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

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

All this while the faculty persecuted him continually, insomuch that he was apprehensive of some design against his life. Under this suspicion, he retired very often to a country-house, where Commodus the emperor’s son resided. That prince was then under the tuition of Pitholaus, to whom the emperor had given orders, if his son should be taken ill, to send for Galen. This order gave him an opportunity of attending the prince in a fever, which appeared very violent on the first access. He had the good fortune to remove the disease, and the following eulogium was made by Faustina the princess: “Galen,” says she, “shews his skill by the effects of it, while other physicians give us nothing but words.” He also cured Sextus, another son of Aurelius Marcus, and predicted the success, against the opinion of all his colleagues. Thus he raised his fame above the reach of envy; and he continued not only to preserve, but increase it. The emperor, after his return from the German expedition, was suddenly seized in the night with violent pains in the bowels, which, being followed by a great flux, threw him into a fever. Next day, he took a dose of hiera picra, and another of the theriacum ; after which, the physicians who bad attended his person in the army, ordered him to be kept quiet, giving him nothing but a little broth for the space of nine hours. Galen, being called in soon after, attended with the rest, and they, upon feeling the patient’s pulse, were of opinion that he was going into an ague. The emperor, observing that Galen stood still without approaching him, asked the reason: Galen replied, that his luNe being touched twice by his physicians, he depended upon them, not duubting but they were better judges of the pulse than he was. The emperor, little satisfied with this answer, immediately held out his arm. Galen having considered the pulse with great attention, “I pronounce (says he) that we have nothing to do here with the access of an ague; but the stomach is overcharged with something that remains undigested, which is the true cause of the fever.” These words were no sooner uttered, than the prince cried out aloud, “That is the very thing, you have hit the case exactly;” and repeating the words three times, asked what must be done for his relief. “If it was the case of any other person,” replied Galen, “I should order a little pepper infused in wine, which I have often tried with success in this case; but as it is the custom to administer to sovereign princes only mild remedies, it suffices to apply hot to the stomach a piece of flannel dipped in the oil of spike.” Marcus did not neglect to make use of both these remedies; and in the issue said to Pitholaus, his son’s governor, “We have but one physician . Galen is the only valuable man of the faculty.”

As a physician, the ancients had the highest esteem for him. Athenacus, his contemporary, shews the great opinion he had of his merit as a philosopher, by making him a guest at his feast of the philosophers; where he not only compliments him upon the great number of his writings, but adds, that in elocution and perspicuity of style, he was inferior to none*. Eusebius, who lived about an hundred years after him, observes, that the veneration in which Galen was held as a physician, was such, that many looked upon him as a God, and even paid him divine worship; accordingly Trallian gives him the title of “most divine.” Oribasius, who flourished soon after Eusebius, and was himself Archiater to Julian, testified his esteem for Galen, by the extracts he made of his works, as well as by the praises which he bestows upon him. /Ktius and Paulus vEgineta have also copied Galen, especially the last, and his works were commented on by Stephen the Athenian. Avicenna, Averroes, and the rest of the Arabian physicians, who take the best of what they have from Galen, have not been wanting in their praises of him. After all, however, it is certain he had in his own time a considerable party to contend with, and these latter ages have raised up some powerful adversaries to his name. The practice of Hippocrates, which he laboured to re-establish, did not triumph over the other sects, immediately upon Galen’s declaring against them. The sect of the methodists (as it was called) supported its credit for some ages

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

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

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

, of Milan, a learned ecclesiastical antiquary, and apostolical notary, flourished in the sixteenth century, under the pontificate of Gregory XIII. and Sixtus V. He was an able scholar in the ancient languages, and had devoted much of his time to researches in ecclesiastical history. He endeavoured to correct and illustrate the “Roman Martyrology,” by new-modelling it, and adding a number of new facts respecting the saints. This he dedicated to pope Gregory XIII. and published it at Milan in 1577, but it never was approved by the Roman censors, who thought it too long to be recited in the canonical office; and others have accused him of many inaccuracies. He wrote also the “Lives of the Saints of Milan,” printed there in 1582; some notes on the Greek Septuagint, Rome, 1567, and a “Commentary on the Pentateuch,” ib. 1587. His other works, are translations from Greek into Latin of some discourses of St. Gregory Nyssen and Theodoret new editions of the histories of Sulpicius Severus and of Haymo of Halberstadt, in folio; the acts of Milan; a tract concerning the obelisk which Sixtus V. raised in 1586; and another on the tomb which the same pope erected in. honour of Pius V. a history of the popes, entitled “Theatrum Pontificate;” “S. Didaci Complutensis Canonizatio,” Rome, 1588; “II perfetto Dittionario,” Latin and Italian, Venice, 1659, and 1684. We have no further particulars of his life, except that he died about the year 1590.

, an Italian wit, was born in Naples, about 1720. He was descended of a noble family, his father being a marquis, and his uncle archbishop and great almoner to the king, who is celebrated in the History of the two Sicilies, for hating been the chief author and promoter of the famous concordate of 1741, which happily terminated the jurisdictional disputes between the court of Naples and the holy see. To the high preferments and care of this uncle, Galiani was indebted for a liberal education, and it is said that he displayed very early an extraordinary genius in every study. At the age of sixteen, he had mastered the Latin and Greek languages, and was equally acquainted with classical literature, the mathematics, philosophy, and with the civil and canon law.

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

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

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

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

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

Galileo wrote a number of treatises, many of which were published in his life-time. Most of them were also collected after his death, and published by Mendessi in 2 vols. 4to, under the title of “L'Opere di Galileo Galilei Lynceo,” in 1656. Some of these, with others of his pieces, were translated into English and published by Thomas Salisbury, in his Mathematical Collections, in 2 vols. folio. A volume also of his letters to several learned men, and solutions of several problems, were printed at Bologna in 4to. His last disciple, Vincenzo Viviani, who proved a very eminent mathematician, methodized a piece of his master’s, and published it under this title, “Quinto libro de gli Elementi d' Euclidi,” &c. at Florence in 1674, 4to. Viviani published some more of Galileo’s things, being extracts from his letters to a learned Frenchman, where he gives an account of the works which he intended to have published, and a passage from a letter of Galileo dated at Arcetri, Oct. 30, 1635, to John Camillo, a mathematician of Naples, concerning the angle of contact. Besides all these, he wrote many other pieces, which were unfortunately lost. Galileo had two daughters and a son by a Greek woman he lived with; the daughters became nuns; one son continued the family, which, Frisi says, is but lately extinct; one turned missionary, and was induced from religious scruples to burn many of his grandfather’s works and the third ran away.

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

It was soon after his professional celebrity at the operahouse that he married lady Elizabeth Bertie, sister of the late earl of Abingdon. Admitted at first as a dancingmaster, by his vivacity, talents, knowledge of the Italian language, and manners, he so insinuated himself into the favour of this noble family, as to bring about this not very creditable alliance. Many ridiculous stories were in circulation at the time, of signor Gallini’s expectations of the honours which would accrue to him by his marriage into a noble family; which he imagined would confer on him the title of My lord. But he was soon convinced of his mistake, and content with an inferior title. When the marriage became a subject of conversation, Dr. Burney happened to hear in the gang-way of the opera pit the following conversation. One of two ladies going into the front boxes, says to the other, “It is reported that one of the dancers is married to a lady of quality;” when Gallini, who happened to be in the passage near the lady who spoke, says, “Lustrissima, son io.” “And who are yon?” demanded the lady. “Eudenza, mi chiamo signor Gallini esquoire.” This match, as is usual with such disproportioned alliances, was not the source of permanent felicity. They lived asunder many years. Lady Elizabeth died Aug. 17, 1804, aged 80.

It was after this period, in going to Italy to engage performers, that he obtained his title at Rome of the pope, who made him “Cavaliere del speron d'Oro,” knight of the golden spur, the only order which his holiness has to bestow. But lord Kenyon, when his title was introduced in court on a trial, refused to acknowledge it, and treated the assumption with indignation and contempt. Sir John, however, continued to retain it, and was abetted by the public.

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

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

, a learned Italian astronomer, who lived in the sixteenth century, and was a member of the academy of Venice, is said to have invented an instrument for observing the celestial phenomena. He published several works, among which are, 1. “Delia fabrica et uso di diversi stromenti di Astronomia et Cosmografia,” Venice, 1597. 2. “Specimen Uranicum,” Venice, 1595. 3. “Ccelestium corporum et rerum ab ipsis pendentium Explicatio,” Venice, 1605. This work has been improperly ascribed to Paulus Galvicius in the catalogue of Thuanus’s library. 4. “Theatrum mundi et temporis,” Venice, 1589. 5. “De Themate erigendo, parte fortune, divisione Zodiaci, dignitatibus Planetarum et temporibus ad medicandum accommodatis.” This is printed with “Hasfurtus de cognosceudis et medeudis morbis ex corporum coelestium positione, cui argumenta et explicationem inscripsit,” Venice, 1584.

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

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

, from whose name the appellation of Galvanism was given to a supposed new principle in nature, also called animal electricity, was born Sept. 9, 1737, at Bologna, of a family, several of which had distinguished themselves in the professions of law and divinity. In his early youth he shewed a great propensity to religious austerities; but being dissuaded from entering into an order of monks, whose convent he frequented, he directed his attention to the study of medicine. He pursued this study under able masters, and gained their esteem, especially that of professor Galcazzi, who received him into his house, and gave him his daughter in marriage. To this union his success in life is in a great measure to be ascribed. In 1762, after having sustained an inaugural thesis, “De Ossibus,” he was appointed public lecturer in the university of Bologna, and reader in anatomy to the institute in that city, chiefly by the interest of his wife’s relations. By the excellence of his method of teaching he obtained crowded audiences, and by his researches and experiments in physiology and comparative anatomy he established a high reputation throughout the schools of Italy. A singular accident is said to have given birth to the discovery which has immortalized his name. His wife, to whom he was most tenderly attached, being in a declining state of health, used a soup made from frogs as a restorative: and some of these animals, skinned for the purpose, happening to lie on a table in Galvani’s laboratory, on which was placed an electrical machine, one of the assistants in his experiments, by accident, brought the point of a scalpel near the crural nerves of a frog lying not far from the conductor. Instantly the muscles of the limb were agitated with strong convulsions. The experiment was repeated, the fact ascertained, and a long series of new experiments, ingeniously varied, were put in execution, by which he investigated the law of nature of which accident had thus given him a glimpse. His first publication on the subject was printed for the institute at Bologna in 1791, and entitled “Aloysii Galvani de viribus Electricitatis in motu Musculari Commentarius.” This work immediately excited the attention of philosophers both in Italy and other countries, and the experiments were repeated and extended. In the hands of the celebrated Volta the agent was increased in power to a great extent; and, directed by the genius of sir Humphrey Davy, it has already led to most important discoveries in regard to the composition of many substances, heretofore deemed elementary, and bids fair to change the whole face of chemical science.

, a writer of some eminence, and a member of the French academy of sciences, was born at Meulan in 1672, and, entering the church, obtained the office of canon of the Holy Cross de la Bretonniere, and died at Paris in 1756. He was much esteemed for his literary talents, which appeared in the following works: 1. “Physical Astronomy,” 1740, 4to. 2. “Literary and Philosophical Dissertations,” 1755, 8vo. 3. 4 “System of the Christian Philosopher,” 1721, 8vo. 4. “System of the Heart,” published in 1708, under the feigned name of Clerigny. 5. “The Elegancies of Language reduced to their Principles,” a book called by one writer, the “Dictionary of fine Thoughts,” and by others pronounced to be a work which every man who writes should read.

, an Italian poetess, born in 1485, was the daughter of the count John Francis Gambara, and was married in 1509 to Giberto X. lord of Correggio, whom she survived many years. Her natural disposition, the course of her education, and, above all perhaps, the instructions and advice of Peter Bembus, led her in her youth to devote a part of her leisure to the cultivation of her poetical talents, which through all the vicissitudes of her future life, was her occasional amusement. In 1528 she went to reside at Bologna, with a brother who was governor of that city, where she established a kind of academy that vras frequented by many of the literati, who then resided at the Roman court. On her return to Correggio, she had the honour of receiving as her guest the emperor Charles V. She died in 1550. Her writings which had been dispersed in various collections of the time, were corrected and published by Zamboni in 1759, Brescia, 8vo, with a life of the authoress. They display a peculiar originality and vivacity, both in sentiment and language, which raise them far above those insipid effusions, which under the name of sonnets at that time inundated Italy.

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

, who was elevated to the popedom by the name of Clement XIV. was the son of a physician, and born in 1705. He was educated at Rimini, near his birth-place, and at the age of eighteen entered into the Franciscan order at Urbino. After finishing his studies at various seminaries, he was appointed in 1740 to be professor of divinity in the college of St Bonaventure, at Rome. In this situation he gained the good opinion of pope Benedict XIV. who gave him the place of counsellor of the holy office; and in 1759 Clement XIII. made him a cardinal. It is said that in all his intercourse with his brethren and at their public assemblies, he endeavoured to lower their tone, and to persuade them that it was almost too late to oppose the will of the sovereigns of Europe by a display of ecclesiastical power. This could not be very acceptable to the cardinals, who persisted in their opinion of the power of the reigning pontiff, and encouraged him in his disputes with France and other kingdoms. On the death of Clement XIII. Ganganelli was elected in his room In May 1769, chiefly by the influence of the courts of France and Spain, who now urged him to suppress the order of Jesuits, and although he did not enter on that measure without much deliberation, it was at last carried, and forms the principal event of his pontificate. He signed the brief for this purpose on July 21, 1773, and it is said, with considerable reluctance. The consequence to papal power was no doubt great, but it appeared after all to be but one link in the great chain of causes which must relieve the world entirely from its influence. Ganganelli did not long survive this event, dying Sept. 22, 1773. After his death, a life of him was published by Caraccioli, replete with anecdotes illustrative of his amiable character and liberal sentiments; but we know not how to give credit to a writer who soon afterwards published some volumes of “Letters” by Ganganelli, which, it is now universally acknowledged, were forgeries.

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

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

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

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

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

, an English divine, a native of Hereford, where he was born ki 1591, was educated at the school there, and became a student of Christ- church, Oxford, about 1607. After taking his degrees in arts, he entered into holy orders, and was noted for a quaint singularity in his manner of preaching. King James I. beingmuch pleased with a speech which he had delivered before him in the Scotch tone, when he was deputy-orator, gave him the reversion of the next canonry of Christ-church; into which he was installed, on the death of Dr. Thomas Thornton, in 1629; and taking his degrees in divinity the following year, he was made one of the chaplains in ordinary to king Charles I. In 1648 he was ejected from his canonry by the parliamentary visitors, and lived obscurely in Oxford, until the restoration, when he-was re-instated in his stall, and from that time devoted the profits of it to charitable uses, with some benefactions to his relations, and to Christ-church. He published several sermons, particularly a volume containing sixteen, Lond. 1659, 8vo. 2; “Specimen Oratorium,” Lond. 1653, containing some of his university orations. This was reprinted in 1657, and in 1662, with additional orations and letters. There were subsequent editions printed at Oxford in 1668 and 1675, &c. yet the book is very scarce. He died Dec. 20, 1670, and was buried in Christ-church cathedral, with an elegant Latin epitaph, written at the desire of his executors, by Dr. South, who succeeded him in his canonry.

