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

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

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

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

Besides his principal work printed in his life-time, he left another treatise in ms. which coming into the hands of sir William Boswell, was from that copy printed at Amsterdam in 1651, 4to, under this title, “DC mundi nostro sublunari Philosophia nova.” As he was never married, he gave by his last will all his library, consisting of books, globes, instruments, &c. and a cabinet of minerals, to the college of physicians; and this part was punctually performed by his brothers, who inherited his estate, which must have been somewhat considerable. Wood observes, he was the chief person in hi parish at Colchester.

, the first practical writer on medicine whom this country produced, is placed by Bale (who calls him Gilbertus Legleus, and says he was physician to Hubert, archbishop of Canterbury,) in the reign of king John, about 1210; but Leland, without stating the grounds of his opinion, makes him more modern, and Dr. Freind thinks that he must have lived in the beginning of the reign of Edward 1.; “for he quotes Averrhoes,” Dr. Freind remarks, “who reached the close of the twelfth century; and whose works could not have been translated so early, and indeed were not translated till the middle, at least, of the thirteenth, as Bacon, a good voucher, informs” us: and the mention he makes of a book, * de Speculis,' which, without doubt, is that written by Bacon, and what he transcribes from Theodorick, concerning a leprosy, evidently shews that he lived low in this century, &c.“According to Leiand, he maintained a high character for his knowledge in philosophy and physic, which he had acquired by great study and much travelling; and he was very successful in his practice. His writings are principally compiled from those of the Arabian physicians, like the works of his contemporaries in other nations; sometimes, indeed, he transcribes whole chapters word for word, especially from Rhazes. He is represented as the first English physician who ventured to expose the absurd practices of the superstitious monks, who at that time engrossed much of the treatment of diseases, and is said to have contrasted with them the methods recommended by the ancients. The principal work of Gilbert, entitled” Compendium Medicinse tain morborum universalium quam particularium,“was corrected by Michael Capella, and printed at Lyons in 1510; and afterwards at Geneva, in 1608, under the title of” Laurea Anglicana, seu Compendium totius Medicinse.“His other treatises were,” De viribus Aquarum“”De Re Herbaria;“” Thesaurus Pauperum“and” De tuenda valetudine."

He died Jan. 12, 1723-4. His literary character is given in Boyer’s Political State, vol. XXVII. p. 102, as “a person of great literature, but a mean genius; who, having attempted several kinds of writing, never gained much reputation in any. Among other treatises he wrote the ‘ English Art of Poetry,’ which he had practised himself very unsuccessfully in his dramatic performances. He also wrote an English grammar; but what he seemed to build his chief hopes of fame upon was his Critical Commentary On the duke of Buckingham’s * Essay on Poetry,' which last piece was perused and highly approved by his grace.”

, son and successor to his father, the subject of the preceding article, was born in London, in 1597, and entered of Trinity college, Oxford, in 1612, on an exhibition from the Mercers’ company. When he had taken his master’s degree, he became usher under his father in St. Paul’s school, and under Thomas Farnaby, in his private school, but succeeded his father in 1635, and next year took the degree of D. D. He held the school only five years, being dismissed, as Knight thinks, for excessive severity. An allowance, however, was made to him of 25l. yearly, with which he set up a private school in Aldersgate-street, where he died in 1642, and was buried in the church of St. Botolph, Aldersgate. Wood speaks of his “unsettled and inconstant temper,” and of his “many changes, rambles, and some imprisonments,” but upon what account he does not inform us. Some light, however, is thrown upon the circumstance of imprisonments at least, in a late publication of Aubrey’s Lives. In his account of Chillingworth he says, “Dr. Gill, films doctorisGill, schoolmaster of Paules school, and Chillingworth, held weekely intelligence one with another for some years, wherein they used to nibble at state-matters. Dr. Gill, in one of his letters, calls king James and his sonne, the old foole and the young one, which letter Chillingworth communicated to W. Laud, A. B. Cant. The poore young Dr. Gill was seised, and a terrible storme pointed towards him, which by the eloquent intercession and advocation of Edward earle of Dorset, together with the teares of the poore old doctor, his father, and supplication on his knees to his majestic, was blowne over.” Most of his Latin poetry, in which he excelled, is published in a volume entitled “Poetici Conatus,” 1632, 12mo, but he has other pieces extant both in Latin and English, some of which are enumerated by Wood, who had seen others in manuscript. When usher of St. Paul’s school, he had the honour of having Milton under him, who was his favourite scholar. Three of Milton’s familiar Latin letters to him are extant, replete with the strongest testimonies of esteem and friendship. Milton also pays him high compliments on the excellence of his Latin poetry. He gave to the library of Trinity college the old folio edition of Spenser’s “Faerie Queene,” Brayton’s “Polyolbion,” by Selden; and Bourdelotius’s “Lucian,” all having poetical mottos from the classics in his own hand-writing, which shew his taste and track of reading; and in the “Lucian” are the arms of the Gills elegantly tricked with a pen, and coloured by him. He had two brothers, George and Nathaniel, who were both of the same college.

