utmost avidity. Besides the encomiums it drew from Lyttelton and Pemberton, its fame reached Ireland, where it was reprinted, and became as much in fashion as it had been in England. “Pray who is that Mr. Giover,” says Swift to Pope, in one of his letters, *' who writ the epic poem called Leonidas, which is reprinting here, and hath great vogue“Unfortunately, however, the whole of this tribute of praise was not paid to the intrinsic merit of the poem. It became the adopted favourite of the party in opposition (to sir Robert Walpoie) who had long endeavoured to persuade the nation that public liberty was endangered by the measures of that minister, and that they formed the chosen band who occupied the straits of Thermopylae in defiance of the modern. Xerxes. Leonidas therefore was recommended, to rouse an oppressed and enslaved people to the vindication of their rights. That this should be attempted is less wonderful than that it should succeed. We find very few passages in this poem which will apply to the state of public affairs in. England at that time, if we except the common-place censure of courts and courtiers, and even that is appropriated with so strict historical fidelity to the court of Xerxes, that it does not seem easy to borrow it for any other purpose.” Nothing else,“however, Dr. Warton informs us,” was read or talked of at Leicester-house," the illustrious owner of which extended his patronage to all poets who fanned the sacred flame of patriotism. The consequence of all this was, that Leonidas, which might have laid claim to a considerable rank among English poems of the higher order, was pushed beyond it, and when the purposes for which it had been extolled were either answered, or no longer desirable, it fell lower than it deserved. This is the more justly to be regretted, as we have no reason to think the autlior solicited the injudicious praise of his friends and patrons, or had any hand in building the airyedifice of popular fame. He was, indeed, a lover of liberty, which has ever been the favourite theme of poets, but he did not write for a temporary purpose. Leonidas had been the fruit of very early ambition to be known to posterity, and when he had outlived the party who pressed his poem, into their service, he corrected and improved it for a generation that knew nothing of the partialities which first extended its fame. If his object, however, in this epopee, had been solely to inculcate a love of liberty, a love of our country, and a resolute determination to perish with its freedom, he could not have chosen a subject, at least from ancient times, so happily adapted to elevate the mind. The example was unparalleled in history, and therefore the more capable of admitting the embellishments and attractions that belong to the epic province. Nor does it appear that he undertook a task to which his powers were inadequate, when he endeavoured to interest his readers in the fate of his gallant hero and faithful associates. He is not deficient either in the sublime or the pathetic, although in these essentials he may not bear an uniform comparison with the great masters of the passions. The characters are varied with much knowledge of the human heart. Each has his distinctive properties, and no one is raised beyond the proportion of virtue or talent which may be supposed to correspond with the age he lived in, or the station he occupied.

His comparisons, as lord Lyttelton remarks, are original and striking, although sometimes not sufficiently dignified. His descriptions are minutely faithful, and his episodes are in general so interesting, that no critical exceptions would probably induce the reader to part with them, or to suppose that they are not indispensable to the main action. He has likewise this peculiar excellence, that neither his speeches or descriptions are extended to such lengths as, in some attempts of the epic kind, become tiresome, and are the strongest indication of want of judgment. He paints the rapid energies of a band of freemen, in a barbarous age, struggling for their country, strangers to the refined deliberation of later ages, and acquainted with that eloquence only which leads to prompt decision.

His “Athenaid” was published in 1787, exactly as it was found among his papers. It consists of the unusual number of thirty books, but evidently was left without the corrections which he would probably have bestowed had he revised it (or the press. It is intended as a continuation, or second part to “Leonidas,” in which the Greeks are conducted through the vicissitudes of the war with Xerxes to the final emancipation of their country from his invasions. As an epic it seems defective in many respects. Here is no hero in whose fate the mind is exclusively engaged, but a race of heroes who demand our admiration by turns; the events of history, too, are so closely followed, as to give the whole the air of a poetical chronicle. Of his smaller poems, that on sir Isaac Newton is certainly an extraordinary production from a youth of sixteen, but the theme was probably given to him. Such an acquaintance with the state of philosophy and the improvements of our immortal philosopher, could not have been acquired at his age. “Hosier’s Ghost” was long one of the most popular English ballads; but his “London,” if intended for popular influence, was probably read and understood by few. In poetical merit, however, it is not unworthy of the author of “Leonidas.” Fielding wrote a very long encomium on it in his “Champion,” and predicted rather too rashly, that it would ever continue to be the delight of all that can feel the exquisite touch of poetry, or be roused with the divine enthusiasm of public spirit.

Since the above sketch of Glover was abridged from a more full account drawn up for another work, the attention of the public has been recently called to his history by the publication of a diary, or part of a diary, written by him. This, which appeared in 1813, is entitled “Memoirs of a distinguished Literary and Political Character, from the resignation of sir Robert Walpole in 1742 to the establishment of lord Chatham’s second administration in 1757.” It was immediately followed by “An Inquiry concerning the Author of the Letters of Junius, with reference to the Memoirs of a celebrated literary and political character,” the object of which is to prove that Glover was the author pf these Letters; and although this is not the place to enter into this controversy, we are inclined to think with the author of this “Inquiry,” that no one yet named as the author of Junins, and whose claim has been at all supported by facts, has much chance to stand in competition with Glover.

, a musical composer of great originality, was born in the palatinate, on the frontiers of Bohemia, in 1712, or as Dr. Bumey says, in 1716. His father, a man in poor circumstances, removed, during the infancy of his son, into Bohemia, where he died, leaving fris offspring in early youth, without any provision, so that his education was totally neglected. He had, however, an instinctive love for music, which is taught to all children, with reading and writing, in the Bohemian schools. Having acquired this knowledge, he travelled about from town to town, supporting himself by his talents, till he had worked his way to Vienna, where he met with a nobleman who became his patron, took -him into his service, and carried him into Italy, where he procured him lessons in counterpoint, at Naples, by which he profited so well, that before he left Italy he composed several dramas for different theatres. These acquired him reputation sufficient to be recommended to lord Middlesex as a composer to the opera house in the Haymarket, then under his lordship’s direction. He arrived in England in 1745, and, in that year and the following, produced his operas of “Artamene” and “La Caduta de Giganti,” with indifferent success.

From London he returned to Italy, and composed several operas in the style of the times, and afterwards engaged with the Italian poet Calsabigi, with whom he joined in a conspiracy against the poetry and music of the melo-drama then in vogue in Italy and all over Europe. In 1764, when the late emperor Joseph was crowned king of the Romans, Gluck was the composer, and Guadagni the principal singer. It was in this year that a species of dramatic music, different from that which then reigned in Italy, was attempted by Gluck in his famous opera of “Orfeo,” which succeeded so well, that it was soon after performed in other parts of Europe, particularly at Parma and Paris, Bologna, Naples, and in 1770 at London. In 1769 he produced “Alceste,” a second opera on the reformed plan, which received even more applause than the first; and in 1771 “Paride ed Helena;” but in 1774, his arrival at Paris produced a remarkable era in the annals of French music, by his conforming to the genius of the French language, and flattering the ancient national taste. All his operas proved excellent preparations for a better style of composition than the French had been used to; as the recitative was more rapid, and the airs more marked, than in Lulli and llameau; there were likewise more energy, fire, and variety of movement, in his airs in general, and infinitely more force and effect in his expression of all the violent passions. His music was so truly dramatic, that the airs and scenes, which had the greatest effect on the stage, were cold, or rude, in a concert. The situation, context, and interest, gradually excited in the audience, gave them their force and energy. He seemed indeed so much the national musician of France, that since the best days of Rameau, no dramatic composer had excited so much enthusiasm, or had his pieces so frequently performed, each of them two or three hundred times. The French, who feel very enthusiastically whatever music they like, heard with great rapture the operas of Gluck, which even the enemies of his genre allowed to have great merit of a certain kind; but though there is much real genius and intrinsic worth in the dramatic compositions of this master, the congeniality of his style with that of their old national favourites, Lulli and Rameau, was no small merit with the friends of that music. The almost universal cry at Paris was now, that he had recovered the dramatic music of the ancient Greeks; that there was no other worth hearing; that he was the only musician in Europe who knew how to express the passions: these and other encomiums were uttered and published in the journals and newspapers of Paris, accompanied with constant and contemptuous censures of Italian music, when Piccini arrived, and all the friends of Italian music, of Rousseau’s doctrines, and of the plan, if not the language, of Metastasio’s dramas, enlisted in his service. A furious war broke out at Paris; and these disputes, says Dr. Burney, of musical critics, and rival artists throughout the kingdom, seem to us to have soured and diminished the pleasure arising from music in proportion as the art has advanced to perfection. When every phrase or passage in a musical composition is to be analysed and dissected during performance, all delight and enthusiasm vanish, and the whole becomes a piece of cold mechanism.

The chevalier Gluck, after returning to Vienna from Paris, and being rendered incapable of writing by a paralytic stroke in 1784, only lingered in a debilitated state till the autumn of 1787, when he died at the age of seventythree. Gluck had great merit as a bold, daring, nervous composer; and as such, in his French operas, he was unrivalled. But he was not so universal as to be exclusively admired and praised at the expence of all other composers ancient and modern. His style was peculiarly convenient to France, where there were no good singers, and where no good singing was expected or understood by the public in general; and where the poetry was set up against music, without allowing equality, or even an opportunity of manifesting her most captivating vocal powers.

, was one of the Byzantine historians, but biographers are not agreed as to the period when he lived. Some years ago, professor Walchius published in the Gottingen Transactions an inquiry into this subject, but was obliged to confess that he could arrive at no probable conclusion. Some place Glycas in the twelfth, and some in the fifteenth century. No ancient record or writer mentions even his name, and all that is known of him has been gleaned from his works. It appears that he was a native of Constantinople; but passed a great part of his life in Sicily. Some have thought he was a monk, but this is uncertain, nor do we know whether he lived in public life, or in retirement. His letters, however, show that he was a grammarian, and was acquainted with theology, history sacred and profane, and other branches of knowledge; and such was his reputation that he was frequently consulted by monks, bishops, and the most celebrated doctors of his time. His “Annals,” by which only he is now known, contain an account of the patriarchs, kings, and emperors, and, in a word, a sort of history of the world as far as the emperor Alexis Comnenus, who died in 1118, including many remarks on divinity, philosophy, physic, astronomy, &c. Leunclavius first translated this work into Latin, and the whole was published by father Labbe, Paris, 1660, fol. Some of his letters have been published in the “Deliciae eruditorum,” Florence, 1736, and other collections.

, an eminent classical teacher, the son of John Goad, of Bishopsgate- street, was born there Feb. 15, 1615. He was educated at Merchant Taylors’ school, and elected thence a scholar of St. John’s college, Oxford, in 1632. He afterwards received his master’s degree, became fellow of his college, and took orders. In 1643 he was made vicar of St. Giles’s, Oxford, and continued to perform his parochial duties, although at the risk of his life, during the siege of the city by the parliamentary forces. In June 1646 he was presented by the university to the vicarage of Yarnton, and the year following was created B. D. When the loyalists were turned out by the parliamentary commissioners, Mr. Goad shared their fate; and although Dr. Cheyuel, who was one of the parliamentary visitors, gave him an invitation to return to his college, he refused it upon the terms offered. Yet he appears to have been so far connived at, as to be able to keep his living at Yarnton until the restoration. He also taught at Tunbridge school until July 1661, when he was made head master of Merchant Taylors’ school. Over this seminary he presided for nearly twenty years, with great success and approbation, and trained for the college many youths who did honour to their teacher and to their country; but in 1681 a suspicion was entertained that he inclined towards popery; and it was said that the comment whicli he made on the Church Catechism savoured strongly of popish tenets. Some particular passages having been selected from it, and laid before the grand jury of London, they on March 4 of the above year, presented a complaint to the Merchant Taylors’ company, respecting the catechism taught in their school. After he had been heard in his own defence, it was decided that he was “popishly and erroneously affected,” and immediately was discharged from his office; but such was their sense of his past services, that they voted him a gratuity of 70l. It soon appeared that the court of the company had not been deceived in their opinion of his principles. After being dismissed, he taught a school in Piccadilly, and in 1686, the reign of James II. openly professed himself a Roman catholic which, Wood says, he had long been covertly. He died Oct. 28, 1689, and was buried in the church of Great St. Helen’s, Bishopsgate-street, his memory being honoured by various elegies. He published, besides some single sermons, 1. “Genealogicon Latin um,” a small dictionary for the use of Merchant Taylors’ school, 8vo, 1676, second edit. 2. “Declamation, whether Monarchy be the best form of government” printed at the end of Richards’s “English Orator,” 1680, 8vo. 3. “Astro-Meteorologica, or aphorisms and discourses of the Bodies Celestial, their natures and influences, &c.” 1686, fol. This gained him great reputation. The subject of it is a kind of astrology, founded, for the most part, on reason and experiment, as will appear by comparing it with Boyle’s “History of the Air,” and Dr. Mead’s book * c De Imperio Solis etJLuna.“4.” Autodidactica, or a practical vocabulary, &c.“1690, 8vo. After his death was published” Astro-meteorologia sana, &c." 1690, 4to.

, a learned Jesuit, and secretary to the Chinese missionaries, was born at St. Malo in 1653, and having been educated in the academies belonging to his order, was made professor of philosophy and classics, which he taught for eight years with reputation. He then came to Paris, where he was appointed secretary and procurator to the Chinese missionaries. He died May 1708. He wrote many tracts on the progress of religion in China, and entered warmly into the disputes between the missionaries on the worship of Confucius. The best known of his works are, his “Lettres sur les Progres de la Religion a la Chine,” 1697, 8vo; his “Hist, de PEditde P empereur de la Chine en faveur de la religion Chretienne,” 1698, 12mo, which makes the third volume of le Comte’s Memoirs of China; his “Hist, des Isles Mariannes,” 1700, 12mo and eight parts or volumes of the “Lettres edifiantes et curieuses,” written by the Chinese missionaries. Of these letters there was afterwards a collection made, extending to 34 vols. 12mo; and in 1780, the abbe de Querbeuf published a new edition in 26 vols. They are still consulted as affording information respecting the natural history, geography, and politics of the countries which the Jesuits had explored, although they are not unfrequently mixed with improbable tales.

, an English physician and chemist, and promoter of the royal society, was the son of a rich ship-builder at Deptford, and born at Greenwich about 16 17. Being industrious and of good parts, he made a quick progress in grammar-learning, and was entered a commoner at Magdalen-hall, Oxford, in 1632. He staid at the university about four years, applying himself to physic; and then left it, without taking a degree, to travel abroad, as was at that time the custom, for farther improvement in his faculty. At his return, not being qualified, according to the statutes, to proceed in physic at Oxford, he went to Cambridge, and took the degree of bachelor in the faculty, as a member of Christ college, in 1638; after which, intending to settle in London, without waiting for another degree, he engaged in a formal promise to obey the laws and statutes of the college of physicians there, Nov. 1640. Having by this means obtained a proper permission, he entered into practice; but being still sensible of the advantage of election into the college, he took the first opportunity of applying for his doctor’s degree at Cambridge, which he obtained, as a member of Catherine-hall, in 1643; and was chosen fellow of the college of physicians in 1646. In the mean time, he had the preceding year engaged in another society, for improving and cultivating experimental philosophy. This society usually met at or near his lodgings in Wood-street, for the convenience of making experiments; in which he was very assiduous, as the reformation and improvement of physic was one principal branch of this design. In 1647, he was appointed lecturer in anatomy at the college; and it was from these lectures that his reputation took its rise. As he, with the rest of the assembly which met at his lodgings, had all along sided with the parliament, he was made head-physician in the army, and was taken, in that station, by Cromwell, first to Ireland in 1649, and then to Scotland the following year; and returned thence with his master; who, after the battle of Worcester, rode into London in triumph, Sept. 12, 1651. He was appointed warden of Merton-college, Oxon, Dec. 9th following, and was incorporated M. D. of the university, Jan. 14th the same year. Cromwell was the chancellor; and returning to Scotland, in order to incorporate that kingdom into one commonwealth with England, he appointed our warden, together with Dr. Wilkins, warden of Wadham, Dr. Goodwin, president of Magdalen, Dr. Owen, dean of Christ Church, and Cromwell’s brother-in-law, Peter French, a canon of Christ Church, to act as his delegates in all matters relating to grants or dispensations that required his assent. This instrument bore date Oct. 16, 1652. His powerful patron dissolving the long parliament, called a new one, named the Little Parliament, in 1653, in which the warden of Merton sat sole representative of the university, and was appointed one of the council of state the same year.

A series of honours and favours bestowed by the usurper, whose interest he constantly promoted, naturally incurred the displeasure of Charles II. who removed him from his wardenship, by a letter dated July 3, 1660; and claiming the right of nomination, during the vacancy of the see of Canterbury, appointed another warden in a manner the most mortifying to our author. The new warden was Dr. Edw. Reynolds, then king’s chaplain, and soon after bishop of Norwich, who was appointed successor to sir Nathaniel Brent, without the least notice being taken of Dr. Goddard. He then removed to Gresham college, where he had been chosen professor of physic on Nov. 7, 1655, and continued to frequent those meetings which gave birth to the royal society; and, upon their establishment by charter in 1663, was nominated one of the first council. This honour they were induced to confer upon him, both in regard to his merit in general as a scholar, and to his particular zeal and abilities in promoting the design of their institution, of which there is full proof in the “Memoirs” of that society by Dr. Birch, where there is scarcely a meeting mentioned, in which his name does not occur for some experiment or observation made by him. At the same time he carried on his business as a physician, being continued a fellow of the college by their new charter in 1663. Upon the conflagration in 1666, which consumed the old Exchange, our professor, with the rest of his brethren, removed from Gresham, to make room for the merchants to carry on the public affairs of the city; which, however, did not hinder him from going on with pursuits in natural philosophy and physic. In this last he was not only an able but a conscientious practitioner; for which reason he continued still to prepare his own medicines. He was so fully persuaded that this, no less than prescribing them, was the physician’s duty, that in 1668, whatever offence it might give the apothecaries, he was not afraid to publish a treatise, recommending it to general use. This treatise was received with applause; but as he found the proposal in it attended with such difficulties and discouragements as were likely to defeat it, he pursued that subject the follow, ing year, in “A Discourse, setting forth the unhappy condition of the practice of Physic in London,” 1669, 4to. But this availed nothing, and when an attempt was made by the college of physicians, with the same view, thirty years afterwards, it met with no better success. In 1671 he returned to his lodgings at Gresham college, where he continued prosecuting improvements in philosophy till his death, which was very sudden. He used to meet a select number of friends at the Crown-tavern in Bloomsbury, where they discoursed on philosophical subjects, and in his return thence in the evening of March 24, 1674, he was seized with an apoplectic fit in Cheapside, and dropped down dead.

, a learned French bishop and writer, was descended from a good family at Dreux, and born in 1605. Being inclined to poetry from his youth, he applied himself to it, and so cultivated his genius, that he made his fortune by it. His first essay was a paraphrase in verse of the Benedicite, which was much commended. He was but twenty -four when he became a member of that society which met at the house of Mr. Conrart, to confer upon subjects of polite learning, and to communicate their performances. From this society cardinal Richlieu took the hint, and formed the resolution, of establishing the French academy for belles lettres; and our author in a few years obtained the patronage of that powerful ecclesiastic. The bishopric of Grasse becoming vacant in 1636, cardinal Richelieu recommended him to the king, who immediately conferred it upon him; and as soon as the ceremony of consecration was over, he repaired to his diocese, and applied himself to the functions of his office. He held several synods, composed a great number of pastoral instructions for the use of his clergy, and restored ecclesiastical discipline, which had been almost entirely neglected. He obtained from pope Innocent X. a bull for uniting the bishopric of Vence to that of Grasse, as his predecessor William le Blore had before obtained from Clement VIII. This arrangement, considering the propinquity of the two dioceses, and the small income of both together (about 450l.) was not unreasonable; but when Godeau found the people and clergy averse to it, he gave up his pretensions, and contented himself with the bishopric of Vence only. He assisted in several general assemblies of the clergy, held in 1645 and 1655; in which he vigorously maintained the dignity of the episcopal order, and the system of pure morality, against those who opposed both. One of his best pieces upon this subject, was published in 1709, with the title of “Christian Morals for the Instruction of the Clergy of the Diocese of Vence” and was afterwards translated into English, by Basil Kennet. These necessary absences excepted, he constantly resided upon his diocese, where he was perpetually employed in visitations, preaching, reading, writing, or attending upon the ecclesiastical or temporal affairs of his bishopric, till Easter-day, April 17, 1671; when he was seized with a fit of an apoplexy, of which he died the 21st.

, an eminent civilian, the third son of John Godolphin, esq. was descended from an ancient family of his name in Cornwall, and born Nov. 29, 1617, at Godolphin, in the island of Scilly. He was sent to Oxford, and entered a commoner of Gloucester-hall, in 1632; and having laid a good foundation of logic and philosophy, he applied himself particularly to the study of the civil law, which he chose for his profession; and accordingly took his degrees in that faculty, that of bachelor in 1636, and of doctor in 1642-3. He has usually been ranked among puritans for having written two treatises published by him in 1650 and jL 1651, entitled, 1. “The Holy Limbec, or an extraction of the spirit from the Letter of certain eminent places in the Holy Scripture.” Other copies were printed with this title, “The Holy Limbec, or a Semicentury of Spiritual Extractions,” &c. 2. “The Holy Harbour, containing the whole body of divinity, or the sum and substance of the Christian Religion.” But whatever may be the principles maintained in these works, which we have not seen, it is certain that when he went to London afterwards, he sided with the anti-monarchical party; and, taking the oath called the Engagement, was by an act passed in Cromwell’s convention, or short parliament, July 153, constituted judge of the admiralty jointly with William Clarke, LL. D. and Charles George Cock, esq. In July 1659, upon the death of Clarke, he and Cock received a new commission to the same place, to continue in force no longer than December following.

Notwithstanding these compliances with the powers then in being, he was much esteemed for his knowledge in the civil law, which obtained him the post of king’s advocate at the restoration: after which, he published several books in his own faculty then in good esteem, as “A View of the Admiral’s Jurisdiction,” 1661, 8vo, in which is printed a translation by him, of Grasias, or Ferrand’s “Extract of the ancient Laws of Oleron;” “The Orphan’s Legacy, &c. treating of last wills and testaments,” 1674, 4to. And “Repertorium Canonicurn,” &c. 1678, 4to. In this last piece he strenuously and learnedly asserts the king’s supremacy, as a power vested in the crown, before the Pope invaded the right and authority, or jurisdiction. He died April 4, 1678, and was interred in St. James’s church, Clerkenwell.

Bishop Burnet says, “that he was the silentest and mojdestest man, who was perhaps ever bred in a court. He had a clear apprehension, and dispatched business with great method, and with so much temper, that he had no personal enemies. But his silence begot a jealousy, which hung long upon him. His notions were for the court; but his incorrupt and sincere way of managing the concerns of the treasury created in all people a very high esteem for him. He had true principles of religion and virtue, and never heaped up wealth. So that, all things being laid together, he was one of the worthiest and wisest men, who was employed in that age.” In another place the same historian observes, “that he was a man of the clearest head, the calmest temper, and the most incorrupt of all the ministers he had ever known; and that after having been thirty years in the treasury, and during nine of those lord treasurer, as he was never once suspected of corruption, ur of suffering his servants to grow rich under Jiim, so in all that time his estate was not increased by him to the value of four thousand pounds.” It is also said, that he had a penetrating contemplative genius, a slow, but unerring apprehension, and an exquisite judgment, with few words, though always to the purpose. He was temperate in his diet. His superior wisdom and spirit made han despise the low arts of vain-glorious courtiers; for he never kept suitors unprofitably in suspense, nor promised any thing, that he was not resolved to perform; but as he accounted dissimulation the worst of lying, so on the other hand his denials were softened by frankness and condescension to those whom he could not gratify. His great abilities and consummate experience qualified him for a prime minister; and his exact knowledge of all the branches of the revenue particularly fitted him for the management of the treasury. He was thrifty without the least tincture of avarice, being. as good an ceconomist of the public wealth, as he was of his private fortune. He had a clear conception of the whole government, both in church and state; and perfectly knew the temper, genius, and disposition of the English nation. And though his stern gravity appeared a little ungracious, yet his steady and impartial justice recommended him to the esteem of almost every person; so that no man, in so many different public stations, and so great a variety of business, ever had more friends, or fewer enemies. Dean Swift’s character of him is not so favourable, and in our references may be found many other opposite opinions of his merit and abilities. He had a brother of some poetical talent, noticed by Mr. Ellis.

, better known by the name of Woollstonecraft, a lady of very extraordinary genius, but whose history and opinions are unhappily calculated to excite a mixture of admiration, pity, and scorn, was born in or near London, April 27, 1759, of poor parents, who then resided at Epping, but afterwards removed to a farm near Beverley in Yorkshire, where this daughter frequented a day-school in the neighbourhood. From this place her father again removed to Hoxton near London, and afterwards to Walworth. During all this time, and until Miss Woollstonecraft arrived at her twenty-fourth year, there appears little that is interesting, or extraordinary in her history, unless it may be considered as such that she early affected an original way of thinking, accompanied with correspondent actions, and entertained a high and romantic sense of friendship, which seems greatly to have prevailed over filial affection. In her twenty-fourth year, she formed the plan of conducting a school at Islington, in conjunction with her sisters, which in the course of a few months she removed to Newington-green, where she was honoured by the friendship of Dr. Price. Of her opinions on religious subjects at this time, we have the following singular account from her biographer: “Her religion was, in reality, little allied to any system of forms, and was rather founded in taste, than in the niceties of polemical discussion. Her mind constitutionally attached itself to the sublime and amiable. She found an inexpressible delight in the beauties of nature, and in the splendid reveries of the imagination. But nature itself, she thought, would be no better than a vast blank, if the mind of the observer did not supply it with an animating soul. When she walked amidst the wonders of nature, she was accustomed to converse with her God. To her mind he was pictured as not less amiable, generous, and kind, than great, wise, and exalted. In fact she had received few lessons of religion in her youth, and her religion was almost entirely of her own creation. But she was not on that account the less attached to it, or the less scrupulous in discharging what she considered as its duties. She could not recollect the time when she had believed the doctrine of future punishments,” &c.

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

, son of the preceding, was born at Havington in Northamptonshire, 1561; and, after a good foundation of grammar-learning, was sent to Christ Church college, Oxford, where he was elected a student in 1678, while his father was dean. He proceeded B. A. in 1580, and M. A. in 1583; about which time he wrote an entertaining piece upon a philosophical subject, where imagination, judgment, and knowledge, keep an equal pace; but this, as it contradicted certain received notions of his times, he never published. It came out about five years after his death, under the title of “The Man in the Moon; or, a discourse of a voyage thither;” by Domingo Gonsales, 1638, 8vo. It has been several times printed, and shews that he had a creative genius. Domingo Gonsales, a little Spaniard, is supposed to be shipwrecked on an uninhabited island, where he taught several ganzas, or wild geese, to fly with a light machine, and to fetch and carry things for his conveniency. He, after some time, ventured to put himself into the machine, and they carried him with great ease. He happened to be in this aerial chariot at the time of the year when these ganzas, which were birds of passage, took their flight to the moon, and was directly carried to that planet. He has given a very ingenious description of what occurred to him on his way, and the wonderful things which he saw there. Dr. Swift seems to have borrowed several hints from this novel, in his Voyage to Laputa; but it is more to Dr. Godwin’s praise that he appears to have been well acquainted with the Copernican system. He suppressed also another of his inventions at that time, which he called “Nuncius inanimatus,” or the “Inanimate Messenger.” The design was to communicate various methods of conveying intelligence secretly, speedily, and safely; but although he asserts that by an agreement settled between two parties, a message may be conveyed from the one to the other, at the distance of many miles, with an incredible swiftness, yet he does not reveal the secret. It appears, however, to have given rise to bishop Wilkins’s “Mercury, or secret and swift Messenger.” It is said that he afterwards communicated the secret to his majesty, but why it was not acted upon is not mentioned by his biographers. The pamphlet was published in 1629, and afterwards, in 1657, was translated by the learned Dr. Thomas Smith, and published with “The Man in the Moon.”

He had probably been sometime master of arts, when he entered into orders, and became in a short time rector of Satnrbrd Orcais, in Somersetshire, a prebendary in the church of Wilts, canon residentiary there, and vicar of Weston in Zoyland, in the same county; he was also collated to the sub-deanery of Exeter, in 1587. In the mean time, turning his studies to the subject of the antiquities of his own country, he became acquainted with Camden; and accompanied him in his travels to Wales, in 1590, in the search of curiosities. He took great delight in these inquiries, in which he spent his leisure hours for several years; but at length he confined himself to ecclesiastical antiquities and history. After some time, finding, with regard to these, that he could add little or nothing to Fox’s work on that subject, he restrained his inquiries to persons; and here he spared no pains, so that he had enough to make a considerable volume in 1594.