But his views were far from being confined to the university. He had some time before been taken into the family of the duke of Norfolk, and thence into that of Cardinal Wolsey, who made him his secretary. This post he now held, and it proved the foundation of his rise at court. The cardinal having projected the treaty of alliance with Francis I. in 1525, employed his secretary to draw up the plan, and the king coming to his house at Morepark, in Hertfordshire, found Gardiner busy at this work. He looked at it, liked the performance extremely well, the performer’s conversation better, and his fertility in the invention of expedients best of all; and from this time Gardiner was admitted into the secret of affairs, and entirely confided in, both by the king and his first minister. He received a public mark of that confidence in 1527, when he was sent to Rome, in order to negociate the arduous business of Henry’s divorce from queen Katharine. Edward Fox, provost of King’s-college, in Cambridge, went with him on this embassy; but Gardiner was the chief, being esteemed the best civilian in England at this time; and having been admitted into the king’s cabinet-­council for this affair, he is styled in the cardinal’s credential letters to the pope, “primary secretary of the most secret counsels.” He was now in such favour with the cardinal, that, in these very letters, he called Gardiner the half of himself, “Dimidium sui,” than whom none was dearer to him. He wrote that Gardiner should unlock his [the cardinal’s] breast to the pope; who, in hearing him speak, he might think he heard the cardinal himself. The successful issue of this embassy in obtaining a new commission, directed to the cardinals Wolsey and Campejus, as well as Gardiner’s address in the negociation, may be seen in the general histories of England. We shall only notice one particular not mentioned there, which is his success in disposing Campejus to make a tour to England. This requiring some extraordinary management, Gardiner took it upon himself; and having put every thing requisite to set the affair in a proper light at home, into the hands of his colleague Fox, dispatched him to carry the account to the king, who joined with Anne Boleyn in applauding the ingenuity, intrepidity, and industry of the new minister. But the loudest in his praises was the cardinal, in whose private business Gardiner had reconciled the pope to the endowment of his two colleges at Oxford and Ipswich, out of the revenues of the dissolved lesser monasteries. This added to the rest, made such an impression upon the cardinal’s mind, that crying out, “O inestimable treasure and jewel of this realm!” he desired Fox to remark those words, and insert them in his letter. There was still another instance of Gardiner’s abilities and attachment to Wolsey, which had its share in exciting this burst of admiration. During the course of this embassy, the pope falling dangerously ill, the cardinal set all his engines to work, to secure the keys provisionally to himself, in case of a new election, and the suffrages of one-third part of the cardinals were procured for him. He dispatched orders immediately to provide that those cardinals should be withdrawn to a place of safety, and should there declare him pope, though the majority should appear against him; assuring his own party, that they should be vigorously sustained by king Henry and his allies. This scheme, however, was rendered abortive by the recovery of Clement VII. but the pains taken in it by the cardinal’s agents, among whom Gardiner had at least an equal share, could not fail to be highly pleasing to him. In the event, indeed, the king had most reason to be satisfied with his minister, who gave his opinion that all solicitations at Rome would be lost time; the pope, in his judgment, being immoveable in the resolution to do nothing himself; though he might not improbably be brought to confirm such a sentence as his majesty could draw from the legates Henry, fully persuaded in the issue of the sincerity and judgment of this advice, recalled Gardiner, resolving to make use of his abilities in managing the legantine court .

During his residence at Rome, he had among other things obtained some favours at that court for bishop Nix of Norwich, who on his return rewarded him with the archdeaconry of Norfolk, in 1529; and this probably was the first preferment he obtained in the church. In truth, it must be owned that his merit as a divine did not entitle him to any extraordinary expectations that way, but as he made his first entrance into business in a civil capacity, so he continued to exercise and improve his talents in state affairs, which, gave him an opportunity of rendering himself useful, and in a manner necessary to the king; who soon after his arrival, took him from Wolsey, and declared him secretary of state. Thus introduced into the ministry at home, besides the ordinary business of his office, and the large share he is said to have had in the administration of affairs in general, he was particularly advised with by the king in that point which lay nearest to his heart; and when cardinal Campejus declared that the cause of the divorce was evoked to Rome, Gardiner, in conjunction with Fox the almoner, found out Cranmer, and discovering his opinion, introduced him to his majesty, whom they thus enabled to extricate himself out of a difficulty then considered as insuperable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In opposition to this character, so ably epitomized by Mr. Gilpin, in his Life of Cranmer, we are not surprized at the labours of Roman catholic writers to palliate the vices of Gardiner; our only surprise, not unmixed with shame, is that such writers as Heylin and Collier, and Dr. Campbell in the “Biographia Britannica,” should have engaged in the same cause, and with such effect as to be quoted as authorities by the enemies of the reformation. After all, however, Gardiner’s actions sufficiently attest the badness of his character. Nor can he even be screened under the pretext that he acted under mistaken principles of conscience, unless at the same time we deprive him of that knowledge and those talents which have been justly ascribed to him. In the first edition of this Dictionary, it was said that “no maxim was more constantly professed, nor more uniformly observed by him, than that of making the law the rule of his conduct.” But this is not justified by fact. Many of the protestants were thrown into prison by him, while the laws of Edward VI. were yet in force, and they were kept there until he could procure a law by which they might be brought to the stake. And that sanguinary measures were delightful to him, appears from the gross scurrility with which he treated the protestants who were tried before him. Another curious apology has been advanced, that although he was the author of those cruelties, yet he very soon grew weary of them, and refused to have any hand in them, leaving the whole to Bonner. But even this was, without any alteration in his disposition merely a change of policy. He saw that the end was not promoted by the means, and that the courage of the martyrs in their sufferings could not be concealed from the people, on whom it produced an effect the very reverse of what he purposed; and he seems to have discovered the truth of the maxim that “the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the church.”

In his private character, Gardiner is entitled to some respect, not from its morality, for he is said to have been, licentious; but he was a man of learning, and in some remarkable instances a patron of learned men. Thomas Smith, who had been secretary to Edward VI. was permitted by him to live in Mary’s days, in a state of privacy unmolested, and with a pension of 100l. a year for his better support, though he had a good estate of his own. Roger Ascham, another secretary to the same prince, of the Latin tongue, was continued in his office, and his salary inCreased by this prelate’s favour; which he fully repaid, by those elegant epistles to him, that are extant in his works. Strype, who notices this circumstance, adds: “Thus lived two excellent protestants, under the wings, as it were, of the sworn enemy and destroyer of protestants.” He is said also to have been of a liberal and generous disposition; kept a good house, and brought up several young gentlemen, some of whom became afterwards men of the first rank in the state.

He wrote several books, of which the principal are, 1. “De vera Obedientia, 1534.” 2. “Palinodia dicti libri” when this was published is not known. 3. “A necessary doctrine of a Christian mart, set forth by the king’s majestie of England, 1543.” 4. “An Explanation and Assertion of the true Catholic Faith, touching the most blessed Sacrament of the Altar, &c. 1551.” 5. “Confutatio Cavillatiqnum quibiu sacrosanctum Eucharistise sacramentum ab impiis Capernaitis impeti solet, 1551.” This he composed while a prisoner in the Tower: he managed this controversy against Peter Martyr and others, who espoused Cranmer. After the accession of queen Mary, he wrote replies in his own defence, against Turner, Bonet, and other protestant exiles. Some of his letters to Smith and Cheke, on the pronunciation of the Greek tongue, are still extant in Bene't-­college library at Cambridge. The controversy made a great noise in its time, but was not much known afterwards; till that elegant account of it appeared in public, which is given by Baker in his “Reflections on Learning,” p. 28, 29, who observes, that our chancellor assumed a power, that Cæsar never exercised, of giving laws to words. However, he allows that, though the controversy was managed with much warmth on each side, yet a man would wonder to see so much learning shewn on so dry a subject. J)u Fresne was at a loss where the victory lay; but Roger Ascham, with a courtly address, declares, that though the knights shew themselves better critics, yet Gardiner’s letters manifest a superior genius; and were only liable to censure, from his entering further into a dispute of this kind, than was necessary for a person of his dignity.

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

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

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

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

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

, an unrivalled actor, was grandson of Mr. Garrick, a merchant in France, who, being a protestant, fled to England as an asylum, upon the revocation of the edict of Nantes in 1685; and son of Peter Garrick, who obtained a captain’s commission in the army, and generally resided at Lichfield. Peter Garrick was on a recruiting party in Hereford, when his son David was born; and, as appears by the register of All-saints in that city, baptized Feb. 28, 17^16. His mother was Arabella, daughter of Mr. dough, one, of the vicars in Lichfield cathedral. At ten years of age, he was sent to the grammar-school at Lichfield; but, though remarkable for declining puerile diversions, did not apply himself with any assiduity to his books. He had conceived an early passion for theatrical representation; and, at little more than eleven years of age, procured “The Recruiting Officer” to be acted by young gentlemen and ladies, himself performing the part of serjeat Kite. From school he went on invitation to an uncle, a wine-merchant, at Lisbon; but returning shortly to Lichfield, he was sent once more to the grammar-school, where, however, he did not make any considerable progress in learning.

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

Having thus tried his powers before a provincial audience, and taken all the necessary steps for a London stage, he made his appearance at Gwodman’s-fields, Oct. 19, 1741,- when he acted Richard III. for the first time. His acting was attended with the loudest acclamations of applause; and his fame was so quickly propagated through the town, that the more established theatres of Drury-lane and Covent-garden were deserted. The inhabitants of the most polite parts of the town were drawn after him; and, Goodman’s-fields were full of the splendor of St. James’s and Grosvenor-square. We must not wonder, that the players were the last to admire this rising genius; who, according to his biographer (and surely he must know), “are more liable to envy and jealousy than persons of most other professions,” and Q,uin and Gibber could not conceal their uneasiness and disgust at his great success. The patentees also of Drury-lane and Covent-garden were seriously alarmed at the great deficiency in the receipts of their houses, and at the crouds which constantly filled the theatre of Goodman’s-fields; for Giffard, the manager there, having found his advantage from Garrick’s acting, had admitted him to a full moiety of the profits; and Garrick, in consequence of his being perpetually admired, acted almost every night. Nay r --to a long and fatiguing character i the play, he would frequently add another in the farce. Those patentees, therefore, united their efforts, to destroy the new-raised seat of theatrical empire, and for this purpose intended to have recourse to law. An act of parliament, the llth of George II. co-operated with their endeavours; which were further aided by sir John Barnard, who, for some reasons, was incensed against the comedian^ of Goodman’s-fields; in consequence of which, Garrick entered into an agreement with Fleetwood, patentee of Drury-lane, for 500l. a-year; and Giffard and his wife, soon after, made the best terms they could with the same“proprietor. During the time of Garrick’s acting in Goodman’s-fields, he brought on the stage two dramatic pieces,” The Lying Valet, a Farce“and a dramatic satire, called” Lethe" which are still acted with applause. The latter was written before he commenced actor.

In 1769 he projected and conducted the memorable Jubilee at Stratford, in honour of Shakspeare; so much admired by some, and so much and so justly ridiculed by others. The account of it, by his biographer, is curious, under more points of view than one. On the death of Mr. Lacy, in 1773, the whole management of the theatre devolved on him. He was now advanced in years; he had been much afflicted with chronical disorders; sometimes with the gout, oftener with the stone: for relief from the latter of which, he had used lixiviums and other soap medicines, which in reality hurt him. Yet his friends thought that a retirement from the stage, while he preserved a moderate share of health and spirits, would be more unfriendly to him, than the prosecution of a business, which he could make rather a matter of amusement, than a toilsome imposition. Accordingly, he continued upon the stage some time after; but finally left it in June 1776, and disposed of his moiety of the patent to messieurs Sheridan, Linley, and Ford, for 35,000l. In Christmas, 1778, when upon a visit at eai?l Spencer’s in the country, he was seized with a fit of his old disorder; but recovered so far, as to Venture upon his journey home, where he arrived, at his house in the Adelphi, Jan. 15, 1779. The next day, he sent for his apothecary, who found him dressing himself, and seemingly in good health; but somewhat alarmed, that he had not for many hours discharged any urine, contrary to his usual habit. The disorder was incessantly gaining ground, and brought on a stupor, which increased gradually to the time of his death. This happened Jan. 20, without a groan. The celebrated surgeon Mr. Pott pronounced his disease to be a palsy of the kidneys. His body was interred with great magnificence in Westminsterabbey, and in 1797 a monument was erected to his memory, at the expence of a private friend. Garrick is supposed to have died worth 140.000l.

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

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

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

So much literary merit did not fail to gain him great reputation as a polite scholar, and procured him admittance into the company and friendship of most of the nobility and gentry of both sexes who being inclined by his agreeable conversation to try his skill in his profession, were still more pleased to find him answer their wishes and expectations. By such means he came into vast practice, and endeared himself to his patients by his politeness, agreeable conversation, generosity, and great goodnature. It was these last qualities that prompted him in 1701 to provide a suitable interment for the shamefully abandoned corpse of Dryden; which he caused to be brought to the college of physicians, proposed and encouraged by his own example a subscription for defraying the expence of a funeral, pronounced a suitable oration over the remains of the great poet, and afterwards attended the solemnity from Warwick-lane to Westminster-abbey. It is commonly observed, that the making of a man’s fortune is’generally owing to some one lucky incident; and nothing was perhaps of more service in that respect to Dr. Garth, than the opportunity he had of shewing his true character by this memorable act of generosity.

In his Harveian speech he had stepped a little aside from the principal subject, to introduce a panegyric on king William, and to record the blessings of the revolution. The address is warm and glowing; and to shew that his hand and heart went together, he entered with the first members who formed the famous Kit-Kat club, which consisted of above thirty noblemen and gentlemen, and was erected in 1702, purely with the design of distinguishing themselves by an active zeal for the protestant succession in the house of Hanover . The design of these gentlemen to recommend and encourage loyalty,* by the powerful influence of pleasantry, wit, and humour, furnished Dr. Garth with an opportunity of distinguishing himself among the most eminent in those qualities, by the extempore epigrams he made upon the toasts of the club, which were inscribed on their drinking-glasses.

In politics, Dr. Garth was prompted not more by good sense than by good disposition, to make his muse subservient to his interest, only by proceeding uniformly in the same road, without any malignant deviations. Thus, as he had enjoyed the sunshine of the court during lord Godolphin’s administration in queen Anne’s reign, that minister had the pleasure to find him among the first of those who paid the muse’s tribute on the reverse of his fortune in 1710; and in the same unchangeable spirit, when both the sense and poetry of this address were attacked by Prior with all the outrage of party virulence, he took no notice of it; but had the satisfaction to see an unanswerable defence made for him, by Addison. The task, indeed, was easy, and that elegant writer in the conclusion of it observes, that the same person who has endeavoured to prove that he who wrote the “Dispensary” was no poet, will very suddenly undertake to shew that he who gained the battle of Blenheim, was no general. There was, indeed, no need of a prophetic spirit to inspire the prediction. It was written in Sept. 1710; and the following year, in December, the duke of Marlborough was removed from all his places, and having obtained leave to go abroad, embarked at Dover for Ostend, Nov. 30, 1712. Dr. Garth had lived in the particular favour and esteem of this great man while in power, and when he was out of power he lamented in elegant verse, his disgrace and voluntary exile.

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

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

, an eminent physician, and very amiable man, was born at Kircudbright, the principal town of the county of that name in Scotland, Oct 28, 1732. He was the son of the rev. George Garthshore, the minister of Kircudbright, and received his early education at home. At the age of fourteen he was placed with a surgeon-apothecary in Edinburgh, where he attended the medical classes of the university, and the infirmary. In his twenty-second year, when he had finished his medical studies, he entered the army, as mate to surgeon Huck (afterwards Dr. Huck Sauntiers) in lord Charles Hay’s regiment. In 1756 he had an opportunity of relinquishing this service for the more advantageous situation of succeeding to the practice of Dr. John Fordyce, a physician at Uppingham, in Rutlandshire, who was about to remove to London. In this place, Dr. Garthshore resided until 1763, giving much satisfaction by his activity, assiduity, and successful practice in physic and midwifery, in a very extensive range of country. Here also he formed some valuable connections, and in 1759 married a young lady heiress to a small estate. This last advantage encouraged him to remove to London in 1763, and after a short residence in Bed ford -street, Coventgarden, he settled in a house in St. Martin’s lane, where he continued nearly fifty years. His professional views in coming to London were amply gratified; but here he was soon assailed by a heavy domestic affliction, the loss of his wife, which took place the 8th of March, 1765. From this calamity Dr. G. sought relief in the practice of his public duties. His natural susceptibility, the instruction of his father, the correspondence of Mr. Maitland, an early friend and patron, had deeply impressed him with devotion to his Maker, and taught him to consider it as inseparable from good-will and beneficence to men. Volumes of his Diary, kept for the whole of his life in London, and amounting to many thousands of close-written pages, in contractions very difficult to decypher, consist of medical, miscellaneous, and eminently pious remarks, meditations, and daily ejaculations of praise and thanksgiving, with fervent prayers to be kept steady in that course of well-doing essential to happiness in the present life and in that which is to come. The tone and temper, elevation and energy, acquired by this sublime heavenly intercourse, appeared indispensable to this good man, not only as the consolation of sorrow, and the disposer to patience and resignation under the ills of life, but as the spring and principle of unwearied perseverance in active virtue; the diligent, liberal, charitable exercise of the profession to which he was devoted. From this time forward he continued for nearly half a century cultivating medicine in all its branches, most attentive to every new improvement in themf, physician to the British lying-in hospital, fellow of the royal and antiquarian societies, rendering his house an asylum for the poor, as well as a centre of communication for the learned; for his connection with the higher orders of men never prevented his habitual attentions and services to the less fortunate: in general, to stand in need of his assistance was the surest recommendation to his partiality.