, a learned English writer, and an excellent schoolmaster, was born in Somersetshire, in 1587; and, after a suitable education in grammar-learning, was sent to Oxford. He was entered of Magdalenhall in 1602; and took the two degrees in arts 1606 and 1609. This last year he removed to Abingdon in Berkshire, having obtained the place of chief master of the freeschool there; and in this employ distinguished himself by his industry and abilities so much, that he brought the school into a very flourishing condition; and bred up many youths who proved ornaments to their country, both in church and state. To attain this commendable end he wrote his “Roman Historiae Anthologia,” an English exposition of the Roman antiquities, &c. and printed it at Oxford in 1613, 4to. The second edition was published in 1623, with considerable additions. He also printed for the use of his school, a “Florilegium Phrastcon, or a survey of the Latin Tongue.” However, his inclinations leading him to divinity, he entered into orders, and became chaplain to Montague bishop of Bath and Wells. He proceeded B. D. in 1616, in which year he published at Oxford, “Synopsis Antiquitatum Hebraicarum, &c.” a collection of Hebrew antiquities, in three books, 4to. Thi he dedicated to his patron; and, obtaining some time after from him the rectory of Brightwell in Berkshire, he resigned his school, the fatigue of which had long been too great for him. Amidst his parochial duties, he prosecuted the subject of the Jewish antiquities; and, in 1625, printed in 4to, “Moses and Aaron, &c.” which was long esteemed an useful book for explaining the civil and ecclesiastical rites of the Hebrews. He took his degree of D. D. in 1637, but did not enjoy that honour many years; dying upon his parsonage in 1642-3, and leaving a wife, whom he had married while he taught school at Abingdon.

, a learned and zealous Lutheran, was born at Leipsic in 1668, studied at Wirtemberg and Jena, and exercised his functions as a minister in various parts of Germany. He was the author of many very singular works in Latin and German, of which Moreri gives a list of 152, but the greater part of these are dissertations, or theses, on various subjects of divinity, sacred criticism, and ecclesiastical history. He was lastly superintendant of the churches at Lubec, and died in that city, March 25, 1729. The most distinguished among hU Latin works are, “Selecta ex Historia Litteraria,” Lubecce, 1709, 4to; “Meletemata Annebergensia,” Lubecae, 1709, 3 vols. 12mo, containing several dissertations, which have appeared separately.

, a Portuguese writer of the sixteenth century, was born at Alanquar near Lisbon, of a noble family, in 1501, and brought upas a domestic in, the court of king Emanuel, where he was considered both as a man of letters and of business. Having a strong passion for travelling, he contrived to get a public commission; and travelled through almost all the countries of Europe, contracting as he went an acquaintance with all the learned. At Dantzic he became intimate with the brothers John and Olaus Magnus; and he spent five months at Friburg with Erasmus. He afterwards went to Padua, in 1534, where he resided four years, studying under Lazarus Bonamicus; not, however, without making frequent excursions into different parts of Italy. Here he obtained the esteem of Peter, afterwards cardinal Bembus, of Christopher Maclrucius, cardinal of Trent, and of James Sadolet. On his return to Lou vain in 1538, he had recourse to Conrad Goclenius and Peter Nannius, whose instructions were of great use to him, and applied himself to music and poetry; in the former of which he made so happy a progress, that he was qualified to compose for the churches. He married at Louvain, and his design was to settle in this city, in order to enjoy a little repose after fourteen years travelling; but a war breaking out between Charles V. and Henry II. of France, Louvain was besieged in 1542, and Goez, who has written the history of this siege, put himself at the head of the soldiers, and contributed much to the defence of the town against the French, when the other officers had abandoned it. When he was old, John III. of Portugal, recalled him into his country, in order to write the history of it; but as it became first necessary to arrange the archives of the kingdom, which he found in the greatest confusion, he had little leisure to accomplish his work. The favours also which the king bestowed upon him created him so much envy, that his tranquillity was at an end, and he came to be accused; and, though he cleared himself from all imputations, was confined to the town of Lisbon. Here, it is said that he was one day found dead in his own house; and in such a manner as to make it doubted whether he was strangled by his enemies, or died of an apoplexy; but other accounts inform us, with more probability, that he fell into the fire in a fit, and was dead before the accident was discovered. This happened in 1560, and he was interred in the cburck of Notre Dame, at Alanquar. Rewrote “Fides, Religio, Moresque Æthiopum” “De Imperio et Rebus Lusitanorum” “Hispania;” “Urbis OlissiponensisDescriptio;” “Chronica do Rey Dom Emanuel” “Historia do Principe Dom Juao” and other works, which have been often printed, and are much esteemed. Antonio says, that, though he is an exact writer, yet he has not written the Portuguese language in its purity; which, however, is not to be wondered at, considering how much time he spent out of his own country.

, a laborious writer in civil law and history, was born at Bischoffsel in Switzerland, in 1576, and was a protestant of the confes-^ sion of Geneva. He studied the civil law at Altorf under Conrade Rittershusius, with whom he boarded; and returned in 1598 to Bischoffsel, where for some time he had no other subsistence but what he acquired by writing books, of which, at the time of publication he used to send copies to the magistrates and people of rank, from whom he received something more than the real value; and some of his friends imagined they did him service in promoting this miserable traffic. In 1599 he lived at St. Gal, in the house of a Mr. Schobinger, who declared himself his patron; but the same year he went to Geneva, and lived at the house of professor Lectius, with the sons of Vassan, whose preceptor he was. In 1602 he went to Lausanne, from a notion that he could live cheaper there than at Geneva. His patron Schobinger, while he advised him to this step, cautioned him at the same time from such frequent removals as made him suspected of an unsettled temper. But, notwithstanding Schobinger’s caution, he returned soon after to Geneva; and, upon the recommendation of Lectius, was appointed secretary to the duke of Bouillon, which place he quitted with his usual precipitation, and was at Francfort in 1603, and had a settlement at Forsteg in 1604. In 1605 he lived at Bischoffsel; where he complained of not being safe on the score of his religion, which rendered him odious even to his relations. He was at Francfort in 1606, where he married, and continued till 1610, in very bad circumstances. Little more is known of his history, unless that he lost his wife in 1630, and died himself Aug. 11, 1635. He appears to have been a man of capricious temper, and some have attributed to him a want of integrity. The greatest part of the writings published by Goldast are compilations arranged in form, or published from Mss. in libraries; and by their number he may be pronounced a man of indefatigable labour. Conringius says he has deserved so well of his country by publishing the ancient monuments of Germany, that undoubtedly the Athenians would have maintained him in the Prytaneum, if he had lived in those times; and adds, that he neither had, nor perhaps ever will have, an equal in illustrating the affairs of Germany, and the public law of the empire. The following are the most considerable among his various works: A collection of different tracts on civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, entitled “Monarcbia Sancti Romani Imperii*” &c. 1611, 1613, and 1614, 3 vols. fol. “Alamaniae Scriptores,” 1730, 5 vols. fol.; “Scriptores aliquot rerum Suevlearum,” 1605, 4to; “Commentarius de Bohemise regno,” 4to “Informatio de statu Bohemia3 quoad jus,” 4to “Sybilla Francica,” 4to which is a collection of pieces relating to the Maid of Orleans “Paraeneticorum veterum pars prima,” 1604, 4to. A curious collection of letters was published in 1688, under the title “Virorum clarissimorum ad Melchior Goldastum Epistolae,” 4to, Francfort.

Soon after this event, his father died, and his friends wished him to prepare for holy orders; but to this he declared his dislike; and finding himself equally uncomfortable as tutor in a private family, to which he had been recommended, he again left the country with about thirty pounds in his pocket. After an absence of six weeks, he returned to his mother’s house, without a penny, having expended the whole in a series of whimsical adventures, of which the reader will find a very entertaining account in the Life prefixed to his Works. His mother and friends being reconciled to him, his uncle the rev. Thomas Contarine, resolved to send him to the Temple to study law; but in his way to London, he met at Dublin with a sharper who tempted him to play, and stript him of fifty pounds, with which he had been furnished for his voyage and journey. His youth must furnish the only apology that can be made for this insensibility to the kindness of his friends, who could ill afford the money thus wantonly lost. Again, however, they received him into favour, and it being now decided that he should study physic, he was sent to Edinburgh, lor that purpose, about 1752 or 1753, but still his thoughtless and eccentric disposition betrayed him into many ludicrous situations. He formally, indeed, attended the lectures of the medical professors, but his studies were neither regular nor profound. There was always something he liked better than stated application. Among his fellow-students, he wished to recommend himself, and he was not unsuccessful, by his stories and songs, as a social companion, and a man of humour; and this ambition to shine in company by such means, never wholly left him when he came to associate with men who are not charmed by noisy vivacity. After he had gone through the usual course of lectures, his uncle, who appears to have borne the principal expences of his education, equipped him for the medical school of Leyden, at which, however, he did not arrive without meeting with some of those incidents which have given an air of romance to his history. At Leyden he studied chemistry and anatomy for about a year; but a taste tor gaming, which he appears to have caught very early, frequently plunged him into difficulties, without any of the benefits of experience. Even the money which he was compelled to borrow, in order to enable him to leave Holland, was expended on some costly flowers which he bought of a Dutch florist, as a present to his uncle; and when he set out on his travels, he “had only one clean shirt, and no money in his pocket.” In such a plight any other man would have laid his account with starving; but Goldsmith had “a knack at hoping,” and however miserably provided, determined to make the tour of Europe on foot. In what manner he performed this singular undertaking, he is supposed to have informed us in “The History of a Philosophic Vagabond,” in chap, xx. of the “Vicar of Wakefield.” He had some knowledge of music, and charmed the peasants so much as to procure a lodging and a subsistence. He also entered the foreign universities and convents, where, upon certain days, theses are maintained against any adventitious disputant, for which, if the champion opposes with some dexterity, he may claim a gratuity in money, a dinner, and a bed for the night. At one time, he is said to have accompanied a young Englishman as a tutor; but his biographer doubts whether this part of the Philosophic Vagabond’s story was not a fiction. It is certain, however, that in the manner above related, and with some assistance from his uncle, he contrived to travel through Flanders, and part of France, Germany, Switzerland, and Italy. It was probably at Padua that he took a medical degree, as he remained here about six months, but one of his earliest biographers thinks he took the degree of bachelor of medicine at Louvaine. His generous uncle dying while he was in Italy, he was obliged to travel through France to England on foot, and landed at Dover in 1756.

He arrived in London in the extremity of distress, and first tried to be admitted as an usher in a school or academy, and having with some difficulty obtained that situation, he remained for some time in it, submitting to mortifications., of which he has given, probably, an exaggerated account in the story of the philosophic vagabond. He next procured a situation in the shop of a chemist, and while here, was found out by Dr. Sleigh, one of his fellow-students at Edinburgh, who liberally shared his purse with him, and encouraged him to commence practitioner. With this view, he settled, if any measure of our poet deserves that epithet, in Bankside, Southwark; and afterwards removed to the Temple or its neighbourhood. In either place his success as a physician is not much known; his ovyn account was, that he had plenty of patients, but got no fees.

About this time, however, he appears to have had recourse to his pen. His first attempt was a tragedy, which he probably never finished. In 1758 he obtained, by means of Dr. Milner, a dissenting minister, who kept a school at Peckham, which our author superintended during the doctor’s illness, the appointment to be physician to one of our factories in India. In order to procure the necessary expences for the voyage, he issued proposals for printing by subscription “The present state of Polite Literature in Europe,” with what success we are not told, nor why he gave up his appointment in India. In the same year, however, he wrote what he very properly calls a catch-penny “Life of Voltaire,” and engaged with Mr. Griffiths as a critic in the Monthly Review. The terms of this engagement were his board, lodging, and a handsome salary, all secured by a written agreement. Goldsmith declared he usually wrote for his employer every day from nine o'clock till two. But at the end of seven or eight months it was dissolved by mutual consent, and our poet took lodgings in Green Arbour court, in the Old Bailey, amidst the dwellings of indigence, where he completed his “Present State of Polite Literature,” printed for Dodsley, 1759, 12mo.

He afterwards removed to more decent lodgings in Wine Office-court, Fleet-street, where he wrote his admirable novel, “The Vicar of Wakefield,” attended with the affecting circumstance of his being under arrest. When the knowledge of his situation was communicated to Dr. Johnson, he disposed of his manuscript for sixty pounds, to Mr. Newbery, and procured his enlargement. Although the money was then paid, the book was not published until some time after, when his excellent poem “The Traveller” had established his fame. His connection with Mr. Newbery was a source of regular supply, as he employed him in compiling or revising many of his publications, particularly, “The Art of Poetry,” 2 vols. 12mo; a “Life of Beau Nash,” and “Letters on the History of England,” 2 vols. 12mo, which have been attributed to lord Lyttelton, the earl of Orrery, and other noblemen, but were really written by Dr. Goldsmith. He had before this been employed by Wilkie, the bookseller, in conducting a “Lady’s Magazine,” and published with him, a volume of essays, entiled “The Bee.” To the Public Ledger, a newspaper, of which Kelly was at that time the editor, he contributed those letters which have since been published under the title of “The Citizen of the World.”

"He was subject to severe fits of the strangury, owing probably to the intemperate manner in which he confined himself to the desk, when he was employed in his compilations, often indeed for several weeks successively, without taking exercise. On such occasions he usually hired lodgings in some farm-house a few miles from London, and wrote without cessation till he had finished his task. H then carried his copy to the bookseller, received his compensation, and gave himself up, perhaps for months without interruption, to the gaieties, amusements, and societies of London. And here it may be observed once for all, that his elegant and enchanting style in prose flowed from him with such facility, that in whole quires of his histories, * Animated Nature,' &c. he had seldom occasion to correct or alter a single word; but in his verses, especially his two great ethic poems, nothing could exceed the patient and incessant revisal which he bestowed upon them. To save himself the trouble of transcription, he wrote the lines in his first copy very wide, and would so fill up the intermediate space with reiterated corrections, that scarcely a word of his first effusions was left unaltered.

“He was,” adds his biographer, “generous in the extreme, and so strongly affected by compassion, that he has been known at midnight to abandon his rest in order to procure relief and an asylum for a poor dying object who was left destitute in the streets. Nor was there ever a mind whose general feelings were more benevolent and friendly. He is, however, supposed to have been often soured by jealousy or envy, and many little instances are mentioned of this tendency in his character; but whatever appeared of this kind was a mere momentary sensation, which he knew not how like other men to conceal. It was never the result of principle, or the suggestion of reflection; it never embittered his heart, nor influenced his conduct. Nothingcould be more amiable than the general features of his mind; those of his person were not perhaps so engaging. His stature was under the middle size, his body strongly built, and his limbs more sturdy than elegant; his complexion was pale, his forehead low, his face almost round, and pitted with the small-pox; but marked with strong lines of thinking. His first appearance was not captivating; but when he grew easy and cheerful in company, he relaxed into.such a display of good-humour, as soon removed every unfavourable impression. Yet it must be acknowledged that in company he did not appear to so much advantage as might have been expected from his genius and talents. He was too apt to speak without reflection, and without a sufficient knowledge of the subject; which made Johnson observe of him, * No man was more foolish when he had not a pen in his hand, or more wise when he had.' Indeed, with all his defects (to conclude nearly in the words of that great critic), as a writer he was of the most distinguished abilities. Whatever he composed he did it better than any other man could. And whether we consider him as a poet, as a comic writer, or as an historian (so far as regards his powers of composition) he was one of the first writers of his time, and will ever stand in the foremost class.”

, professor of Arabic at Leyden, descended from a considerable family in that city, was born at the Hague, in 1596. At Leyden he made himself master of all the learned languages, and proceeded to physic, divinity, and the mathematics. His education being finished, he took a journey to France with the duchess de la Tremouille; and was invited to teach the Greek language at Rochelle, which he continued to do, until that city was in the following year reduced again to the dominion of the French king, after which he resolved to return to Holland. He had early taken a liking to Erpenius, the Arabic professor at Leyden; by the help of whose lectures he made a great progress in the Arabic tongue, and having in 1622 an opportunity of attending the Dutch ambassador to the court of Morocco, he consulted with Erpenius, who directed him to observe carefully every production, either of nature, art, or custom, which were unknown in Europe; and to describe them, setting down the proper name of each, and the derivation of it, if known. He also gave him a letter directed to that prince, together with a present of a grand atlas, and a New Testament in Arabic. These procured him a very gracious reception from Muley Zidan, then king of Morocco, who expressed great satisfaction in the present, and afterwards read them frequently. In the mean time Golius made so good use of Erpenius’ s advice, that tie attained a perfect skill in the Arabic tongue; and in indulging his curiosity respecting the customs and learning of that country, contrived to make himself very agreeable to the doctors and courtiers. By this means he became particularly serviceable to the ambassador, who growing uneasy because his affairs were not dispatched, was advised to present to his majesty a petition written by Golius in the Arabic character and language, and in the Christian style, both circumstances rather novel in that country. The king was astonished at the beauty of the petition, both as to writing and style; and having learned from the ambassador that it was done by Golius, desired to see him. At the audience, the king spoke to him in Arabic, and Golius said in Spanish, that he understood his majesty very well, but could not keep up a conversation in Arabic, by reason of its guttural pronunciation, to'which his throat was not sufficiently inured. This excuse was accepted by the king, who granted the ambassador’s request, and dispatched him immediately. Before his departure, Golius had an opportunity of examining the curiosities of Fez, and took a plan of the royal palace, which was afterwards communicated to Mr. Windus, and inserted in his “Journey to Mequinez,” 1721, 8vo. Go* lius brought with him to Holland several books unknown in Europe; and among others, “The Annals of the Ancient Kingdom of Fez and Morocco,” which he resolved to translate. He communicated every thing to Erpenius, who well knew the value of them, but did not live long enough to enjoy the treasure; that professor dying in Nov. 1624, after recommending this his best beloved scholar to the curators of the university for his successor. The request was complied with, and Golius saw himself immediately in the Arabic chair, which he filled so ably as to lessen their sense of the loss of Erpenius. Being, however, still desirous of cultivating oriental languages and antiquities, he applied to his superiors for leave to take a journey to the Levant; and obtained letters patent from the prince of Orange, dated Nov. 25, 1625. He set out immediately for Aleppo, where he continued fifteen months; after which, making excursions into Arabia, towards Mesopotamia, he went by land to Constantinople, in company with Cornelius Hago, ambassador from Holland to the Porte. Here the governor of the coast of Propontis gave him the use of his pleasant gardens and curious library in which retirement he applied himself wholly to the reading of the Arabic historians and geographers, whose writings were till then either unknown to, or had not been perused by him. Upon his return to the city, discovering occasionally in conversation with the great men there a prodigious memory of what he had read, he excited such admiration, that a principal officer of the empire made him an offer of a commission from the grand signor to take a survey of the whole empire, in order to describe the situation of places with more exactness than was done in such maps as they then had; but he pretended that this would interfere with the oath which he had taken to the States, although his real fear arose from the danger of such an undertaking. In this place also he found his skill in physic of infinite service in procuring him the favour and respect of the grandees; from whom, as he would take no fees, he received many valuable and rich presents, and every liberal offer to induce him to settle among them. But after a residence of four years, having in a great measure satisfied his thirst of eastern learning, and made himself master of the Turkish, Persian, and Arabic tongues, he returned in 1629, laden with curious Mss. which have ever since been valued among the richest treasures of the university library at Leyden. As soon as he was settled at home, he began to think of making the best use of some of these manuscripts by communicating them to the public; but first printed an “Arabic Lexicon,” 1653, folio; and a new edition of “Erpenius’s Grammar, enlarged with notes and additions;” to which also he subjoined several pieces of poetry, extracted from the Arabian writers, particularly Tograi and Ababella. One purpose on which he employed his knowledge and influence cannot be too highly commended. He had been an eye-witness of the wretched state of Christianity in the Mahometan countries, and with the compassion of a Christian, resolved, therefore, to make his tfkill in their language serviceable to them. With this laudable view he procured an edition of the “New Testament” in the original language, with a translation into the vulgar Greek by an Archimandrite, which he prevailed with the States to present to the Greek church, groaning under the Mahometan tyranny; and, as some of these Christians use the Arabic tongm? in divine service, he took care to have dispersed among them an Arabic translation of the confession of the reformed protestants, together with the catechism and liturgy .

, a celebrated engraver and painter, was born in 1658, at Mulbrec, in the duchy of Juliers; and learned his art at Haerlem, where he married. An asthmatic disorder afterwards inclining him to travel in Italy, his friends remonstrated against this, but he answered, that “he had rather die learning something, than live in such a languishing state.” Accordingly, he passed through most of the chief cities of Germany, where he visited the painters, and the curious; and went to Rome and Naples, where he studied the works of the best masters, and designed a great number of pieces after them. To prevent his being known, he passed for his man’s servant, pretending that he was maintained and kept by him for his skill in painting; and by this stratagem he came to hear what was said of his works, without being known, which afforded him no small amusement as well as instruction. His disguise, his diversion, the exercise of travelling, and the different air of the countries through which he travelled, had such an effect upon his constitution, that he recovered his former health and vigour. He relapsed, however, some time after, and died at Haerlem in 1617. Mr. Evelyn has given the following testimony of his merit as a graver: “Henry Goltzius,” says he, “was a HoU lander, and wanted only a good and judicious choice, to 'have rendered him comparable to the profoundest masters that ever handled the burin for never did any exceed this rare workman witness those things of his after Gasporo Celio, &c. and in particular his incomparable imitations after Lucas Van Leyden, in The Passion, the Christus Mortuus, or Pieta; and those other six pieces, in each of which. he so accurately pursues Durer, Lucas, and some others of the old masters, as makes it almost impossible to discern the ingenious fraud.” As a painter he drew his resources from the study of the antique, of Raphael, Polidoro, and Michael Angelo; the last of whom appears to have been his" favourite, but whose faults he exaggerated in an outrageous manner, seldom attaining any of his beauties. Hence his style of design is inflated and caricature and his expressions participate of the same taste but his sense of hue in colour is rich, vigorous, and transparent. 7t is as an engraver, however, that he deserves the highest commendation, having never been surpassed, and seldom equalled in the command of the graver, and in freedom of execution.

, a German antiquary, was born at Venloo, in the duchy of Gueldres, in 1526. His father was a painter, and he was himself bred up in this art, learning the principles of it from Lambert Lombard; but he seems to have quitted the pencil early in life, having a particular turn to antiquity, and especially to the study of medals, to which he entirely devoted himself. He considered medals as the very foundation of true history; and travelled through France, Germany, and Italy, in order to make collections, and to“draw from them what lights he could. His reputation was so high in this respect, that the cabinets of the curious were every where open to him; and on the same account he was honoured with the freedom of the city of Rome in Io67. He was the author of several excellent works, in all which he applies medals to the illustration of ancient history, and for the greater accuracy, had them printed in his own house, and corrected them himself. He also engraved the plates for the medals with his own hands. Accordingly, his books were admired all over Europe, and thought an ornament to any library; and succeeding antiquaries have bestowed the highest praises upon them. Lipsius, speaking of the” Fasti Consulares,“says, that” he knows not which to admire most, his diligence in seeking so many coins, his happiness in finding, or his skill in engraving them." Some, however, have said that although his works abound with erudition, they must be read with some caution. The fact seems to be, that all his works have many coins not yet found in cabinets, because his own collection was unfortunately lost, yet the medals which he describes, and which were once looked upon as fictitious, are yearly found really existent, and of undoubted antiquity. A French writer compares him to Pliny the natural historian, who was thought to deal much in falsehood, till time drew the truth out of the well; so that as knowledge advances, most of his wonders acquire gradual confirmation. Yet it is certain that he was often imposed upon, and the caution above given is not unnecessary. His coins of the Roman tyrants, for instance, are clearly false; for they bear Pren. and Cog. on the exergue, which marks never occur on the real coins. It has been also said that many errors of this nature must be committed by a man, whose love and veneration for Roman antiquities was such, that he gave to all his children Roman names, such as Julius, Marcellus, &c. so that he might easily receive for antiques what were not so, out of pure fondness for any thing of that kind. Upon this principle, it is probable, that he took, for his second wife, the widow of the antiquary Martini us Smetius; whom he married more for the sake of Smetius 1 s medals and inscriptions than for any thing belonging to herself. She was his second wife, and a shrew, who made his latter days unhappy. He died at Bruges March 14, 1583.

, a French poet, was born in 1567, at St. Just de Lussac, near Brouage in Saintongue. He was a gentleman by birth, and his breeding was suitable to it. Alter a foundation of grammarlearning, he finished his studies at Bourdeaux; and having gone through most of the liberal sciences, under the best masters of his time, he betook himself to Paris, in the view of making the most of his parts; for, being the cadet of a fourth marriage by his father, his patrimonial finances were a little short. At Paris, he soon introduced himself to the knowledge of the polite world, by sonnets, epigrams, and other small poetical pieces, which were generally applauded: but, reaping little other benefit, he was obliged to use the strictest oeconomy, to support a tolerable figure at court, till the assassination of the king by Ravillac, in 1610, provoked every muse in France. The subject was to the last degree interesting, and our poet exerted his talent to the utmost in some verses which pleased the queen- regent, Mary de Medicis, so highly, that she rewarded him with a pension of 1200 crowns nor was there a man of his condition, that had more free access to her, or was more kindly received by her. He was also in the same favour with the succeeding regent, Anne of Austria, during the minority of Lewis XIV.

He lived many years in the enjoyment of these honours, and had his fortune increased by an additional pension from M. Seguier, chancellor of France. These marks of esteem do honour to his patrons, for he openly professed the reformed religion, although in such a manner as to avoid giving offence, or shocking the prejudices of those with whom he associated. He had always enjoyed very good health; but, as he was one day walking in his room, which was customary with him, his foot slipped; and, falling down, he hurt himself so, that he was obliged almost constantly to keep his bed to the end of his life, which lasted near a century. However, in 1657, when at the age of 90, he published a large collection of epigrams; and, many years after, a tragedy called “Dana'ides.” This was some time before his death; which did not hap*­pen till 1666. In manners he was modest and regular, sincere in his piety, and proof against all temptations. He was of a hot and hasty temper, much inclined to anger, though he had a grave and reserved countenance. He was also a man of wit, and not always very guarded in the use of it. Having shown one of his performances to cardinal Richelieu, he said “Here are some things 1 do not understand.” “That is not my fault,” answered Gombauld, and the cardinal wisely affected not to hear him. His posthumous works were printed in Holland in 1678, with this title, “. Traites & Lettres de Monsieur Gombauld sur la Religion.” They contain religious discourses, and were most esteemed of all his works by himself: he composed them from a principle of charity, with a design to convert the catholics, and confirm the protestants in their faith.

, Sieurde, an ingenious French writer, was born at Chevreuse, in the diocese of Paris, or as some say in Paris itself, in 1599. He was early distinguished by some successful publications which had given him a literary reputation, and made him be enrolled among the number assembled by cardinal Richelieu for the purpose of founding the French academy in 1635. His first publications were romances and works of a light nature, but at the age of forty-five he formed the resolution of consecrating his pen to religion, and adopted a penitentiary course of life, which some think was more strict at the commencement than at the termination of it. He died June 14, 1674. One of the most curious of his works, “La doctrine des Mceurs, tiree de la philosophic des Stoiques, representee en cent tableaux,” 1646, fol. is perhaps now more admired for the plates than for the letterpress. They are engraved by Peter Daret from designs by Otho V emius. In this work Gornberville assumes the disguised name of Thalassius Basilides (Marin le Roi) His romances were il Cariti'e,“” Polexandre,“” Cytherea,“and” La jeune Alcidiane,“published in 1733 by madame Gomez, who says that Gomberville left merely an outline of it. His other works were, 1.” Relation de la riviere des Amazones,“1632, 2 vols. 12mo. 2.” Memoires de Louis de Gonzague, due de Nevers,“1665, 2 vols. fol. 3.” Discours des vertus et des vices de Phistoire," 1620, 4to, and various pieces of sacred poetry, &c.

, a Spanish Latin poet, was born in 1488 at Guadalaxara in Spain, and was page of honour to archduke Charles, afterwards emperor. He possessed a great facility in writing Latin verse, which is seen by his “Thalia Christiana,” or the triumph of Jesus Christ, in twenty-five books: 4< Musa Paulina,“or the epistles of St. Paul, in elegiac verse the Proverbs of Solomon, and other works of a similar kind but his poem on the order of the golden fleece, published in 1540, 8vo, entitled” De Principis Burgundi Militia quam Velleris aurei vocant," is perhaps the only one now read, and more suitable to his talents than the preceding, in which he introduced a tasteless mixture of pagan and Christian personages. He died July 14, 1538.