, born at Rome in 1640, was a disciple of Andrea Sacchi, and considered by many as an equal, if not superior rival of Carlo Marat. His paintings are not much known in this country, but in Italy are celebrated for the highest excellencies of colouring, design, and composition. He lived a considerable time at Naples, but returned before his death to Rome, where he had commenced his career, and at the age of eighty, painted the dome of the church of Stigmatie (by order of Clement XI.) which was reckoned his most perfect work. He lived to complete it, and died in 1721, having survived a son who attained great excellence in painting, and much imitated his father’s manner.

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

Without blaming his father, farther than by calling his disinheritance “a froward deed,” he now resolved to assume the airs of independence, in hopes that his courtly friends would render him in reality independent; but he soon found that their favours were not to be obtained without solicitations incompatible with a proud spirit. A more honourable resource then presented itself. William prince of Orange was at this time endeavouring to emancipate the Netherlands from the tyranny of the Spanish monarch, and Gascoigne, prompted by the hope of gaining laurels in a field digntfied by patriotic bravery, embarked on the 19th of March, 1572, for Holland. The vessel being under the guidance of a drunken Dutch pilot, was run aground, and twenty of the crew who had taken to the long-boat were drowned. Gascoigne, however, and his friends remained at the pumps, and being enabled again to put to sea, landed safe in Holland, where, having obtained a captain’s commission under the prince of Orange, he acquired considerable military reputation, but an unfortunate quarrel with his colonel retarded his career. Conscious of his deserts, he repaired immediately to Delf, and resolved to resign his commission to the hands from which he received it; the prince in vain endeavouring to close the breach between his officers. During this negociation a circumstance occurred which had nearly- cost our poet his life. A lady at the Hague (then in the possession of the enemy) with whom Gascoigne had been on intimate terms, had his portrait in her hands, and resolving to part with it to himself alone, wrote a letter to him on the subject, which fell into the hands of his enemies in the camp; from this paper they meant to have raised a report unfavourable to his loyalty: but upon its reaching his hands, Gascoigne, conscious of his fidelity, laid it immediately before the prince, who saw through their design, and gave him passports for visiting the lady at the Hague: the burghers, however, watched his motions with malicious caution, and he was cabled in derision “the Green Knight.” Although disgusted with the ingratitude of those on whose side he fought, Gascoigne still retained his commission, till the prince coming personally to the siege of Middleburg, gave him an opportunity of displaying his zeal and courage, and rewarded him with 300 gilders beyond his regular pay, and a promise of future promotion. He was, however, surprised soon after by 3000 Spaniards, when commanding, under captain Sheffield, 500 Englishmen lately landed, but retired in good order at night, under the walls of Leyden; the jealousy of the Dutch was then displayed by their refusing to open their gates, and Gascoigne with his band were in consequence made captives. At the expiration of twelve days his men were released, and the officers after an imprisonment of four months, were sent back to England.

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

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

From his general conduct, as related by historians, there is sufficient reason to place sir William Gascoigne in the rank of chief justices of the first merit, both for his integrity and abilities, and he had once occasion to distinguish himself above his brethren, by a memorable transaction in the latter end of this king’s reign. A servant of the prince of Wales (afterwards Henry V.) being arraigned for felony at the bar of the King’s-bench; the news soon reached his master’s ears, who, hastening to the court, ordered him to be unfettered, and offered to rescue him. In this being opposed by the judge, who commanded him to leave the prisoner and depart, he rushed furiously up to the bench, and, as is generally affirmed, struck the chief justice, then sitting in the execution of his office. On this sir William, after some expostulations upon the outrage, indignity, and unwarrantable interruption of the proceedings in that place, directly committed him to the king’s bench prison, there to wait his father’s pleasure; and the prince submitted to his punishment, with a calmness no less sudden and surprising, than the offence had been which drew it upon him. The king, being informed of the whole affair, instead of being displeased with the chief justice, returned thanks to God, “That he had given him both a judge who knew how to administer, and a son who could obey justice.” This extraordinary event has been recorded, not only in the general histories of the reigns of these two sovereigns, but celebrated also by the poets; and particularly Shakspeare, in the second part of “Henry IV.”

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

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

In 1628 he accompanied Francis Luillere, master of accounts at Paris, in his journey to the Netherlands; which was the only time he was ever out of France. In Holland he wrote his Exercitation against Fludd in defence of Mersennus, who, upon his setting out on this journey, had put Fludd’s book into his hands for that purpose. During his stay in this country, he also became acquainted, among others, with Des Cartes and John Gerard Vossius; against the former of whom he maintained a dispute upon the subject of metaphysics, and he convinced the latter of his great skill in mathematics. In 1640 he was nominated for proctor of his diocese in the general synod of the Gallican church, but the election was carried for another by the interest of cardinal Richelieu.

Gassendi had from his infancy a turn to astronomy, which grew up with his years; and, in 1618, he had begun to make observations upon the stars, and to digest them into a method. His reputation daily increasing, he became so eminent in that science, that in 1645 he was appointed royal professor of mathematics at Paris, by the interest of Alphonse du Plessis, cardinal of Lyons, and brother to car/dinal Richelieu. This institution being chiefly designed for astronomy, Gassendi not only employed himself very diligently in observations, but read lectures with great applause to a crowded audience. He did not, however, hold this place long; for, contracting a cold, which brought on a dangerous cough, and an inflammation of his lungs, he found himself under a necessity of quitting Paris; and being advised by the physicians to return to Digue for the benefit of his native air, he went there in 1647. This advice had the desired success; which was also effected the sooner by the kindness of Louis Valois, earl of Alais, and viceroy of Provence, who, observing the philosopher’s circumstances, invited him to his house; where Gassendi’s conversation upon points of learning gave him so high an idea of his talents, that he frequently made use of him as a friend and counsellor in political affairs. After enjoying this honourable ease until this nobleman was called to court, Gassendi returned to Digne, where he began to write the Ij^e of his patron, the famous Nicolas Peiresc, a task which had been enjoined him by the earl of Alais.

In the first attack he had been relieved by bleeding, which, however, so much enfeebled him, that he never recovered his former strength. Yet this, as the only remedy in his case, was judged necessary by his physicians. He had suffered this depletion for the ninth time, when, perceiving himself to be too much sunk, he modestly proposed to forbear a repetition, as thinking himself not able to undergo it; and two of his physicians had yielded to this suit, when a third, obstinately insisting on the contrary, drew his colleagues into his opinion. Gassendi submitted, and the operation was repeated even to the fourth time, at which, holding out his arm for the purpose, he said to Peter his amanuensis, who constantly attended him, “It is more eligible by this deprivation of strength to sleep quietly in Christ, than to be taken off with more pain by suffocation.” Having undergone the operation, he presently felt himself approaching to his last hour, and sent for a priest to administer the viaticum; which being given, he expired about four in the afternoon, on Sunday, Oct. 22, 1655, in the sixty-third year of his age. At his death, his hand was found upon the region of his heart, which place he had frequently desired his amanuensis to touch, in order to mark its motion, which when this attendant observed to be very faint and fluttering, he said, “You see what is man’s life” which were the last words he spoke.

He had made his will Oct. 15 preceding, by which he appointed M. de Monmor his executor, and left him all his Mss. with leave to publish such as he should think fit for the press; and that gentleman, with the assistance of another friend, having carefully collected and perused them, came to the opinion, that he had written nothing which was not worthy of him, and the whole was published by Monmor’s order at Leyden, 1658, in six volumes, folio. This honourable friend had before testified his great respect for Gassendi’s memory at his funeral, which was performed two days after his death, by depositing his corpse with those of his own ancestors, in the church of St. Nicholas in the Fields, at Paris. Here also he erected a handsome monument, exhibiting his bust, by Nanteuil, set upon a frame of black, inclosing a plate of white marble; upon which was an inscription, in the close whereof his character is elegantly and literally expressed in three words, attesting his “piety, wisdom, and learning.” His dirge and requiem, and funeral rites, according to the usage in the Romish church, were likewise performed in the church of Digne; and a funeral oration pronounced by Nicolas Tixelius, his successor in that rectory, who printed it at Leyden in 1656. It appears by his letters, printed in the sixth volume of his works, that he was often consulted by the most famous astronomers of his time; as Kepler, Longomontanus, Snellius, Hevelius, Galileo, Kercher, Bullialdi, and others; and he is generally esteemed one of the founders of the reformed philosophy, in opposition to that of Aristotle and the schoolmen.

, a French divine of the eighteenth century, descended from a family of distinction, was born at Aix, in Provence, and being at an early age admitted into orders, officiated for some years as priest in the parish church of St. Paul. Among his theological publications is “A Collection, of Homilies on the Epistles to the Romans,” in two volumes, 12mo, with a delineation of the character of St. Paul prefixed. But on the death of his elder brother, a celebrated advocate in the parliament of Provence, he retired into the country, studied law, and being admitted an advocate, practised with uncommon success. The interests of the poor he advocated without hope of reward; and in 1717 he gained a famous cause against the Jesuits, of whom he was an active opponent. Not contented with pleading professionally against them, he attacked them by means of the press, and wrote a piece entitled “The Jesuits unmasked.” He published some treatises against the bishop of Marseilles, who procured him to be banished twice to Viviers, where he died in 1731, and on account of his reputed heresy he was denied the rites of Christian burial.

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

He now engaged in a very remarkable contest with the archbishop of Canterbury, about the degrees granted in virtue of his metropolitical power. The occasion was this: The presentation to the place of warden of the collegiate church of Manchester in Lancashire falling to the crown, George I. nominated Mr. Samuel Peploe, vicar of Preston, in the same county. But that gentleman, being then only M, A. found himself obliged by the charter of the college, to take the degree of B. D. as a necessary qualification to hold the wardenship. To that end, having been bred at Oxford, where he had taken his former degrees, he went thither in order to obtain this; and had actually prepared the best part of his exercise for that purpose, when he was called to Lambeth, and there created B. D. by the archbishop, who thought the university ought, in respect to the royal nomination, to dispense with the usual exercise. With this title, he applied to bishop Gastrell, in whose diocese the church of Manchester lies, for institution. But the bishop, being persuaded that his degree was not a sufficient qualification in this case, refused to admit him; and observed to him, that being in all respects qualified to take his degree regularly in the university, he might proceed that way without any danger of being denied; that, however, if he desired any favour usually indulged to other persons, he would endeavour to obtain it for him, and did not doubt but the university would grant it. On the other hand, Mr. Peploe insisted on his qualification by the archbishop, and had recourse to the court of king’sbench, where sentence was given in his favour. On this, bishop Gastrell, in his own vindication, published “The bishop of Chester’s Case, with relation to the Wardenship of Manchester. In which is shewn, that no other degrees but such as are taken in the university, can be deemed legal qualifications for any ecclesiastical preferment in England.” This was printed at Oxford; and that university, March 22, 1720, decreed in a full convocation, that solemn thanks should be returned to the bishop, for having so fully asserted the rights, privileges, and dignities, belonging to the university degrees in this book. This was attempted to be answered in a pamphlet entitled “Considerations, &c.” proving that bishop Gastrell’s pamphlet “is injurious, 1. to the prerogative royal of the imperial crown of England; 2. to the prerogatives, powers, and privileges, of the archbishops of Canterbury; and 3. to the legal rights, privileges, and liberties of the reverend presbyters of the church of England; wherein it is plainly proved, that ther Universities have not the sole power of granting degrees.” It is somewhat remarkable, that this Mr. Peploe succeeded him in the bishopric of Chester.

This affair was scarcely concluded, when the prosecution commenced against Atterbury, bishop of Rochester. Bishop Gastrell never liked the haughty temper of that prelate, and had always opposed his arbitrary attempts while dean of Christ Church; yet, being satisfied in his conscience, that the proceedings in parliament against him were pushed on with too much violence, he opposed them with great resolution; and when the bill for inflicting pains and penalties upon Atterbury was before the house of lords, he spoke againstit with earnestness and warmth, not sparing to censure the rest of his brethren the bishops, who all concurred with the bill.

, a very learned English divine aud critic, descended from a family of that name at Gatacre-hall, in Shropshire, was born Sept. 4j 1574, in the parsonage-house of St. Edmund the King, in Lombardstreet, London, where his father, an eminent Puritan divine (who died in 1593) was then minister. At sixteen years of age he was sent to St. John’s college in Cambridge; where, in due time, he took both the degrees in arts. He was greatly distinguished by his abilities, learning, and piety; insomuch that the foundation of Sidney college being laid about this time, he was, by archbishop Whitgift, and Dr. Goodman dean of Westminster, the trustees of that foundation, appointed a fellow of that society, even before the building was finished. In the mean while he went into Essex, as tutor to the eldest son of Mr. (afterwards sir) William Ayloff, of Berksted, who himself learned Hebrew of him at the same time. During his residence here, he usually expounded a portion of scripture to the family every morning; in this task, after rendering the text into English from the original language, he explained the sense of it, and concluded with some useful observations. In the space of two years he went through all the prophets in the Old Testament, and all the apostolical epistles in the New. Dr. Stern, then suffragan bishop of Colchester, being nearly related to the mistress of the family, happened in a visit to be present at one of these performances; and, being struck with admiration, instantly exhorted the expounder to enter into the priesthood; and Mr. Gataker was ordained by that suffragan.

In 1616 and 1617, he wrote two letters to archbishop Usher, concerning some curious Mss. of the famous Robert Grosthead, bishop of Lincoln, and others. It is true, that some mistakes in those letters are corrected by his correspondent, who, however, thought the whole very worthy of his notice; and they are mentioned here chiefly, as they shew at once his own modesty and erudition, as well as the esteem which Usher had for him. All this, however, he possessed in private, his modesty being yet unconquerable by any solicitations to commit any thing to the press; but this backwardness was at length subdued.

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

In 1653, he was drawn into a dispute with Lilly the astrologer, about the certainty of his art, which that impostor had maintained was revealed to mankind by the good angels. Our author, in his annotations upon Jeremiah, taking notice of this profaneness, had used the astrologer a little roughly, calling him blind buzzard, &c. in return to which, Lilly in his “Annus Tenebrosus,” reflected upon the divine; who replied, in “A Vindication of the Annotations,” &c. 1653, 4to. It is said that he had thought proper before he had published this piece, to consult Mr. Briggs, for his opinion in the point, who returned a decisive and ready answer, that he conceived it to be a mere system of groundless conceits. To this Lilly printing an answer, in which he charged his antagonist with covetousness, and prostituting his function to worldly views, Gataker wrote “A Discourse Apologetical,” vindiCiating himself from those calumnies. This last piece was published in 1654; and the same year he died, being in his 80th year. His corpse was interred at his own church, Mr. Simon Ashe preaching his funeral sermon: this was printed in 1655, with a narrative of his life, which has been the ground-work of this memoir. He would never suffer his picture to be drawn, and probably it is Owing to the same cause, that no stone marked the place of his burial.

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

His extensive learning was admired by the great men abroad, as Salmasius and others, with whom he held a correspondence. Axenius styles him a man of infinite reading and exact judgment; and Colomies tells us, that of all the critics of that age, who have written for the advancement of polite learning, there is none superior to him in the talent of explaining authors. Morhoff speaks of all his Latin works with high commendation: and Baillet has a chapter concerning his writings, in which he acknowledges his profound skill in the learned languages, his great accuracy and admirable sagacity; but adds, that he was too bold in his conjectures. Gataker left several Mss. some of which were published by his son. In the course of his long life he had four wives.

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

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

, a French engraver and man of letters, was born at Paris in 1740, and became the pupil of Le Bas, who taught him the arts of design and engraving. Being early convinced of the importance of learning in his profession, he devoted much of his time to study, and became so celebrated for the productions of his pen as well as his graver, that he was elected a member of various literary societies both at home and abroad. As an artist he succeeded principally in engraving portraits; and his portrait of the queen of Louis XV. is considered as a chef-d'oeuvre; nor was he much less esteemed in France as a writer. In Fontenay’s Dictionary of Artists, published in 1770, he wrote the articles concerning engravers, with much candour, spirit, and discrimination. His other publications are, 1. “Observations sur le Costume Franchise,” in the “Journal des beaux arts,” 1774. 2. “De l'orjgine et de la suppression des Cloches.” 3. “Voyage au Havre.” 4. “Amour maternel,” a successful dramatic piece. 5. “Iconolo'gie, ou Traite complet des allegories et emblemes,” 4'vols. 8vo. 6. “Essai sur la gravure.” 7. “Traite d‘anatomie a l’usage des artistes,” fol. with fine engravings. He is also said to have written *' Le Desaveu des artistes," 1776, 8vo. He died at Paris Nov. 28, 1803.

He had now been some years chaplain to Robert earl of Warwick; and that nobleman siding with the parliament against the king, was followed in this by his chaplain, who being appointed, Nov. 29, 1640, to preach before the house of commons, adapted his discourse so exactly to the humour of the prevailing party, that they made him a present of a large silver tankard, which was generally made use of in his house, with this inscription: “Donum honorarium populi Anglican! in parliamento congregati, Johanni Gauden.” This was only an earnest of future favours. In that discourse he inveighed against pictures, images, and other superstitions of popery: and the parliament next year presented him to the rich deanery of Booking in Essex. He accepted the nomination, but did not choose to depend entirely upon it; and therefore made interest with Laud, then prisoner in the Tower, and procured a collation from that archbishop, undoubtedly the rightful patron. Wood says that the house of lords sent the archbishop an order to do it.

Upon the abolition of the hierarchy, and establishment of the presbyterian form of church government, he complied with the ruling powers, was chosen one of the assembly of divines, who met at Westminster in 1643, and took the covenant as enjoined by their authority; though he was far from approving it, and offered his scruplei and objections against it, both as to matter and authority; and though his name was among those who were to constitute the assembly of divines, yet it was afterwards struck off the list, and Mr. Thomas Godwin put into his room. He published the same year a piece entitled “Certain Scruples and Doubts of Conscience about taking the solemn League and Covenant, tended to the consideration of sir Lawrence Bromfield and Zacharias Crafton,” 4to: and though, at length, he forbore the use of the Liturgy of England, yet he persevered in it longer in his church than any of his neighbours. Nor did he continue any longer openly to espouse the cause of the parliament, than they stuck to their first avowed principles of reforming only, and not rooting out monarchy and episcopacy. With these dispositions, he was one of those divines, who signed the protestation which was presented to the army, against trying and destroying the king; and not content with joining among others in that cause, he distinguished himself above the rest by publishing a piece entitled “The religious and loyal Protestation of John Gauden, doctor in divinity, against the present declared purposes and proceedings of the army, and others, about the trying and destroying of our sovereign lord the king; sent to a colonel, to be presented to the lord Fairfax, and his general council of officers, the 5th of January, 1648,” Lond. 1648, 4to. Nor did his zeal stop here: presently after the king’s death he wrote what he called “A. just Invective against those of the army and their abettors, who murthered king Charles I. on the 30th of January, 1648, with some other poetical pieces in Latin, referring to those tragical times, written February 10, 1648;” but this was not published until after the restoration in 1662.

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

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

Soon after his death there came out, written by him, “A Discourse of artificial Beauty in point of Conscience between two Ladies,” 1662. This was followed by another tract, published together with some on the same subject, by Whitgift, Hooker, and Sanderson, under the title of “Prophecies concerning the Return of Popery,” 1663. These were aimed at the sectaries, who were said to be opening a door, at which popery would certainly enter; lastly, in 1631, there appeared in 12mo, “The whole Duty of a Communicant,” &c. with bishop Gauden’s name prefixed to it.

, a French minor author, who while he lived, contrived to establish a fame superior to his real deserts, by haranguing in societies of beaux and ladies, was born in 1587. He became a counsellor of state, and died in 1667. His works are, 1. “Notes and Commentaries on Psellus, and on Theodore Prodomus.” 2. “Notes on the Treatise of an anonymous Rabbi, concerning the life and death of Moses,” 1629, 8vo. 3. “Remarks on the false Callisthenes.” 4. “An edition of the Romance of Ismenus and Ismenias, in Greek and Latin,” 1618, 8vo. 5. “Poems, consisting of Epigrams, Odes, Hymns, and a Tragedy.” He had a competent knowledge of ancient and modern languages, and is allowed to, have had some fire in his compositions, though such as greatly wanted the regulation of judgment. Another instance of his imprudence occurs in the case of his marriage. His curate having refused to marry him, he declared in his presence that he took that woman for his wife, and he lived with her afterwards as such. This occasioned an inquiry to be made into the validity of similar marriages, which were called marriages “A la Gaulmin,” and were disallowed by the law.

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

In the mean time the most promising views opened to him at court; he was caressed by some leading persons in the ministry; and his patroness rejoiced to see him taken from her house the same year, to attend the earl of Clarendon, as secretary in his embassy to the court of Hanover. But, whatever were his hopes from this new advancement, it is certain they began and ended almost together; for queen Anne died in fifteen days after their arrival at Hanover. This, however, did not prove an irreparable loss; his present situation made him personally known to the succeeding royal family; and returning home he made a proper use of it, in a handsome compliment to the princess of Wales, on her arrival in England. This address procured him a favourable admittance at the new court; and that raising a new flow of spirits, he wrote his farce, “The What d'ye call it,” which appeared upon the stage before the end of the season, and was honoured by the presence of the prince and princess. The profits, likewise, brought some addition to his fortune; and his poetical merit being endeared 'by the sweetness and sincerity of his nature, procured him an easy access to persons of the first distinction. With these he passed his time with much satisfaction, notwithstanding his disappointment in the hopes of favours from the new court, where he met with nothing more valuable than a smile. In 1716 he made a visit to his native county at the expence of lord Burlington, and repaid his lordship with an humourous account of the journey. The like return was made for Mr. Pulteney’s favour, who took him in his company the following year to Aix, in France.

This easy travelling, with some decent appointments, was one of the highest relished pleasures of Gay’s life, and never failed of calling forth his muse. Soon after his return froni France, he introduced to the stage “The Three Hours after Marriage.” His friends Pope and Arbuthnot had both a hand in this performance, and the two principal characters were acted by two of the best comedians at that time, Johnson and Mrs. Oldfield; yet, with all these helps and advantages, it was very ill received, if not condemned the first night. Gay stood the brunt with an unusual degree of magnanimity, which seems to have been inspired by a hearty regard for his partners; especially Pope, who was greatly affected with it. In 1718 he accompanied Pope to lord Harcourt’s seat in Oxfordshire, where they united in consecrating to posterity the death of two rustic lovers, unfortunately killed in the neighbouring fields by a stroke of lightning. In 1720 he again recruited his finances by a handsome subscription to his poems, which he collected and printed in 2 vols. 4to; but falling into the general infatuation of that remarkable year, he lost all his fortune in the South-sea scheme, and consequently all his spirits. Secretary Craggs had made him, a present of some S. S. stock, and he was worth at one time 20,000l. but neglecting to sell out, lost the whole. This stroke had almost proved fatal to him; he was seized with a violent colic; and after languishing some time, removed in 1722 to Hampstead, for the benefit of the air and waters; but, by the assistance of Dr. Arbuthnot, who constantly attended him, at length he recovered. He then began to write his tragedy called “The Captives;” which, when finished, he had the honour of reading in manuscript to the princess of Wales, in 1724. Her royal highness also promised him further marks of her favour, if he would write some fables in verse for the use of the duke of Cumberland; which task he accordingly undertook, and published them in 1726, with a dedication to that prince. All this was done against the advice of Pope, the duke being then only an infant; and the result was, as that friend presaged, very disagreeable to him. Swift says that in these fables “he was thought to be something too bold with the court.”

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

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

In the delightful retirement of Amesbury, however, a seat of his noble patron, near Stonehenge upon Salisburyplain, he found lucid intervals enough to finish his opera called “Achilles;” and coming with the family to his grace’s house in Burlington-gardens, to pass the whiter season, he gave that piece to the play-house. The week after, he was suddenly seized with a violent inflammatory fever; which, ending in a mortification of the bowels, in three days put a period to his life, Dec. 11, 1732. In his short illness he was attended by two physicians, besides Dr. Arbuthnot, who particularly observed^ that it was the most precipitate case he ever knew; meaning, after the fever shewed itself: for there were prognostics enough to predict his approaching end long before, and he himself was sensible of it. In October, he sent Pope his last gift, as a token to be kept in remembrance of his dying friend; declaring, that he found by many warnings, that he had no continuing city here. “I begin,” says he, " to look upon myself as one already dead; and desire, my dear Mr. Pope, whom I love as my own soul, if you survive me, as you certainly will, if a stone should mark the place of my grave, see these words put upon it:

With what else you may think proper." This dying request was accordingly executed; and the whole epitaph inscribed on a very handsome marble monument, erected to his memory by the duke and duchess of Queensberry, who took care to have his body interred with a suitable funeral solemnity. The corpse was brought from his grace’s house to Exeter-change in the Strand; where, after lying in state, it was removed to Westminster-abbey, and interred in the South-cross-isle, against the tomb of Chaucer, near the place where stands his monument.

The opera of “Achilles” was brought upon the stage soop after his death, and met with a very good reception, which was greatly promoted by the duke of Queensberry, who was uncommonly assiduous in patronizing it; and who, as Pope observes, acted in this, and every thing else, more than the part of a brother to his deceased friend. It was also through the influence of his example, that the profits of the representation were given by the managers of the play-house to our author’s two widow sisters, Katharine and Joanna, relicts of Mr. Ballet and Mr. Fortescue, who, as heirs at law, shared his fortune (about 3000l.) equally between them; which disposition was agreeable to his own desire, and therefore he made no will. He left several Mss. behind him, some of which came into the hands of -Pope, who took care no doubt (as he promised Swift) to suppress such as he judged unworthy of him. A few years after his death, there was published under his name a comedy, called “The Distressed Wife,” the second edition of which was printed in 1750; and in 1754-, a humorous piece, with the title of “The Rehearsal a't Gotham.”

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

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

Nicholas V. dying in 1456, Gaza went to Naples, where he was honourably received by king Alphonsus, to whom he had been well recommended; but this prince dying in 1458, he returned to his patron the cardinal at Rome, who soon after gave him a benefice in Calabria. This would have been a very competent provision for a man of his temperance, but he was always poor and in distress; for he was so extremely attentive to letters, that he left the management of his substance to servants. It is related, that towards the latter end of his life he went to Rome, witli one of his performances finely written upon vellum, which he presented to Sixtus IV. expecting to receive from his holiness an immense reward for so curious and valuable a present. But the pope, having coolly asked him the expence he had been at, gave him but just what was sufficient to defray it: which moved him to say, with indignation, that “it was high time to return to his own country, since these over-fed asses at Rome had not the least relish for any thing but weeds and thistles, their taste being too depraved for what was goqd and wholesome.” Pierius Valerianus, who relates this in his book “De Infelicitate Literatorum,” adds, that Gaza Hung the money into the Tiber, and died of disappointment and grief, at Rome, in 1478. There is not, however, much reason to credit this cause of his death, as he had attained the eightieth year of his age.

There is no man of learning spoken of in higher terms, and more universally, than Gaza. Scaliger used to say, that “Of all those who revived the belles lettres in Italy, there were not above three that he was inclined to envy: the first was Theodore Gaza, who was certainly a great and learned man, though he has committed some mistakes in his version of Aristotle’s” History of Animals.“The second was Angelus Politianus; and the third was Picus of Mirandnla.” In another place, he calls him “doctissimus,” a most learned man; commends his grammar, and says, that he ought to be ranked among the best translators of Greek authors into Latin.“Huetius observes, that though he does not differ from the judgment of Joseph Scaliger, in regard to Gaza’s translations, where he allows that some- things might be better, and some entirely altered; yet, that upon the whole he should be glad, if all translators would do as well, would exhibit the same fidelity, perspicuity, and elegance, that Gaza has displayed.” He is with propriety recorded by Pierius Valerianus in his work “De infelicitate literatorum.”

, an eminent French writer of the last century, was born at Lausanne in 1727. His father, who was a protestant clergyman of that place, took extraordinary pains in cultivating his mind, and at the age of twelve years, young Gebelin could read German, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew; and at fifteen, he spoke German and Latin with ease, as well as French in compliment to his parents, who were natives of France, but had left it on account of their religion. His thirst of knowledge was such as to prevent his hours of rest; and when his parents, in order to break him of the habit of studying at night, would not allow him candles, he used to pore over his books as well as he could by moon -light. In 1763, after the death of his father, he came to Paris, bringing with him nothing but a great stock of learning, and the greatest simplicity of manners; and as the persons to whom he had recommendations happened to be absent, he remained for some time alone and friendless in that great metropolis. The first acquaintances he made were two ladies who lived opposite to him, and who lived together in such harmony as to desire no other connections, but were yet so pleased with Gebelin’s amiable manners, as to admit him into their friendship, and furnish him with every assistance he could wish in carrying on his great work, “Le monde primitif,” in digesting the materials of which he employed ten years. One of these ladies, mademoiselle Linot, learned engraving solely with the view of being useful to him in his labours, and actually engraved some of the plates in his work; while the other, mademoiselle Fleury, contributed 5000 livres towards the expences of the first volume of his work. After his -death they transferred their kindness to his relations, a sister and two nieces whom he had sent for to reside at Paris, but to whom he was not able to leave much.

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

The continual labour, however, which Gebelin bestowed on this, and his other works, is supposed to have hastened his death, although this was not the only cause to which that event has been attributed. A stone had formed in his kidnies, which although voided by nature, brought on symptoms of decay, and he unfortunately had recourse to Mesmer, the noted quack, who by his animal magnetism seemed to afford him relief. Gebelin was so grateful, as to write a book in favour of Mesmer and his remedy, and had scarcely finished it, when a return of his complaints put an end to his useful life, May 10, 1784. As a protestant he could not be buried in catholic ground. His remains were therefore removed to the gardens of his friend and biographer comte D'Albon at Franconville, where a handsome monument was erected to his memory, with this inscription: “Passant, venerez cette tombe Gebelin y repose.”

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

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

, a Roman catholic divine, who attempted to translate the Bible, with a view to destroy its credibility, was born in 1737, in the parish of Ruthven, and county of Bamff, in Scotland. His parents, who were Roman catholics, in very humble life, possessed but a few books, among which was an English Bible, to the study of which their son applied very early, and is said to have known all its history by heart before he was eleven years old. At the age of fourteen he was sent to Scalan, a free Roman catholic seminary in the Highlands, of obscure fame, where he acquired only an acquaintance with the vulgate Latin Bible. Having attained the age of twentyone, he was removed to the Scotch college at Paris, where he made such proficiency in his studies as very much attracted the attention of his preceptors. Here school divinity and biblical criticism occupied the principal part of his time; and he endeavoured also to make himself master of the Greek and Latin languages, and of the French, Spanish, German, and Low Dutch.