, a noted puritan, who has been sometimes classed among the reformers of religion in Scotland, was born at Chester about 1520, and in 1536 entered a student of Brazemiose college, Oxford, where he took both degrees in arts. In 1547 he was constituted one of the senior students of Christ church, of the foundation of Henry VIII. About the end of the reign of king Edward VI. he was admitted to the reading of the sentences, and chosen divinity lecturer of the university. On the accession of queen Mary he was obliged to quit the kingdom, with many other protestants, and retire to Francfort. Here he became involved in the disputes which arose among the English exiles respecting forms of divine worship, some adhering to the model of the church of England, as far as appeared in the Book of Common Prayer, and others, among whom was Goodman, contending for a more simple form. After these disputes had occasioned a separation among men whose common sufferings might have made them overlook lesser matters, Goodman went to Geneva, where he and the celebrated John Knox were chosen pastors of the English church, and remained there until the death of queen Mary. While there he assisted Knox in compiling “The Book of Common Order,” which was used as a directory of worship in their congregations, and he is said to have taken a part in the Geneva translation of the Bible. On the accession of queen Elizabeth, he went into Scotland, where, in 1560, he was appointed minister at St. Andrew’s, and in other respects by his public services assisted in establishing the reformation in that nation. About 1565 he removed to England, and accompanied sir Henry Sidney in his expedition against the rebels in Ireland, in the character of chaplain. In 1571 he was cited before archbishop Parker, for having published, during his exile, a book answering the question “How far superior powers ought to be obeyed of their subjects, and wherein they may be lawfully, by God’s word, obeyed and resisted” This had been written against the tyrannical proceedings of queen Mary but, as his positions were of a kind too general not to be applicable to sovereigns of another description, and become an apology for rebellion, he consented to a recantation, and an avowal of his loyalty to queen Elizabeth. He lived many years after this, and was preacher at Chester, where he died in 1601, or 1602. Besides the above mentioned, he wrote “A Commentary on Amos,” but not, as Wood says, “The first blast of the Trumpet against the monstrous regiment of Women,” which was written by Knox.

Being a zealous promoter of the reformation, soon after his arrival he visited the prior and convent of Ely; and next year sent a mandate to all the clergy of his diocese, dated at Somersham June 27, 1535, with orders to erase the name of the pope out of all their books, and to publish in their churches that the pope had no further authority in this kingdom. This mandate is printed in Bentham’s “History of Ely Cathedral,” together with his injunctions, dated from Ely, Oct. 21, 1541, to the clergy,“to see that all images, relics, table-monuments of miracles, shrines, &c. be so totally demolished and obliterated, with all speed and diligence, that no remains or memory might be found of them for the future.” These injunctions were so completely executed in his cathedral, and other churches in the diocese of Ely, that no traces remain of many famous shrines and altars, which formerly were the objects of frequent resort, nor any signs at all that they had ever existed.

, a famous nonconformist of the independent class, was born in 1600 at Rolesby in Norfolk, and was sent, when he was thirteen years old, to Christ Church college, Cambridge, where he took his bachelor’s degree in 1617, and applied himself with so much diligence to his studies, as to attract much notice in the university. In 1619 he was removed to Catherine-hall, of which he became a fellow. Having taken orders, he was elected lecturer of Trinity church, in Cambridge, in 1628; in 1630 he took his degree of B.D. and in 1632 he was presented by the king to the vicarage of the same church. In these employments he was greatly admired and followed by the puritans, who began to look up to him as a leader, but becoming dissatisfied with the terms of conformity, he relinquished his preferments, and quitted the university in 1634, and to avoid the consequences of his nonconformity, went afterwards to Holland, where he was chosen pastor to an independent congregation at Arnheim. When the parliament had usurped all church authority, he returned to London, and became a member of the assembly of divines, with whom, however, he did not always agree. But his attachment to the independent party contributed to render him a favourite with Cromwell, through whose influence he was, in 1649, made one of the commissioner* for the approbation of public preachers, and also appointed president of Magdalen college, Oxford. Here he formed a meeting upon the independent plan, or rather converted the college into a meeting of that description, but was not inattentive to the interests of learning. His intimacy and favour with Cromwell seems to have been fatal to his good sense, and probably the usurper’s hypocrisy deceived him. When he attended Cromwell upon his death-bed, he was overheard to express himself with presumptuous confidence on the protector’s recovery; and when the event proved him mistaken, he exclaimed in a subsequent prayer to God, “thou hast deceived us, and we are deceived.” But he was not the only one of the nonconformists of that age who fancied themselves endued with extraprdinary powers. After the restoration he was ejected from Oxford, and retired to London, where he was permitted to continue in the exercise of the ministry till his death in 1679. He was buried in Bunhill-fields, where a monument was erected to his memory, with a long Latin inscription. He was certainly a considerable scholar, and a learned and eminent divine. In the register at Oxford he is described “in scriptis in re theologica quamplurimis Orbi notus.” He-was a high Calvinist; but, while he zealously enforced what he conceived to be the doctrines of Christianity, he did not forget to enforce by every incitement in his power the necessity of pure moral conduct. He was author of numerous pious and controversial pieces, sermons, expositions, &c. some of which were printed during his life-time, and inserted, after his death, in a collection of his works published in five volumes folio.

, a native of Scotland, was an excellent draughtsman, and a good Grecian, who resided many years in Italy, visited most parts of that country, and had also travelled into France, Germany, &c. In 1736 he was appointed secretary to the society for the encouragement of learning, with an annual salary of 50l. which he resigned in 1739. In the same year (1736) he succeeded Dr. Stukeley as secretary to the society of antiquaries, which office he resigned in 1741 to Mr. Joseph Ames, and was for a short time secretary to the Egyptian club, composed of gentlemen who had visited Egypt, viz. lord Sandwich, Dr. Shaw, Dr. Pococke, &c. In 1741 he went to Carolina with governor Glen, where, besides a grant of land, he had several offices, such as register of the province, &c. and died about 1750, a justice of the peace, leaving a handsome estate to his family. He published, 1. “Itinerarium Septentrionale, or a Journey through most parts of the counties of Scotland, in two parts, with 66 copper-plates, 1726,” folio. 2. “Additions and Corrections, by way of supplement, to the Itinerarium Septentrionale; containing several dissertations on, and descriptions of, Roman antiquities, discovered in Scotland since publishing the said Itinerary. Together with observations on other ancient monuments found in the North of England, never before published, 1732,” folio. A Latin edition of the “Itinerarium,” including the Supplement, was printed in Holland, in 1731. 3. “The Lives of pope Alexander VI. and his son Caesar Borgia, comprehending the wars in the reign of Charles VIII. and Lewis XII. kings of France; and the chief transactions and revolutions in Italy, from 1492 to 1516. With an appendix of original pieces referred to in the work, 1729,” folio. 4. “A complete History of the ancient Amphitheatres, more particularly regarding the Architecture of these buildings, and in particular that of Verona, by the marquis Scipio Maffei; translated from the Italian, 1730,” 8vo, afterwards enlarged in a second edition. 5. “An Essay towards explaining the Hieroglyphical Figures on the Coffin of the ancient Mummy belonging to capt. William Lethieullier, 1737,” folio, with cuts. 6. “Twenty-five plates of all the Egyptian Mummies, and other Egyptian Antiquities in England,” about 1739, folio.

, a Scotch Jesuit, of the noble family of Gordon, was born in 1543, and educated at Rome, where he became a Jesuit, Sept. 20, 1563, and was created D.D. in 1569. He was professor of Hebrew and divinity for nearly fifty years in several parts of Europe, Rome, Paris, Bourdeaux, Pont a Mousson, &c. and acquired great reputation for learning and acuteness. He was employed as a missionary in England and Scotland, and was twice imprisoned for his zeal in making converts. He was also frequently employed by the general of his order in negociating their affairs, for which he had every requisite talent. Alegambe describes him as a saint, without a particle of human frailty, but Dodd allows that he lived very much in a state of dissipation, yet was regular in all the austerities of his profession. He died at Paris, April 16, 1620. His only writings are “Controversiarum Fidei Epitome,” in three parts or volumes, 8vo, the first printed at Limoges, 1612, the second at Paris, and the third at Cologn in 1620. There was another James Gordon, of the family of Lesmore, also a Scotch Jesuit, who was born at or near Aberdeen in 1553, and died at Paris, Nov. 17, 1641. He wrote a commentary on the Bible, “Biblia Sacra, cum Commentariis, &c.” Paris, 3 vols. fol. 1632, which Dupin seems to think an useful and judicious work. He wrote also some historical and chronological works, enumerated by Alegambe, and a system of moral theology, &c.

, a native of Scotland, and onc distinguished by his party writings on political and religious subjects, was born at Kircudbright in Galloway, about th fend of the seventeenth century. He had an university education, and went through the common course of aca* demical studies; but whether at Aberdeen or St. Andrew’s is uncertain. When a young man he came to London, and at first supported himself by teaching the languages, but afterwards commenced party writer, and was employed by the earl of Oxford in queen Anne’s time; but we know not in what capacity. He first distinguished himself in the Bangorian controversy by two pamphlets in defence of Hoadly, which recommended him to Mr. Tjrenchard, an author of the same stamp, who took him into his house, at first as his amanuensis, and afterwards into partnership, as an author. In 1720, they began to publish, in conjunction, a series of letters, under the name of “Cato,” upon various and important subjects relating to the public. About the same time they published another periodical paper, under the title of “The Independent Whig,” which was continued some years after Trenchard’s death by Gordon alone. The same spirit which appears, with more decent language, in Cato’s letters against the administration in the state, shews itself in this work in much more glaring colours against the hierarchy in the church. It is, in truth, a gross and indecent libel on the established religion, which, however, Gordon was admirably qualified to write, as he had no religion of his own to check his intemperate sallies. After Trenchard’s death, the minister, sir Robert Walpole, knowing his popular talents, took him into pay to defend his measures, for which end he wrote several pamphlets. At the time of his death, July 28, 1750, he was first commissioner of the wine-licences, an office which he had enjoyed many years, and which diminished his patriotism surprisingly. He was twice married. His second wife was the widow of his friend Trenchard by whom he had children, and who survived him. Two collections of his tracts have been preserved the first entitled, “A Cordial for Low-spirits,” in three volumes; and the second, “The Pillars of Priestcraft and Orthodoxy shaken,” in two volumes. But these, like many other posthumous pieces, had better have been suppressed. His translations of Sallust and Tacitus, now, perhaps, contribute more to preserve his name, although without conferring much reputation on it. His Tacitus appeared in 2 vols. fol. in 1728, with discourses taken from foreign commentators and translators of that historian. Sir Robert Walpole patronised a subscription for the work, which was very successful; but no classic was perhaps ever so miserably mangled. His style is extremely vulgar, yet affected, and abounds with abrupt and inharmonious periods, totally destitute of any resemblance to the original, while the translator fancied he was giving a correct imitation.

, an Anglo-American divine and historian, and minister at Roxburg in Massachusetts, was born at Hitchin, in Hertfordshire, in 1729, and educated at a dissenting academy in or near London. He was afterwards pastor of an independent congregation at Ipswich, where he officiated for several years. In 1772 he went to America, and settled at Roxburg. When the revolution commenced in America, he took a very active part against his native country, and was appointed chaplain to the provincial congress of Massachusetts. In 1776 he appears first to have conceived the design of writing the history of the revolution and war, and began to collect materials on the spot, in which he was assisted by the communication of state papers, and the correspondence of Washington and the other generals who had made a distinguished figure in the field. In 1786 became to England, and in 1788 published, in 4 vols. 8vo, “The History of the rise, progress, and establishment of the Independence of the United States of America.” This, however, is rajther a collection of facts, than a regular history, for the writing of which, indeed, the author had no talent; his style is vulgar and confused, and his reflections common-place. The best parts of it occur where he made most use of Dodsley’s Annual Register. The colouring he attempts to give, as may be expected, is entirely unfavourable to the English, nor does he endeavour to disguise his partialities. He is said to have published also some sermons; a pamphlet recommending a society for the benefit of widows, another against the doctrine of universal redemption, and an abridgment of Edwards, “on religious affections.” He appears not to have returned to America after the publication of his history, but to have resided partly at St. Neots, and partly at Ipswich, at which last he died in 1807.

or Gregorio, the son of Raynier, of the family of Sinigardi, of Arezzo, in Italy, lived in the fourteenth century, and was notary of Arezzo, an office of considerable rank. In his fiftieth year he formed the design of writing the history of his country in Italian verse, and unfortunately took Dante for his model, whom he was unable to follow. The events he relates concern the period from 1310 to 1384, and may be consulted with advantage by those who will overlook the badness of the poetry. When he died is not known. Muratori has inserted his history in his collection of Italian historians.

, an Italian poet and miscellaneous writer, was born at Rome in 1525, where he pursued his studies in the house of the cardinal de Santa Fiora, but in his seventeenth year was taken into the service of Ferdinand Gonzaga, then viceroy of Sicily, and governor of Milan, to which city he accompanied that nobleman in 1546, and became his secretary. He was afterwards taken to the court of Spain, where he obtained the esteem and favour of Philip II. Under the duke of Albuquerque he was imprisoned on a charge of conspiracy against the life of John Baptist Monti, but vindicated his own cause, and was not only released, but admitted to public employment under the succeeding governors of Milan. He died Feb. 12, 1587, leaving behind him several works, that obtained for him high reputation; of these the principal are, “The Life of Ferdinand Gonzaga,” 1579, 4to. “Three Conspiracies,” &c. 1588, 8vo. “Rime,” or a collection of poems, several times reprinted. “Discourses.” “Letters,” &c. and he translated into Italian a French work entitled “A true account of things that have happened in the Netherlands, since the arrival of Don Juan of Austria.”

, surnamed Fulgentius, and celebrated for propagating and exciting a controversy on the doctrines of predestination and free grace, was born in Germany, in the beginning, probably, of the ninth century. From early life he had been a monk, and had devoted himself to theological inquiries. He was peculiarly fond of the writings of St. Augustine, and entered with much zeal into his sentiments. About the year 846, he left his monastery at Fulcla, and went into Dalmatia and Pannonia, where he spread the doctrines of St. Augustine, under a pretence, as his enemies said, of preaching the gospel to the infidels. At his return, he remained some time in Lombardy, and in the year 847 held a conference with Notingus, or Nothingus, bishop of Vienne, concerning predestination, who prevailed on Rabanus, archbishop of Mentz, to undertake the confutation of what was called a new heresy. This the archbishop undertook, and was supported by a synod at Mentz, which condemned Gotteschalcus. He was farther prosecuted by Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, was degraded from the priesthood, and ordered to be beaten with rods, and imprisoned. But as nothing was proved against him, except his adherence to the sentiments of Augustine, which were still held in estimation in the church, this shews, in the opinion of Dupin, that he was an injured man. He was, however, so severely whipped in the presence of the emperor Charles and the bishops, that his resolution failed him, and he complied with their commands so far as to throw into the fire a writing in which he had made a collection of scripture texts in order to prove his opinion. After this he was kept a close prisoner by Hincmar in a monastery, where he continued to maintain his opinions until his death in the same prison in the year 870. Hincmar, hearing that he lay at the point of death, sent him a formulary, which he was to subscribe, in order to his being received into the communion of the church; Gotteschalcus, however, rejected the offer with indignation, and therefore, by orders of Hincrnar, was denied Christian burial. But even in that age there were men who loudly remonstrated against the barbarity with which he had been treated. Remigius, archbishop of Lyons, distinguished himself among these; and, in a council held at Valence, in Dauphiny, in the year 855, both Gotteschalcus and his doctrine were vindicated and defended, and two subsequent councils confirmed the decrees of this council. The churches also of Lyons, Vienne, and Aries, vigorously supported the sentiments of Gotteschalcus, whom nothing but the secular influence of Hincmar could have detained in prison, while his cause was thus victorious. The only writings of this confessor that have reached the present times are, two “Confessions of Faith,” inserted in archbishop Usher’s “Historia Gotteschalci,” printed at Dublin in 1641; an epistle to Ratramnus, published in Cellot’s “Historia Gotteschalci,” at Paris, in 1655, and some fragments of other pieces, noticed by Cave. In 1650, the celebrated Maguin published, at Paris, a collection of the treatises produced on both sides of this controversy, entitled “Veterum Auctorum qui nono saeculo de Prasdestinatione et Gratia scripserunt, &c.” 2 vols. 4to.

, a German poet, rather, however, in theory than practice, was born at Konigsberg in 1700, and attained the office of professor of philosophy, logic, and metaphysics at Leipsic, where he died in 1766. His works, both original and republished, contributed in a considerable degree to diffuse a taste for elegant literature in Germany, as well as to refine the German language. Among these we find, 1. “An Introduction to Dramatic Poetry, or a Review of all the tragedies, comedies, and operas, which have appeared in Germany from 1450 to the middle of the eighteenth century,” Leipsic, 1757. 2. “The German Poets, published by John Joachim, a Suabian,” ibid. 1736. He also compiled various books of instruction in style and elocution adapted to the then state of the German schools; and might have deserved the praise of an acute critic, had he not unfortunately illustrated his principles by his own poetical effusions, in which there is only a mediocrity of taste and genius. He died in December 1766. His wife, Louisa Maria, had also very considerable literary talents, and had studied philosophy, mathematics, the belles lettres, and music, with success. She published a metrical translation of Pope’s “Rape of the Lock;” and since her death, in 1762, a collection of her letters has been published, which is held in high esteem. Frederick the Great of Prussia, who preferred Geliert to Gottsched, speaks with greater respect of this lady than of her husband, but seems to think that both discovered more pedantry than taste.

, one of the early and most celebrated composers of music to the metrical French translations of the psalms for the use of the protestants, was a native of Franche-Comte, who lost his life at Lyons, on the day of the massacre of Paris in 1572, for having set to music the psalms of Clement Marot. Goudimel has been much celebrated by the protestants in France for this music, which was never used in the church of Geneva, and by the catholics in Italy for instructing Palestrina in the art of composition, though it is doubtful whether this great harmonist and Goudimel had ever the least acquaintance or intercourse together. He set the “Chansons Spirituelles” of the celebrated Marc- Ant. De Muret, in four parts, which were printed at Paris, 1555. We may suppose Goudimel, at this time, to have been a catholic, as the learned Muret is never ranked among heretics by French biographers. Ten years after, when he set the psalms of Clement Marot r this version was still regarded with less horror by the catholics than in later times; for the music which Gpudimei had set to it was printed at Paris by Adrian Le Roy, and Robert Ballard, with a privilege, 1565. It was reprinted in Holland, in 1607, for the use of the protestants. His works are become so scarce, that his name and reputation are preserved by protestant historians, more in pity of his misfortunes, than by any knowledge of their excellence. The earliest mention of Goudimel, as a composer, is in a work entitled “Liber quartus Ecclesiasticarum Cantionum quatuor vocum vulgo Motetae vocant,” printed at Antwerp, by Susato, 1554-, eighteen years before his death. These motets resemble in gravity of style, simplicity in the subjects of fugue, and purity of harmony, the ecclesiastical compositions of our venerable countryman Bird. Some of his letters are printed among the poems of his intimate friend Melissus, published under the title of “Melissi Schediasmatum Reliquiae,” 1575, 8vo.

, a very celebrated puritan divine, was born at Bow near Stratford, Middlesex, Nov. 1, 1575, and educated at Eton school, whence he went in 1595 to King’s college, Cambridge. He was endowed with considerable powers of mind, and by close application to study, accumulated a great fund of learning. Such was his ardour and regularity in his literary pursuits, that during his first three years, he slept only one night out of college, and for nine years never missed college prayers at halfpast five in the morning, unless when from home. It was his invariable rule to read fifteen chapters in the Bible every day, at three times. When chosen reader of logic and philosophy in the college, he was equally precise in regularity of duty and attendance. Having taken his degrees, and been admitted into orders, he was in 1608 preferred to the rectory of St. Anne’s Blackfiiars, London, where he became extremely popular; and having instituted a lecture on Wednesday mornings, it was frequented by many persons of the first rank. Having, however, imbibed some of the prejudices which were then so common against the church of England, he was occasionally censured, and at one time threatened with a prosecution in the Star-chamber for having become a member of a society for the purchase of impropriations; but this did not take effect, and the subsequent disturbances relieved him from any farther molestation. In 1643, he was nominated one of the assembly of divines, and took an active part in the various proceedings instituted by the then ruling powers for the reformation of the church. But when in 1648, he saw the lengths to which their reformations tended, he united with a large body of his brethren in declaring against putting the king to death. For forty-five years, says Granger, he was the laborious, the exemplary, and the much loved minister of St. Anne’s Blackfriars, where none ever thought or spoke ill of him, but such as were inclined to think or speak ill of religion itself. He died Dec. 12, 1653. He appears, indeed, to have had the suffrages of all his contemporaries, and is honourably mentioned by many foreign divines. He was at one time offered the provostship of King’s college, but declined it; his usual saying was, that it was his highest ambition “to go from Blackfriars to heaven.” He published several pious tracts and some sermons, which bishop Wilkins classes among the most excellent of his time; but his principal work was “A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 1655, fol. He had also a share in the commentary on the Bible, usually called “The Assembly’s Annotations.”

, son of the preceding, was born at Bow, Sept. 19, 1605, and was educated at Eton school, whence he was chosen to King’s college, Cambridge, in 1626. Here, after taking his degrees, he was chosen fellow of his college, and afterwards presented with a living at Colsden near Croydon, in Surrey, where he continued about three years. In 1638, he was removed to the living of St. Sepulchre’s, London, and the year after married one of the daughters of sir Robert Darcy. During a period of twenty-four years he discharged the duties of his profession with the most exemplary zeal. Besides preaching twice every Sunday, and often on week-days, he visited his flock, catechised their children, inquired into and relieved the wants of the poor, and devised plans for their employment. Such of the poor as were able to work, he employed in spinning flax and hemp, which he bought for the purpose, and paying them for their work, got it worked into cloth, which he sold, as well as he could, chiefly among his friends, bearing himself whatever loss was sustained. By this wise and humane scheme he diverted many from begging, and demonstrated to them, that by industry they might soon become independent of charity; and he thus is said to have given the hint which produced the humane and benevolent institutions of Mr. Firmin, which have been referred to in the memoir of that excellent citizen. When the act of uniformity took place, he quitted his living of St. Sepulchre’s, being dissatisfied respecting the terms of conformity; but after this he forbore preaching, saying there was no need of him in London, where there were so many worthy ministers, and that he thought he might do as much or more good another way, which could give no offence. Accordingly his time was now zealously devoted to acts of beneficence and charity. He employed his own fortune, which was considerable, in relieving the wants of his poorer brethren, who, on account of their nonconformity, were deprived of their means of subsistence; and he was a successful applicant to the rich, from whom he received large sums, which were applied to that humane purpose. In 1671, he set about a plan for introducing knowledge and religion mto the different parts of Wales, which at that period were in the most deplorable darkness. He established schools in different towns where the poor were willing that their children should be taught the elements of learning, and he undertook to pay all the expences which were incurred in the outset of the business. By degrees these schools amounted to between three and four hundred, and they were all annually visited by Mr. Gouge, when he carefully inquired into the progress made by the young people, before whom he occasionally preached in a style adapted to their age and circumstances in life, for, being in his latter days better satisfied with the terms of conformity, he had a licence from some of the bishops to preach in Wales. With the assistance of his friends, whose purses were ever open at his command, he printed eight thousand copies of the Bible in the Welsh language; a thousand of these were distributed freely among those who could not afford to purchase them, and the rest were sent to the cities and chief towns in the principality, to be sold at reasonable rates. He procured likewise the English liturgy, the “Practice of Piety,” the “Whole Duty of Man,” the Church Catechism, and other practical pieces, to be printed in the Welsh language, and distributed among the poor. During the exercise of this benevolent disposition, he meddled nothing with the controversies of the times, and partook in no shape of the rancour of many of his ejected brethren against the church of England, with which he maintained communion to the last, and, as he told archbishop Tillotson, “thought himself obliged in conscience so to do.” He was accustomed to say with pleasure, “that he had two livings which he would not exchange for two of the greatest in England.” These were Wales, where he travelled every year to diffuse the principles of knowledge, piety, and charity: and Christ’s Hospital, where he catechised and instructed the children in the fundamental principles of religion. He died suddenly Oct. 29, 1681, in the seventy-seventh year of his age. His death was regarded as a public loss. A funeral sermon was preached on the occasion by Dr. Tillotson, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury; who, at the conclusion of an animated eulogium on his piety and virtue, observes, that “all things considered, there have not, since the primitive times of Christianity, been many among the sons of men, to whom that glorious character of the Son of God might be better applied, that” he went about doing good.“And Mr. Baxter, in his Narrative of his own Life and Times, says of Mr. Gouge,” I never heard any one person, of whatever rank, sort, or sect soever, speak one word to his dishonour, or name any fault that they charged on his life or doctrine; no, not the prelatists themselves, save only that he conformed not to their impositions; and that he did so much good with so much industry.“This eminent divine published a few practical pieces, of which the following may be mentioned” The Principles of Religion explained“” A Word to Sinners“” Christian Directions to walk with God“” The surest and safest Way of Thriving, viz. by Charity to the Poor;“”The Young Man’s Guide through the Wilderness of this World." These were collected in an 8vo volume in 1706, and published at London, with a fine portrait by Van der Gucht, and archbishop Tillotson’s Funeral Sermon and Life of him prefixed.

It is not difficult to conceive that his parents and friends would be desirous to encourage a turn of mind which indicated so powerful a sense of the value of time and instruction; and accordingly we find him in about three years completing a translation of “The Customs of the Israelites, translated from the French of the abbot Fleury, by R. G.” 1750, 8vo. This was also printed for distribution among friends. He had about this time fully prepared for the press, even to the title-page and preface, a work of great labour and research, under the title of “Atlas Renovatus, or Geography Modernized; being a particular description f the world as far as known to the ancients, and the present names of such places as now subsist; containing all the cities, towns, villages, castles, &c. mentioned in ancient authors, with all the remarkable occurrences that happened at the several places; the birth-places of famous men, the memorable sieges and battles, &c. the bounds, soil, air, manners, government, religion of each country. The whole being the most complete system ever composed before. To which is annexed a list of the Roman ways, and a copious index to facilitate the whole. Drawn upon the plans of Hornius’s and Cellarius’s maps.” This is a folio volume, dated 1751, fairly written, and now preserved in Mr. Nichols’s library, as a memorial of his consummate industry. Such a compilation, indeed, at the age of sixteen, is probably without a parallel; for much of the design, arrangement, &c. is perfectly original, and such intenseness of application could not have been recommended by any master. After the death of his father (July 13, 1751) Mr. Gough was admitted, in July 1752, fellow-commoner of Bene'tcollege, Cambridge. The college tutor at this time was Dr. John Barnardiston, afterwards master; but Mr. Gough’s private tutor was the rev. John Cott, fellow of the college, and afterwards rector of Braxted, in Essex, “to whom,” says Mr. Gough, “I regularly repeated my lesson, without a grain of instruction on his part.” To the university Mr. Gough brought a considerable fund of classical literature, and having already imbibed a curiosity after matters of antiquity, found his enthusiasm heightened by a connexion with a college eminent for producing a succession of British antiquaries; and it is certain that he here laid the plan of his “British Topography*.” He applied, in the mean time, to academical studies, with an ardour which even at this age was become habitual, and the knowledge he acquired in philosophy and the sciences was often displayed in his future labours; some of which prove that he had paid no little attention to subjects of theology and sacred criticism; and indeed it was inferred by the friends who kpew his acquisitions most intimately, that he might have passed into any of the learned professions by a very easy transition. Before he left the university he had prepared for the press, although they all remain still in ms. the following works: 1. “Notes on Memnon, annexed to the abbe Gedoyn’s French translation.” 2. “Astro-mythology; or, a short account of the Constellations, with the names of the principal stars in each, and their connexion with mythology.” 3. The History of Bythynia, translated from the French of the abbe“Sevin.” 4. “Memoirs of celebrated Professors of the belles lettres in the academy of inscriptions, &c. at Paris, translated and abridged from the Elogia, &c.” 5. “Reflections on the Egyptian Government; and also on the Jewish, Persian, Cretan, Carthaginian, Spartan, Athenian, and Roman Governments.” 6. “Memoirs of the Life and Character of Mithridates, king of Pontus, extracted from various and genuine authors.” All these, with many voluminous commonplace books, were executed before our author had reached

* " Was it to be wondered at that usually spent in a college? or that, as

quaries to the present time or that, to ramble over my own" Fragment

without any view to a degree or a pro- of Memoirs, as above, fession, I should exc.eed the time His first regular publication was anonymous, “The History of Carausius; or an examination of what has been advanced on that subject by Genebrier and Dr. Stukeley,” 1762, 4to, a very elaborate and critical disquisition. In February 1767 he was elected a fellow of the society of antiquaries of London, and in 1771, on the death of Dr. Gregory Sharpe, master of the temple, he was nominated director of the society, which office he held till Dec. 12, 1797, when he quitted the society altogether. Two years before, he quitted the royal society, of which he had been chosen fellow in March 1775. In 1767 he commenced his correspondence with the Gentleman’s Magazine, by an account of the village of Aldfriston, under the signature of D. H. the final letters of his name, which signature he retained to the last, but not altogether uniformly, nor is another signature in some later volumes, with the same letters, to be mistaken for his. On the death of his fellow-collegian, Mr. Duncombe, in 1786, the department of the review in that miscellany was for the most part committed to him. “If,” as he says himself, “he criticised with warmth and severity certain innovations attempted in church and state, he wrote his sentiments with sincerity and impartiality in the fullness of a heart deeply impressed with a sense of the excellence and happiness of the English constitution both in church and state.” Such indeed were Mr. Gough’s steady principles during that period of intellectual delusion which followed the French revolution; and he gave his aid with no mean effect, to a numerous body of writers and thinkers, many of whom (and we wish his name could have been added to the number) have lived to enjoy the full gratification of their hopes. We cannot, however, quit this subject without noticing that extensive knowledge which Mr. Gough displayed in his critical labours in the Magazine; he seems never to have undertaken any thing of the kind without such an acquaintance with the subject as showed that his studies had been almost universal, and even occasionally directed to those points of literatare which could be least expected to demand his attention; we allude to the subjects of theology and criticism, both sacred and classical. The perusal of the classics in particular appears frequently to have relieved his more regular labours. In 1768 he published in 1 vol. 4to, his “Anecdotes of British Topography,” which was reprinted and enlarged in 2 vols. 1780. To have published a third edition, with the improvements of twenty-six years, would have afforded him a high gratification; and in fact a third edition was put to press in 1806, and was rapidly advancing, when the destructive fire (of Feb. 8, 1808,) in Mr. Nichols’s printing-office, and the then declining state of the author’s health, interrupted the undertaking. The corrected copy, with the plates, was given by him to Mr. Nichols, who has since relinquished his right; and it is hoped that the delegates of the Oxford press will speedily undertake a new edition. On the utility of this work to British antiquaries it would be unnecessary to make any remark. It points the way to every future effort to illustrate local history.