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

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

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

, a divine of the church of England, but a native of Scotland, was educated and probably born at Edinburgh, where he took the degree of M. A. and was in July 1671 incorporated in the same at Oxford, being one of the first four natives of Scotland, who partook of bishop Warner’s exhibitions intended for Balliol college. Some demur occurring on the part of the college, these scholars were first placed in Gloucester-hall (now Worcester college), but, in 1672, they were removed to Balliol. In 1678 Mr. Geddes went to Lisbon, as chaplain to the English factory the exercise of which function giving offence to the inquisition, he was sent for by that court in 1686, and notwithstanding he pleaded a privilege which had never been called in question, founded on the treaty between England and Portugal, he was forbid to continue his ecclesiastical duties. The English merchants resenting this violation of their privilege, wrote immediately to the bishop of London, representing their case, and their right to a chaplain; but before their letter reached his lordship, he was suspended by the ecclesiastical commission ordered by king James, who was now endeavouring to establish popery at home. They were deprived therefore of all exercise of their religion till the arrival of Mr. Scarborough, the English envoy, under whose character as a public minister they were obliged to shelter themselves. Mr. Geddes finding matters in this situation, thought proper to return to England in May 1688, where he took the degree of LL. D. and after the promotion of Dr. Burnet to the bishopric of Salisbury, who speaks very respectfully of him in his “History of the Reformation,” was promoted by him to be chancellor of his church. He died before 1714, but at what time we have not been able- to discover. During his residence at Lisbon, he had collected materials of the historical kind from scarce books and Mss. in the Spanish and Portuguese language^ which he translated and published in various forms after his return to England. Among these publications are: 1. “The Church History of Malabar,” Lond. 1694, 8vo. 2. The Church History of Ethiopia,“ibid. 1696, 8vo. 3.” The Council of Trent plainly discovered not to have been a free assembly,“ibid. 1697 and 1714, 8vo. 4.” Miscellaneous Tracts,“of civil and ecclesiastical history, ibid. 1702—5, 8vo, extended afterwards to S vols. 1714, and 1730. 5.” Several Tracts against Popery," ibid. 1715, 8vo.

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

, member of the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres, and almoner of the general company of Swiss, was born at a small city in the canton ofFriburg, in 1696. He assisted a considerable time in the “Journal des Savans,” with credit, and was censor royal of books; and his superior knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, his candour, sincerity, mildness, and integrity, made him beloved by all who knew him. He died at Paris, May 23, 1752, while engaged in a new edition of Herodotus, corrected from the Mss. in the king’s library. There are some learned dissertations by him, in the Memoirs of the academy of inscriptions, on ostracism, the migrations of the Pelasgi, &c.

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

His changing his religion, and his writings against the church of Rome, occasioned a quarrel between him and Erasmus. Erasmus, who reviled him under the name of Vulturius, called him a seditious fellow; and blamed him for publishing scoffing books, which only irritated princes against Luther’s followers. He blamed him also for prefixing the name and some notes of himself to certain letters, the intent of which was to shew that heretics ought pot to be punished. This was exposing Erasmus to the court of Rome, and to the popish powers; for it was saying in effect, that Erasmus had furnished the innovators with weapons to attack their enemies, which Erasmus resented for no better reason than that he was afraid to avow principles which he secretly maintained. He compared Gelden haur to the traitor Judas; and instead of assisting him in his necessity, put him off with such coarse raillery as the following <c But, my dear Vulturius, since you have taken the resolution to profess an evangelical life, I wonder you find poverty uneasy; when St. Ililarion, not having money enough to pay his boat-hire, thought it cause of glory, that he had undesignedly arrived at such Gospel perfection. St. Paul also glories that he knew how to abound, and how to suffer need; and that, having nothing, he possessed all things. The same apostle commends Certain Hebrews, who had received the Gospel, that they took the spoiling of their goods joyfully. And that, if the Jews suffer none to be poor among them, how much more does it become those who boast of the Gospel, to relieve the wants of their brethren by mutual charity; especially, since evangelical frugality is content with very little. Those who live by the spirit want no delicacies, if they have but bread and water; they are strangers to luxury, and feed on fasting. We read that the apostles themselves satisfied their hunger with ears of corn rubbed in their hands. Perhaps you ma.y imagine I am jesting all this while. Very likely. But others will not think so."

, a learned German, was born of a good family at Prague, about 1498. He began very early to travel through Germany, France, and Italy; and acquired a familiar knowledge of the languages of those countries. In Italy he confirmed himself in the Latin tongue, and learned the Greek under Marcus Musurus. In his return to Germany, he went through Basil, and became acquainted with Erasmus, who conceived an esteem for him, and recommended him to John Frobenius, as corrector of his printing-house, who employed him in superintending many Hebrew, Greek, and Latin works then in the press; and this employment he continued till his death, at Basil, about 1555. He had married in that city, and left behind him two sons and a daughter. Bayle describes him as tall, and very corpulent-, of an excellent memory, and a ready wit. He was wonderfully mild and good-natured, so that he could scarce ever be put into a passion; but never retained ill-will against any man. He was not curious to pry into other people’s affairs, nor at all mistrustful; but endowed with primitive, yet not weak simplicity.

Bayle, who seems to delight in Gelenius’s private character, resumes it by informing us that his disregard for riches and honours was extraordinary. The employments which were offered him in other places, could not tempt him to quit his peaceful situation at Basil. Lucrative professorships he could not be induced on to accept; and when he was invited to the king of Bohemias court, he preferred his own quiet and humble life to the splendid dignities with which he would there have been incumbered. Though Erasmus judged him worthy of a better fortune, yet he durst not wish to see him rich, lest it should abate his ardour for the advancement of learning. According to Thuanus, he struggled all his life with poverty.

, an eminent German poet and moral writer, was born at Haynichen, in Saxony, July 4, 1715. His father was a clergyman of a small income, who had thirteen children. Gellert was educated at home, where his poetical powers first appeared in a poem on the birth-day of his father, which was succeeded by many others, but all these in his maturer years he committed to the flames. He was afterwards sent to school at Meissen r where he learned Greek and Latin, and in 1734 he went to Leipsic, whence, after studying four years, his father’s narrow income obliged him to recall him. Gellert wished much to continue at the university, but he submitted to necessity, and at home had an opportunity of again turning his attention to those poetical pursuits for which he had early displayed a predilection; and perhaps it is to his recall from the university that we owe the beauty and simplicity of his fables. At this time he occasion-ally composed sermons, which are in general distinguished both for spirit and sound reasoning, but they contain several indications of a taste not very correct, and a judgment not arrived at maturity. In 1741 he again returned to the university of Leipsic, with a nephew of his own, of whose education he had the charge. Here he met with some friends, from whose conversation and directions he confesses that he derived very considerable advantage. About this time he published several tales and fables in a periodical publication. In 1745 he acquired the right of giving public lessons in the university, particularly on- morals. He had early received an impression of the importance of Christian morality, and thought that he could not pass over the subject in silence, without neglecting one of the most essential duties of his Situation. Soon after the commencement of his academical labours, he published his “Tales and Fables.” Amongst these, the manner in which the character of a devotee was drawn, was much admired. This suggested to Gellert the idea of his comedy of the “Devotee,” which was first published in the Bremen Magazine, but afterwards caused him much vexation. Many condemned it because it appeared to them to have a mischievous tendency, by exposing piety and seriousness to ridicule. But Gellert was not a man who could attempt to sap the foundations of real religion and morality, though he wished to expose hypocrisy and affectation to merited contempt. Among the many flattering instances of public approbation which the “Tales and Fables” produced, Gellert was particularly pleased with that of a Saxon peasant. One day, about the beginning of winter, he saw the man drive up to his door a cart loaded with fire-wood. Having observed Gellert, he asked him whether he was the gentleman who wrote such fine tales? Being answered in the affirmative, he begged pardon for the liberty which he took, and left the contents of his cart, being the most valuable present he could make. At this time the Germans had no original romances of any merit. In order to give some celebrity to this species of composition in his own country, he published the “Swedish Countess,” a work of a melancholy cast, and containing many indications of that depression of spirits which embittered the latter days of Gellert. In 1747 he published a book entitled “Consolations for Valetudinarians,” which was received with as much eagerness as his other works, and translated into various languages. It contains a melancholy representation of the sufferings which he himself endured. Nothing, however, could overcome his activity, and in 1748 the continuation of hisf “Tales and Fables” was published. About this time he was deprived of the society of several friends who had often dispersed the gloom that resulted from his disorder. The only intimate friend that remained was Havener, who persuaded Gellert to give to the public some of his letters. In 1754 he published his “Didactic Poems,” whicu were not so well received as his Tales and Fables, and he himself seems to have been sensible that they were not so agreeable, although useful and instructive. He bestowed particular care on some sacred songs, which were received with great enthusiasm all over Germany, both in the Roman catholic and protestant states. About this time he was appointed professor extraordinary in philosophy, and gave lectures on the Belles Lettres. From this period Gellert suffered extremely from an hypochondriac affection. His days were spent in melancholy reflections, and his rights in frightful dreams. But he made prodigious efforts to resist this malady, and to continue to perform his academical duties; and these efforts were often successful. The constant testimonies of the approbation with which his works were received, and the sympathy of his friends, were never-failing sources of consolation, and served to spread many cheerful moments over the general languor of his life. The calamities of war which desolated Germany after 1757, induced Gellert for some time to quit Leipsic. While in the country, he was attacked by a severe illness, from which, however, contrary to all expectation, he recovered. In 1761 the chair of a professor in ordinary was offered him, but he refused to accept it, from a persuasion that the state of his health was such as to render him incapable of discharging the duties of the situation with that regularity and attention which he thought necessary. In 1763-4, Gellert went to Carlsbad by the advice of his physicians to drink the waters, which, however, seem to have given him little relief. After a few years more of almost constant suffering, GeHett died at Leipsic, on the 13th of December. 1769. Some time before his death he revised and corrected his moral lessons, which he published at the request of the elector of Saxony. He was a man of the easiest and most conciliating manners; pleasing even to strangers; and of a disposition to form and preserve the most valuable friendships. He was open and enthusiastic in his attachments, ready at all times to givtt his counsel, labour, and money, to serve his friends. In himself, of a timid and hypochondriac habit, and disposed to criticise both his own character and works with a severity of which his friends could not acknowledge the justice. He had a constitutional fear of death, which, notwithstanding, receded as the hour of trial approached; so that he died with calmness and fortitude. In this he is thought to have resembled our Dr.Johnson, but in other respects his character and habit seem to approach nearer to those of Cowper. His works were published in ten vols. 8vo, in 1766; and after his death a more complete edition at Leipsic, in eight rolumes, with engravings. Kutner has celebrated his various excellencies; he says, “a century will perhaps elapse, before we have another poet capable of exciting the love and admiration of his contemporaries, in so eminent a degree as Gellert, and of exercising so powerful an influence on the taste and way of thinking of all ranks.” Though not deserving all this, he was an agreeable and fertile writer; the poet of religion and virtue; an able reformer of public morals. His “Moral Lessons” were translated into English, and published by Mrs. Douglas of Eduam house, 1805, 3 vols. 8vo, with an excellent life of the author, to which this article is chiefly indebted.

In 1546, he published at Florence, “Dialoghi,” in 4to, to which, in the fifth edition, which was printed in 1551, 8vo, and is the best, there are three more added, making in all ten, but he afterwards changed the title from “ Dialoghi,” to “i Capricci del Bottaio.” He published also, “La Circe,” 1549 and 1550, 8vo. This work consists of ten dialogues, and treats of human nature Ulysses and some other Greeks, who were transformed by Circe into various beasts, dispute here about the excellence and misery of man and other animals. It has been translated into Latin, French, and English, the last by Barker, Lond. 1599, 12mo. These dialogues, like the rest of Gelli’s, are written in the manner of Lucian, and are not without some indelicacies. We have too by him, “Le Lettioni iiell' Academia Fiorentina,” 1551, 8vo. These dissertations are employed upon the poems of Dante and Petrarch. Lastly, he published several letters upon Dante’s Inferno, entitled “Ragionamento sopra le Difficulta del mettere in, Jr-egole la nostra lingua,” without date. He was the author also of two comedies, “La Sporta,” and “Lo Errore” and of some translations, as already observed.

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

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

, a fine performer on the violin, and composer for tfctat instrument, was born at Lucca in Italy, about 1666. He received his first instructions in music from Lonati and Scarlatti, but finished his studies under Corelli. In 1714, he came to England; and, two years after, published twelve sonatas, “a Violino, Violone, e Cembalo.” These, together with his exquisite manner of performing, had such an effect, that he was at length introduced to George I. who had expressed a desire to hear some of the pieces, contained in this work performed by himself. Geiuiniani wished, however, that he might be accompanied on the harpsichord by Handel; and both accordingly attended at St. James’s. The earl of Essex, being a lover of music, became a patron of Geminiani: and, in 1727, procured him the offer of the place of master and composer of the state music in Ireland: but this, not being tenable by one of the Romish communion, he declined; saying, that, though he had never made great pretensions to religion, yet the renouncing that faith in which he had been baptized, for the sake of worldly advantage, was what he could not answer to his conscience. He afterwards composed Corelli’s solos into concertos; he published six concertos of his own composition, and many other things. The life of this musician appears to have been very unsettled; spent in different countries, for he was fond of making excursions; and employed in pursuits which had no connection with his art. He was, particularly, a violent enthusiast in painting; and, to gratify this propensity, bought pictures; which, to supply his wants, he afterwards sold. The consequence of this kind of traffic was loss, and its concomitant distress: which distress was so extreme, that he was committed to, and would have remained in prison, if a protection from his patron the earl of Essex had not delivered him. Yet his spirit was such, that when the prince of Wales, who admired his compositions, would have settled upon him a pension of 100l. a year, he declined the offer, affecting an aversion to a life of dependence.

In 1761, he went over to Ireland, and was kindly entertained there by Mr. Matthew Dubourg, who had been his pupil, and had been made master of the king’s band in Ireland upon his refusing it. Geminiani, it is said, had spent many years in compiling an elaborate treatise on music, which he intended for publication; but, soon after his arrival at Dublin, by the treachery of a female servant, who is supposed to have been recommended to him for no other purpose, it was conveyed out of his chamber, and could never after be recovered. The greatness of this loss, and his inability to repair it, made a deep impression upon his spirits, and is conjectured to have hastened his dissolution; at least, he survived it but a short time, dying Sept. 17, 1762.

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

, an eminent Greek philosopher, palled also Pletho, was born at Constantinople, in 1390, He was a zealous advocate for Platonism, and maintained a violent controversy with the Aristotelians. He was a strenuous defender of the Greek church against the Latins, and was consulted as an oracle on the points in debate, being unquestionably a man of learning and acuteness. He is principally noticeable as being the first Greek who gave occasion to the revival of Platonism in Italy, where he made many illustrious converts, and was the means of laying the foundation of a Platonic academy at Florence. He afterwards returned to Greece, where he died at the advanced age of nearly one hundred and one years. His heretical and philosophical writings afford unquestionable proofs of his learning, and particularly of his intimate knowledge of the Alexandrian philosophy. In his “Kxplanation of the Magic Oracles of Zoroaster,” Gr. and Lat. Paris, 1599, 8vo, and Lond. 1722, 4to, he exhibits twelve fundamental articles of the Platonic religion, and gives an elegant compendium of the whole Platonic philosophy. His other philosophical writings are, “On the Virtues,” Oxon. 1752, 8vo; “On the difference between the Platonic and Aristotelian Philosophy,” Paris, 1541, 8vo; and il Natural arguments concerning God.“He had a profound acquaintance with Grecian history, as appears by his” De iis qu post pugnam ad Mantinaam gesta sunt,“printed with the Venice edition of” Herodian,“1503, foL and with the Aldus” Xenophon" of the same year.

, sometimes called Gemma Frisius, from his country, was a Dutch physician, a native of Dockum in Friseland, who practised physic at Louvain. He was born in 1508, and died in 1555. Besides his medical skill, he was esteemed one of the best astronomers of his age; and wrote several works on that science, and other branches of mathematics, among which the principal are, “Methodus Arithmetics” “Demonstrationes Geometries? de usu radii astronomici” “De Astrolobio catholico liber,” &c. His son, Cornelius Gemma, became royal professor of medicine in his native place in 1569, through the appointment of the duke of Alba, at which time he took the degree of doctor, but a few years afterwards died of the plague, which raged at Louvain, Oct. 12, 1577. His writings are not numerous, ad relate to mathematical and philosophical subjects as well as to medicine. There was a third, John Baptist Gemma, a native of Venice, and a physician of considerable repute about the end of the fifteenth century, who was physician to Sigismund III. king of Poland. He wrote a treatise, containing a history of pestilential epidemics, with a detail of the effects of contagion, &c. printed in 1584.

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

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

“Urna capit cineres, nomen non orbe tenetur.” His principal works are a “Sacred Chronology,” 8vo; a “Commentary on the Psalms,” 8vo three books “on the Trinity,” 8vo; a Latin treatise, in which he maintains the right of the clergy and people to elect bishops, contrary to the king’s appointment, 8vo (the parliament of Provence sentenced this treatise to be burnt, and banished Genebrard from the kingdom); a French translation of various Rabbins, fol. and a translation of Josephus; “Excommunication of the Ecclesiastics who assisted at divine service with Henry de Valois, after the assassination of cardinal de Guise,” 1589, 8vo, Latin, and other works. St. Francis de Sales gloried in having been his pupil.

, one of the Byzantine historians, flourished about the year 940, and, by order of Constantine Porphyrogenitus wrote a history of Constantinople, in four books, from Leo the Armenian, to Basilius the Macedonian, the most complete ms. of which was in the library of St. Paul, at Leipsic. Kuster Olearius, Bergler, and several other learned men, had proposed to publish this history, but declining it, it was printed at Venice in 17:53, by Pasquali, in the 23d volume of his edition of the Byzantine historians, in such a manner, that Menckenius heavily laments the fate of the author, who, after the efforts of so many most learned men, “fell at last,” he says, “into the impure hands of the Venetians, whence he came forth disfigured in the most miserable manner.” Bergler’s copy, the same which was in the library of St. Paul, was afterwards the property of Saxius, but what became of it after his death we have not learned.

, patriarch of Constantinople, who succeeded Anatolius in the year 458, is recorded for having very diligently restored the discipline of his see, which he found greatly impaired, and for making many good regulations. He wrote a commentary on Daniel, and many homilies; but none of his works are extant except a circular epistle against simony, inserted in vol. IV. of the “Collect. Concil.” and a fragment of a work against the anathemas of Cyril. His character is that of an eloquent and able theologian. He died in the year 471.

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

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

, an Italian painter, whose family name was Lomi, which he exchanged for that of his maternal uncle, Gentileschi, was born at Pisa in 1563. After having made himself famous at Florence, Rome, Genoa, and in other parts of Italy, he removed to Savoy; whence he went to France, and at last, upon the invitation of Charles I. came over to England. He was well received by that king, who appointed him lodgings in his court, together with a considerable salary; and employed him in his palace at Greenwich, and other public places. The most remarkable of his performances in England, were the cielings of Greenwich and York-house. He painted a Madona, a Magdalen, and Lot with his two Daughters, for king Charles; all which he performed admirably well. After the death of the king, when his collection of paintings were exposed to sale, nine pictures of Gentileschi were sold for 600l. and are now said to be the ornaments of the hall in Marlborough-house. His most esteemed work abroad was the portico of cardinal Bentivoglio’s palace at Rome, and a “David standing over Goliah,” painted with a vigour and vivacity of tints that make' him start from the canvass, and give the idea of a style yet unknown. This is in the house Cambiasi, at Genoa. He made several attempts in portrait- painting, but with little success his talent lying altogether in histories, with figures as large as the life. He was much in favour with the duke of Buckingham, and many others of the nobility. After twelve years continuance in England, he died here in 1647, and was buried in the queen’s chapel at Somersethouse. His head is among the prints taken from Vandyke, by whom he had been painted.

He left behind him a daughter, Artemisia Gentileschi, who was but little inferior to her father in history-painting, and excelled him in portraits. She lived the greatest part of her time at Naples in much splendour; and was as famous all over Europe for her love-intrigues, as for her talents in painting. She died in 1642. She painted many historical pictures of full size, among which, the most celebrated was that of David with the head of Goliah in his hand. She drew also the portraits of some of the royal family, and many of the nobility of England.

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

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

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

, a celebrated physician and chemist, was the son of an apothecary, and born at Paris Feb. 13, 1672. He travelled in his own country, and into England, Holland, and Italy, to complete his medical studies, and the collateral knowledge of botany and chemistry. On his return he obtained the degree of doctor, and became professor of chemistry at the king’s garden, and of medicine at the royal college. He was also fellow of the royal society in London, and member of the French academy of sciences. His modest, timid, and patient character, induced him to study nature with attention, and to aid her with caution; and he took an interest in the recovery of his patients, which at the beginning of his practice was rather injurious to him, as causing him to betray too visible an anxiety. He never refused his advice to any one. He died Jan. 6, 1731. Just before his death he completed a pharmacopoeia, containing a collection of the compound medicines requisite to be kept by apothecaries, “Le Code Medicamentaire de lar Faculte” de Paris,“of which two editions, enlarged and corrected, were afterwards published. His papers on the materia medica were published under the title,” Tractatus de Materia Medica, sive, de Medicamentorum simplicium historia, virtute, delectu, et usu,“Paris, 1741, 3 vols. 8vo, under the inspection of Antoine de Jussieu. Several editions have been subsequently published, and it has been translated into French. Arnault de Nobleville, and Salerne, physicians of Orleans, published a continuation of this work, under the title of” Histoire Naturelle des Animaux,“Paris, 1756, 1757, in 6 vols. 12mo, which is deemed not unworthy to be ranked with the production of Geoffroi. From a ms copy of his lectures, Dr. G. Douglas translated and published in 1736,” A Treatise of the Fossil, Vegetable, and Animal substances that are made use of in physick,“8vo, to which the best account we have yet seen of the author is prefixed. He had a brother, Claude Joseph Geoffroi, who wrote an essay on the structure and use of the principal parts of flowers, and some other physiological papers printed in the” Memoires de l'acad. des sciences."

, was a learned Maronite, who went to Rome in the time of pope Clement VIII. and there published a “Syriac and Chaldee Grammar,” 1596, 4to, which is much esteemed. At his return to his native country, he was elected patriarch of the Maronites, and introduced the reformation of the Calendar. He died about 1641.

, surnamed the Cappadocian,*waa made bishop of Alexandria when Athanasius was driven from that see by the persecutions of the emperor Constantius, about the year 355. He was a native of Epiphania, in Cilicia, where his father pursued the business of a fuller. From this obscure situation the son raised himself, it is said, not bv the most honourable means, to the station of a prelate in the church, and his mean arts and depredations on the public purse became so notorious, that he was obliged to fly from the pursuit of justice, and contrived to take with him his ill-gotten wealth. The place of his retreat was Alexandria, where he professed great zeal for the Arian system of theology, and acquired considerable influence with his disciples in that city. Here he formed a very valuable collection of books, which the emperor Julian, afterwards made the foundation of the noble library established by him in the temple erected in honour of the emperor Trajan, but which was burnt by the connivance of the emperor Jovian. When Athanasius was driven from Alexandria, George was elected bishop by the prevailing party, and persecuted the catholics, and in other respects played the tyrant with such unrelenting cruelty and avarice, that at length the people rose as one man, and expelled him the city. With much difficulty he regained his authority, which he held till the year 362, when he and two other persons who had been ministers of his atrocities, were ignominiously dragged in chains to the public prison, and murdered by the populace. Such a character scarcely merits a place in this work, if it were not necessary to expose the ignorance of those who pretend that he has been transformed into the renowned St. George of England, the patron of arms, of chivalry, and of the garter, a calumny which has been amply refuted by Pegge, Miiner, and others.

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

, a surgeon and famous herbalist of the time of queen Elizabeth, was born at Namptwich, Cheshire, in 1545. He practised surgery in London, and rose to eminence in that profession. Mr. Granger says, “he was many years retained as chief gardener to lord Burleigh, who was himself a great lover of plants, and had the best collection of any nobleman in the kingdom; among these were many exotics, introduced by Gerarde.” This is conh'rmed by the dedication of the first edition of his Herbal, in 1597, to that illustrious nobleman, in which he says he had “that way employed his principal study, and almost all his time,” then for twenty years. It appears therefore that he had given up his original profession. Johnson, the editor of his second edition, says, “he lived some ten years after the publishing of this work, and died about 1607;” so that he survived his noble patron nine years.

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

, a famous writer in favour of Jansenism, was born at Saint Calais, in the French province of Maine, in 1628, and was first of the oratory, and then became a Benedictine in the congregation of St. Maur, in 1649. He there taught theology for some years with considerable success, but being too free in his opinions in favour of the Jansenists, was ordered to be arrested by Louis XIV. in 1682, at the abbey of Corbie. He contrived, however, to escape into Holland, but the air of that country disagreeing with him, he changed his situation for the Low Countries. In 1703 he was taken into custody by the bishop of Mechlin, and being condemned for errors on the doctrine of grace, suffered imprisonment at Amiens, and in the castle of Vincennes. No sufferings could shake his zeal for what he thought the truth, and in 17 10 he was given up to the superiors of his own order, who sent him to the abbey of St. Denis, where he died in 1711. He was author of many works on the subjects of controversy then agitated, particularly a general History of Jansenism, 3 vols. 12mo, Amsterdam, 1703, for which he was called a violent Jansenist. His other principal works were, edi-> tions of Marius Mercator, St. Anselm, and Baius; the Apology of Rupert, abbot of Tuy, respecting the Eucharist, in Latin, 8vo; “Le veritable Penitent, ou Apologie cte ja Penitence,” 12mo, against P. Hazard, a Jesuit “La verit6 Catholique victorieuse, sur la Predestination et la Grace efficase” “Traité historique sur la Grace” “Lettres a M. Bossuet, Eveque de Meaux” “La confiance Chretienne” “Le Chretien disabuse”“” La Regie des Moeurs contre les fausses Maximes de la Morale corrompue,“12mo;” La Defense de l‘Eglise Romaine’.' and “Avis salutaires de la Sainte Vierge a ses Devots indiscrets.” This last is a translation of the “Monita Salutaria” of Adam Windelfels, a German lawyer* Many others are enumerated by Moreri.

, a Roman cardinal, and a metaphysician of very considerable talents, was born at Samoens, in one of the northern districts of the Piedmontese dominions, in 1718. He was first instructed by an uncle, who afterwards placed him in the royal college at Anneci. In 1732 he entered the Barnabite order, and as soon as his divinity studies were finished, removed to Bologna, where he so recommeuded himself to Benedict XIV. then archbishop of that city, as to be employed by him in making extracts, translating passages and collecting hints for the treatise on canonization which that pontiff published some years afterwards. In 1742 he became professor of philosophy in the convent of Macerata, and in 1747 published at Turin his best metaphysical work, a “Treatise on the Immortality of the Soul,” which originated in this expression of Locke, that “we shall never know whether God has not communicated the power of thinking to matter.” Gerdil, in opposition to this opinion, which it is well known occasioned the charge of irreligion against Locke, maintains that “the immateriality of the soul can be demonstrated from the same principles by which Locke argues the existence and immateriality of the Supreme Being.” Those, however, who gave father Gerdil credit for his success in this argument, were less pleased with finding that in his next work, published at Turin in 1748, a “Treatise on the nature and origin of Ideas,” he maintained the opinions of Malebranche against those of Locke; and this his biographer considers as a retrograde step in metaphysics.

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

, an eminent German Lutheran divine, was born at Quedlinburgh, in Saxony, Oct. 17, 1582, where he was partly educated, but in 1599, was sent to Wittemberg, and studied philosophy and divinity under the ablest masters. In 1601, by the advice of Rauchbach, a counsellor and vice-chancellor of Saxony (for his father died in 1598) he went through a course of medical studies, but about two years after, recollecting a vow he had made during a fit of sickness, he returned again to divinity, the study of which he farther prosecuted at Jena, to which he first went as tutor to his friend llauchbach’s son. In 1603 he took his master’s degree here, and in 1604 removing with his pupil to Marpurg, he continued his theological studies, and learned Hebrew. In 1605 he returned to Jena, took his degree in philosophy, and having been ordained, was appointed by John Casimir, duke of Saxony, to a church in Franconia, and at the same time to be professor of divinity in the Casimirian college of Cobourg. In 1616. by consent of his liberal patron, he accepted the professorship of divinity at Jena, and continued in that office during the remainder of his life. He was four times chosen rector of the university, and encreased his reputation by a vast variety of publications which made him known to all the literati of Europe, many of whom, both protestants and catholics, bore testimony to his extensive learning, piety, and usefulness, both as a divine and teacher. He died of a fever, Aug. 17, 1637. His works, which are written in Latin and German, consist of treatises on various theological subjects, critical and polemical; commentaries on various books of the Old and New Testament common-places, &c. &c. One only of these, his “Meditations,” is well known in this country, having gone through many editions, and having also been translated into most European languages and into Greek. He left a numerous family, some of whom became distinguished as divines, particularly his eldest son, John Ernest, who was born at Jena in 1621, and studied at Altdorf. He was appointed professor of philosophy at Wittemberg in 1616, and in 1652 was nominated professor of history at Jena. Like his father he devoted mucli of his time to biblical and theological learning. He died in 1688. Among his works are, “Harmonia Linguarnm Orientalium;” “Dispurationum theologicarum Fasciculus;” De F.cclesiae Copticæ Ortu, Progressu, et Doctrina." There is a very minute and curious history of this family in the work from which these particulars have been taken, with much collateral information respecting the theological writers and controversies during the life of the elder Gerhard.

, a Lutheran divine, was born at Kuitlingen, a village in Suabia, Dec. 26, 1546. He laid the foundation of a learned, education at Stutgard, and became distinguished for his diligence at the university of Tubingen, where, in 1566, he took his degree of B. A. with great applause. Shortly after this he withdrew from the university to Eslingen on account of the plague, and there he was admitted to the degree of doctor in philosophy in 1567, and in 1573 he accompanied David Ungnad, who was’ sent on an embassy from the emperor Maximilian II. to the Turkish court. He continued at Constantinople about five yetirs, acquainting himself with the manners and religion of the Turks and Greeks, cultivating an acquaintance with the most eminent men in the latter communion, and collecting many Greek Mss. which he purchased for Crusius. Upon his return to Tubingen he was made professor, dean of the church, and a member of the senatus academicus, but engaged in the duties of his profession with so much zeal and assiduity, as to injure his health. He died Jan. 30, 1612. He was author of various controversial writings against Daneau and Bu&eus on the subject of the divinity of Jesus Christ; two volumes of “Disputationes Theologica; d praecipuis horum temporum controversies,” Tubingen, 161^, 4to, and of what may now probably te thought the most important of his works, “A Journal (in German) of the embassy to the Porte,” pubfished at Francfort, in 1674, fol.

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

, by some called Charlier, an illustrious Frenchman, and usually styled “Doctor Christianissimus,” was born in 1363 at Gerson in France. He was educated at Paris, after which he studied divinity for ten years under Peter D'Ailly and Giles Deschamps, and received the degree of doctor in 1392. Three years after he became canon and chancellor of the church of Paris and, when John Petit had the baseness to justify the murder of Louis duke of Orleans, which was committed in 1408 by order of the duke of Burgundy, Gerson caused the doctrine of this tyrannicide to be censured by the doctors and bishops of Paris. His zeal shone forth no less illustriously at the council of Constance, at which he assisted as ambassador from France, and where he distinguished himself by many speeches, and by one, particularly, in which he enforced the superiority of the council over the pope. He caused also the doctrine of the above John Petit to be condemned at this council. Not venturing to return to Paris, where the duke of Burgundy would have persecuted him, he retired into Germany, and afterwards got into a convent at Lyons, of which his brother was prior; and here he died in 1429. A collection of his writings have been published several times; but the best edition is that of 1706, under the care of Du Pin, in five vols. folio. In this edition there is a “Gersoniana,” which is represented as being curious. Thuanus has spoken highly of Gerson in the first book of his history. Hoffman, in his Lexicon, calls him, “ssBculi sui oraculum;” and Cave, in his “Historia Literaria,” says, that no man can be very conversant in his works, sine insigni fructu, “without very great benefit.” Some have attributed to him the famous book of “the Imitation of Christ” but for this there seems no sufficient foundation. It is not in any edition of Gerson’s works; but its being attributed to Gerson, says Dr. Clarke, has led the friends of Thomas a Kemp is to doubt whether such a man as Gerson ever existed. The Gerson, however, to whom that work was attributed, is not the above John Gerson, but another, the abbot of Verceil, who lived in the twelfth century.

, a French missionary, was a native of Paris, and the son of M. Gervaise, physician to M. Fouquet, superintendant of the finances. He had not arrived at his twentieth year, when he embarked with some ecclesiastics, who were going as missionaries to the kingdom of Siam. Here he remained four years, made himself master of the language, conversed with the learned, and, at his return, published “Hist, naturelle et politique du Royaume de Siatn,” 1G88, 4to, and “Description historique du Iloyaume de Macacar,” 12moj two very curious works. He was afterwards curate of Vannes in Brettany, then provost of the church of St. Martin at Tours. His new dignity induced him to write a life of St. Martin, 4-to, which was criticised by Dom. Stephen Badier, a Benedictine; and, sixteen years after, he printed “Hist, de Boe'ce” at Paris. Being consecrated bishop of Horren, some time after, at Rome, he embarked for the place of his mission; but the Caribbees murdered him and all his clergy on their arrival, November 20, 1729. He wrote several other books, but of less consequence than those above mentioned.