In 1773 he first formed the design of a new edition of Camden’s Britannia, which he had partly begun to translate before, and accomplished in about seven years, and which was at length published in three large folio volumes, in 1789. Whatever incorrectness may appear in this laborious and extensive undertaking, no trouble or expence was spared by the liberal editor in obtaining information. Added to his own personal inspection of every county, proof sheets of each were forwarded to those gentlemen who were likely to be most actively useful. Nor could any man be more fastidious than Mr. Gough in revising and correcting his labours; and whatever discoveries some critics may aft'ect to have made, it is certain that he always found it more difficult to satisfy himself than his readers, and that a strict scrutiny by any person qualified for the task was to him the highest obligation. This may be safely averred, while at the same time it is allowed that he knew how to repel petulant remarks with a proper sense of what was due to his character, the extent of his industry, and the munificence of his expences. Of this valuable work it may not be superfluous to observe that Mr. Gough translated it from the original, and supplied his additions with so little interruption of the ordinary intercourse of life, that none of his family were aware that he was at all engaged in so laborious an undertaking. The copyright he gave (without any other consideration than a few copies for presents) to his old and worthy friend Mr. Thomas Payne, who defrayed the expence of engraving the copper plates; and afterwards disposed of the whole of his interest in the work to Messieurs Robinsons. Mr. Gough superintended the first volume of a new edition; but in, 1806, finding that the copyright had devolved from Messieurs Robinsons to another person, he declined proceeding any farther than to complete the first volume, which they had begun to print. Of this he announced his determination in the newspapers, that no improper use might be made of his name; and added, that it was now “of importance to his health to suspend such pursuits.”

Mr Gough drew up, at the united request of the president and fellows, the History of the Society of Antiquaries of London, prefixed to the first volume of their “Archaeo* logia,” in 1770, and to the eleven succeeding volumes of that work, as well as to the “Vetusta Monumenta,” contributed a great many curious articles *. He was equally liberal in his communications to Mr. Nichols’s *' Bibliottheca Topographica,“and to his” History of Leicestershire.“Mr. Nichols relates with just feeling, that” for a long series of years he had experienced in Mr. Gough the kind, disinterested friend; the prudent, judicious adviser, the firm, unshaken patron. To him every material event in life was confidentially imparted. In those that were prosperous, no man more heartily rejoiced; in such as were less propitious, no man more sincerely condoled, or

It is, however, as the learned and acute antiquary that he will be handed down to posterity; and from the epitaph written by himself, he appears desirous to rest his fame on his three publications, the “British Topography,” the edition of “Camden,” and the “Sepulchral Monuments;” sufficient indeed to place him in the very first rank of the antiquaries of the eighteenth century. But while he gave a preference in point of value, labour, and utility to those works, he was in no respect ambitious of personal honours. He took no degree at Cambridge, and resisted the solicitations of many members of tho university of Oxford to receive an honorary degree; and when he withdrew from the Royal Society and that of the Antiquaries, from causes on which we shall not enter, but must ever regret, he no longer appended to his name the usual initials of fellowship. In politics, he was a linn friend to the house of Brunswick, and a stranger to the mutability of his contemporaries. “That independence,” he informs us himself, “which he gloried in possessing as his inheritance, and which he maintained by a due attention to his income, discovered itself in his opinions and his attachments. As he could not hastily form connexions, he may seem to have indulged strong aversions. lint he could not accommodate himself to modern manners or opinions; and he had resources within himself, to make it less needful to seek them from without. And perhaps the greatest inconvenience arising from this disposition was the want of opportunities to serve his friends. But he saw enough of the general temper of mankind, to convince him that favours should not be too often asked; and that as to be too much under obligation is the worst of bondage, so to confer obligations is the truest liberty.” Such sentiments and such conduct do no discredit to men like Mr. Gongh. His talents, his rank in society, and his years, gave him claims to respect, which were, what he thought them, undeniable; and even where he shewed any symptoms of resentment, they were never beyond the limits which his superior character and long services amply justified.

His library, with the exception of his legacy to the Bodleian, was sold, agreeably to his own direction, by Messrs. Leigh and Sothehy, in twenty days, April 5—28, 1810, and produced 3552/, 3.s. His prints, drawings, coins, medals, ike. were sold July 19, 1812, and the two following days, and produced 517l. 6s. 6d. By his last will, he bequeathed to the university of Oxford all his printed books and manuscripts on Saxon and Northern literature, for the use of the Saxon professor; all his manuscripts, printed books, and pamphlets, prints, and drawings, maps, and copperplates relating to British topography, (of which,' in 1808, he had nearly printed a complete catalogue); his interleaved copies of the “British Topography,” “Camden’s Britannia,” and the “Sepulchral Monuments of Great Britain,” with all the drawings relative to the latter work; and all the copper-plates of the “Monuments” and the “Topography;” with fourteen volumes of drawings of sepulchral and other monuments in France. All these he wills and desires may “be placed in the Bodleian library, in a building adjoining to the picture gallery, known by the name of the” Antiquaries closet.“These were accordingly deposited in the closet, and a catalogue has since been printed in a handsome quarto, under the care of the rev. B. Bandinel, librarian of the Bodleian. A more valuable or extensive treasure of British topography was never collected by an individual. The Mss. are very numerous, and many of the most valuable printed books are illustrated by the ms notes of Mr. Cough and other eminent antiquaries. The remainder of his will, for which we refer to our authority, is not less in proof of his liberality, affection, and steady friendship. Such was the life of Mr. Gough, of which he says, in a memoir already quoted,” If I have relieved the wants and distresses of the unhappy without ostentation, have done justice without interest, have served the common cause of literature without vanity, maintained my own independence without pride or insolence, have moderated my attachment to external objects, and placed my affections on the virtuous and honest character, and may trust to have so passed through things temporal as finally not to lose things eternal I shall have lived enough."

, a canon of St. James de l‘Hopital, and an associated academician of Marseilles, Rouen, Angers., and Auxerre, was born at Paris, Oct. 19, 1697. His father was a taylor, with a tradesman-like aversion to learning, in the pursuit of which, however, he found it impossible to prevent his son from employing his early years. He began his studies at Paris, and carried them on principally in the Jesuits’ college, and in the congregation of the oratory. In 1720 he obtained a canonry of St. James de l’Hopital. He died at Paris, Feb. 2, 1767. His whole life appears to have been a scene of literary labour, always useful, and often conducted with great judgment. In order to pursue his studies without interruption at home, or the necessity of having recourse to foreign assistance, he accumulated a fine library of 10,000 volumes, in all branches of literature, but particularly literary history and biography. For fifty years he continued to publish one voluminous compilation after another; and by close application, so impaired his sight that he was almost blind some time before his death. The last editor of Moreri divides his publications into translations, works of piety, works of literary history, lives and eloges, papers in the literary Journals, and lastly prefaces; in all amounting to eighty-three articles. Of these the most useful appear to be, 1. “Les Vies des Saints,” Paris, 1730, 7 vols. 12 mo, often reprinted in 4to, and other forms. 2. “Bibliotheque des auteurs ecclesiastiques du XVIII. siecle, pour servir de continuation a celle de M. du Pin, c.” ibid. 1736, 3 vols. 8vo. 3. “Supplement” to Moreri’s Dictionary, ibid. 1735, 2 vols. fol. He also pointed out many hundred errors in the early editions of that work. 4. “Nouveau Supplement” to the same dictionary, ibid. 1749, fol. with a volume of “Additions,” 1750, fol. 5. “Bibliotheque Franchise, ou histoire de la litterature Frangaise,” from the invention of printing, 21 vols. 12mo, ibid. 1740—1759. This is the most useful of all his works. It was undertaken at the request of M. D'Aro-enson, the secretary of state. It in some measure resembles Niceron, whom he also assisted in his useful “Memoires,” and wrote his life. 6. “De l‘etatdes Sciences en France, depuis la mort de Charlemagne jusqu’a cello du roi Robert,” 1737, 12mo. This learned dissertation obtained the prize of the academy of belles lettres, and the members of this academy are said to have done for Goujet what they had never done for any other man. Without any solicitation, or knowledge of the matter on his parr, they sent a deputation of six of their number to him, requesting the honour of choosing him, in the room of the deceased abbé de Vertot. 7. A new edition of Richelet’s Dictionary, Lyons, 1756, 3 vols. fol. 8. “L'Histoire du College Royal de France,” 4to. 9. “Hist, du Pontificat de Paul V.” Amsterdam (Paris) 1765, 2 vols. 12mo. This was his last work, in which he is much less favourable to the Jesuits than might have been expected from one educated among them.

, an eminent English physician in the seventeenth century, was born in Northamptonshire, and was son of Mr. William Goulston, rector of Wymondham, in Leicestershire. He became probationer fellow of Merton college, Oxford, in 1596, where he took the degrees of B. and M. A. and afterwards applied himself to the study of physic, which he practised first in Oxford, and afterwards at Wymondham, where he was much resorted to for his advice. On April 30, 1610, he took the degree of doctor of physic, and became candidate of the college of physicians at London, being well approved by the president, censors, and fellows; and the year following he was made a fellow and censor of that college. He was soon introduced into very extensive practice in the city of London, and distinguished him* self likewise to great advantage by his skill in the Latin and Greek languages, and divinity, and by his writings. His affection to the public good and to the advancement of the faculty of physic was such, that by his last will and testament he gave two hundred pounds to purchase a rent-charge for the maintenance of an annual lecture within the college of physicians of London. This lecture was to be read from time to time by one of the foui* youngest doctors in physic of the college, and to be upon two, or three, or more diseases, as the censors should direct; and to be read yearly, at a convenient season betwixt Michaelmas and Easter, upon some dead body (if procurable) on three days successively, in the forenoon and afternoon. He left likewise several books to Merton college, besides several other donations, which legacies were punctually paid by his widow Ellen, who being possessed of the impropriate parsonage of Bardwell in Suffolk, procured leave from the king to annex the same to the vicarage, and gave them both to the college of St. John’s, in Oxford. Our author died at his house within the parish of St. Martin Ludgate, May 4, 1632, and was interred with great solemnity in the church of that parish.

, a French female wit, the daughter of William de Jars, lord of Neufoi and Gournay, was born either in Paris, or in Gascony, about 1565. From her infancy she had a strong turn to literature; and Montagne publishing his first essays about this time, she conceived an enthusiastic veneration for the author. These declarations soon reached the ears of Montagne, who returned her compliments by corresponding regard for her talents. Her esteem by degrees growing into a kind of filial affection for Montagne, when her father died she adopted him in his stead, even before she had seen him; and, when he was at Paris in 1588, she paid him a visit, and prevailed upon him to accompany her and her mother the lady Gournay, to their country mansion, where he passed two or three months. In short, our young devotee to the muses was so wedded to books of polite literature in general, and Montague’s Essays in particular, that she resolved never to have any other associate to her happiness. Nor was Montagne sparing to pay the just tribute of his gratitude, and foretold, in the second book of his Essays, that she would be capable of great eminence in the republic of letters. Their affectionate i-egard extended through the family; Montagne’s daughter, the viscountess de Jamaches, always claimed mademoiselle de Jars as a sister; and the latter dedicated her piece, “Le Bouquet de Pinde,” to this sister. Thus she passed many years, happy in her new alliance, until she received the melancholy news of Montagne’s death, whet) she crossed almost the whole kingdom of France to mingle her tears and lamentations, which were excessive, with those of his widow and daughter. Nor did her filial regard stop here. She revised, corrected, and reprinted an edition of his “Essays” in 1634; to which she prefixed a preface, full of the strongest expressions of devotion for his memory.

, an eminent protestant divine, was born Oct. 7, 1635, of a good family at Blois, and was cousin-german to the celebrated Isaac Papin. He was appointed minister at Poitiers in 1662, and remained there till the revocation of the edict of Nantes in 1685. He then went to England, and afterwards to Holland, where he was chosen minister of the Walloon church at Dort. Five years after he was appointed professor of Greek and divinity at Groningen, where he died Nov. 4, 1704, leaving a great number of works, both printed and in ms.: the principal are, a Hebrew dictionary, or “Commentarii Lingua? Hebraicce” a valuable work, the best edition of which is that of Leipsic, 1743, 4to a refutation, in Latin, of rabbi Isaac’s “Chizzouck Emounak,” or Shield of Faith, Dort, 1688, 8vo, and Amsterdam, 1712, fol. This refutation has been much praised by several among the learned; but others doubt whether it merits such high encomiums: the book against which it was written may be found in WagensaPs “Tela ignea Satanaj.” He also published “Considerations theologiques et critiques centre le Projet d'une nouvelle Version de la Bible,” 1698, 12mo. This last was written against Charles le Cene’s project of a translation of the Bible, which should favour the Arminian doctrines.

de La Boulaye, a celebrated traveller in the 17th century, was the son of a gentleman of Bauge*, in Anjou, where he was born about 16 1Q. How, or for what profession he was educated, does not appear, but he seems to have been of a rambling disposition, and spent ten years in visiting most parts of the world. He published an account of his travels, 1653, 4to, which contain some particulars that are not uninteresting. When he returned from his first voyage, he was so altered, that his mother would not own him, and he was obliged to commence a suit against her to recover his right of eldership. Being sent ambassador to the Turks, and the great mogul, in 1668, he died in Persia during his journey.

, one of the few poets who flourished in the first periods of our poetical history, is supposed to have been born before Chaucer, but of what family, or in what part of the kingdom is uncertain. Leland was informed that he was of the ancient family of the Gowers of Stitenham, in Yorkshire, and succeeding biographers appear to have taken for granted what that eminent antiquary gives only as a report. Other particulars from Leland are yet more doubtful, as that he was a knight and some time chief justice of the common pleas; but no information respecting any judge of that name can be collected either in the reign of Edward II. during which he is said to have been on the bench, or afterwards. Weever asserts that he was of a Kentish family and, in Caxton’s edition of the “Confessio Amantis,” he is said to have been a native of Wales.

He appears, however, to have studied law, and was a member of the society of the Middle Temple, where it is supposed he met with, and acquired the friendship of Chaucer. The similarity of their studies, and their taste for poetry, were not the only bonds of union. Their political bias was nearly the same. Chaucer attached himself to John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, and Gower to Thomas of Woodstock, duke of Gloucester, both uncles to king Richard II. The tendency of the “Confessio Amantis,” in censuring the vices of the clergy, coincides with Chaucer’s sentiments, and although we have no direct proof of those mutual arguings and disputes between them, which Leland speaks of, there can be no doubt that their friendship was at one time interrupted. Chaucer concludes his Troilus and Cressida with recommending it to the corrections of moral Gower,“and” philosophical Strode;“and Gower, in the Confessio Amantis, introduces Venus praising Chaucer” as her disciple and poete.“Such was their mutual respect; its decline is less intelligible. Mr. Tyrwhit says,” If the reflection (in the prologue to the Man of Lawes Tale, ver. 4497) upon those who relate such stones as that of Canace, or of Apollonius Tyrius, was levelled at Gower, as I very much suspect, it will be difficult to reconcile such an attack to our notions of the strict friendship which is generally supposed to have subsisted between the two bards. The attack too at this time must appear the more extraordinary on the part of our bard, as he is just going to put into the mouth of his Man of Lawe a tale, of which almost every circumstance is borrowed from Gower. The fact is, that the story of Canace is related by Gower in his Confessio A mantis, B. III. and the story of Apollonius (or Apollynus, as he is there called) in the Vlllth book of the same work: so that, if Chaucer really did not mean to reflect upon his old friend, his choice of these two instances was rather unlucky."

“There is another circumstance,” says the same critic, “which rather inclines me to believe that their friendship suffered some interruption in the latter part of their lives. In the new edition of the ‘ Confessio Amantis,’ which Gower published after the accession of Henry IV. the verses in praise of Chaucer (fol. 190, b. col. 1, ed. 1532) are omitted. See ms. Harl 3869. Though perhaps the death of Chaucer at that time had rendered the compliment contained in those verses less proper than it was at first, that alone does not seem to have been a sufficient reason for omitting them, especially as the original date of the work, in the 16th of Richard II., is preserved. Indeed the only other alterations which I have been able to discover, are towards the beginning and end, where every thing which had been said in praise of Richard in the first edition, is either left out or converted to the use of his successor.”

His next work is in Latin, entitled “Vox Clamantis.” Of this there are many copies extant; that in the Cottonian library is more fully entitled “Joannis Gower Chrom'ca, quse Vox Clamantis dicitur, sive Poema de Insurrexione Rusticorum contra ingenuos et nobiles, tempore regis Richardi II. et de Causis ex quibus talia contingunt Enormia; libris septem.” Some lesser pieces are annexed to this copy, historical and moral. That in the library of All Souls college, Oxford, appears to have been written, or rather dictated, when he was old and blind. It has an epistle in Latin verse prefixed, and addressed in these words: Hanc epistolam subscriptam corde devoto, misit senex et caecus Johannes Gower, reverendissimo in Christo patri ac domino suo principi D. Thomae Arundel Cantuar. Archiepiscopo, c. Pr. Successor Thomse, Thomas humilem tibi do me." This, therefore, is supposed to have been the last transcript he made of this work, probably near the close of his life. Mr. Warton is of opinion that it was first written in 1397.

The “Confessio Amantis,” which entitles him to a place among English poets, was finished probably in 1393, after Chaucer bad written most of his poems, but before he composed the Canterbury Tales. It is said to have been begun at the suggestion of king Richard II. who meeting him accidentally on the Thames, called him into the royal barge, and enjoined him “to booke some new thing.” It was first printed by Caxton in 1493. In 1516, Barclay, the author of the Ship of Fools, was requested by sir Giles Alyngton to abridge or modernize the Confessio Amantis. Barclay was then old and infirm, and declined it, as Mr. Warton thinks, very prudently, as he was little qualified to correct Gower. This anecdote, however, shews that Gower had already become obsolete. Skelton, in the “Boke of Philip Sparrow,” says, “Gower’s Englishe is old.” Dean Colet studied Gower; as well as Chaucer and Lydgate, in order to improve his style. In Puttenhani’s age, about the end of the sixteenth century, their language was out of use. In the mean time a second edition, of the Confessio Amantis was printed by Barthelet in. 1532, a third in 1544, and a fourth in 1554. At the distance of twocenturies and a half, a fifth was published in the late edition of the English Poets. The only stain on his character, which Mr. llitson has urged with asperity, but which is obscurely discernible, is the alteration he made in this work on the accession of Henry IV. and his consequent disrespect for the memory of Richard, to whom he formerly looked up as to a patron.

The only other circumstances of his history are, that he was esteemed a man of great learning, and lived and died in affluence. That he possessed a munificent spirit, we have a most decisive proof in his contributing largely, if not entirely, to the rebuilding of the conventual church of St. Mary Overy, or, as it is now called, St. Saviour’s church, Southwark, and he afterwards founded a chauntry in the chapel of St. John, now used as a vestry. He appears to have lost his sight in the first year of Henry IV. and did not long survive this misfortune, dying at an advanced age in 1402. He was interred in St. Saviour’s church, and a monument was afterwards erected to his memory, which, although it has suffered by dilapidations and injudicious repairs, still retains a considerable portion of antique magnificence. It is of the gothic style, covered with three arches, the roof within springing into many angles, under which lies the statue of the deceased, in a long purple gown on his head a coronet of roses, resting on three volumes entitled Vox Clamantis, Speculum Meditantis, and Confessio Amantis. His dress has given rise to some of those conjectures respecting his history which cannot now be determined, as his being a knight, a judge, &c.

Besides these larger works, some small poems are preserved in a ms. of Trinity college, Cambridge; but, possessing little or no merit, are likely to remain in obscurity. Mr. Warton speaks more highly of a collection contained in a volume in the library of the marquis of Stafford, of which he has given a long account, with specimens. They are sonnets in French, and certainly are more tender, pathetic, and poetical than his larger poems. As an Ecglish poet, however, his reputation must still rest on the “Confessio Amantis;” but, although he contributed in some degree to bring about a beneficial revolution in our language, it appears to be the universal opinion of the critics that he has very few pretensions to be ranked among inventors. It seems to have been his ambition to crowd all his erudition into his “Confessio,” and therefore the most interesting parts are his stories brought as moral examples from various authors.

,or Graet Barent, was an historical painter, whose name is remembered principally upon account of his close imitation of the works of Bamboccio, and of his having founded an academy at Amsterdam, where he was born. The best artists of his time resorted here to study after living models; by which means much improvement was obtained by those who cultivated taste and science in the arts. He died in 1709, aged eighty-one.

With the warmest sense of those favours, he presently shewed himself not unworthy of the royal bounty, by the many valuable books which he published in England which, from this time, he adopted for his own country and finding the ecclesiastical constitution so much to his mind, he entered into priest’s orders in that church, and became a zealous advocate for it, as coming nearer in his opinion to the primitive pattern than any other. In this spirit he published, in 1698, and the following year, “Spicilegium Ss. Patrum, &c.” or a collection of the lesser works and fragments, rarely to be met with, of the fathers and heretics of the three first centuries; induced to this compilation, as he expressly declared, by the consideration, that there could be no better expedient for healing the divisions of the Christian, church, than to reflect on the practice and opinions of the primitive fathers. Both these volumes were reprinted at Oxford in 1700, 8vo, and some remarks were made upon the first in a piece entitled “A new and full method of settling the Canonical Authority of the New Testament, by Jer. Jones, 1726,” 8vo. From the same motive he printed also Justin Martyr’s “First Apology” in 1700; and the works of Irenaeus in 1702; both which were animadverted upon by Thirlby, the editor of Justin Martyr, and Massuet, the editor of Irenaeus. Upon the accession of queen Anne to the throne this year, besides continuing his pension, her majesty sought an occasion of giving some farther proofs of her special regard for him; and she was not long in rinding one.

This piece was printed at Oxford, 1711, 8vo. In the dedication, he observes, that it was the first piece which he published in the English tongue, for the service of the church, He was assisted in it by Gagnier, who, about ten years before, had come over to the church of England from that of France, and then taught Hebrew at Oxford; and, being well skilled in most of the Oriental languages, had been appointed the year before, by Sharp, archbishop of York, to assist Grabe in perusing these Mss. having engaged the doctor to write this treatise against Whiston’s notion. But as the result of the inquiry was, that the Arabic “Didascalia” were nothing else but a translation of the first six entire books of the “Clementine Constitutions,” with only the addition of five or six chapters not in the Greek, Whiston immediately sent out “Remarks upon Grabe’s Essay,” &c. 1711 in which, with his usual pertinacity he claims this ms. for a principal support of his own opinions, and declares, the doctor could not have served him better than he had done in this essay. Nor has almost, says he, any discovery, I think, happened so fortunate to me, and to that sacred cause I am engaged in from the beginning, as this essay of his before us. However this may be, Grabe’s essay was his last publication, being prevented in the design he had of publishing many others by his death, which happened Nov. 12, 1712, in the vigour of his age. He was interred in Westminsterabbey, where a marble monument, with his effigy at full length, in a sitting posture, and a suitable inscription underneath, was erected at the expence of the lord-treasurer Harley. He was attended in his last illness by Dr. Smalridge, who gave ample testimony of his sincere piety, and fully refuted the aspersions cast on his moral character by Casimir Oudin. He desired upon his death-bed that his dying in the faith and communion of the church of England might be made public. He thought it a sound and pure part of the catholic church, notwithstanding some defects which he thought he perceived in the reformation. He expressed also his most hearty wishes for the union of all Christians, according to the primitive and perfect model. He was, however, a little scrupulous about communicating publicly in the English church, at least unless he could place an entire confidence in the priest that was to officiate, or except in case of necessity. Yet, with all these scruples, which in our days will not be clearly understood, he always professed more esteem for the church of England than for any other part of the catholic church. He had so great a zeal for promoting the ancient government and discipline of the church, among all those who had separated themselves from the corruption and superstitions of the church of Rome, that he formed a plan, and made some advances in it, for restoring the episcopal order and office in the territories of the king of Prussia, his sovereign; and he proposed, moreover, to introduce a liturgy much after the model of the English service, into that king’s dominions. He recommended likewise the use of the English liturgy itself, by means of some of his friends, to a certain neighbouring court. By these methods, his intention was to unite the two main bodies of Protestants in a more perfect and apostolical reformation than that upon which either of them then stood, and thereby fortify the common cause of their protestation against the errors of popery, against which he left several Mss. finished and unfinished, in Latin, of which the tithes in English are to be found in Dr. Hickes’s account of his Mss. Among these also were several letters, which he wrote with success to several persons, to prevent their apostacy to the churcll of Rome, when they were ready to be reconciled to it; nnd in his letters he challenged the priests to meet him in conferences before the persons whom they had led astray; but they knowing, says Dr. Hickes, the Hercules with whom they must have conflicted, wisely declined the challenge.

He left a great number of Mss. behind him, which he bequeathed to Dr. Hickes for his life, and after his decease to Dr. George Smalridge. The former of these divines carefully performed his request of making it known, that he had died in the faith and communion of the church of England, in an account of his life, prefixed to a tract of our author’s, which he published with the following title “Some Instances of the Defects and Omissions in Mr, Whiston’s Collections of Testimonies, from the Scriptures and the Fathers, against the true Deity of the Holy Ghost, and of misapplying and misinterpreting divers of them, by Dr. Grabe. To which is premised, a discourse, wherein some account is given of the learned doctor, and his Mss. and of this short treatise found among his English Mss. by George Hickes, D. D.” 1712, 8vo. There came out afterwards two more of our author’s posthumous pieces I “Liturgia Grseca Johannis Ernesti Grabii.” This liturgy, drawn up by our author for his own private use, was published by Christopher Matthew Pfaff, at the end of “Irensei Fragmenta Anecdota,” printed at the Hague, 1715, 8vo. 2. “De Forma Consecrationis Eucharistiae, hoc est, Defensio Ecclesia? Griccae,” &c. i. e. “A Discourse concerning the Form of Consecration of the Eucharist, or a defence of the Greek church against that of Rome, in the article of consecrating the Eucharistical Elements; written in Latin, by John Ernest Grabe, and now first published with an English version.” To which is added, from the same author’s Mss. some notes concerning the oblation of the body and blood of Christ, with the form and effect of the eucharistical consecration, and two fragments of a preface designed for a new edition of the first liturgy of Edward VI. with a preface of the editor, shewing what is the opinion of the church of England concerning the use of the fathers, and of its principal members, in regard to the matter defended by Dr. Grabe in this treatise, 1721, 8vo.

About this time he was presented to an exhibition (or bursary, as it is called) in the university of St. Andrew, which he accepted, but found reason soon after to decline, upon discovering that it subjected him to repeat a course of languages and philosophy, which the extent of his acquisitions, and the ardour of his ambition, taught him to hold in no great estimation. In 1770, therefore, he resumed his studies at Edinburgh, and, having finished the usual preparatory course, was admitted into the theological class: but the state of his health, which soon after began to decline, did not allow him to deliver any of the exercises usually prescribed to students in that society. In autumn 1771, his ill-health, that had been increasing almost unperceived, terminated in a deep consumption; the complicated distress of which, aggravated by the indigence of his situation, he bore with an heroic composure and magnanimity, and continued at intervals to compose verses, and to correspond with his friends, until after a tedious struggle often months, he expired July 26, 1772, in the 24th year of his age. His poems, consisting of elegies and miscellaneous pieces, were collected, and printed at Edinburgh, 1773, 8vo. There are few of them entitled to superior praise, and certainly none that can justify the length to which the detail of his life and opinions has been extended. Unfortunately als, these poems were reprinted in a late collection, and among them a specimen of his Latin poetry, called a Sapphic ode, and styled “a correct and manly performance for a boy of fifteen.” But so far from being correct, it is not even a decent attempt, and the lines are formed with such total ignorance of the Sapphic measure, that it has justly been said, “a boy producing such at one of our public schools could only be considered as intending to insult the master.” It seems difficult, therefore, to form any judgment of the illiteracy of those “most industrious and accomplished students of his standing,” whom he surpassed in “classical learning.”

, a French lady of literary reputation, was the daughter of a military officer, and born about the year 1694. She was married, or rather sacrificed to Francis Hugot de Grafigny, chamberlain to the duke of Lorraine, a man of violent passions, from which she was often in danger of her life; but after some years of patient suffering, she was at length relieved by a legal separation, and her husband finished his days in confinement, which his improper conduct rendered necessary. Madame de Grafigny now came to Paris, where her merit was soon acknowledged, although her first performance, a Spanish novel, did not pass without some unpleasant criticisms, to which, says our authority, she gave the best of all possible answers, by writing a better, which was her “Lettres d'une Peruvienne,” 2 vols. 12mo. This had great success, being written with spirit, and abounding in those delicate sentiments which are so much admired in the French school, yet an air of metaphysical speculation has been justly objected, as throwing a chill on her descriptions of love. She also wrote some dramatic pieces, of which the comedies of “Cenie” & “La Fille d'Aristide” were most applauded. Having resided for some time at the court of Lorraine, she became known to the emperor, who had read her “Peruvian Letters” with much pleasure, and engaged her to write some dramatic pieces proper to be performed before the empress and the younger branches of the royal family at court. This she complied with, and sent five or six such pieces to Vienna, and in return received a pension of 1500 livres, but with the express condition that she was not to print these dramas, nor give copies to any other theatre. She long retained the esteem and patronage of the court of Vienna, and was chosen an associate of the academy at Florence. She died, much esteemed by all classes, at Paris in 1758. A complete edition of her works was published at Paris in 1738, 4 vols. 12mo; and her “Letters of a Peruvian Princess,” were published in English, by F. Ashworth, 1782, 2 vols. 8vo.

, an English printer and historian, was descended of a good family, and appears to have been brought up a merchant, and his works, as an author, evince him to have had a tolerable education. He tells us himself that he wrote the greatest part of Hall’s chronicle (who died in 1547), and next year printed that work, entitled “The union of the two noble and illustre famelies of Lancastre and Yorke,” &c. continued to the end of the reign of Henry VIII. from Hall’s Mss. according to Ant. Wood. It had been printed by Berthelet in 1542, but brought down only to 1532. In 1562 Grafton’s “Abridgment of the Chronicles of England,” was printed by R. Tottyl, and reprinted the two succeeding years, and in 1572. And as Stowe had published his “Summarie of the Englyshe Chronicles” in 1565, Grafton sent out, as a rival, an abridgement of his abridgement, which he entitled “A Manuell of the Chronicles of England;” and Stowe, not to be behind with him, published in the same year his “Summarie of Chronicles abridged.” This rivalship was accompanied by harsh reflections on each other in their respective prefaces. In 1569 Grafton published his “Chronicle at large, and meere History of the affaires of England,” &c. some part of which seems to have been unjustly censured by Buchanan. In the time of Henry VIII. soon after the death of lord Cromwell, Grafton was imprisoned six weeks in the Fleet, for printing Matthews’s Bible, and what was called “The Great Bible” without notes, and, before his release, was bound in a penalty of lOOl. that he should neither sell nor print, or cause to be printed, anymore bibles, until the king and the clergy should agree upon a translation. As Whitchurch was concerned with him in printing those Bibles, he very probably shared the same fate. Grafton was also called before the council, on a charge of printing a ballad in favour of lord Cromwell; and his quondam friend bishop Bonner being present, aggravated the cause, by reciting a little chat between them, in which Grafton had intimated his “being sorry to hear of Cromwell’s apprehension;” but the lord chancellor Audley, disgusted probably at this meanness of spirit in Bonner, turned the discourse, and the matter seems to have ended. In a few years after, Grafton was appointed printer to prince Edward, and he with his associate Whitchurch had special patents for printing the church-service books, and also the Primers both in Latin and English.

In the first year of Edward VI. Grafton was favoured with a special patent granted to him for the sole printing of all the statute books, or acts of parliament; and in Dec. 1548, he and Whitchurch were authorize*! by another patent, to take up and provide, for one year, printers, compositors, &c. together with paper, ink, presses, &c. at reasonable rates and prices. Ames seems to be of opinion that he was also a member of parliament, but Herbert, apparently on good grounds, doubts this. It does not appear with certainty in what circumstances he died. Strype supposes him to have been reduced to poverty, and there is not much reason to think that he died in affluent circumtanqes. No particulars, however, have been handed down to us of his sickness, death, or interment, nor do we find any account of him after 1572, when by an accidental fall he broke his leg. He printed some of the earliest, most correct, and splendid of the English Bibles, and many other works of great importance in the infancy of the reformation. His “Chronicle” has not preserved its reputation, and has been usually sold at a price very inferior to that of the other English Chronicles; but upon that account, however, it appears to have obtained a wider circulation.

In 1753 he published the result of his experience in some diseases of the army, in a volume written in Latin, entitled “Historia Febris Anomalae Batavre annorum 1746, 1747, 1748,” &c. In this work he appears to advantage as an acute observer of the phenomena of disease, and as a man of general learning, but what accession he had been able to make to the stock of medical knowledge was unfortunately anticipated in sir John Pringle’s recent and very valuable work on the diseases of the army. During his residence in London, “his literary talents introduced him to the acquaintance of many men of genius, particularly of Shenstone, Dr. Percy the late bishop of Dromore, Glover, Dr. Johnson, sir Joshua Reynolds, and others, who by Mr. BoswelPs comprehensive biography, are now known to have composed Dr. Johnson’s society, and it is no small praise that every member of it regarded Dr. Grainger with affection. He was first known as a poet by his” Ode on Solitude,“which has been universally praised, and never beyond its merits; but professional success is seldom promoted by the reputation of genius. Grainger’s practice was insufficient to employ his days or to provide for them, and he is said to have accepted the office of tutor to a young gentleman who settled an annuity upon him; nor did he disdain such literary employment as the booksellers suggested. Smollett, in the course of a controversy which will be noticed hereafter, accuses him of working for bread in the lowest employments of literature, and at the lowest prices. This, if it be not the loose assertion of a calumniator, may perhaps refer to the assistance he gave in preparing the second volume of Maitland’s” History of Scotland," in which he was employed by Andrew Millar, who has seldom been accused of bargaining with authors for the lowest prices. Maitland had left materials for the volume, and as Grainger' s business was to arrange them, and continue the work as nearly as possible in Maitiand’s manner and style, much fame could not result from his best endeavours.

In 1758 he published a translation of the “Elegies of Tibullus,” begun during the hours he snatched from business or pleasure when in the army, and finished in London, where he had more leisure, and the aid and encouragement of his literary friends. This work involved him in the unpleasant contest with Smollett, to which we have just referred. Its merits were canvassed in the “Critical Review” with much severity. The notes are styled “a huge farrago of learned lumber, jumbled together to very little purpose, seemingly calculated to display the translator’s reading, rather than to illustrate the sense and beauty of the original.” The Life of Tibullus, which the translator prefixed, is said to contain “very little either to inform, interest, or amuse the reader.” With respect to the translation, “the author has not found it an easy task to preserve the elegance and harmony of the original.” Instances of harshness and inelegance are quoted, as well as of the use of words which are not English, or not used by good writers, as noiseless, redoubtable, feud, &c. The author is likewise accused of deviating not only from the meaning, but from the figures of the original. Of these objections some are groundless, and some are just, yet even the latter are by no means characteristic of the whole work, but exceptions which a critic of more candour would have had a right to state, after he had bestowed the praise due to its general merit. In this review, however, although unqualified censure was all the critic had in view, no personal attack is made on the author, nor are there any allusions to his situation in life. This appeared in the “Critical Review” for December 1758. In the subsequent number for January 1759, the reviewer takes an opportunity, as if answering a correspondent, to retract his objection against the word noiseless, because it is found in Shakspeare, but observes very fairly, that the authority of Shakspeare or Milton will not justify an author of the present times for introducing harsh or antiquated words. He acknowledges himself likewise to blame in having omitted to consult the errata subjoined (prefixed) to Dr. Grainger’s performance, where some things are corrected which the reviewer mentioned as inaccuracies in the body of the work. But this acknowledgment, so apparently candid, is immediately followed by a wretched attempt at wit, in these words: “Whereas one of the Owls belonging to the proprietor of the M(on)thly R(evie)w, which answers to the name of Grainger, hath suddenly broke from his mew, where he used to hoot in darkness and peace, and now screeches openly in the face of day, we shall take the first opportunity to chastise this troublesome owl, and drive him back to his original obscurity.” The allusion here is to Dr. Grainger’s “Letter to Tobias Smollett, M. D. occasioned by his criticism on a late Translation of Tibullus,” a performance some parts of which every friend to the author must wish had not been published. In this letter, however, Grainger, after quoting a passage from the plan or prospectus of the “Critical Review,” in which the authors promise to revive the true spirit of criticism, to act without prejudice, &c. &c. endeavours to prove, that they have forfeited their word, by notoriously departing from the spirit of just and candid criticism, and by introducing gross partialities and malevolent censures. And these assertions, which are certainly not without foundation, are intermixed with reflections on Dr. Smollett’s loose novels, and insinuations that his partialities arise from causes not very honourable to the character of an independent reviewer.

But whatever truth may be in all this, the letter was an unwise and hasty production, written in the moment of the strongest irritation. The review appeared in December, and the letter in January. There was no time to cool, and perhaps no opportunity of consulting his friends, who could have told him that nothing was to be gained by an exchange of personalities with Smollett. The latter required no great length of time or consideration to prepare an answer, which appeared accordingly in the review for February, and in which every insinuation or accusation is introduced that could tend to lessen Dr. Grainger in the eyes of the public, both as a writer and as a man. But the objections which Grainger took are by no means satisfactorily answered, and the review is still liable to the suspicion of partiality. No reader of candour or of taste can peruse the Translation, without allowing that the author deserved praise, not only for the attempt, but for the elegant manner in which he has in general transmitted the tender sentiments of Tibullus into our language. But this the Reviewer has wholly overlooked, confining himself to the censure of a few defects, part of which he has not proved to be so, and part were typographical errors.

It has been supposed that some personal animosity prompted Smollett to such hostility, but of what nature, or excited by what provocation, is not known. All we can learn from the Letter and the Answer is, that the parties were once upon friendly terms, but that mutual respect had now ceased. One circumstance, indeed, we find, which may account for much of Smollett’s animosity: he supposed Grainger to be one of the Monthly Reviewers, and this was provocation enough to the mind of a man, who from the commencement of the Critical Review took every opportunity, whether in his way or not, of reviling the proprietor and writers of that journal. As the latter seldom deigned to notice these attacks, no better reason, we are afraid, can be assigned for Smollett’s conduct than the jealousy of rival merit and success, in both which respects the Monthly Review had a decided superiority. Whether Grainger was a Monthly Reviewer is not an unimportant question, in collecting the materials of his literary life; yet his biographers have hastily subscribed to Smollett’s assertion, without examining the Review in question. The article of his Tibullus in the Monthly Review may convince any person that Grainger could have little or no interest or influence with the proprietors. Although written with decency and urbanity, it has nothing of partiality or kindness; the reader is left to, judge from the specimens extracted, and what praise we find is bestowed with that faint reluctance, which is more blasting to the hopes of an author than open hostility. Even the opinion of the Monthly Reviewer on Grainger’s letter to Smollett, is expressed with the brevity of one who wishes not to interfere in the contest.

And what increased the ridicule was, that one of the company, who slyly overlooked the reader, perceived that the word had originally been mice, and had been altered to rats as more dignified.“” This passage,“adds Mr. Boswell,” does not appear in the printed work. Dr. Grainger, or some of his friends, it should seem, having become sensible that introducing even rats, in a grave poem, might be liable to banter. He, however, could not bring himself to relinquish the idea; for they are thus, in a still more ludicrous manner, paraphrastically exhibited in his poem as it now stands:

Of this incident, Dr. Percy furnished Mr. Boswell with the following explanation. “The passage in question was not originally liable to such a perversion; for the author having occasion in that part of his work to mention the havoc made by rats and mice, had introduced the subject in a kind of mock heroic, and a parody of Homer’s battle of the frogs and mice, invoking the muse of the old Grecian bard in an elegant and well-turned manner. In that state I had seen it; but afterwards, unknown to me and other friends, he had been persuaded, contrary to his better judgment, to alter it so as to produce the unlucky effect above mentioned.” Mr. Boswell tells us that Dr. Percy had not the poem to refer to, when he wrote this explanation; and it is equally evident that Mr. Boswell had not read the whole passage with attention, or considered the nature of the poem, when he objected to the introduction of rats. If we once allow that a manufacture may be sung in heroics, we must no longer be choice in our subjects; as to the alteration of mice to rats, the former was probably an error of the pen, for mice are not the animals in question, nor once mentioned by the poet. But it is somewhat strange that Grainger should have ever thought it prudent to introduce an episode of the mock-heroic kind in a poem which his utmost care can scarcely elevate to solemnity.

Although it is impossible to deny Grainger the credit of poetical genius, it must ever be regretted that where he wished most to excel, he was most unfortunate in the choice of a subject. The effect of his “Sugar Cane,” either as to pleasure or utility, must be local. Connected as an English merchant may be with the produce of the West Indies, it will not be easy to persuade the reader of English poetry to study the cultivation of the sugar plant merely that he may add some new imagery to the more ample stores which he can contemplate without study or trouble. In the West Indies this poem might have charms, if readers could be found; but what poetical fancy can dwell on the ceconomy of canes and copper-boilers, or find interest in the transactions of planters and sugar-brokers? His invocations to his muse are so frequent and abrupt, that “the assembled wits at sir Joshua ReynoldsV might have found many passages as ludicrous as that which excited their mirth. The solemnity of these invocations excites expectation, which generally ends in disappointment, and at best the reader’s attention is bespoke without being rewarded. He is induced to look for something grand, and is told of a contrivance for destroying monkies, or a recipe to poison rats. He smiles to find the slaves called by the happy poetical name of swains, and the planters urged to devotion The images in this poem are in general low, and the allusions, where the poet would be minutely descriptive, descend to things little and familiar. Yet this is in some measure forced upon him. His muse sings of matters so new and uncouth to her, that it is impossible” her heavenly plumes“should escape being” soiled.“What muse, indeed, could give a receipt for a compost of” weeds, mould, clung, and stale,“or a lively description of the symptoms and cure of the yaws and preserve her elegance or purity Where, however, he quits the plain track of mechanical instructions, we have many of those effusions of fancy which will yet preserve this poem in our collections. The description of the hurricane, and of the earthquake, are truly grand, and heightened by circumstances of horror that are new to Europeans. The episode of Montano in the first book arrests the attention very forcibly, and many of the occasional reflections are elegant and pathetic, nor ought the tale of Junio and Theana to be omitted in a list of the beauties of this poem. The” Ode to Solitude,“already noticed, and the ballad of Bryan and Pereene,” are sufficient to attest our author’s claim to poetical honours; and the translation of Tibullus gives proofs of classical taste and learning.

the latter province he was, by cardinal Dietrichstein, placed at the head of a college. He died at Lubec in 1635. He published many Latin poems, and theses on a variety of subjects; but his historical and topographical works have been found of most value. These are, 1. “Asia, sive historia universalis Asiaticarum gentium, &c.” Antwerp, 1604, 4to. 2. “Bruxella cum suo comitatu,” Brux. 1606, 4to. 3. “Arscotum Ducatus cum suis Baronatibus,” ibid. 1606, 4to. 4. “Thenae et Brabantise ultra Velpem, quse olim Hasbaniae pars,” ibid. 1606, 4to. 5. “Gallo-Brabantia,” 3 parts or vols. ibid. 1606. 6. “Antwerpise Antiquitates,” ibid. 1610. 7. “Antiquitates ducatus Brabantiae,” ibid. 1610 4to. 8. “Taxandria,” ibid. 1610, 4to, 9. “Antiquitates Gaudenses,” Ant. 1611,4to. 10. Africa illustrata,“Torn. 1622, 4to. 11.” Diarium rerum Argelae gestarum,“Col. 1623, 12mo. These are his observations during his captivity. 12.” Respublica Namurcensis,“Amst. 1634, 24. 13.” Specimen Litterarum et Linguarum universi orbis," Athi. 4to.

, a learned philologist, antiquary, and historian of Copenhagen, was born at Aalburg in Jutland, Oct. 28, 1685. His father, who was a clergyman, carefully superintended his education until he was fit to go to the university. He went accordingly in 1703 to Copenhagen, where he very soon distinguished himself as a classical scholar and critic. In 1705 he took his bachelor’s degree with great credit, and in 1707 published the first specimen of his learned researches, entitled “Archytce Tarentini fragmentum ntp vw pafapalucw, cum disquisitione chronologica de aetate Archytse.” This was followed by other dissertations, which raised his fame so highly that he was made professor of Greek at Copenhagen, and was also appointed counsellor of justice, archivist, historiographer, and librarian, to the king, whom he had taught when a youth. In 1745, he was made counsellor of state, and died March 19, 1748, leaving an elaborate work, “Corpus diplomatum ad res Danicas facientium.” This work, which he undertook by order of Christian VI. is still in ms. and probably consists of several folio volumes. Gramm laid the first foundation of the academy at Copenhagen, and contributed very frequently to the literary journals of his time. He was a man of very extensive learning, but particularly skilled in Greek and Latin, and in history, and of such ready memory that he was never consulted on books or matters of literature without giving immediate information. He corresponded with many of the literati of Germany, England, Italy, and France, but was most admired by those who were witnesses of his amiable private character, his love of literature, and his generous patronage of young students.

, was born at Amiens, June 3, 1737, and was surnamed d'Aussy, because his father was a native of Auxy-le-Chateau, in the department of Pas-de-Calais. He received his education in the college of the Jesuits at Amiens at the age of eighteen entered into the society of his preceptors and, a few years afterxvards, had the honour of being elected to the rhetorical chair at Caen. At the age of twenty-six he was thrown on the world by the dissolution of the order, and was soon employed in the elaborate work of the French Glossary, projected by Lacurne de Sainte-Palaye, and in an examination of the very rich library of the marquis de Paulmy. In 1770 he was appointed secretary in the direction of the studies of the military school. He afterwards co-operated, under the marquis de Paulmy, and again with the count de Tressan, in the “Bibliotheque des Romans;” after which he became still deeper engaged in collecting, translating, extracting, and commenting upon the “Fabliaux,” or tales of the old French poets of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. In 1782 he published, in three volumes, 8vo, his “Histoire de la Vie privee des Frangais;” and in 1788 his far more celebrated “Tour to Auvergne,” which province he visited the preceding year, at the entreaty of his Jesuit brother Peter Theodore Lewis Augustin, who was then prior of the abbey of Saint Andre, in the town of Clermont. This Tour he first published in one volume, ivo; but he afterwards enlarged and republished it in 1795, in three volumes of the same size. His contributions to the Institute were numerous, and, for the most part, possessed of merit. For some years before his death, he had conceived the plan of a complete history of French poetry, and had even begun to carry it into execution; and as he stood in need of all the treasures of the national library, he was fortunately nominated, in 1796, conservator of the French Mss. of this library and he now not only renewed his intention, but enlarged his scheme he included in it the history of the French tongue that of literature in all its extent, and all its various ramifications as well as that of science, of arts, and their utility in different applications a monument too vast for the life and power of an individual to be able to construct. He had, however, accomplished some part of his design, when, after a slight indisposition which caused no alarm, he died suddenly in 1801. He was upon the whole a retired and taciturn scholar. “His life,” says his biographer, “like that of most other men of letters, may be comprized in two lines What were his places of resort The libraries. Among whom did he live His books. What did he ever produce Books. What did he ever say? That which appears in his books.”

In 1779, he published his “Fabliaux,” or Tales of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, Paris, 1779, 5 vols. 8vo. His object in this collection appears to have been an ardent zeal for the reputation of his country, to which he has successfully restored some tales claimed by other nations, and particularly the Italians. Whether these tales, which shock all probability, were worth his pains, the English reader may discover by a prose translation published in 1786, 2 vols. 12mo, or by Mr. Way’s metrical translation, 1800, 2 vols. 8vo. These were followed by “Contes devots, Fables et Romans anciens, pour servir de suite aux Fabliaux,” 1781, 8vo. He published also “Vie d'Apollonius de Tyanes,” 2 vols. 8vo.

, curate and canon of Loudun in France, famous for his intrigues and tragical end, was the son of a notary royal of Sable, and born at Bouvere near Sable, in the latter part of the fifteenth century, but we know not in what year. He was a man of reading and judgment, and a famous preacher; for which the rnonka of Loudun soon hated him, especially after he had urged the necessity of confessing sins to the parochial priests at Easter. He was a handsome man, of an agreeable conversation, neat in his dress, and cleanly in his person, which made him suspected of loving the fair sex, and of being beloved by them. In 1629, he was accused of having had a criminal conversation with some women in the very church of which he was curate on which the official condemned him to resign all his benefices, and to live in penance. He brought an appeal, this sentence being an encroachment upon the civil power; and, by a decree of the parliament of Paris, he was referred to the presidial of Poitiers, in which he was acquitted. Three years after> some Ursuline nuns of Loudun were thought, by the vulgar, to he possessed with the devil; and Grandier’s enemies, the capuchins of Loudun, charged him with being the author of the possession, that is, with witchcraft. They thought, however, that in order to make the charge succeed according to their wishes, it was very proper to strengthen themselves with the authority of cardinal Richlieu. For this purpose, they wrote to father Joseph, their fellowcapuchin, who had great credit with the cardinal, that Grandier was the author of the piece entitled “La Cordonnierre de Loudun,” or “The Woman Shoemaker of Loudon,' r a severe satire upon the cardinal’s person and family. This great minister, among many good qualities, harboured the most bitter resentment against the authors of libels against him; and father Joseph having persuaded him that Grandier was the author of” La Cordonniere de Loudun," he wrote immediately to De Laubardemont, counsellor of state, and his creature, to make a diligent inquiry into the affair of the nuns. De Laubardemont accordingly arrested Grandier in Dec. 1633; and, after he had thoroughly examined the affair, went to meet the cardinal, and to take proper measures with him. In July 1634, letters patent were drawn up and sealed, to try Grandier; and were directed to De Laubardemont, and to twelve judges chosen out of the courts in the neighbourhood of Loudun; all men of honour indeed, but very credulous, and on that account chosen by Grandier’s enemies. In Aug. 18, upon the evidence of Astaroth, the chief of possessing devils; of Easas, of Celsus, of Acaos, of Eudon, &c. that is to say, upon the evidence of the nuns, who asserted that they were possessed with those devils, the commissaries passed judgment, by which Grandier was declared well and duly attainted, and convicted of the crime of magic, witchcraft, and possession, which by his means happened on the bodies of some Ursuline nuns of Loudun, and of some other lay persons, mentioned in his trial; for which crimes he was sentenced to make the amende honor' able, and to be burnt alive with the magical covenants and characters which were in the register-office, as also with the ms. written by him against the celibacy of priests; and his ashes to be thrown up into the air. Grandier heard this dreadful sentence without any emotion; and, when he went to the place of execution, suffered his punishment with great firmness and courage, April 18, 1634.

, deacon of the church of Aix, was born in 1692, at Brignolles in Provence, of a mercantile family. He was educated in his own country, but came young to Paris, where his literary taste and talents procured him many friends, by whose assistance he increased his stores of knowledge, and as his income was very limited, entered upon a course of literary labours. He was a contributor, as far as vol. XIX. to the “Bibliotheque frangotse,” a well-known journal printed in Holland; and when Desfontaines was obliged to discontinue his “Nouvelliste du Parnasse,” (in which Granet had written) and obtained permission to carry it on again under another title, he engaged Granet' s services in this new undertaking called “Observations sur les ecrits modernes.” It began in 1735, and was published weekly until Sept. 1743, whep the King revoked the privilege. Busied as Granet was on this work, he found leisure to undertake in 1738 the continuation of a journal entitled “Reflexions sur les ouvrages de litterature.” This he extended as far as twelve volumes. It contains many extracts and remarks given with taste and judgment, but others that are merely repetitions of what he had written for the “Observations sur les ecrits modernes,” He had also a trick of inserting letters to himself, when he wished to publish satire without being accountable for it, but it is not thought that this disguise was of much avail. It was perhaps his misfortune that he was. obliged by the narrowness of his circumstances to employ himself thus on the labours of others, and in preparing new editions, when he might have executed original works that would have done him credit. Indeed a few months before his death he hinted to his friends that necessity only had forced him to this drudgery, and that he had no consolation but in the hope that he should one clay or othet be at liberty to employ his talents in a more creditable way. He had learned English, and in order to make that a source of profit, translated sir Isaac Newton’s “Chronology,” which he published at Paris in 1728, 4to, with an excellent preface, of which he took care to speak very highly in the 14th vol. of the “Bibliotheque Francoise,” and, probably by way of blind, speaks very differently there of some of his contemporaries, from what he had advanced in his preface. In short he appears to have perfectly understood the trade of reviewing. One of his best editions is that of the works of M, de Launoy, which was published at Geneva, 10 vols. fol. with a valuable preface, a life, and a “Launoiana,” consisting of very curious articles. Moreri gives a numerous list of other editions and publications to which he wrote prefaces and notes. He died at Paris April 2, 1741, and a spirited eloge was written on him by the abbe Desfontaines.

, a well-known biographer, but who has been himself left without any memorial, was the son of Mr. William Granger, by Elizabeth Tutt, daughter of Tracy Tutt. Of the condition of his parents, or the place of his education, we have not been able to recover any particulars. He studied, however, for some time at Christ-church, Oxford, which he probably left without taking a degree; and having entered into holy orders, was presented to the vicarage of Shiplake, in Oxfordshire, a living in the gift of the dean and chapter of Windsor. He informs us, in the dedication of his “Biographical History,” that his name and person were known to few at the time of its publication (1769), as he had “the good fortune to retire early to independence, obscurity, and content.” He adds, that “if he has an ambition for any thing, it is to be an honest man and a good parish priest,” and in both those characters he was highly esteemed by all who knew him. To the duties of his sacred office, he attended with the most scrupulous assiduity and zeal, and died in the performance of the most solemn office of the church. Such was his pious regard for the day appointed for religious observances, that he would not read the proofs of his work while going through the press on that day; and with such an impression of what was his duty, found no great difficulty in resisting the arguments of his bookseller, Tom Davies, who endeavoured to persuade him that this was a “work of necessity.” It appears that some time before his death he was anxious to obtain a living within a tenable distance of Shiplake, but did not succeed. In 1773 or 1774 he accompanied lord Mountstuart, now earl of Bute, on a tour to Holland, where his lordship made an extensive collection of portraits. In 1772 he published a sermon entitled “An Apology for the Brute Creation, or Abuse of Animals censured.” This was preached in his parish^church, Oct. 18, 1772, and, as we are informed in a postscript, gave almost universal disgust; “the mention of horses and dogs was censured as a prostitution of the dignity of the pulpit, and considered as a proof of the author’s growing insanity;” but more competent judges, and indeed the public at large, applauded him for exerting his humanity and benevolence in a case which is so often overlooked, the treatment of the brute creation. Mr. Granger, who was a man of some humour, and according to the evidence of his friend and correspondent the rev. Mr. Cole, a frequent retailer of jokes, dedicated this sermon “To T. B. Drayman,” for which he gives as a reason that he had seen this man exercise the lash with greater rage, and heard him at the same time swear more roundly and forcibly, than he ever heard or saw any of his brethren of the whip in London. Mr. Granger appears to have taken some pains with this man, but to little purpose. He was, however, afterwards killed by a kick from one of the horses whom he delighted to torment, which gave Mr. Granger an opportunity of strength-. cning his arguments with his parishioners by a warning like this, which could not fail, for sorneaime at least, to make an impression on their minds. In 1773 he printed another sermon, entitled “The nature and extent of Industry,” preached before his grace Frederic, archbishop of Canterbury, July 4, 1775, in the parish church of Shiplake. This was gravely dedicated, “To the inhabitants of the parish of Shiplake who neglect the service of the church, and spend the Sabbath in the worst kind of idleness, this plain sermon, which they never heard, and probably will never read, is inscribed by their sincere wellwisher and faithful minister J. G.” Both these discourses were favourably received by the public, and many clergymen and others purchased quantities of them for distribution. His memory, however, is best preserved by his “Biographical History of England from Kgbert the Great to the Revolution,” at which he employed himself for many years, and lived to see two editions sold, and a taste created for collections of portraits, which is indeed the principal intention of the author, his biography including only those persons of whom some engraved portrait is extant. It was first published in 4 thin 4to vols. in 1769, but the second and subsequent editions have been printed in 8vo. The preparation of such a work could not fail to yield the author much amusement, and likewise procured him the correspondence of many eminent scholars and gentlemen who were either collectors of portraits, or conversant in English biography. He had amassed considerable materials for a continuation of this work, which was prevented by his sudden and much-lamented death. On Sunday April 14, 1776, he read prayers and preached apparently in good health, but while afterwards at the communion-table, in the act of administering the sacrament, he was seized with an apoplectic fit, and notwithstanding immediate medical assistance, died next morning. This affecting circumstance was happily expressed by a friend in these lines:

He was, if we mistake not, about sixty years old. His brother John died at Basingstoke in 1810, aged 80. His very numerous collection, of upwards of fourteen thousand portraits, was sold by Greenwood in 1773, but the sale is said to have been not very productive. That his celebrated work, the “Biographical History,” is an amusing one, cannot well be denied; and its principal excellence consists in the critical accuracy and conciseness with which he has characterized the persons who are included in his plan; but, as he includes all persons without distinction, of whom any portrait is extant, we find him preserving the memory of many of the most worthless and insignificant of mankind, as well as giving a value to specimens of the art of engraving which are beneath all contempt. Mr. Waipole said that Granger had drowned his taste for portraits in the ocean of biography; and though he began with elucidating prints, he at last only sought prints that he might write the lives of those they represented. His work was grown, and growing so voluminous, that an abridgment only could have made it useful to collectors. Perhaps a more serious objection might be offered, which the author could not hare foreseen. While this work has excited a taste for collecting portraits not only harmless, but useful, when confined to men of probity, it has unfortunately at the same time created a trade very little connected with the interests of literature or common honesty, a species of purveyors who have not only lessened the value of books by robbing them of their portraits, but have carried their depredations into our public libraries, and have found encouragement where they ought to have met with detection and punishment.