, brother of the preceding, having studied ethics with success, entered among the bare-footed Carmelites but, not finding this reform sufficiently austere to satisfy his excessive zeal, he took the habit of la Trappe 1695, and insinuated himself so much into the favour of the celebrated abbé de Raneé, as to be appointed abbot of la Trappe on the death of Dom. Zozime 1696. The abbé, however, soon repented of his choice; for the new abbot began immediately to raise oni r mosities, and foment divisions among the monks, endeavouring to set them against de Raneé, and to undo all that this reformer had done; but the abbé engaged hiip artfully to resign, and got his resignation approved by the king. Grvaise, finding himself deprived of his abbey, left la Trappe, and drew up a long “Apology.” He frequently changed his place of abode afterwards, always living, however, according to the rules of la Trappe; but, when the first volume of his “Hist, generate de Citeaux,” 4to, appeared, the Bernardines, who were violently attacked in, that work, obtained an order from the court against him, and he was arrested at Paris, conducted to the abbey of Notre-Dame de Reclus, where he was confined, and died there in 1755. Besides his “Apology,” and his “Hist, de la reforme de Citeaux,” which is very scarce, he left “La Vie de St. Cyprien,” with dissertations, 4to “La Vie d‘Abailard et d’Heloise,” 2 vols. 12mo; “Lettres d'Abailard à Heloise,” 2 vols. 12mo. This is a very paraphrastical translation. “Hist, de l'Abbé Suger,” 3 vols. 12mo “La Vie de St. Irenee,” 2 vols. 12mo “La Vie de Rufin,” 2 vols. 12mo; “La Vie de l'Apotre St. Paul,” 3 vols. 12mo; “La Vie de St. Paulin,” with dissertations, 4to; two Letters on the Anglicau Ordinations, against P. Courayer; “Hist, de l'Abbé Joachim,” 2 vols. 12mo “La Vie de St. Epiphane,” 4to, &c. He also left in ms. “Traite des devoirs des Evques” an abridgement of M. de Fleury’s Ecclesiastical History; and other pieces. This author’s disposition may be discovered in all his works; violent, fickle, and inconstant. In general, he follows and copies good books and memoirs, but spoils them by additions and reflections of his own, which are frequently ill placed, and by no means judicious. His criticism is often faulty, and his theology not always just.

, an historian of the thirteenth century, was a native of Tilhury, in Essex, and nephew to king Henry II. Through the interest of Otho IV. he was made marshal of the kingdom of Aries. He wrote a commentary on Geoffrey of Monmouth’s British History, and also a tripartite History of England. His other works are, “A History of the Holy Land” “Origines Burgundionuru” “Mirabilia Orbis” and a chronicle, entitled “De Otiis imperialibus,” lib. III. of which there is a ms. in Bene't-college, Cambridge. The -compilation of the exchequer book, entitled “Liber Niger Scaccarii,” was ascribed to him; but Mr. Madox, who published a correct edition of it, gives it to Richard Nelson, bishop of London. There are two ms copies of it, the one in the Exchequer, which, according to Strype, archbishop Parker presented to that collection; the other is in Caius college, Cambridge, which the same author thinks might have been the original whence the archbishop’s copy was transcribed. Bale and Pitts differ much in their accounts of his works.

, another historian of the thirteenth century, was a monk of the monastery of Christ’s church in that city, and wrote a chronicle of the kings of England from the year 1122 to 1200, and a history of the archbishops of Canterbury from St. Augustine to archbishop Hubert, who died in 1205. These are his principal works, and are published in Twisden’s “Hist. Anglican. Script. X.” A strict attention to chronology in the disposition of his materials, is one of the chief excellencies of this historian. Nicolson seems to think that there was a more complete copy of his chronicle in Leland’s time, beginning with the coming in of the Trojans.

, an eminent scholar, philosopher, and naturalist, and called the Pliny of Germany, was the son of Vasa Gesner, and Barbara Friccius, and born at Zurich in Switzerland in 1516, where he received the first rudiments of the Latin and Greek languages. His proficiency was such as to give every hope of his becoming an accomplished scholar, but the poverty of his father, who was a worker in hides, and perhaps wanted his son’s assistance in his trade, threatened a total interruption to his studies, when John James Ammian, professor of rhetoric at Zurich, took him to his house, and offered to defray the expence of his education. Gesner accordingly continued three years with Ammian, and applied to his studies with the utmost diligence. In his fifteenth year his father was killed in the civil wars of Switzerland, and his mother was no longer able to maintain him; and, added to these misfortunes, he fell into a dropsical disorder. On his recovery, finding himself destitute of friends, he determined, young as he was, to travel, in hopes of being able to provide a subsistence by his talents in some foreign country. With this view he first went to Strasburgh, where he entered into the service of Wolfgang Fabricius Capito, the learned Lutheran reformer, with whom he resumed the study of the Hebrew language, of which he had acquired some knowledge when at Zurich. After some months’ stay here he returned to Switzerland, and the public tranquillity being restored, he procured a pension from the academy of Zurich, which enabled him to make the tour of France. He passed a year at Bourges, applying to Greek and Latin with great attention; and finding his pension too scanty to maintain him, improved his finances in some degree by teaching school. Next year, he went to Paris, but is said to have made very little progress in study while there, and returned to Strasburgh in hopes of procuring some employment from the friends he had made, but was very soon recalled by the university of Zurich, and placed at the head of a reputable school. Here he might have maintained himself in the comfortable pursuit of his studies, had he not married, a step which, although he had afterwards no reason to repent of his choice, in his present circumstances was highly injudicious, and involved him in many difficulties.

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

Dr. Pulteney’s account of the fate of Gesner’s excellent figures, forms, as he justly observes, a mortifying anecdote in the literary history of the science of botany. Of the 1500 figures left by Gesner, prepared for his “History of Plants,” at his death, a large share passed into the “Epitome Matthioli,” published by Camerarius in 1586, which contained in the whole 1003 figures; and in the same year, as also in a second edition in 1590, they embellished an abridged translation of Matthiolus, printed under the name of the “German Herbal.” In 1609 the same blocks were used by Uftenbach for the Herbal of Castor Durantes, printed at Francfort. This publication, however, comprehends only 948 of these icons, nearly 100 being introduced of very inferior merit. After this period, Camerarius the younger being dead, these blocks were purchased by Goerlin, a bookseller of Ulm, and next served for the “Parnassus medicinalis illustratus” of Becher, printed in that city in 1663. In 1678 they were taken into a German herbal by Bernard Verzacha; and such was the excellence of the materials and workmanship of these blocks, that they were exhibited a sixth time in the “Theatrum Botanicum” of Zwinger, Basil, 1696, and finally in a new edition of the same wor.k, so late as 1744. Thus did the genius and labours of Gesner add dignity and ornament to the works of other men, and even of some whose enmity he had experienced during his lifetime. Besides the above mentioned, Gesner left five volumes, consisting entirely of figures, which, after various vicissitudes, became the property of Trew, of Norimberg, who gratified the public, by the pen of Dr. Schmiedel, with an ample specimen, published in 1753.

His brother, John James, who died in 1787, is author of the “Thesaurus Numismatum,” Tigu, 1738, 2 vols. fol. the best medallic work of general reference ever published, but very rare, and, when met with, seldom complete.

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

From Berlin he went to Hamburgh, where, in the company of Hagedorn and other eminent characters, he improved his taste and knowledge, and returned to Zurich at a time when his countrymen were prepared to relish the beauties of his pen. The famous Klopstock, and Weiland, who now visited Zurich, paid particular attention to the rising genius of Gesner. His first publication, in 1754, was “Daphnis” his next “Inkle and Yarrco;” and his fame was soon after completely established by his " Pastorals. On the appearance of these he was hailed as another Theocritus. Of all the moderns, says Dr. Blair, Gesner has been the most successful in his pastoral compositions. He has introduced many new ideas. His rural scenery is often striking, and his descriptions lively. He presents pastoral life to us with all the embellishments of which it is susceptible, but without any excess of refinement. What forms the chief merit of this poet is, that he wrote to the heart, and has enriched the subjects of his idyls with incidents that give rise to much tender sentiment.

The success of this work, however, was uncommon. Soon after its appearance it was translated into French, and 90 much pleased the readers in that country that three editions were sold in less than a year. It was at up long Distance translated (by Mrs. Collier) into English, and almost every other European tongue. In this country it is still a very favourite work with the lower classes. His other publications became now in higher request, and the most celebrated men in France, especially Turgot and Diderot, lent their assistance towards rendering the translation of the “Death of Abel” more perfect. The duchess of Choiseul, who was then at the head of taste in France, requested Gesner to settle at Paris but he declined it, stating, by way of apology, that he was retained in his native place by the tenderest ties of nature.

About his thirtieth year be became acquainted with Heidegger, a man of taste, who bad a large collection of paintings and engravings, and, what was more interesting, a daughter, whose charms made a very lively impression on our author. After some difficulties were surmounted, he married this lady, and from this time appears to have carried on the businesses of poet, engraver, painter, and bookseller. The latter department, however, was attended to chiefly by Mrs. Gesner, as well as the care of the house and the education of the children. With him, painting and engraving occupied the hours which were not devoted to poetry, and his mode of life was marked by cheerfulness and liveliness of temper, and a condu-ct truly amiable and exemplary. He was highly loved and respected, and uniting to taste and literature the talents requisite for active life, he was raised by the citizens of Zurich to the first offices in the republic. In 1765 he was called to the great council, and in 1767 to the lesser. In 1768 he was appointed bailiff of Eilibach; and to other offices, all which he filled with the greatest honour and fidelity. But in the height of his fame and usefulness, he was cut off by a stroke of the palsy, on the 2d of March 1788, in the fifty-eighth year of his age, leaving a widow, three children, and a sister behind. His fellow-citizens have since erected a statue to his memory, in his favourite walk on the banks of the Limrnot, where it meets the Sihl.

In 1765 he published ten landscapes, etched and engraved by himself. Twelve other pieces of the same nature appeared in 1769; and he afterwards executed ornaments for many publications that issued from his press, among which were his own works, a translation into German of the works of Swift, and various others. The reputation which he acquired by his pencil, was scarcely inferior to that arising from his pen. He was reckoned among the best artists of Germany; and Mr. Fnessli, his countryman, in his “Historical Essay on the Painters, Engravers, Architects, and Sculptors, who have done honour to Switzerland,” gives a distinguished place to Gesner, though then alive. In 1802 his “Works,” translated from the German, were published here, in 3 vols. 8vo, with an account of his life and writings, to which this article is principally indebted.

, a curious penman, was, according to Wood, a native of Herefordshire, but settled in Fetter-laue, London, as early as 1616, about which time he published a copy-book of various hands, in 26 plates, oblong quarto, well executed, considering the time. la 1645 he published his “Chirographia,” in 37 plates, in which he principally aims at the improvement of the Italian hand. There is another edition of this book, dated 1664, perhaps after his death, as it has this title, “Gething’s Redivivus,” with his picture in the front. In 1652 his “Calligraphotechnia” was published from the rollingpress it contains thirty-six folio plates, with his picture, which has a label round it, inscribing him aged thirty-two, which must be a mistake. It appears, ^indeed, to be a re-publication of his former works, for some of the plates are dated 1615, 1616, and it is dedicated to sir Francis Bacon, who died in 1626.

, an Italian writer, born at Monza, in Milan, 1589, was educated by the Jesuits at Milan, in polite literature and philosophy. He went afterwards to Parma, where he began to apply himself to the civil and canon law; but was obliged to desist on account of ill health. He returned home, and upon the death of his father married; but, losing his wife, he became an ecclesiastic, and resumed the study of the canon law, of which he was made doctor. He died in 1670, leaving several works; the most considerable of which, and for which he is at present chiefly known, is his “Theatro d'Huomini Letterati.” The first part of this was printed at Milan, 1633, in 8vo, but it was enlarged and reprinted in 2 vols. 4to, at Venice, 1647. Baillet says that this work is es­>teemed for its exactness, and for the diligence which the author has shewn in recording the principal acts and writings of those he treats of: but this is not the opinion of M. Monnoye, his annotator, nor of the learned in general. It is more generally agreed, that excepting a few articles, where more than ordinary pains seem to have been taken, Ghilini is a very injudicious author, deals in general and insipid panegyric, and is very careless in the matter of dates. This work, however, for want of a better, has been made much use of, and is even quoted at this day by those who know its imperfections.

, a painter, of whom Vasari speaks as being of the first rank in his time, was properly called Corradi, and was born in 1449. He at first was employed by his father in his own profession of goldsmith, at Florence, who obtained the name of Ghirlandaio, by having been the first to make little metallic garlands (Ghirlandi) for children to wear. Domenico, after he had adopted painting as his profession, worked for the churches and convents in Florence, both in fresco and in oil, like other artists introducing into his pictures the portraits of his friends, but with more character than had hitherto been done there; and he was the first who left off gilding in pictures, and attempted to imitate its effects by colours. He was called to Rome by Sixtus IV. to assist other masters employed in painting his chapel. His works there were afterwards spoiled to make room for those of M. Angelo. He was highly honoured, and employed nobly; but his greatest glory is, having had the great hero of the art, M. Angelo, for a pupil. He died in 1493. His brothers, David and Benedetto, finished many of his works, and educated his son Riclolfo to the art, who afterwards made great progress, and obtained esteem from Raphael himself, who invited him, but not successfully, to work in the Vatican. In Ridolfo’s pictures, Mr. Fuseli says, “there is something analogous to the genius of Raphael; the composition, the vivacity of the face, the choice of colours, something ideal in the use of nature, betray similar maxims, with inferior powers.” He died in 1560, aged seventy-­five.

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

, an eminent musician, and in many respects the greatest performer on the violin during the last century, was a native of Piedmont; and when a boy, was a chorister in the Duomo at Milan, under Paladini, of whom he learned singing, the harpsichord, and composition; but having previously manifested a partiality for the violin, his father recalled him to Turin, in order to receive instructions on that instrument of the famous Somis. He went to Rome early in his life, and afterwards to Naples, where, having obtained a place among ripienos in the opera orchestra, he used to flourish and change passages much more frequently than he ought to have done. “However,” says Giardini, of whom Dr. Burney had this account, “I acquired great reputation among the ignorant for my impertinence yet one night, during the opera, Jomellfc who had composed it, came into the orchestra, and seating himself close by, me, I determined to give the maestro di cappella a touch of my taste and execution; and in the symphony of the next song, which was in a pathetic style, I gave loose to my fingers and fancy; for which I was rewarded by the composer with a violent slap in the face; which,” adds Giardini, “was the best lesson I ever received from a great master in my life.” Jomelli, after this, was however very kind, in a different way, to this young and wonderful musician.

, an eminent English historian, was descended from an ancient family of that name in Kent. His grandfather, Edward Gibbon, a citizen of London, was appointed one of the commissioners of customs under the Tory administration of the last four years of queen Anne, and was praised by lord Bolingbroke for his knowledge of commerce and finance. He was elected one of the directors of the unfortunate South-sea company, in 1716, at which time he had acquired an independent fortune of 60,000l. the whole of which he lost when the company failed in 1720. The sum of 10,000l. however, was allowed for his maintenance, and on this foundation he reared another fortune, not much inferior to the first, an<,i secured a part of it in the purchase of landed property. He died in December 1736, at his house at Putney, and by his last will enriched two daughters, at the expence of his son Edward, who had married against his consent. This son was sent to Cambridge, where at Emanuel college, he “passed through a regular course of academical discipline,” but left it without a degree, and afterwards travelled. On his return to England he was chosen, in 1734, member of parliament for the borough of Petersfield, and in 1741 for Southampton. In parliament he joined the party which after a long contest, finally drove sir Robert Walpole and his friends from their places. Our author has not concealed that “in the pursuit of an unpopular minister, he gratified a private revenge against the oppressor of his family in the South-sea persecution.” "Walpole, however, was not that oppressor, for Mr. CoxC has clearly proved that he frequently endeavoured to stem the torrent of parliamentary vengeance, and to incline the sentiments* of the house to terms of moderation.