, a man of eminent learning in the sixteenth century, was educated at Westminster-school, from whence he was removed either to Christ-church or Broadgate’s-hall, in the university of Oxford, where he took the degree of B. A. February 27, 1571, and that of master the 27th of March, 1572; about which time he was appointed master of Westminster school, where a great many persons who were afterwards eminent in church and state, were educated under his care. In 1575 he published at London in 4to, “Grcecse Linguse Spicilegium,” which was afterwards epitomized by his learned usher, Mr. William Camden, and printed at London, 1597, in 8vo, under the title of “Institutio Græcæ Grammatices compendiaria in usum Regiae Scholce Westinonasteriensis.” In 1577 our author was made prebendary of the twelfth stall in the collegiate church of Westminster, in the room of Dr. Thomas Watts; and about that time being admitted B. D. of Cambridge, was incorporated in the same degree at Oxford in May 1579. He was afterwards doctor of that faculty at Cambridge. He resigned his mastership of Westminster-school about the month of February 1591, and was succeeded in March following by Mr. Camdcn; he was then presented to the living of Barnet, in Middlesex, and to the rectory of Toppersfield, in Essex, in 1598. He died August 4, 1601, and was interred in St. Peter’s church at Westminster. He collected and published the Letters and Poems of Roger Ascham, to which he subjoined a piece of his own, entitled “Oratio de Vita & Obitu Rogeri Aschami, ac dietionis elegantia, cum adhortatione ad adolescentulos,” London, 1577, in 8vo. He was an excellent Latin poet, as appears from several copies of verses written by him, and printed in various books; and was exceedingly well versed in all parts of polite literature. Bentham says he had been vicar of South Benfleet, in Essex, in 1584, but resigned it soon, and that he was a prebendary of Ely in 1589.

This piece, being generally read, was thought to have had considerable influence on the public resolutions, and certainly recommended him to both parties in the way of his profession. Those who differed from him in opinion admired his courage, and were desirous of making use of his abilities; as on the other hand, those who were friends to the revolution were likewise so to him, which brought him into great business, and procured him, by special commissions, frequent employment from the crown. In all these he acquitted himself with so much honour, that, as soon as the union of the two kingdoms came to be seriously considered in the English court, queen Anne unexpectedly, as well as without application, created him a baronet in 1705, in the view of securing his interest towards completing that design; and upon the same principle her majesty about a year after appointed him one of the judges, or (as they are styled in Scotland) one of the senators of the college of justice.

In his private character he was as amiable as he was respectable in the public. There were certain circumstances that determined him to part with an estate that was left him by his father; and it being foreseen that he would employ the produce of it, and the money he had acquired by his profession, in a new purchase, there were many decayed families who solicited him to take their lands upon his own terms, relying entirely on that equity which they conceived to be the rule of his actions. It appeared that their opinion of him was perfectly well grounded; for, being at length prevailed upon to lay out his money on the estate of an unfortunate family, who had a debt upon it of more than it was worth, he first put their affairs into order, and by classing the different demands, and compromising a variety of claims, secured some thousand pounds to the heirs, without prejudice to arty, and of which they never could have been possessed but from his interposition and vigilance in their behalf, so far was he either from making any advantage to himself of their necessities, or of his own skill in his profession; a circumstance justly mentioned to his honour, and which is an equal proof of his candour, generosity, and compassion. His piety was sincere and unaffected, and his love for the church of Scotland was shewn in his recommending moderation and charity to the clergy as well as laity, and engaging the former to insist upon moral duties as the clearest and most convincing proofs of men’s acting upon religious principles; and his practice, through his whole life, was the strongest argument of his being thoroughly persuaded of those truths, which, from his love to mankind, he laboured to inculcate. He was charitable without ostentation, disinterested in his friendships, and beneficent to all who had any thing to do with him. He was not only strictly just, but so free from any species of avarice, that his lady, who was a woman of great prudence, finding him more intent on the business committed to him by others than on his own, took the care of placing out his money upon herself; and, to prevent his postponing, as he was apt to do, such kind of affairs, when securities offered, she caused the circumstances of them to be stated in the form of cases, and so procured his opinion upon his own concerns, as if they had been those of a client. These little circumstances are mentioned as more expressive of his temper than actions of another kind could be; because, in matters of importance, men either act from habit, or from motives that the world cannot penetrate; but, in things of a trivial nature, are less upon their guard, shew their true disposition, and stand confessed for what they are. He passed a long life in ease and honour. His sincerity and steady attachment to his principles recommended him to all parties, even to those who differed from him most; and his charity and moderation converted this respect into affection, so that not many of his rank had more friends, and perhaps none could boast of having fewer enemies. He left behind him three sons and five daughters-, his eldest son, Archibald Grant, esq. in his father’s life-time, represented in parliament the shire of Aberdeen; and becoming by his demise sir Archibald Grant, bait, was chosen again for the same county in 1717, His second son, William, followed his father’s profession, was several years lord-advocate for Scotland; and, in 1757, one of the lords of session, by the title of lord Prestongrange. Francis, the third son, was a merchant, and three of the daughters were married to gentlemen of fortune.

When the prince of Orange declared his intended expedition to England, our young hero made a fresh application, in the most importunate terms, to let him prove his loyalty. His letter to his father, on this occasion, which is printed by Dr. Johnson, is an elegant composition; but this was likewise unavailing, as the danger was now increased in a greater proportion than his age. The king’s affairs were become so desperate, that any attempt to serve him could only have involved him in his royal master’s ruin. On this he sat down a quiet spectator of the revolution, in which most of his family acquiesced, but was certainly far from being pleased with the change; he saw no prospect of receiving any favours from the new administration; and resolving to lay aside all thoughts of pushing his fortune either in the court or the camp, he endeavoured to divert his melancholy in the company and conversation of the softer sex. His adopted favourite was the countess of Newburgh, and he exerted all his powers of verse x in singing the force of this enchantress’s charms, and the sweets of his own captivity. But he sang in vain, hapless like Waller in his passion, while by his poetry he endeavoured to raise his Myra to the immortality which Waller had given to Sacharissa. In the mean time some of his friends were much grieved at this conduct in retiring from business, as unbecoming himself, and disgraceful to his family. One of these in particular, a female relation, whose name was Higgins, took the liberty to send to him an expostuiatory ode in 1690, in hopes of shaming him out of his enchantment; but this was his age of romance, and he persisted in asserting that his resolution was unchangeable, and that he would barter no happiness for that of a lover.

In this situation he diverted himself among his brother poets; and we find him at this time introducing Wycherley and Pope to the acquaintance of Henry St. John, esq. afterwards lord viscount Bolingbroke. This friend, then displaced, having formed a design of celebrating such of the poets of that age as he thought deserved any notice, had applied for a character of the former to our author, who, in reply, having done justice to Mr. Wycherley’s merit, concludes his letter thus: “In short, Sir,” I'll have you judge for yourself. I am not satisfied with this imperiect sketch name your day, and I will bring you together; I shall have both your thanks let it be at my lodging. I can give you no Falernian that has out-lived twenty consulships, but I can promise you a bottle of good claret, that has seen two reigns. Horatian wit will not be wanting when you meet. He shall bring with him, if you will, a youngpoet newly inspired in the neighbourhood of Cooper’shill, whom he and Walsh have taken under their wing. His name is Pope, he is not above seventeen or eighteen years of age, and promises miracles. If he goes on as he has becrun in the pastoral way, as Virgil first tried hu strength, we may hope to see English poetry vie with the Roman, and this Swan of Windsor sing as sweetly as the Mantuan. I expect your answer."

His lordship still continued steady to his former connections, and in that spirit entered his protest with them against the bills for attainting lord Bolingbroke and the duke of Ormond, in 1715. He even entered deeply into the scheme for raising an insurrection in the West of England, and was at the head of it, if we may believe lord Bolingbroke, who represents him possessed now with the same political fire and frenzy for the*Pretender as he had shewn in his youth for the father. In consequence, however, of being suspected, he was apprehended September 26, 1715, and committed prisoner to the Tower of London, where he continued until February 8, 1716-17, when he was released without any form of trial or acquittal. However sensible he might be at this time of the mistake in his conduct, which had deprived him of his liberty, yet he was far from running into the other extreme. He seems, indeed, to be one of those tories, who are said to have been driven by the violent persecutions against that party into jacobitism, and who returned to their former principles as soon as that violence ceased. Hence we find him, in 1719, as warm as ever in defence of those principles, the first time of his speaking in the house of lords, in the debates about repealing the act against occasional conformity.

, a learned physician of the sixteenth century, was born at Bergamo in Italy in 1510, and was educated at Padua, where he took his degrees with great reputation; but having embraced the doctrines of the reformers, with which Peter Martyr made him acquainted, he was obliged to make his escape, and went into Germany, that he might live undisturbed in the protestant religion. After some stay at Basil, he was invited to Marpurg to be physic-professor; but in a short time returned to Basil, and died there in 1562, or as some think in 1666, or 1668, which last seems most correct. He wrote a great many books, as, “De Memoria reparanua, augenda, conservanda, ac Reminiscentia. De Prsedictione Morum, Naturarumque Hominum facili, & Inspectione parti am corporis. Prognostica Naturalia de Temporum mutatione perpetua, ordine Literarnm. De Lite>atorum & eorum qui Magistratibus funguntur, conservanda, preservandaque valetudine. De Vim Natura, artiiicio & usu Deque omni Re Potabili. De Regimine iter Agentium, vel Equitum, vel Peditum, vel Navi, vel Curru viatoribus quibusque Utilissimi Libri duo.” He likewise made a collection of several tracts touching the sweating-sickness in England. Some of these works are honourable to his talents, and evince a large share of knowledge; but in others he shews an attachment to the absurdities of alchemy, much superstition, and opinions which do not imply a sound judgment.

, a celebrated Benedictine of the twelfth century, was born at Chiusi, and spent near twenty-four years at the monastery of Bologna in composing a work which has gained him great fame, and which he published about 1151, under the title of “Decretal,” or “Concordantia discordantium Canon um,” in which he endeavours to reconcile those canons which seem to contradict each other; but as this author has been guilty of some errors, by mistaking a canon of one council, or a passage of one father, for another, and has frequentlyfquoted spurious decretals, several writers have endeavoured to correct these faults, particularly Anthony Augustine in his valuable work entitled “De emendatione Gratiani,” an excellent edition of which was published by Baluze. The popes are indebted principally to Gratian’s Decretal for the high authority they exercised in the thirteenth and following centuries; but all their pretensions are supported in this work upon suppositious canons, which that age was too ignorant to suspect. This work forms one of the principal parts of the canon law. The editions of Rome, 1582, 4 vols. folio, and of Lyons, 1671, 3 vols. folio, are the best. There is a separate edition of this Decretal, Mentz, 1472, folio.

, an eminent Latin poet, is supposed to have been contemporary with Ovid, and pointed out by him in the last elegy of the fourth book “De Ponto,” “Aptaque venanti Gratius anna dedit.” We have a poem of his, entitled “Cynogeticon, or, The Art of hunting with Dogs;” which in strictness can only be called a fragment. The style of this poem is reckoned pure, but without elevation; the poet, like others who have adopted the didactic plan, having been more solicitous to instruct than to please his reader. He is also censured by the critics as dwelling too long on fables; and as he is counted much superior to Nemesianus, who has treated the same subject, so he is reckoned in all points inferior to the Greek poet, Oppian, who wrote his Cynogetics and Halieutics under Severus and Caracalla, to whom he presented them, and who is said to have rewarded the poet very magnificently. The first edition of Cynogeticon“was published in 1504, Bonon. folio, along with Nemesianus, and often reprinted; but the best edition is that of London, 1690, in 8vo,” cum Notis perpetuis Thomas Jonson, M. A."

The exact time is not known when he first began to collect and consider the Bills of Mortality but he tells us himself that he had turned his thoughts that way several years, before he had any design of publishing the discoveries he had made. As his character must have been eminently distinguished in 1650, when, though not above thirty years of age, his interest was so extensive, as to procure the music professor’s chair at Gresham, for his friend doctor (afterwards sir William) Petty; so it is more than probable, that his acquaintance and friendship with that gentleman, was the consequence of a similarity of pursuits; and that our author had then communicated some of his thoughts upon this subject to sir William, who, on his part, is likewise said to have repaid the generous confidence with some useful hints towards composing his book. This piece, which contained a new and accurate thesis of policy, built upon a more certain reasoning than was before that time known, was first presented to the public in 1661, 4to, and met with such an extraordinary reception, that another edition was called for in the following year; and our author’s fame, and the usefulness of his book, began to be spoken of both at home and abroad. Immediately after the publication of it, Lewis XIV. of France, or his ministers, provided, by a law, for the most exact register of births and burials, that is any where in Europe; and in England Charles II. conceived such a high esteem for his abilities, that at the first institution of the royal society, his majesty recommended him to their choice for a member; with this charge, that if they found any more such tradesmen, they should be ure to admit them all. He had dedicated the work to sir Robert Moray, president of the royal society, and had sent fifty copies to be dispersed among their members, when he was proposed (though a shopkeeper), and admitted into the society, February 26, 1661-2; and an order of council passed, June 20, 1665, for publishing the third edition, which was executed by the society’s printer, and came out that same year. Alter receiving this honour, he did not long continue a shopkeeper, but left off business; and on September 25, 1666, became a trustee for the management of the New-river, for one of the shares belonging to sir William Backhouse, who dying in 1669, his relict, afterwards countess of Clarendon, appointed Mr. Graunt one of her trustees.

This account of the time of our author’s admission into the government of the New-river is taken from the minute books, or register, of the general court of that company, and sufficiently clears him from an imputation thrown upon his memory by bishop Burnet who, having observed that the New-river was brought to a head at Islington, where there is a great room full of pipes that conveys it through the streets of London, and that the constant order was to set all the pipes running on Saturday night, that so the cisterns might be all full on Sunday morning, there being a more than ordinary consumption of water on that day, relates the following story, which he says was told him by Dr. Lloyd (afterwards bishop of Worcester) and the countess of Clarendon: “There was,” says he, “one Graunt, a papist, who under sir William Petty published his Observations an the Bills of Mortality. He had some time before applied himself to Lloyd, who had great credit with the countess of Clarendon, and said he could raise that estate considerably, if she would make him a trustee for her. His schemes were probable; and he was made one of the board that governed that matter, and by that he had a right to come as often as he pleased to view their works at Islington. He went thither the Saturday before the fire broke out, and called for the key where the heads of the pipes were, and turned all the cocks of the pipes that were then open, stopt the water, and went; away and carried 'the keys with him; so, when the fire broke out next morning, they opened the pipes in the streets to find water, but there was none. Some hours were lost in sending to Islington, where the door was broke open, and the cocks turned, and it was long before the water got to London. Graunt, indeed, denied that he had turned the cocks; but the officer of the works affirmed, that he had, according to order, st them all running, and that no person had got the keys from him besides Graunt, who confessed he had carried away the keys, but said he did it without design.” This, indeed, as Burnet observes, is but a presumption; and, we may add, a groundless calumny; since it is evident, from the above account, that Graunt was not admitted into the government of the New-river company till twenty-three days after the breaking out of the tire of London, to which may be added a farther proof that the parliament met September 18, 1666, and, on the very day that he was admitted a member of the New-river Company, they appointed a committee to inquire into the causes of the fire.

The report made by sir Robert Brooke, chairman of that committee, contains abundance of extraordinary relations, but not one word of the cocks being stopped, or any suspicions of Graunt. It is true, indeed, that he changed his religion, and was reconciled to the church of Rome some time before his death; but it is more than probable he was no papist at this juncture, since, in the title-page of his book in 1665, he is styled captain, and Wood informs us, that he had been two or three years a major when he made this change, which therefore could not have happened before 1667 or 1668 at soonest. However, the circumstances of the countess of Clarendon’s saying he was her trustee makes it plain that the story was not invented till some years after the fire, when Graunt was known to be a papist. It was apparently not invented till after his death. The first time of its appearance in public seems to have been in Echard’s “History of England.' 1 And according to bishop Burnet’s account, the story could not be told to him till after 1667, when Graunt was appointed trustee for the countess of Clarendon. The report, however, never reached his ears, and so could not disturb him in the prosecution of his studies, which he carried on after this change in his religion with the same assiduity as before, and made some considerable observations within two years of his death, which happened April 18, 1674, in the vigour of his age, having not quite completed his 54th year. He was interred on the 22d of the same month in St. Dunstan’s church, in Fleet-street, the corpse being at. tended by many of the most ingenious and learned persons of the time, and particularly by sir William Petty, who paid his last tribute with tears to his memory. He left his papers to this friend, who took care to adjust and insert them in a fifth edition of his work, which he published in 1676, 8vo, and that with so much care, and so much improved, that he frequently cites it as his own which probably gave occasion to bishop Burners mistake, who, as we have seen, called it sir William’s book, published under Graunt’s name. It is evident, however, that his observations were the elements of that useful science, which was afterwards styled” Political Arithmetic,“and of which Graunt must have the honour of being the first founder; and whatever merit may be ascribed to sir William Petty, Mr. Daniel King, Dr. Davenant, and others, upon the subject, it is all originally derived from the first author of the” Observations on the Bills of Mortality."

, a very eminent French antiquary and lawyer, was born at Nismes in the beginning of 1635, and being educated for the profession of the law, became an advocate of the parliament of Toulouse, and of the presidial court of Nismes, and director and secretary of the academy of that place. During his researches into matters of history and antiquities, he made a very fine collection of medals and manuscripts, among which were the originals of the proceedings of the popish inquisitors against the Albigenses. So highly was Graverol esteemed for learning, that no strangers of distinction visited Nismes without paying their respects to him, and such was his reputation in Italy that, in 1691, he was elected an associate of the Ricovrati of Padua; and when the states of Languedoc formed the plan of collecting their records respecting their fiefs and seignories, they considered Graverol as the only person fit to execute the work, which he was earnestly requested to undertake by the cardinal Bonzi. But his adherence to the protestant religion impeded his advancement in life, and involved him in serious troubles. He retired first to Orange in 1685, where he was very favourably received, but not thinking that a place of safety, left it for Swisserland or Holland. During this journey he was arrested and confined at Montpellier for about two months. After this he must have been released, and permitted to go home, as we find he died at Nismes Sept. 10, 1694. Among the works which contributed most to his reputation, are, 1. “Observations sur les arrets du parlement de Toulouse recueillespar la Rochefiavin,” Toulouse, 1682. 2. “Notice ou abrege historique des vingt-deux villes chefs des dioceses de la province de Languecloc,” 1 posthumous work published in 1696. 3. “Sorberiana, sive excerpta ex ore Samuelis Sorbiere,” Toulouse, 1691, 1714, Paris, 1694, and 1732. His other works were dissertations on medals and antiquities, most of which are printed with the “Sorberiana.” In the Journal des Savans for March 1685, two considerable works are announced by him, which the persecution he afterwards met with probably prevented him from completing; the one was a collection of letters to several crowned heads, written by cardinal Sadolet in the name of Leo X.; the other, a “Bibliotheque du Languedoc,” a kind of literary journal, in. which he was to give the lives of the eminent men of that province, and particulars of its history, &c.

Mr. Graves’s publications were very numerous. His first was The Festoon; or, a collection of Epigrams, with an Essay on that species of composition.“In 1772 he produced” The Spiritual Quixote,“in 3 vpls. intended as a satire on the itinerant and illiterate preachers among the methodists, and which might have been pronounced one of the most amusing and interesting novels of his time, had he not, in pursuit of his main object, incautiously introduced the language of scripture, which, whether used by methodists, or others, can never be a legitimate subject of ridicule. He next published” A Translation from the Italian of Galates; or, a treatise on Politeness, by De la Casa, archbishop of Benevento.“He soon after published” Columelia, or the distressed Anchoret,“in 2 vols. to show the consequence of a person of education and talents retiring to solitude and indolence in the vigour of youth: in this it is thought he alluded to his friend Shenstone. He also published two volumes of poems under the title o” Euphrosyne,“which have gone through several editions, but he is rather entitled to the merit of an agreeable versifier, than that of a genuine poet. Then appeared his” Eugenius; or, Anecdotes of the Golden Vale,“in 2 vols. In 1778 appeared” Recollections of some particulars in the life of William Shenstone, esq. in a series of letters to W. Seward, esq. F. R. S.“This was published to vindicate the character of his friend from the criticisms and censure of Dr. Johnson, Mr. Gray, and Mr. Mason. The following is a list of his subsequent publications, although probably not in chronological order.” Plexippus; or, the aspiring Plebeian,“in 2 vols.” Hiero on the condition of Royalty,“from the Greek of Xenophon” Fleurettes,“a translation of Fenelon’s Ode on Solitude, and other French authors” The Life of Commodus,“from the Greek of Herodian” The Rout,“from a young man in town to his friend in the country” The Meditations of Antoninus, translated from the Greek;“” The Reveries of Solitude,“consisting of pieces of prose and verse” The Coalition or, Opera rehearsed,“a comedy in three acts” The Farmer’s Son,“a moral tale, in the ballad metre” Sermons on various subjects,“in 1 vol.” Senilities,“consisting of pieces in prose and verse. His last publication was” The Invalid, with the obvious means of enjoying Life, by a Nonagenarian.“The above, we believe, is a tolerably correct list of the publications of Mr. Graves; whose works, although the” Spiritual Quixote" only will be much called for hereafter, will always be read with pleasure, there being a sprightliness and epigram* matic turn in his writings which was peculiar to himself, and which he retained to the last. In Mr. Graves ended the bright associates of their time, composed of Shenstone, Whistler, and Jago.

, an eminent Dutch philosopher, was born Sept. 26, 1688, at Bois-le-duc, in Holland, of an ancient and honourable family. He was educated with the greatest care, and very early discovered an extraordinary genius for mathematical learning. He was sent to the university of Leyden, in 1704, with an intention to study the civil law; but at the same time he cultivated with the greatest assiduity his favourite science. Before he was nineteen, he composed his treatise on perspective, which gained him great credit among the most eminent mathematicians of his time. When he had taken his doctor’s degree in 1707, he quitted the college, and settled at the Hague, where he practised at the bar. In this situation he contracted and cultivated an acquaintance with learned men; and made one of the principal members of the society that composed a periodical review, entitled “Le Journal LitteVaire.” This journal began in May 1713, and was continued without interruption till 1722. The parts of it written or extracted by Gravesande were principally those relating to physics and geometry. But he enriched it also with several original pieces entirely of his composition, viz. “Remarks on the construction of Pneumatical Engines;” A moral Essay on Lying;“and a celebrated Essay on the Collision of Bodies;” which, as it opposed the Newtonian philosophy, was attacked by Dr. Clarke, and many other learned men.

In 1715, when the States sent to congratulate George I. on his accession to the throne, Gravesande was appointed secretary to the embassy. During his stay in England he was admitted a member of the royal society, and became intimately acquainted with sir Isaac Newton. On his return to Holland, when the business of the embassy was over, he was chosen professor of the mathematics and astronomy at Leyden; and he had the honour of first teaching the Newtonian philosophy there, which was then in its infancy. The most considerable of his publications is “An Introduction to the Newtonian Philosophy; or, a treatise on the Elements of Physics, confirmed by experiments.” This performance, being only a more perfect copy of his public lectures, was first printed in 1720; and has since gone through many editions, wiih considerable improvements. He published also “A small treatise on the Elements of Algebra, for the use of young students.” After he was promoted to the chair of philosophy in 1734, he published “A Course of Logic and Metaphysics.” He had a design too of presenting the public with “A Sj’stem of Morality,” but his death, which happened in 1742, prevented his putting it in execution. Besides his own. works, he published several correct editions of the valuable works of others. His whole mathematical and philosophical works, except the first article above, were collected and published at Amsterdam, 1774, in 2 vols. 4to, to which is prefixed a critical account of his life and writings, by professor Allamand.

He was amiable in his private and respectable in his public character; for, few men of letters have done more eminent services to their country. The ministers of the republic consulted him on all occasions in which his talents were requisite to assist them, which his skill in calculation often enabled him to do in money affairs. He was of great service also in detecting the secret correspondence of their enemies, as a decipherer. And, as a professor, none ever applied the powers of nature with more success, or to more useful purposes.

, an eminent scholar, and illustrious lawyer of Italy, was born of genteel parents at Roggiano, February 18, 1664; and educated under Gregory Caloprese, a famous philosopher of that time, and his cousin-german. He went to Naples at sixteen, and there applied himself to the Latin and Greek languages, and to civil law; which application, however, did not make him neglect to cultivate, with the utmost exactness, his own native tongue. He was so fond of stu<jy, that he pursued it ten or twelve hours a day, to the very last years of his life; and, when his friends remonstrated agakist this unnecessary labour, he used to tell them that he knew of nothing which could afford him more pleasure. He went to Rome in 1689, and some years after was made professor of canon law, in the college of Sapieozia, by Innocent XL who esteemed him much; which employment he held as long as he lived. He does not, however, seem to have been of an amiable cast; at least he had not the art of making himself beloved. The free manner in which he spoke of all mankind, and the contempt with which he treated the greatest part of the learned, raised him up many enemies; and among others the famous Settano, who has made him the subject of some of his satires. It is said that he missed a cardinal’s hat because of his satirical turn of mind. When at Rome he used to bow to coach-horses, “because,” said he, “were it not for these poor beasts, these great people would have men, and even philosophers, to draw their coaches.” There were at one time doubts of his religious principles, and his pupil Metastasio seems inclined to justify these, by sinking this part of his history. Many universities of Germany would have drawn Gravina to them, and made proposals to him for that purpose; but nothing was able to seduce him from Rome. That of Turin offered him the first professorship of law, at the very time that he was attacked by the distemper of which he died, and which seems to have been a mortification in his bowels. He was troubled with pains in those parts for many years before; but they did not prove fatal to him till Jan. 6, 1718. He had made his will in April 1715, in which he ordered his body to be opened and embalmed.

His first publication was a piece entitled “Prisci Censorini Photistici Hydra Mystica; sive, de corrupta morali doctrina dialogus,” Coloniic, 1691, 4to but really printed at Naples. This was without a name, and is very scarce the author having printed only fifty copies, which he distributed among his friends. 2. “L'Endimione di Erilo Cleoneo, Pasture Arcade, con nn Discorso di Bione Crateo,” Rome, 1692, 12mo. The Endymion is Alexander Guidi’s, who, in the academy of the Arcadians, went under the name of Erilo Cleoneo; and the discourse annexed, which illustrates the beauties of this pastoral, is Gravina’s, who conceals himself under that of Bione Crateo. 3. “Delle Antiche Favola,” Rome, 1696, 12 mo. 4. A Collection of pieces under the name of “Opuscula,” at Rome in lu96, 12mo; containing, first, “An Essay upon an ancient Law;” secondly, “A Dialogue concerning the excellence of the Latin Tongue,” thirdly, “A Discourse of the change which has happened in the Sciences, particularly in Italy;” fourthly, “A Treatise upon the Contempt of Death;” fifthly, upon “Moderation in Mourning;” sixthly, “The Laws of the Arcadians.” A collection of such of these as regard literary history and study was published in 1792, for the use of young students, by the present learned bishop of St. David’s. But the greatest of all his works, and for which he will be ever memorable, is, 5. His three books, “De Ortu et Progressu Juris Civiiis;” the first of which was printed at Maples, in 1701, 8vo, and at Leipsic in 1704, 8vo. Gravina afterwards sent the two other books of this work to John Burchard Mencken, librarian at Leipsic, who had published the first there, and who published these also in 1708, together with it, in one volume 4to. They were published also again at Naples in 1713, in two volumes, 4to, with the addition of a book, “De Romano Imperio;” and dedicated to pope Clement XI. who was much the author’s friend. This is reckoned the best edition of this famous work; for, when it was reprinted at Leipsic with the “Opuscula” abovementioned, in 1717, it was thought expedient to call it in the title-page, “Editio novissima ad nuperam Neapolitanam emt-ndata et aucta.” Gravina 1 s view, in this “History of Ancient Law,” was to induce the Roman youth to study it in its original records in the Pandects, the Institutes, and the Code, and not to content themselves, as he often complained they did, with learning it from modern abridgments, drawn up with great confusion, and in very barbarous Latin. Such knowledge and such language, he said, might do well enough for the bar, where a facility of speaking often supplied the place of learning and good sense, before judges who had no extraordinary share of either; but were what a real lawyer should be greatly above. As to the piece “De Romano Imperio,” Le Clerc pronounces it to be a work in which Gravina has shewn the greatest judgment and knowledge of Roman antiquity. The next performance we find in the list of his works is, 6. * c Acta Consistoriaiia creationis Em in. et Rev Cardinalium institute a S. D. N. Clemente XL P. M. diebus 17 Maii et 7 Junii anno salmis 1706. Accessit eorundem Cardinalium brevis delineatio,“Colonise, 1707, 4to. 7.” Delia Ragione Poetica Libri duo,“Rome, 1708, 4to. To a subsequent edition of this in 1716, was added a letter” De Poesi,“from which Blackwell, in his Inquiry into the life and writings of Homer, has taken many observations. Dr. Warton says that Gravina’s remarks have a novelty and penetration in them. 8. << Tragedie cinque,” ISlapofi, 1712, 8vo. These five tragedies are, “II Papimano;” “II Palamede” “L'Andromeda” “L'Appio Ciaudio;” “II Servio Tullio.” Gravina said that he composed these tragedies in three months, without interrupting l^is lectures; yet declares in his preface, that he should look upon all those as either ignorant or envious, who should scruple to prefer them to what Tasso, Bonarelli, Trissino, and others, had composed of the same kind. This at least shews that Gravina, great as his talents were, had too high an opinion of them. They could not, it is true, have been written by Sophocles himself in a more Grecian style; but he is entitled to more fame from having educated and formed the taste of Metastasio, who was his pupil, and to whom he left a legacy, amounting in our money to nearly 4000l. with his library, and a small estate in the kingdom of Naples. 9. “Orationes,” Nap. 1712, 12mo. These have been reprinted more than once, and are to be found with his < Opuscula“in the edition of 61 Origines Juris Civilis,” printed at Leipsic, in 1717. 10. <l Delia Tragedia Libro uno,“Napoli, 1715, 410. This work, his two books” Delia Ragione Poetica,“his discourse upon the” Endymion" of Alexander Guidt, and some other pieces, were printed together at Venice in 1731, 4to, but a more complete edition of his works was published at Naples by John Antony Sergi, 1756 1758, 3 vols. 4to.

In 1754 and 1755 he appears to have written “An ode to Vicissitude,” that “On the progress of Poetry,” the “Bard,” and probably some of those fragments with which he seems to have amused himself without much design of completion. About this period he complains of listlessness and depression of spirits, which prevented his application to poetry; and from this time we may trace the course of that hereditary disease in his constitution which embittered in a considerable degree the remainder of his days; and whose fatal strength not even the temperance and regularity of a whole life could subdue. In 1756 he left Peter-house, where he had resided above twenty years, on account of some incivilities which he met with, which Mason thus mentions. Two or three young men of fortune, who lived on the same staircase, had for some time intentionally disturbed him with their riots, and carried their ill-behaviour so far as frequently to awaken him at midnight. After having borne with their insults longer than might reasonably have been expected even from a man of less warmth of temper, Gray complained to the governing part of the society, and not thinking that his remonstrance was sufficiently attended to, quitted the college. He now removed to Pembroke-hall, which he describes “as an sera in a life so barren of events as his.”

In 1768, the professorship of modern history again became vacant by the accidental death of Mr. Brocket, and the duke of Grafton, then in power, bestowed it upon Mr. Gray without the smallest solicitation, although the contrary was at that time reported; and in the following year, when his noble patron was installed as chancellor of the university, Gray wrote the Ode that was set to music on that occasion. When this ceremony was past, he went on a tour to the lakes of Cumberland and Westmoreland, of which he has given an account in his correspondence. “He that reads his epistolary narrative,” says Dr. Johnson, “wishes, that to travel, and to tell his travels, had been more of his employment: but it is by staying at home that we must obtain the ability 06 travelling with intelligence and improvement.” In April 1770, he complains much of a -tepr^ssioti of spirits, talks of an intended tour into Wales in the summer, and of meeting his friend Dr. Wharton at, Mr. Mason’s. In July, however, he was still at Cambridge, and wrote to Dr. Beattie, complaining of illness and pain in his head; and in this letter, he sent him some criticisms on the first book of the “Minstrel,” which have since been published. His tour took place in the autumn, but he does not appear to have written any journal of it. In May. 1771 he wrote to Dr. Wharton, just sketching the outlines of his tour in Wales and some of the adjacent counties. This is the last letter that remains in Mr. Mason’s collection. He there complains of an incurable cough, of spirits habitually low, and of the uneasiness which the thought of the duties of his professorship gave him, which, Mr. Mason says, he had now a determined resolution to resign. He had held this office nearly three years, and had not begun to execute the duties of it, which consist of two parts, one, the teaching of modern languages; the other, the reading of lectures on Modern History. The former he was allowed to execute by deputies, but the latter he was to commence in person, by reading a public lecture in the schools, once at least in every term. He was at liberty to chuse his language, and chose the Latin, which Mr. Mason thought somewhat injudicious; and although we do not find that he proceeded farther than to draw up a part of his introductory lecture, he projected a plan of very great extent, of much greater indeed than from his inactivity, whether the effect of illness or indolence, he would probably have been able to execute. His death, however, prevented the trial. A few days alter writing the letter just mentioned, he removed to London, where his health more and more declined. His physician, Dr. Gisborne, advised freer air, and he went to Kentittgton. There he in some degree revived, and returned to Cambridge, intending to go from that place to Old Park, near Durham, the residence of his friend Dr. Wharton. On the 24th of July, however, while at dinner in the collegehall, he was seized with an attack of the gout in his stomach, of which he died in the evening of the 30th, 1771, in the fifty-fifth year of his age, sensible almost to the last; aware of his danger, and expressing no visible concern at the thought of his approaching death. He was interred by the side of his mother, in the church-yard of StoVe.

In his private character many virtues were united; benevolence, temperance, integrity, and ceconomy, patience under the contempt of hypercriticism, and a friendly and affectionate disposition. He had also some failings, among which are enumerated a want of personal courage, a reservedness and caprice of temper, and a foppish attention to dress. This was somewhat singular in one who to his other qualities, added a great portion of humour, and had a quick sense of the ridiculous. His sensibility was even morbid, and very often fastidious ancl troublesome to his friends. He seemed frequently overwhelmed by the ordinary intercourse and ordinary affairs of life. Coarse manners, and vulgar or unrefined sentiments, overset him. Mason’s excuse for all this will not perhaps be thought the excuse of a friend; he attributes it rather to “an affectation in delicacy an.l effeminacy, -than the things themselves,” and says that Grav “chose to put on this appearance before persons whom he did not wish to please.”

Gray appears to have written in a desultory manner; his efforts were such as he could accomplish probably at one time, and he had not in many instances affection enough for his subject to return to it. Hence no poet of modern times has left so many specimens or samples, so mueh planned, and so little executed. Activity and labour it appears he could never endure, unless in storing his mind with various knowledge for his own curiosity and satisfaction. Hence, although he read much and read critically, and amassed a vast fund of general learning, his reputation in this respect has hitherto stood upon the evidence of those who know him most intimately. He was above fifty years of age before he became sensible of the necessity of concentrating his knowledge in one pursuit, and as he had never accustomed himself so to regulate his acquisitions as to render them useful to others, he apparently sunk under the task which his professorship imposed; and it is much to the credit of his independent spirit, that when he found it impossible to execute the duties, he determined to resign the emoluments of his place.

, an Italian scholar and poet of considerable eminence, was born at Florence March 22, 1503, of a noble family, which can be traced as far as the thirteenth century, but was now decayed, as we find that Grazzini in his youth was brought up as an apothecary. He had, however, studied philosophy and the belles lettres, and from the timetliathe acquired some reputation in the literary world, gave up his medical business. In 1540 he became one of the founders of the academy of Florence, which was first called the academy of the Humides, and each member distinguishing himself by some appellation relative to the water, Grazzini adopting that of Lasca, which signifies a roach. From the first establishment of this academy, he was appointed chancellor, and when, some months after, the grand duke changed its name to that of the academy of Florence, he was chosen overseer, or superintendant, an office which he afterwards filled three times. As the number of members, however, increased, the juniors began to make new regulations without consulting the founders, and a schism broke out, attended with so many unpleasant circumstances, that Grazzini withdrew, and became the founder of a new academy, known still by the name of La Crusca. The object of this society was to polish the Italian language, to fix a standard for it, to point out such authors as might be always models for those who chose to improve their style, to oppose the progress of false taste; and to sift the flour from the bran of literature, crusca signifying bran. Grazzini was well qualified to assist an academy instituted for these purposes. He hail enriched the language with several choice phrases and new modes of expression, and the academicians have very justly ranked him among those authors to whom they have been obliged for examples, in correcting their great vocabulary. In the mean time his growing fame induced his friend Leonard Salviati to endeavour his re-introduction into the academy of Florence, which was successfully accomplished in 1566, twenty years after he had left it; in return for which he procured admission for Salviati among the Cruscanti. Grazzini died at Florence in February 1583. He was a man of unquestionable genius, spirit, and humour, and wrote with great elegance, and although there are some indelicate passages in his poems, which was the vice of the times, he was a man of strict morals, and even, says his biographer, very religious. Many of his works are lost, and among these some prose tales, and many pieces of poetry. There remain, however, twentyone tales, six comedies, a great number of capitoli, or satirical chapters, and various poems, of which the best edition is that of Florence, 1741, 2 vols. 8vo. His Tales or Novels were printed at Paris, 1756, 8vo, from which some copies have been printed in 4to, under the title of London. An excellent French translation of them appeared in 1775, 2 vols. 8vo, in which nine histories wanting in the third evening are said to be inserted from an old French translation in ms. He wrote also “La guerra di Mostri, Poema giocoso,” Florence, 1584, 4to. Grazzini published the 2d book of Berni, Florence, 1555, 8vo; and “Tutti i trionfi, carri, mascherate o canti carnasciaj^schi dal tempo di Lorenzo de Medici a questoanno 1559,” 8vo; 100 pages are frequently wanting in this work, page 297 being pasted upon page 398. These pages contained 51 canzoni, by John Baptist dell Ottomaio, which had been inserted without his consent, and which his brother, by authority from the magistrates, had cancelled. They were printed separately by the author, in a similar size, the year following, and must be added to the mutilated copies; but though they consist of 55 songs instead of 51, those found in the original collection are preferred, as the others have been altered. This collection was reprinted in 1750, 2 vols. 8vo, Cosmopoli; but this impression is not valued.

, an empiric, whose wori r derful cures have been attested by some of the most eminent men of the seventeenth century, was the son of William Greatrakes, esq. and born at Affane, co. Waterforcl, in Ireland, Feb. 14, 1628. He was educated a protestant in the free-school of Lismore, until the age of thirteen, when his friends intended to have removed him to Trinity college, Dublin, but the rebellion breaking out, his mother took refuge with him in England, where he was kindly received by his great uncle Edmund Harris, brother to sir Edward Harris, knt. his grandfather by the mother’s side. After his uncle’s death he spent some years in the study of the classics and divinity under a clergyman in Devonshire, and then returned to Ireland, which was at that time in so deplorable a state that he retired to the castle of Caperquin, where he spent a year in contemplation, and seems to have contracted a species of enthusiasm which never altogether left him. In 1649 he entered into the service of the parliament, and continued in the army until 1656, when, a great part of the English being disbanded, he retired to his native country of Aflfane, and by the interest of the governor there, was made clerk cf the peace for the county of Cork, register for transplantation, and justice of the peace. At the Restoration all these places were taken from him, and his mind being disturbed partly with this disappointment, and partly for want of any regular and useful occupation, he felt an impulse, as he calls it, that the gift of curing the king’s evil was bestowed upon him and accordingly he began his operations, which were confined to praying, and stroking the part affected and such wonderful cures were effected, that he determined not to stop here. Three years after, he had another impulse that he could cure all kinds of diseases, and by the same simple remedy, which must be administered by himself. When however he pretended to some supernatural aid, and mentioned the Holy Ghost with irreverent presumption, as his assistant, he was cited to the bishop’s court, and forbid to take such liberties. This probably was the cause of his coming to England in January 1665, where he performed many cures, was invited by the king to Whitehall, and his reputation spread most extensively. Even Dr. Henry Stubbe, an eminent physician, published a pamphlet in praise of his skill. Having failed in one instance, that of a Mr. Cresset in Charterhouse square, there appeared a pamphlet entitled “Wonders no miracles: or Mr. Valentine Greatrakes Gift of Healing examined,” &c. Lond. 1666, 4to. This was written by Mr. David Lloyd, reader to the Charter-house, who treated Greatrakes as a cheat. In answer to this, he published “A brief account of Mr. Valentine Greatrakes, and divers of his strange cures,” &c. ibid. 1666, 4to. This was drawn up in the form of a letter to the right hon. Robert Boyle, who was a patron of our physician, as was also Dr. Henry More, and several other members of the royal society, before whom Greatrakes was examined. To his cures we find the attestations of Mr. Boyle, sir William Smith, Dr. Denton, Dr. Fairclough, Dr. Faber, sir Nathaniel Hobart, sir John Godolphin, Dr. Wilkins, Dr. VVhichcot (a patient), Dr. Cudworth, and many other persons of character and reputation. The truth seems to be, that he performed cures in certain cases of rheumatism, stiff joints, &c. by friction of the hand, and long perseverance in that remedy; in all which there would have been nothing extraordinary, as the same is practised till this day, had be not excited the astonishment and enthusiasm of his patients by pretensions to an extraordinary gift bestowed upon him, as he insinuates in one place, to cure the people of atheism. When he left England or died is not known. Mr. Harris says he was living in Dublin in 168 1.

Thus furnished, he embarked in the river Thames for Leghorn, June 1637, in company with his particular friend Mr. Edward Pococke, whom he had earnestly solicited to that voyage. After a short stay in Italy, he arrived at Constantinople before Michaelmas. Here he met with a kind reception from sir Peter Wyche, and became acquainted with the venerable Cyril Lucaris, the Greek patriarch, by whom he was much assisted in purchasing Greek Mss., and who promised to recommend him to the monks of Mount Athps, where he would have the liberty of entering into all the libraries, and of collecting a catalogue of such books as either were not printed, or else, by the help of some there, might be more correctly published. These, by dispensing with the anathemas which former patriarchs had laid upon all Greek libraries, to preserve the books from the Latins, Cyril proposed to present to archbishop Laud, for the better prosecution of his designs in the edition of Greek authors; but all this was frustrated by the death of that patriarch, who was barbarously strangled June 1638, by express command of the grand signior, on pretence of holding a correspondence with the emperor of Muscovy.

Nor 'vas this the only loss which our traveller sustained by Cyril’s death; for having procured out of an ignorant monastery which depended on the patriarch, fourteen good Mss. of the fathers, he was forced privately to restore the books and lose the money, to avoid a worse inconvenience. Thus Constantinople was no longer agreeable to him, and the less so, because he had not been able to perfect himself in the Arabic tongue for want of sufficient masters, which be hoped to have found there. Tn these circumstances, parting with his fellow-traveller Pococke, he embraced the opportunity then offered of passing in company with the annual Turkish fleet to Alexandria, where, having in his way touched at Rhodes, he arrived before the end of September 1638. This was the boundary of his intended progress. The country afforded a large field for the exercise of his curious and inquisitive genius; and he omitted no opportunity of remarking whatever the heavens, earth, or subterraneous parts, offered, that seemed any way useful and worthy of notice; but, in his astronomical observations, he was too often interrupted by the rains, which, contrary to the received opinion, he found to be frequent and violent, especially in the middle of winter. He was also much disappointed here in his expectations of purchasing books, finding very few of these, and no learned men. But the principal purpose of his coming here being to take an accurate survey of the pyramids, he went twice to the deserts near Grand Cairo, where they stand; and having exeputed his undertaking entirely to his satisfaction, embarked at Alexandria in April 1639. Arriving in two months at Leghorn, he made the tour of Italy a second time, in order to examine more accurately the true state of the Roman weights and measures, as he was now furnished with proper instruments for that purpose, made by the best hands.

But the tyrannical violence of the parliamentary visitors was now above all restraint, and a fresh charge was drawn up against Greaves. Dr. Walter Pope informs us, that, considering the violence of the visitors, Greaves saw it would be of no service to him to make any defence; and, finding it impossible to keep his professorship, he made it his business to procure an able and worthy person to succeed him. By the advice of Dr. Charles Scarborough the physician, having pitched upon Mr. Seth Ward, he opened the matter to that gentleman, whom he soon met with there; and at the same time proposed a method of compassing it, by which Ward not only obtained the place, but the full arrears of the stipend, amounting to 500l. due to Greaves, and allowed him a considerable part of his salary. The murder of the king, which happened soon after, was a shock to Greaves, and lamented by him in pathetic terms, in a letter to Dr. Pococke: “O my good friend, my good friend, never was sorrow like our sorrow; excuse me now, if I am not able to write to you, and to answer your questions. O Lord God, avert this great sin and thy judgments from this nation.” However, he bore up against his own injuries with admirable fortitude; and, fixing his residence in London, he married, and, living upon his patrimonial estate, went on as before, and produced some other curious Arabic and Persic treatises, translated by him with notes, every year. Besides which, he had prepared several others for the public view, and was meditating more when he was seized by a fatal disorder, which put a period to his life, Octobers, 1652, before he was full fifty years of age. He was interred in the church of St. Bennet Sherehog, in London. His loss was much lamented by his friends, to whom he was particularly endeared by joining the gentleman to the scholar. He was endowed with great firmness of mind, steadiness in friendship, and ardent zeal in the interest which he espoused, though, as he declares himself, not at all inclined to contenlion. He was highly esteemed by the learned in foreign parts, with many of whom he corresponded. Nor was he less valued at home by all who were judges of his great worth and abilities. He had no issue by his wife, to whom he bequeathed his estate for her life; and having left his cabinet of coins to his friend sir John Marsham, author of the “Canon Chronicus,” he appointed the eldest of his three younger brothers (Dr. Nicolas Greaves), his executor, who by will bestowed our author’s astronomical instruments on the Savilian library at Oxford, where they are reposited, together with several of his papers; but many others were sold by his widow to a bookseller, and lost or dispersed.

Besides his papers in the Philosophical Transactions, his works printed separately are, 1. “Pyramidologia; or a description of the Pyramids in Egypt,” Lond. 1646, 8vo. 3. “A Discourse of the Roman Foot and Denarius,” ibid. 1647, 8vo. 3. “Elementa Linguae Persicae,” ibid. 1649, 4to. 4. “Epochae celebriores astronomis, historicis, chronologis Chataiorum, Syro-grsecorum, Arabum, Persarum, &c. usitatae, ex traditione Ulug Beigi Arab, et Lat.” ibid. 1650, 4to. 5. “Chorasmiae et Mawaralnabrae, hoc est, regionum extra fluvium Oxum, descriptio,” ibid. 1650, 4to. 6. “Astronomicae quaedam, ex traditione Shah Cholgii Persae, una cum hypothesibus planetarum,” &c. ibid. 1652, 4to. In 1737 Dr. Birch published the “Miscellaneous Works” of our author, 2 vols. 8vo, containing some of the above, with additions, and a life.

Mr. Greaves had three brothers, Nicholas, Thomas, and Edward, all men of distinguished learning. Dr. Nicholas Greaves was a commoner of St. Mary’s Hall, in Oxford, whence in 1627 he was elected fellow of All-Souls college. In 1640 he was proctor of that university. November 1st 1642 he took the degree of B. D. and July 6th the year following, that of D. D. He was dean of Dromore in Ireland. Dr. Thomas Greaves was admitted a scholar of Corpus Christi college in Oxford March 15th, 1627, and chosen fellow thereof in 1636, and deputy reader of the Arabic during the absence of Mr. Edward Pocock in 1637. He took the degree of B. D. October 22, 1641, and was rector of Dunsby in Lincolnshire during the times preceding the Restoration, and of another living near London. October I Oth, 1661, he had the degree of D. D. conferred upon him, and a prebend in the church of Peterborough in 1666, being then rector of Benefield in Northamptonshire, “which benefice he resigned some years before his death through trouble from his parishioners, who, because of his slowness of speech and bad utterance, held him insufficient for it, notwithstanding he was a man of great learning.” In the latter part of his life he retired to Weldon in Northamptonshire, where he had purchased an estate, and died there May 22, 1676, in the sixty-fifth year of his age, and was interred in the chancel of the church there. His writings are, “De Linguae Arabicae militate et proestantia, oratio Oxonii habita 19 Julii 1637,” Oxford, 1637, 4to; “Observationes qusedam in Persicam Pentateuchi versionem,” printed in the sixth volume of the Polyglot Bible; “Annotationes quaedam in Persicatn interpretationem Evangeliorum,” printed in the same volume. These annotations were translated into Latin by Mr. Samuel Clarke. It appears likewise, by a letter of his to the celebrated nonconformist Baxter, that he had made considerable progress in a refutation of Mahometanism from the Alcoran, upon a plan that was likely to have been useful in opening the eyes of the Mahometans to the impostures of their founder. He corresponded much with the learned men of his time, particularly Selden, and Wheelocke, the Arabic professor at Cambridge. Dr. Edward Greaves, the youngest brother of Mr. John Greaves, was born at or near Croydon in Surrey, and admitted probationer fellow of All-Souls college in Oxford in 1634; and studying physic, took the degree of doctor of that faculty July 8, 1641, in which year and afterwards he practised with good success about Oxford. In 1643 he was elected superior lecturer of physic in Merton college, a chair founded by Dr. Thomas Linacre. Upon the declining of the king’s cause he retired to London, and practised there, and sometimes at Bath. In March 1652 he was examined for the first time before the college of physicians at London, and October 1, 1657, was elected fellow. After the Restoration he was appointed physician in ordinary to king Charles II. and was created a baronet. Mr. Wood styles him a pretended baronet; but we find that he takes this title in his oration before the college of physicians; and in the sixth edition of Guillim’s Heraldry are his arms in that rank. He died at his house in Covent Garden, November 11, 1680, and was interred in the parish church there. He wrote and published Morbus Epideiw'cus, ann. 1643; or, the New Disease, with signs, causes, remedies,“&c. Oxford, 1643, 4to, written upon occasion of a disease called” Morbus Campestris,“which raged in Oxford while the king and court were there.” Oratio habita in >dibus Collegii Medicorum Londinensium, 25 July, 1661, die Hurveii memoriae dicato," Lond. 1667, 4to.

, an English prelate, was born about 1706, at Beverly, in Yorkshire, and received the rudiments of his education at a private school. From this he was admitted a sizar in St. John’s college, Cambridge; and after taking his degrees in arts, with great credit as a classical scholar, engaged himself as usher to a school at Lichfield, before Dr. Johnson and Mr. Garrick had left that city, with both of whom he was of course acquainted, but he continued here only one year. In 1730 he was elected fellow of St. John’s, and soon after the bishop of Ely procured him the vicarage of Hingeston from Jesus college, which was tenable with a fellowship of St. John’s, but could not be held by any fellow of Jesus. In 1744, Charles duke of Somerset, chancellor of the university, appointed Mr. Green (then B. D.) his domestic chaplain. In January 1747, Green was presented by his noble patron to the rectory of Borough-green, near New-market, which he held with his fellowship. He then returned to college, and was appointed bursar. In December 1748, on the death of Dr. Whalley, he was elected regius professor of divinity, with which office he held the living of Barrow in Suffolk, and sodn after was appointed one of his majesty’s chaplains. In June 170, on the death of dean Castle, master of Bene't college, a majority of the fellows (after the headship had been declined by their president, Mr. Scottowe) agreed to apply to archbishop Herring for his recommendation; and his grace, at the particular request of the duke of Newcastle, recommended professor Green, who was immediately elected. Among the writers on the subject of the new regulations proposed by the chancellor, and established by the senate, Dr. Green took an active part, in a pamphlet published in the following winter, 1750, without his name, entitled “The Academic, or a disputation on the state of the university of Cambridge.” On March 22, 1751, whenhis friend Dr. Keene, master of St. Peter’s college, was promoted to the bishopric of Chester, Dr. Green preached the consecration -sermon in Elyhouse chapel, which, by order of the archbishop of York, was soon after published. In October 1756, on the death of Dr. George, he was preferred to the deanery of Lincoln, and resigned his professorship. Being then eligible to the office of vice-chancellor, he was chosen in November following. In June 1761, the dean exerted his polemical talents in two letters (published without his name) “on the principles and practices of the Methodists,” the first addressed to Mr. Berridge, and the second to Mr. Whitfield. On the translation of bishop Thomas to the bishopric of Salisbury, Green was promoted to the see of Lincoln, the last mark of favour which the duke of Newcastle had it in his power to shew him. In 1762, archbishop Seeker (who had always a just esteem for his talents and abilities) being indisposed, the bishop of Lincoln visited as his proxy the diocese of Canterbury. In 1763 he preached the 30th of January sermon before the house of lords, which was printed.

“The author of the following poern had the greatest part of his time taken up in business; but was accustomed at his leisure hours to amuse himself with striking out small sketches of wit or humour for the entertainment of his friends, sometimes in verse, at other times in prose. The greatest part of these alluded to incidents known only within the circle of his acquaintance. The subject of the following poem will be more generally understood. It was at first a very short copy of verses; but at the desire of the person to whom it is addressed, the author enlarged it to its present state. As it was writ without any design of its passing beyond the hands of his acquaintance, so the author’s unexpected death soon ifter disappointed many of his most intimate friends in their design of prevailing on him to review and prepare it for the sight of the public. It therefore now appears under all the disadvantages that can attend a posthumous work. But it is presumed every imperfection of this kind is abundantly overbalanced by the peculiar and unborrowed cast of thought and expression, which manifests itself throughout, and secures to this performance the first and principal character necessary to recommend a work of genius, that of being an original.”

The compositions of Dr. Greene were very numerous, particularly for the church. Early in his career he set a Te Deum, and part of the Song of Deborah, which were never printed; but the anthems and services which he produced for St. Paul’s and the king’s chapel he collected and published in two vols. folio; and of these the merit is so various as to leave them open to much discrimination and fair criticism. There is considerable merit of various kinds in his catches, canons, and two-part songs; the composition is clear, correct, and masterly; the melodies, for the times when they were produced, are elegant, and designs intelligent and ingenious. The collection of harpsichord lessons, which he published late in his life, though they discovered no great powers of invention, or hand, had its day of favour, as a boarding-school book; for being neither so elaborate as those of Handel, nor so difficult as the lessons of Scarlatti, or the sonatas of Alberti, they gave but little trouble either to the master or the scholar. During the last years of his life he began to collect the services and anthems of our old church composers, from the single parts used in the several cathedrals of the kingdom, in order to correct and publish them in score; a plan which he did not live to accomplish, but as he beueathed his papers to Dr. Boyce, it was afterwards exeuted in a very splendid and ample manner. Dr. Greene ied in 1755.