When he first left Magdalen-college, he informs us that his taste for books began to revive, and that “unprovided with original learning, unformed in the habits of thinking, unskilled in the arts of composition, he resolved to write a book.” The title of this first essay was “The Age of Sesostris,” the sheets of which he afterwards destroyed. On his return to college, want of advice, experience, and occupation, betrayed him into improprieties of conduct, late hours, ill-chosen company, and inconsiderate expense. In his frame of mind, indeed, there appears to have been originally a considerable proportion of juvenile arrogance and caprice. At the age of sixteen he tells us that his reading became of the religious kind, and after bewildering himself in the errors of the church of Rome, he was converted to its doctrines, if that can be called a conversion which was rather the adoption of certain opinions by a boy who had never studied those of his own church. This change, in whatever light it may be considered, he imputes principally to the works’ of Parsons the Jesuit, who in his opinion had urged all the best arguments in favour of the Roman catholic religion. Fortified with these, on. the 8th of Jdne 1753, he solemnly abjured what he calls the errors of heresy, before a catholic priest in London, and immediately announced the important event to his father in a very laboured epistle. His father regretted the change, but divulged the secret, and thus rendered his return to Magdalen college impossible. At an advanced age, and when he had learned to treat all religions with equal indifference, our author speaks of this conversion with a vain respect, declaring himself not ashamed to have been entangled by the sophistry which seduced the acute and manly understandings of Chillingworth and Bayle. The resemblance is more close, however, in the transition which, he adds, they made from superstition to scepticism.

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

The leisure he could borrow from his more regular plan of study, was employed in perusing the works of the best English authors since the revolution, in hopes that the purity of his own language, corrupted by the long use of a foreign idiom, might be restored. Of Swift and Arldison, who were recommended by Mallet, he seems to fix the true value, praising Swift for his manly original vigour, and Addison for elegance and mildness. The perfect composition, the nervous language, and well-turned periods of Robertson, inflamed him with the ambitious hope that he might one day tread in his footsteps. But charmed as he was at this time with Swift and Addison, Robertson and Hume, and well as he knew how to appreciate the excellence of their respective styles, he lost sight of every model when he became a writer of history, and formed a style peculiar to himself.

In 1761 his first publication made its appearance, under the title of “Essai sur l'etude de la litterature,” a small volume in 12 mo. Part of this had been written at Lausanne, and the whole completed in London. He consulted Dr. Maty, a man of extensive learning and judgment, who encouraged him to publish the work, but this he would have probably delayed for some time, had not his father insisted upon it, thinking that some proof of literary talenta might introduce him to public notice. The design of this essay was to prove that all the faculties of the mind may be exercised and displayed by the study of ancient literature, in opposition to D'Alembert and others of the French encyclopedists, who contended for that new philosophy that has since produced such miserable consequences. He introduces, however, a variety of topics not immediately connected with this, and evinces that in the study of the belles lettres, and in criticism, his range was far more extensive than could have been expected from his years. His style approaches to that of Voltaire, and is often sententious and flippant, and the best excuse that can be offered for his writing in French, is, that his principal object relates to the literature of that country, with which he seems to court an alliance, and with which it is certain he was more familiar than with that of England. This essay accordingly was praised in the foreign journals, but attracted very little notice at home, and was soon forgotten. Of its merits he speaks in his Memoirs, with a mixture of praise and blame, but the former predominates, and with justice. Had the French language been then as common in the literary world as it is now, so extraordinary a production from a young man would have raised very high expectations.

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

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

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

Mr. Gibbon’s Vindication now appeared under the title of “A Vindication of somepassages in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Chapters of the History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. By the author,” 1779, 8vo. This was immediately followed by 1. “A short Appeal to the public. By the gentleman who is particularly addressed in the postscript of the Vindication,” 1779-1780, 8vo. 2. “A Reply to Mr. Gibbon’s Vindication; wherein the charges brought against him in the Examination are confirmed, and further instances given of his misrepresentation, inaccuracy, and plagiarism. By Henry Edward Davis, B. A. of Baliol college, Oxford,” 1780, 8vo. 3. “A Reply to Mr. Gibbon’s Vindication, &c. containing a review of the errors still retained in these chapters. By James Chelsum, D. D. &c.” 1785, 8vo.

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

“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.

Of these miscellanies, his journal, abstracts, and remarks, are the most important and curious in a literary point of view. They contain much valuable criticism, and exhibit such a plan of industry as perhaps few men have ever pursued with equal ardour. His labours approach to what we read of the indefatigable scholars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centurjes; and they may instruct scholars of all ages, and especially those who rely on the powers of genius only, that no station of permanent eminence can be reached without labour, and that the indolence and waste of time in which the sons of ardour and imagination, indulge, “will make knowledge useless, wit ridiculous, and genius contemptible.”

, an eminent composer of church music in the reign of James I. was born in 1583, and at the age of twenty-one was appointed organist of the chapel-royal. In 1622 he was honoured at Oxford with a doctor’s degree, in consequence of the strong recommendation of the learned Camden. Previously to this he had published “Madrigals of five parts for voices and viols,” London, 1612; but the most valuable of his works, which are still in constant use among the best productions of the kind, are his compositions for the church, consisting of services and anthems. Of the latter, the most celebrated is his “Hosanna.” He also composed the tunes to the hymns and songs of the church, translated by George Withers, as appears by the dedication to king James I. In 1625, being commanded, ex ojficio, to attend the solemnity of the marriage of his royal master Charles I. with the princess Henrietta of France, at Canterbury, for which occasion he had composed the music, he was seized with the small-pox, and dying on Whitsunday, in the same year, was “buried in that cathedral. His son, Dr. Christopher Gibbons, was also honoured with the notice of Charles I. and was of his chapel. At the restoration, besides being appointed principal organist of the chapel royal, private organist to his majesty, and organist of Westminster-abbey, he obtained his doctor’s degree in music at Oxford, in consequence of a letter written by his majesty Charles II. himself, in his behalf in 1664. His compositions, which were not numerous, seem never to have enjoyed a great degree of favour; and though some of them are preserved in the Museum collections, they have long ceased to be performed in our cathedrals. Orlando Gibbons had also two brothers, Edward and Ellis, the one organist of Bristol, and the other of Salisbury. Edward was a Cambridge bachelor of music, and incorporated at Oxford, 1592. Besides being organist of Bristol, he was priest-vicar, sub-chanter, ajid master of the choiristers in that cathedral. He was sworn a gentleman of the chapel, March 21, 1604, and was the master of Matthew Lock 1 In the” Triumphs of Oriana," there are two madrigals, the one in five, and the other in six parts, composed by Ellis Gibbons. Of Edward Gibbons, it is said, that in the time of the rebellion he assisted king Charles I. with the sum of one thousand pounds; for which instance of his loyalty, he was afterwards very severely treated by those in power, who deprived him of a considerable estate, and thrust him and three grand-children out of his house, though he was more than fourscore years of age.

, an eminent carver in wood, and a statuary, supposed to be of Dutch parents, was born in Spur-alley in the Strand. He lived afterwards in Bell-savage court, Ludgate-hill, where he carved a pot of flowers, which shook surprizingly with the motion of the coaches that passed by. There, is no instance, says lord Orford, of a man, before Gibbons, who gave to wood the loose and airy lightness of flowers, and chained together the various productions of the elements with a free disorder natural to each species. He lived afterwards at Deptford, where Mr. Evelyn, discovering his wonderful talents, recommended him to Charles II. who gave him a place in the board of works, and employed him in the chapel at Windsor. His carved work here is done in lime-tree, representing a great variety of pelicans, doves, palms, and other allusions to scripture history, with the star and garter, and other ornaments, finished with great perfection. At Windsor too, he carved the beautiful pedestal in marble, for the equestrian statue of the king in the principal court. The fruit, fish, implements of shipping, are all exquisite; the base of the figure at Charing-cross, and the statue of Charles II. in the Royal-exchange, were also his, and probably the brazen statue of James II. in the Privy-­garden, for there was no other artist of that time capable of it.

Gibbons made a magnificent tomb for Baptist Noel viscount Camden, in the church of Exton, in Rutlandshire; it cost 1000l. is twenty-two feet high, and fourteen wide. There are two figures of him and his lady, and bas-reliefs of their children. The same workman performed the wooden throne at Canterbury, which cost 70l. and was the donation of archbishop Tenison. The foliage in the choir of St. Paul’s is of his hand. At Burleigh is a noble profusion of his carving, in picture frames, chimney-pieces, and door-cases, and the last supper in alto-relievo, finely executed. At Chatsworth, where a like taste collected ornaments, by the most living eminent masters, are many by Gibbons, particularly in the chapel; in the great antichamber are several dead fowl over the chimney, finely executed, and over a closet-door, a pen not distinguishable from real feather. When Gibbons had finished his works in that palace, he presented the duke with a point cravat, a woodcock, and a medal with his own head, all preserved in a glass case in the gallery. In lord Orford’s collection is another point cravat by him, the art of which arrives even to deception, and Herodias with St. John’s head, alto-relievo, in ivory. In Thoresby’s collection was Elijah under the juniper-tree, supported by an angel, six inches long and four wide. At Houghton, two chimneys are adorned with his foliage. At Mr. Norton’s, at Southwich, in Hampshire, was a whole gallery embroidered in pannels by his hand but the most superb monument of his skill is a large chamber at Petworth, enriched frpm the ceiling, between the pictures, with festoons of flowers and dead game, &c. all in the highest perfection and preservation. Appendant to one is an antique vase, with a basrelief of the purest taste, and worthy the Grecian age of cameos. At the earl of Halifax’s, at Stanstead, is a chimney-piece, adorned with flowers, and two beautiful vases. The font in St. James’ church in white marble, was also the work of Gibbons. It is supported by the tree of life; fche serpent is offering the fruit to our first parents, who stand beneath; on one side, of the font is engraven the Baptist baptising our Saviour: on another, St. Philip baptising the Eunuch: and on the third, Noah’s ark, with the dove bringing the olive-branch, the type of peace, to mankind. The chancel, above the altar, is enriched with some beautiful foliage in wood, by the same great artist.

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.

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.

He was very sensible of his decay for some time before his death, in which he complained of a languor that hung about him. As, indeed, he had made free with his constitution by incredible industry, in a long course of study and business of various kinds; he had well nigh exhausted his spirits, and worn out a constitution which was naturally so vigorous, that life might, otherwise, have probably been protracted. He died, however, on September 6, 1748, with true Christian fortitude, an apparent sense of his approaching dissolution, and in perfect tranquillity of mind, during the intervals of his last fatal indisposition at Bath, after a very short continuance there. His lordship was married, and left several children of each sex, who were all handsomely provided for by him. In private life he possessed the social virtues in an eminent degree, and hi beneficence was very extensive. Of this one remarkable instance is recorded by Whiston. Dr. Crow had left him 2500l. which our prelate freely gave to Dr. Crow’s relations, who were in indigent circumstances. Recording this story does Whiston more credit than his foolish ravings against the bishop’s “gross ignorance” of what he calls “primitive Christianity.”

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.

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.

, a learned critic and civilian, was born at Buren in Guelderland in 1534. He studied at Louvain and at Paris, and was the first who erected the library of the German nation at Orleans. He took the degree of doctor of civil law there in 1567; and went thence to Italy in the retinue of the French ambassador. Afterwards he removed to Germany, where he taught the civil law with high repute, first at Strasburg, where he was likewise professor of philosophy; then in the university of Altdorf, and at last at Ingoldstadt. He forsook the protestant religion to embrace the Roman catholic. He was invited to the imperial court, and honoured with the office of counsellor to the emperor Rodolph. He died at Prague in 1609, if we believe some authors; but Thuanus, who is more to be depended on, places his death in 1604. He wrote notes and comments upon Aristotle’s “Politics and Ethics,” and on Homer and Lucretius; and published also several pieces relating to civil law.

As to his literary character, it is not without some stains. He has been accused of a notorious breach of trust, with regard to the Mss. of Fruterius. Fruterius had collected a quantity of critical observations; but died at Paris in 1566, a very young man, leaving them to Gifanius, to be published, who suppressed them as far as he was able; for which he is severely treated by Janus Douza in his satires and elsewhere. The fact is also mentioned by Thuanus. He was also charged with plagiarism by Lambin. Gifanius had inserted in his edition of Lucretius all the best notes of Lambin, without acknowledging to whom he was obliged; and with some contempt of Lambin, which Lambin, in a third edition of that author, resented with such abusive epithets as we are sorry to say are not unfrequent in the literary world. He calls him “audacem, arrogantem, impudentem, ingratum, petulantem, insidiosum, fallacem, inh'dum, nigrum.” Gifanius had also another quarrel with Seioppius, about a ms. of Syinmachus; which Scioppius, it is said, had taken away, and used without his knowledge.

, 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.

, a learned Italian, who flourished in the early part of the seventeenth century, was admitted to the degree of doctor by the Ambrosian college at Milan. He was author of a Latin translation of the “Commentary of the three Rabbins on the Proverbs of Solomon,” Milan, 1620, 4to; but his better known work is his “Thesaurus Linguae Arabicse, seu Lexicon ArabicoLatinum,” 1632, 4 vols. fol. As a recompence for the learning and industry which it exhibited, pope Urban VIII. nominated the author to an honourable post in a college at Rome; but he died in 1632, before he could enter upon its functions.

, a brave officer and navigator, was born in 1539, in Devonshire, of an ancient family, and though a second son, inherited a considerable fortune from his father. He was educated at Eton, and afterwards at Oxford, but is not mentioned by Wood, and probably did not remain long there. His destination was the law, for which purpose he was to have been sent to finish his studies in the Temple; but being introduced at court by his aunt, Mrs. Catherine Ashley, then in the queen’s service, he was encouraged to embrace a military life. Having distinguished himself in several expeditions, particularly in that to Newhaven, in 1563, he was sent over to Ireland to assist in suppressing a rebellion excited by James Fitzmorris; and for his signal services he was made commander in chief and governor of Munster, and knighted by the lord-deputy, sir Henry Sidney, on Jan. 1, 1570, and not by queen Elizabeth in 1577, as Prince asserts. He returned soon after to England, where he married a rich heiress. In 1572 he sailed with a squadron of nine ships, to reinforce colonel Morgan, who at that time meditated the recovery of Flushing; and when he came home he published in 1576, his “Discourse to prove a passage by the North-west to Cathaia, and the East Indies,” Lond. This treatise, which is a masterly performance, is preserved in Hakluyt’s Voyages. The style is superior to most writers of that age, and shows the author to have been a man of considerable reading. The celebrated Frobisher sailed the same year, probably in consequence of this publication. In 1578, sir Humphrey obtained from the queen a very ample patent, empowering him to discover and possess in North America any lands then unsettled. He accordingly sailed to Newfoundland, but soon returned to England without success; yet, in 1583, he embarked a second time with five ships, the largest of which put back on occasion of a contagious distemper on board. Gilbert landed at Newfoundland, Aug. 3, and two days after took possession of the harbour of St. John’s. By virtue of his patent he granted leases to several people; but though none of them remained there at that time, they settled afterwards in consequence of these leases, so that sir Humphrey deserves to be remembered as the real founder of our American possessions. His half-brother, sir Walter Raleigh, was a joint adventurer on this expedition, and upon sir Humphrey’s death took out a patent of the same nature, and sailed to Virginia. On the 20th August in the above year (1583), sir Humphrey put to sea again, on board of a small sloop, for the purpose of exploring the coast. After this he steered homeward in the midst of a tempestuous sea, and on the 9th of September, when his small bark was in the utmost danger of foundering, he was seen by the crew of the other ship sitting in the stern of the vessel, with a book in his hand, and was heard to cry out, “Courage, my lads! we are as sear heaven at sea as at land.” About midnight the bark was swallowed up by the ocean; the gallant knight and all his men perished with her. He was a man of quick parts, a brave soldier, a good mathematician, and of a very enterprizing genius. He was also remarkable for his eloquent and patriotic speeches both in the English and Irish parliaments. At the close of the work above-mentioned, he speaks of another treatise “On Navigation,” which he intended to publish, but which is probably lost.