, an English poet and miscellaneous iter of the Elizabethan age, and memorable for his tants and imprudence, was a native of Norwich, and born ubout 1560. His father appears to have been a citizen of Norwich, the fabricator of his own fortune, which it is thought he had accumulated by all the tricks of selfishness and narrow prudence. He educated his son, however, as a scholar, at St. John’s college, Cambridge. Here he took the degree of A. B. in 1578, and for some time travelled into Italy and Spain. Ou his return, he took his master’s degree at Clare-hall, in 1583, and was incorporated in the same at Oxford in 1588, no inconsiderable proof that hiproficiency in his studies had been very conspicuous, and that there was nothing at this time grossly objectionable in his moral demeanour. It is supposed that he took orders after his return from his travels, and that he was the same Robert Greene who was presented to the village of Tollesbury, in Essex, June 19, 1584. If this be the case, it is probable that he did not long reside, or was perhaps driven from Tollesbury, by his irregular life, the greater part of which was spent in London. Here, from some passages cited by Mr. Beloe, it would appear that he gave himself up to writing plays and love pamphlets, and from the date of his “Myrrour of Modestie,” 1584, it is probable that from this time he became an author by profession; but as four years after he was incorporated M. A. at Oxford, we are still willing to believe that his career of folly had not commenced so soon, or been so generally known as it was some time after. It was his fate to fall among dissolute companions, who, though men of genius like himself, probably encouraged each other in every sensual enjoyment. Among these were Christopher Mario w, George Peele, and Thomas Nash; for Dr. Thomas Lodge, another of their associates, is not loaded with the same stigma. “The history of genius,” says one of our authorities, with equal justice and feeling, “is too often a detail of immoral irregularities, followed by indigence and misery. Such, in after times, was the melancholy tale of Otway and Lee, of Savage, Boyse, Smart, Burns, Dermody, and many others. Perhaps the writers of the drama have, of all others, been the most unfortunate in this respect; perhaps there is something which more immediately seizes all the avenues of the fancy in the gorgeous exhibitions of the stage; which leads men away from the real circumstances of their fortune, to the delusions of hope, and to pursue the fairy lights so hostile to sober truth.” In what species of dissipation, and to what degree Greene indulged, it were useless now to inquire his faults were probably exaggerated by the rival wits of his day and his occupation as a playwriter being in itself at that time looked upon as criminal, was barely tolerated. Among his errors, about which we are afraid there is now no doubt, may be mentioned his marrying an amiable lady, whom he deserted and ill-used. His career, however, was short. He died Sept. 5, 1592, at an obscure lodging near Dowgate, not without signs of contrition, nor indeed without leaving behind him written testimonies that he was more frequently conscious of an. ill-spent life than able or willing to amend it. In some of his works also, he made strenuous exertions to warn the unthinking, and expose the tricks, frauds, and devices of his miscreant companions. His works, says one of his biographers, contain the seeds of virtue, while his acts display the tares of folly. From such of his writings as have fallen 'in our way, he appears to possess a rich and glowing fancy, great command of language, and a perfect knowledge of the manners of the times. As a poet he has considerable merit, and few of his contemporaries yield a more pleasant employment to the collectors of specimens. His writings attained great popularity in his day, but until very lately, have been seldom consulted unless by poetical antiquaries. The following list of his works, by Mr. Haslewood, is probably complete: 1. “The Myrrour of Modestie,” 1584. 2. “Monardo the Tritameron of Love,” 1534, 1587. 3. “Planetomachia,” 1585. 4. Translation of a funeral Sermon of P. Gregory XIII. 1585. 5. “Euphues’s censure to Pbilautus,” 1587, 1634. 6. “Arcadia or Menaphon, Camillae’s alarm to slumbering Euphues,” 1587,1589, 1599, 1605, 1610, 1616, 1634. 7. “Pandosto the Triumph of Time,” 1588, 1629. 8. “Perimedes the blackesmith,” 1588. 9. “The pleasant and delightful history of Dorastiis and Favvnia,” 1588, 1607, 1675, 1703, 1723, 1735. 10. “Alcida, Greene’s Metamorphosis,” 1617. 11. “The Spanish Masquerade,” 1589. 12. “Orpharion,” 1599. 13. “The Royal Exchange, contayning sundry aphorisms of Philosophic,” 1590. 14. “Greene’s mourning garment, given him by Repentance at the funerals of Love,” 1590, 1616. 15. “Never too late,” 1590, 1600, 1607, 1616, 1631. 16. “A notable discovery of Coosenage,” 1591, 1592. 17. “The ground work of Conny Catching,” 159U 18. “The second and last part of Conny Catching,” 1591, 1592. 19. “The third and last part of Conny Catching,” 1592. 20. “Disputation, between a hee conny-catcher and a shee conny-catcher,” 1592. 21. “Greene’s Groatsworth of wit bought with a million of repentance,” 1592, L-600,1616, 1617, 1621, 1629, 1637. Of this a beautiful edition was lately printed by sir Egerton Brydges, M. P. at the private press at Lee Priory, (only 61 copies for presents), with a biographical preface, to which this article is essentially indebted: his and Mr. Haslewood’s account of Greene, are compositions dictated by true taste and discrimination, and by just moral feeling. 22. “Philomela, the lady FitzwalterV nightingale,” 1592, 1615, 163h 23. “A quip for an upstart courtier,” r$92, 162O, 1625, 1635, and reprinted in 1 the Harleian Miscellany. 24. “Ciceronis amor, Tullie’s love,” 1592, 1611, 1615, 1616, 1628, 1639. 25. “News both from heaven and hell,” 159-3. 26. “The Black Book’s Messenger, or life and death of Ned Browne,” 1592. 27. “The repentance of Robert Greene,” 1592. 28. “Greene’s vision at the instant of his death,” no date. 29. “Mamillia, or the triumph of Pallas,” 1593. 30. “Mamillia, or the second part of the triumph of Pallas,” 1593. 31. “Card of Fancy,” 1593, 1608. 32. “Greene’s funerals,” 1594; but doubtful whether his. 33. “The honourable history of Fryer Bacon and Fryer Bongay, a comedy,” 1594, 1599, 1630, 1655. 34. “The history of Orlando Furioso, a play,” 1S94, 1599. 35. “The comical historic of Alphonsus king of Arragon, a play,” 1597, 1599. 36. “A looking-glass for London and England,” a comedy, jointly with Lodge, 1594, 1598. 37. “The Scottish Historic of James the Fourthe, si ai ue at Flodden, intermixed with a pleasant comedie,” 1598, 1599. 38. “Penelope’s Webb,” 1601. 39. “Historic of Faire Bellora,” no date, afterwards published, as “A paire of Turtle doves, or the tragical history of Bellora and Fidelio,” 1606. 40. “The debate between Follie and Love, translated out'of French,” 1608. 41. “Thieves falling out, true men come by their goods,” 1615, 1637, and reprinted in the Harleian Miscellany. 42. “Greene’s Farewell to Folie,” 1617. 43. “Arbasto, the history of Arbasto king of Denmarke,” 1617, 1626. 44. “FairEmme, a comedy,” 1631. 45. “The history of lobe,” a play, destroyed, but mentioned in Warburton’s list. A few other things have been ascribed toGreene on doubtful authority.

, a gallant naval officer, was the son of sir Roger, of an ancient family, in the west of England, and was born about 1540. At the age of sixteen, by the permission of queen Elizabeth, he served in the imperial army in Hungary, against the Turks. Upon his return, he engaged with the troops employed for the reduction of Ireland, and obtained so much reputation as to be appointed sheriff of the city of Cork, and in 1571, he represented the county of Cornwall in parliament. He was afterwards high sheriff of the county, and received the honour of knighthood; but the bias of his mind was chiefly fixed upon plans of foreign discovery and settlement, proposed by his relation sir Walter Raleigh, and when the patents were made out, he obtained the command of a squadron fitted out for the purpose, consisting of seven small vessels. With these he sailed in the spring of 1585, and reaching the coast of Florida in June, he left there a colony of one hundred men, and then sailed homewards. He made other voyages, and on occasion of the Spanish invasion, was appointed one of a council of war, to concert means of defence, and received the queen’s commands not to quit the county of Cornwall. In 1591 he was appointed vice-admiral of a squadron, fitted out for the purpose of intercepting a rich Spanish fleet from the West Indies. This fleet, when it appeared, was convoyed by a very superior force, and Greenville was urged to tack about; but he preferred, and no doubt his sailors agreed with him, taking chance of breaking through the enemy’s fleet, which almost immediately surrounded him. The Spanish admiral, with four other ships, began a clos? attack at three in the afternoon the engagement lasted till break of day next morning, during which the Spaniards, notwithstanding their vast superiority, were driven off fifteen times. At length the greater part of the English crew being either killed or wounded, and the ship reduced to a wreck, no hope of escape remained. The brave commander had been wounded at the beginning of the action, but he caused his wounds to be dressed on deck, and refused to go down into the hold, and in that state he was shot through the body. He was now taken to the cabin, and while in the act of being dressed, the surgeon was killed by his side. The admiral still determined to hold out, wishing rather to sink the ship than surrender, but the offers of quarter from the Spaniards induced the men to yield. Sir Richard was taken on board the Spanish ship, and honourably treated, but died of his wounds in about three days. He has sometimes been blamed for rashness, but of this his censurers appear to be very imperfect judges.

, a brave and loyal officer, grandson of the preceding, was born in 1596. He was educated at Exeter college, Oxford, where his accomplishments were acknowledged, and his principles of loyalty and religion indelibly fixed, under the care of Dr. Prideaux. After taking possession of his estate he sat in parliament; and in 1638 attended the king with a troop of horse, raised at his own expence, in an expedition to Scotland, on which occasion he received the honour of knighthood. Abhorring the principles which then broke out in open rebellion, he joined the royal army, and had a command at the battle of Stratton, in 1643, when the parliamentary forces were defeated, and greatly distinguished himself in other engagements, particularly that at Lansdown, near Bath, fought successfully against sir William Waller, July 5, 1643, but received a fatal blow with a pole-axe. Many of his brother officers fell with him, and their bodies were found surrounding his. Lord Clarendon says, “That which would have clouded any victory, was the death of sir Bevil Greenville. He was, indeed, an excellent person, whose activity, interest, and reputation was the foundation of what had been done in Cornwall, and his temper and affection so public, that no accident which happened could make any impression on him; and his example kept others from taking any thing ill, or at least seeming to do so; in ft word, a brighter courage and gentler disposition were never married together, to make the most cheerful and innocent conversation.” His descendant, lord Lansdowne, erected a monument on the spot where he was killed.

, a younger son of the preceding, and brother to sir John Greenville first eari of Bath, of his name, was born in Cornwall, admitted gentleman commoner of Exeter college, Sept. 22, 1657, actually created in convocation master of arts Sept. 28, 1660. About this time he married Anne, the daughter of Dr. Cosin, bishop of Durham, who conferred several preferments on him, as the rectories of Easington and Elwick in. the county palatine of Durham; the archdeaconry of Durham, to which he was collated on the death of Dr. Gabriel Clarke, Sept. 16, 1662, and to the first stall of prebendaries of the church of Durham, Sept. 24, 1662, from whence he was removed to the second, April 16, 1668. On December 20, 1670, he was created doctor of divinity, being then one of the chaplains in ordinary to Charles II.; and on the 14th of December, 1684, he was installed dean of Durham in the place of Dr. John Sudbury deceased. In the register of Eton college we find that immediately after the restoration, Dr. Greenville was recommended in very strong terms to the master and fellows for a fellowship, by three several letters from the king, but for what reason this recommendation did not take effect, does not appear; probably he might wave his interest on account of other preferment which was more acceptable to him. On the 1st of February 1690, he was deprived of all his >referments upon his refusal to comply with the new oaths >f allegiance and supremacy to the prince of Orange then in possession of the throne, a change which he utterly abhorred, always considering the revolution as a rebellion and usurpation. Soon after the prince of Orange’s landing, he left Durham in order to retire into France; and sometimes lived at Corbeil (from whence it is supposed his family originally sprung), but more frequently at Paris and St. Germain’s, where he was very civilly treated and much countenanced by the queen-mother, as we find in several of his own letters, notwithstanding what has been falsely asserted by Mackay in an account of the court of St. Germain’s. He owns he _was sometimes attacked by the priests, but with much good manners and civility. Mr* Wood says, that during his retirement, he was, on the death of Dr. Lamplugh, nominated to the see of York, by king James II. though never consecrated; but this seems rery doubtful. In April 1695 he came incognito into EngJand; but soon returned. For some time before his death he enjoyed but a very indifferent state of health, having been much troubled with a sciatica, and other infirmities. He died at Paris, after a series of many sufferings, on April 7, 1703, N. S. and was buried at the lower end of the Holy Innocents’ church in that city. Lord Lansdowne in a letter to a nephew of his, who was going to enter into holy orders, says of him, “You had an uncle whose mejnory I shall ever revere: make him your example. Sanctity sate so easy, so unaffected, and so graceful upon him, that in him we beheld the very beauty of holiness. He was as cheerful, as familiar, as condescending in his conversation, as he was strict, regular, and exemplary in his piety; as well bred and accomplished as a courtier, and as reverend and venerable as an apostle. He was indeed apostolical in every thing, for he abandoned all to follow his Lord and Master.” There seems little reason to doubt this character, as far as it respects Dr. Greenville’s private character, but in bigotry for restoration of James II. he probably excelled all his contemporaries, and from some correspondence lately published in the Life of Dr. Comber, his successor in the deanery of Durham, there is reason tp doubt whether in his latter days his mind was not unsound. He published, 1. “The Complete Conformist, or seasonable advice concerning strict conformity and frequent celebration of the Holy Communion,” preached on the 7th of January, being the first Sunday after the Epiphany, 1682, in the cathedral church of Durham, on John i. 29, Loud. 1684, 4to. To which is added “Advice or a letter written to the clergy of the archdeaconry of Durham,” to the same purpose. 2. “A Sermon preached in the cathedral church of Durham, upon the revival of the ancient and laudable practice of that and some other cathedrals, in having sermons on Wednesdays and Fridays during Advent and Lent,” on Rom. xiii. 11, Loud. 1686, 4to. 3. “Counsels and Directions divine and moral: in plain and familiar letters of advice to a young gentleman his nephew, soon after his admission into a college in Oxford,” Lond. 1685, 8vo. Besides these pieces which we have just mentioned, our author, immediately after his retiring into France, published some small tracts at Rouen, which are very scarce, and not very correctly printed; and perhaps it is remarkable that such an unusual favour should be permitted in a popish country to a dignified clergyman of the church of England. The titles of the pieces printed at Rouen are, viz. 4. “The resigned and resolved Christian and faithfull and undaunted loyalist: in two plaine farewell sermons, and a loyal farewell visitation speech. Both delivered amidst the lamentable confusions occasioned by the late foreign invasion and home-defection of his majestie’s subjects in England. By Denis Granville, D. D. deane and archdeacon of Durham, now in exile, chaplaine in ordinary to his majestic. .Whereunto are added certaine Letters to his relations and friends in England, shewing the reasons and manner of his withdrawing out of the kingdom.” “A Letter to his brother the earl of Bathe.” “A Letter to his bishop the bishop of Durham.” “A Letter to his brethren the prebendaries” “A Letter to the clergy of his archdeaconry.” “A Letter to his curates, at Easington and Sedgefield,” printed at Rouen, 1689. 5. “The chiefest matters contained in sundry Discourses made to the clergy of the archdeaconry of Durham, since his majestic‘ s coming to the crown. Summed up and seasonably brought again to their view in a loyal farewell visitation speech on the 13th of November last, 88, being ten days after the landing of the prince of Orange.*’ This is dated from his study at Rouen Nov. 15, 1689. With a preface to the reader and an advertisement. 6.” A copy of a paper penned at Durham, by the author, Aug. 27, 1688, by way of reflection on the then dismal prognostics of the time.“7.” Directions which Dr. Granville, archdeacon of Durham, rector of Sedgefield and Easington, enjoins to be observed by the curates of those his parishes, given them in charge at Easter-visitation held at Sedgefield, in the year 1669."

Here he had indulged himself with the hopes of gratifymg his wish, in the enjoyment of a solitary and unruffled lite, when Pelagius II. dying Feb. 8, 590, he was elected pope by the clergy, the senate, and the people of Rome; to whom he had become dear by his charity to the poor, whom the overflowing of the Tiber, and a violent plague, had left perishing with hunger. This promotion was so disagreeable to him, that he employed all possible methods to avoid it; he wrote a pressing letter to the emperor, conjuring him not to confirm his election, and to give orders for the choice of a person who had greater capacity, more vigour, and better health than he could boast; and hearing his letter was intercepted by the governor of Rome, and that his election would be confirmed by the imperial court, he fled, and hid himself in the most solitary part of a forest, in a cave firmly resolved to spend his days there, till another pope should be elected and, the people despairing to find him, a new election ensued. In this case, the Roman clergy, always fond of miracles, tell us that Gregory would never accept the papal chair, till he had manifestly found, by some celestial signs, that God called him to it. It is pretended, that a dove flying before those who sought for him, shewed them the way they were to go; or that a miraculous light, appearing on a pillar of fire over his cavern, pointed out to them the place of his reeat.

In the year 595, he refused to send the empress Constantia any relics of St. Paul, which she had requested, desiring to look at the body of that apostle. On this occasion he relates several miraculous punishments for such a rash attempt, all as simply devised as those in his< Dialogues." The same year he warmly opposed John patriarch of Constantinople, for assuming the title of oecumenical or universal, which he himself disclaimed, as having Do right to reduce the other bishops to be his substitutes; and afterwards forbad his nuncio there to communicate with that patriarch, till he should renounce the title. His humility, however, did not keep him from resenting an affront put upon his understanding, as he thought, by the emperor, for proposing terms of peace to the Lombards, who besieged Rome this year: the same year he executed the famous mission into England; and as Brunehaut, queen of France, had been very serviceable in it, he wrote a letter of thanks to her on the occasion. The princess is represented as a profligate woman, but very liberal to the ecclesiastics; founding churches and convents, and even sueing t9 the pope for relics. This was a kind of piety which particularly pleased Gregory; and accordingly, he wrote to the queen several letters, highly commending her conduct in that respect, and carried his complaisance so far as to declare the French happy above all other nations in having such a sovereign. In the year 598, at the request of the Christian people at Caprita, a small island at the bottom of the gulph of Venice, he ordered another bishop to be ordained for that place, in the room of the present prelate, who adhered to the Istrian schism. This was done contrary to the orders of the emperor Maurice, against taking any violent measures with schismatics.

At this time, as well as the next, year 600, he was confined to his bed by the gout in his feet, which lasted for three years; yet he celebrated mass on holidays, although with much pain. This brought on a painful burning heat all over his body, which tormented him in the year 601. His behaviour in this sickness was very exemplary. It made him feel for others, whom he compassionated, exhorting them to make the right use of their infirmities, both by advancing in virtue and forsaking vice. He was always extremely watchful over his flock, and careful to preserve discipline; and while he allowed that the misfortunes of the times obliged the bishops to interfere in worldly matters, as he himself did, he constantly exhorted them not to be too intent on them. This year he held a council at Rome, which made the monks quite independent by the dangerous privileges which he granted them. Gregory forbad the bishops to diminish in any shape the goods, lands, and revenues, or titles of monasteries, and took from them the jurisdiction they ought naturally to have over the converts in their dioceses. But many of his letters shew, that though he favoured the monks in some respects, he nevertheless knew how to subject them to all the severity of their rules. The same year he executed a second mission into England, and, in answer to the bishop of Iberia, declared the validity of baptism by the Nestorians, as being performed in the name of the Trinity.

But while he was thus intent in correcting the mischiefs of the late war, he saw it break out again in Italy, and still to the disadvantage of the empire, the affairs of which were in a critical situation, not only in the provinces of the west, but every where else. Gregory was much afflicted with the calamities of this last war, and at the same time his illness increased. The Lombards made a truce in November 603, which was to continue in -force till April 605. Some time after, the pope received letters from queen Theodilinda, with the news of the birth and baptism of her son Adoaldus. She sent him also some writings of the abbot Secundinus upon the fifth council, and desired him to answer them. Gregory “congratulates her on having caused the young prince, destined to reign over the Lombards, to be baptised in the catholic church.” And as to Secundinus, he excuses himself on account of his illness: I am afflicted with the gout,“says he,” to such a degree, that I am not able even to speak, as your envoys know; they found me ill when they arrived here, and left me in great danger when they departed. If God restores my health, I will return an exact answer to all that the abbot Secundinus has written to me. In the mean time, I send you the council held under the emperor Justinian, that by reading it he may see the falsity of all that he has heard against the holy see and the catholic church. God forbid that we should receive the opinions of any heretic, or depart in any respect from the letter of St. Leo, and the four councils:“he adds,” I send to the prince Adoaldus, your son, a cross, and a book of the gospel in a Persian box; and to your daughter three rings, desiring you to give them these things with your own hand, to enhance the value of the present. I likewise beg of you, to return my thanks to the king, your consort, for the peace he made for us, and engage him to maintain it, as you have already tlone."

It remains to be observed, in justice to this pope, that the charge of his causing the noble monuments of the ancient splendour of the Romans o be destroyed, in order to prevent those who went to Rome from paying more attention to the triumphal arches, &. than to things sacred, is rejected by Platina as a calumny. Nor is the story, though credited by several learned authors, particularly by Brucker, of his reducing to ashes the Palatine library founded by Augustus, and the burning an infinite number of pagan books, particularly Livy, absolutely certain. However, it is undeniable, he had a great aversion to all such books, which he carried to that excess, that he flew in a violent passion with Didier, archbishop of Venice, for no other reason than because he suffered grammar to be taught in his diocese. In this he followed the apostolical constitutions: the compiler whereof seems also to have copied from Gregory Nazianzen, who thought reading pagan books would turn the minds of youth in favour of their idolatry; and we have seen more recently the same practice zealously defended, and upon the same principle too, by Mr. Tillemont. Yet Julian the apostate is charged with using the same prohibition, as a good device to effect the ruin of Christianity, by rendering the professors contemptible on account of their ignorance. Dupin says, that his genius was well suited to morality, and he had acquired an inexhaustible fund of spiritual ideas, which he expressed nobly mough, generally in periods, rather than sentences: his :omposition was laboured, and his language inaccurate, but sy, well connected, and always equally supported. He left more writings behind him than any other pope from the foundation of the see of Rome to the present period. 'hese consist of twelve books of “Letters,” amounting to ipwards of eight hundred in number. “A comment on :he book of Job,” generally known by the name of “Grejry’s Morals on Job.” “A Pastoral,” or a treatise on duties of a pastor. This work was held in such veneration by the Gallican church, that all the bishops were jbiiged, by the canons of that church, to be thoroughly icquainted with it, and punctually to observe the rules contained in it. He was author also of “Homilies” on the prophet Ezekiel; and on the gospels, and of four books of “Dialogues.” His works have been printed over and over again, in almost all forms, and at a number of different places on the continent, as Lyons, Paris, Rouen, Basil, Antwerp, Venice, and Rome. The best edition is that of Paris, in 1705, in 4 vols. folio.

, the principal event in whose life is the reformation he introduced in the Roman calendar, was born at Bologna in 1502. His name before his promotion was Hugh Buoncompagno. He was brought up to the study of the civil and canon law, which he taught in his native city with uncommon reputation. He was afterwards appointed judge of the court of commerce at Bologna. From this city he removed to Rome, where, after various preferments, he was on the death of Pius V. in 1572, unanimously elected his successor, and at his consecration he took the name of Gregory XIII. His reformation of the calendar, was according to a method suggested by Lewis Lilio, a Calabrian astronomer, which after his death was presented to the pope by his brother. This method, which was immediately adopted in all catholic countries, but was rejected by the protestants and by the Greeks, was intended to reform the old or Julian year, established by Julius Caesar, which consisted of'365 days 6 hours, or 365 difys and a quarter, that is three years of 365 days each, and the fourth year of 366 days. But as the mean tropical year consists only of 365 days 5 hours 48 minutes 57 seconds, the former lost 11 minutes 3 seconds every year, which in the time of pope Gregory had amounted to 10 <lays, and who, by adding these 10 days, brought the account of time to its proper day again, and at the same time appointed that every century after, a day more should be added, thereby making the years of the complete centuries, viz. 1600, 1700, 1800, &c. to be common years of 365 days each, instead of leap-years of 366 days, which makes the mean Gregorian year equal to 365 days 5 hours 45 minutes 36 seconds. This computation was not introduced into the account of time in England, till 1752, when the Julian account had lost 11 days, and therefore the 3d of September, was in that year by act of parliament accounted the 14th, thereby restoring the 11 days which had thus been omitted.

ism, or rather some select rites of each, pretended to worship no other deity

By these breaches in the family, Nazianzen was sufficiently weaned from the place of his nativity; and, though he was not able to procure a successor to" his father, he resolved to throw up his charge, and accordingly retired to Seleucia, famous for the temple of St. Thercla, the virginmartyr; where, in a monastery of devout virgins dedicated to that saint, he continued a long time, and did not return till the death of St. Basil, whom he deeply regretted he could not attend at his last hours, being himself confined by sickness. About this time he was summoned to a council at Antioch, holden anno 378, to consider the emperor’s late edict for tolerating the catholics, in order to suppress Arianism; and, being ordered by the council to fix himself for that purpose at Constantinople, he presently repaired thither. Here he found the catholic interest at the lowest ebb; the Arians, favoured by Valens, had possessed themselves of all the churches, and proceeded to such extremities that scarcely any of the orthodox dared avow their faith. He first preached in his lodgings to those that repaired thither, and the congregation soon growing numerous, the house was immediately consecrated by Nazianzen, under the name of the church of Anastasia, or the resurrection; because the catholic faith, which in that city had been hitherto oppressed, here seemed to have its resurrection. The opposition to his measures but increased his fame, together with the number of his auditors, and even drew admirers and followers from foreign parts; among whom St. Jerom, lately ordained presbyter, came on purpose to put himself under his tutelage and discipline; an honour in which Jerom glories on every occasion. As the catholics grew more considerable, they chose him for their bishop, and the choice was confirmed by Meletus of Antioch, and Peter who succeeded Athanasius at Alexandria; but he was opposed by the Arians, who consecrating Maximus, a famous cynic philosopher and Christian, gave him a great deal of trouble. The Arian bishop, however, was at length forced to retire, and his successor Demophilus was deposed by the emperor Theodosius, who directed an edict to the people of Constantinople, February 27, 380, re-establishing the orthodox faith; and afterward coming thither in person, he treated Nazianzen with all possible kindness and respect, and appointed a day for his instalment in the see.

He was one of the ablest champions of the orthodox faith concerning the Trinity, whence he had the title given him of e SeoAoyes, “The Divine,” by unanimous consent. His moral and religious qualities were attended with the natural graces of a sublime wit, subtle apprehension, clear judgment, and easy and ready elocution, which were all set off with as great a stock of human learning as the schools of the East, as Alexandria, or Athens itself, was able to afford. All these excellences are seen in his works, of which we have the following character by Erasmus; who, after having enriched the western church with many editions of the ancient fathers, confesses, that he was altogether discouraged from attempting the translation of Nazianzen, by the acumen and smartness of his style, the grandeur and sublimity of his matter, and those somewhat obscure allusions that are frequently interspersed among his writings. Upon the whole, Erasmus doubts not to affirm, that, as ha lived in the most learned age of the church, so he was the be*t scholar of that age. His works consist of sermons, letters, and poems, the latter evidently imbued with genius, and have been printed in Greek and Latin, Paris, 1609 and 1611, 2 vols. fol. with notes by the learned abbot de Billi, who was also author of the Latin translation. This edition is more esteemed than the new one of 1G30. There are some poems by St. Gregory in “Tollii insignia itinerarii Italici,” Utrecht, 1696, 4to, never printed before.

, was the younger brother of St. Basil, and had an equal care taken of his education, being brought up in all the polite and fashionable modes of learning; but, applying himself particularly to rhetoric, he valued himself more upon being accounted an orator than a Christian. On the admonition of his friend Gregory Nazianzen he quitted those studies; and, betaking himself to solitude and a monastic discipline, he turned his attention wholly to the holy scriptures, and the controversies of the age; so that he became as eminent in the knowledge of these as he had before been in the course of more pleasant studies. Thus qualified for the highest dignity in the church, he was placed in the see of Nyssa, a city on the borders of Cappadocia. The exact time of his promotion is not known, though it is certain he was bishop in the year 371. He proved in this station a stout champion for the Nicene faith, and so vigorously opposed the Arian party, that he was soon after banished by the emperor Valens; and, in a synod held at Nyssa by the bishop of Pontus and Galatia, was deposed, and met with very hard usage. He was hurried from place to place, heavily fined, and exposed to the rage and petulance of the populace, which fell heavier upon him, as he was both unused to trouble, and unapt to bear it. In this condition he remained for seven or eight years, during which, however, he went about countermining the stratagems of the Arians, and strengthening those in the orthodox faith; and in the council of Antioch in the year 378, he was, among others, delegated to visit the eastern churches lately harassed by the Arian persecution.

Thus furnished, he began to apply himself more directly to the charge committed to him, and he was said to b^> endowed with the power of working miracles: hence the title of Thaurnaturgus, or wonder-worker, is constantly ascribed to him in the writings of the church. St Basil assures us, that upon this account the Gentiles used to call him a second Moses. In this faithful and successful government of his flock he continued quietly till about anno '2bO, when he fled from the Decian persecution; but, as soon as the storm was over, he returned to his charge, and in a general visitation of his diocese, established in every place anniversary festivals and solemnities in honour of the martyrs who had suffered in the late persecution. In the reign of Galienus, about the year 260, upon the irruption of the northern nations into the Roman empire, the Goths breaking into Pontus, Asia, and some parts of Greece, created such confusion, that a neighbouring bishop of those parts wrote to Gregory for advice what to do: our author’s answer, sent by Euphrasymus, is called his “Canonical Epistle,” still extant among his works. Not long afterwards was convened that synod at Antioch, wherein Paul of Samosata, bishop of the place, which he did not care to lose, made a feigned recantation of his heretical opinions. Our St. Gregory was among the chief persons in this synod which met in the year 264, but did not long survive it, dying either this or most probably the following year.

, St., or frequently called Geregius Florentius Gregorius, an eminent bishop and writer of the sixth century, descended from a noble family of AuTergne, was born about the year 544. He was educated by his uncle Gallus, bishop of Clermont, and became so eminent for learning and virtue, as to be appointed bishop of Tours in the year 573. He assisted at the council held at Paris in the year 577, respecting Pretextat, bishop of Rouen, and strongly opposed the violence of some of the members of that assembly, particularly Chilperic and Fredegonde. He went afterwards to visit the tomb of > the apostles at Rome, where he formed a friendship with St. Gregory the Great, and died Norember 27, 595. This bishop wrote a “History of France,” in ten books; eight books of “The Miracles, or Lives of the Saints;” and other works, in the library of the fathers. The best edition-is that by Dom Ruinart, 1699, fol. His history is very useful; for though the style is dry and coarse, and the author extremely simple and credulous, yet an ingenious critic may easily separate the truths contained in it from the falsehoods. This work has been translated into French by the abbeé de Marolles, 1668, 2 vols. 8vo.