When he first came to settle in London, in 1719, he became intimately acquainted with Mr. John Skepp, author of“The Divine Energy,” and in 1751 new-modelled that work for a second edition. Skepp was an able Hebraist, and had formed a good collection of Hebrew and Rabbinical books, which Gill bought on his death in 1721, and bestowed many years in a careful study of them, reading the Targums, the Mishna, the Talmuds, the book of Zohar; and having collected a vast mass of useful observations, he employed them as illustrations for his Exposition of the Bible. Of this voluminous work> the New Testament appeared first in 3 vols. t'ol. 1746, 1747, and 1748. In this last year he received the degree of D. D. from the Marischal college, Aberdeen, professedly “on account of his learned defence of the true sense of the holy scriptures against deists and infidels.” This diploma was decreed to him in the handsomest manner, without his knowledge, and the fees were remitted. His Exposition of the Old Testament was published afterwards in various years, forming, along with the New, 9 vols. fol. which, becoming of late years in much demand, and the price being greatly raised, a new and very neat edition was published in 1810—12, in 10 vols. 4to, by Mr. Bagster, of the Strand. In 1767 Dr. Gill published a “Dissertation on the Antiquities of the Hebrew Language, Letters, Vowel-points, and Accents,” and in the same year collated the various passages of the Old Testament quoted in the Mishna, in the Talmuds, both Jerusalem and Babylonian, and in the Rabbath; and extracted the variations in them, from the modern printed text, which he sent to Dr. Kennicott, who politely acknowledges the obligation in his “State of his Collation,” published in 1767. In 1769 Dr. Gill published a “Body of doctrinal Divinity,” 2 vols. 4to, and in 1770 a “Body of practical Divinity.” This was the last of his numerous publications, in the preparation of which he liad spent many years of his long life. He died at his house at Camberwell, Oct. 14, 1771; his wife had been dead some years before, and his only surviving son died in 1804, aged seventy-seven. Dr. Gill’s private character was so excellent, that the admirers of his writings have said that “his learning and labours were exceeded only by the invariable sanctity of his life and conversation.” His extensive learning and reading cannot be called in question, but as a writer he is in general too copious and diffuse.

, a distinguished scholar and traveller, was born 1490, at Albi. After travelling over France, and into Italy, he spent some time, at his return, with George d'Armagnac, bishop of Rhodes, afterwards cardinal, who was his patron; and, at this prelate’s request, wrote his 16 books on the nature of animals, “De vi et natura Animalium,” Lyons, 1533, 4to, extracted from Ælian, Porphyry, Heliodorus, and Oppian to which he has added his own observations, and a book of the fish found at Marseilles. He dedicated this work to Francis I. and entreated him, in the dedication, to send some learned men into foreign countries, at his own expence. Francis approved this plan, and the author was sent to the Levant some time after but, receiving nothing from the king during his stay there, he was obliged, at the king’s death, 1547, to enlist himself in the service of Soliman II. for a maintenance. In 1550, however, he returned to France with M. d‘Aramont, ambassador from that kingdom to the Porte; he went afterwards to cardinal d’Armagnac at Rome, being entrusted with the affairs between France and the holy see, and died in that city in 1555. Besides his work above mentioned, he left “Elephanti descriptio,” 8vo; “De Bosphoro Thracio,” 24to; “De Topographia Constantinouoleos,” 24to; and in Banduri’s Imperium Orientate, editions of Demetrius of Constantinople in “Rei Accipitrariae Auctores,” 1612, 4toj of Tbeodpret’s “Commentary on the Twelve minor Prophets;” and of the “Hist, of Ferdinand, king of Arragon,” by Laurentius Valla.

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

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

Gilpin now embarked for Holland, whence he immediately went to Mechlin to visit his brother George, then a 2ealous papist, but afterwards a warm advocate for the reformation, and the translator from Dutch into English of that keen satire against popery, entitled “The Beehive of the Roman church.” He went afterwards to Louvain, where he resolved to settle for sometime, making occasional excursions to other placet. Loinrain was then one of the chief places for students in divinity. Some of the most eminent divines on both sides of the question resided there, and the most important topics of religion were discussed with gfeat freedom. Of such opportunities he soon began to avail himself, and the consequence was his imbibing juster notions of the doctrines of the reformation: he saw things in a clearer and stronger light, and felt a satisfaction in the change he Uad made, to whichhe had hitherto been n stranger. While thus pursuing his studies, he heard the important news from England of queen Mary’s accession to the crown, whose bigotry was well known, and in whom the signs of a persecuting spirit already appeared; and at the same time learned that his relation bishop Tonstal was released from the Tower, and reinstated in his bishopric. The first consequence of this last event was the offer of a living, which Mr. Gilpin declined in a long letter, the unaffected piety of which disarmed all resentment on the part of the bishop, and led him rather to admire a behaviour, in which the motives of conscience shewed themselves so superior to those of interest. After remaining two years in Flanders, to which his countrymen were daily flocking to escape the sanguinary laws of queen Mary, he took a journey to Paris, in order to print the bishop of Durham’s book on the Sacrament, with which that prelate had intrusted him. This work of Tonstal’s was written so much in a spirit of moderation respecting the extravagant popish doctrine of the Sacrament, that Gilpin was generally supposed to have corrupted it, which he refuted by shewing the bishop’s letter of thanks for his “care and fidelity” as an editor. While Mr. Gilpin staid at Paris, he lodged with Vascosan, the eminent printer, to whom he had been recommended by his friends in the Netherlands, and who shewed him great regard, introducing him to the most considerable men in that city. Here popery became quite his aversion; he saw more of its superstition and craft than he had yet seen; the former among the people, the latter among the priests, who scrupled not to avow how little truth was their concern. Here also he found his old acquaintance Mr. Neat, of New college, who was now become an inflexible bigot to popery, and resisted all Gilpin’s endeavours to reclaim him. This was the same Neal, who was afterwards chaplain to bishop Bonner, and distinguished himself by being sole voucher of the very improbable and silly story of the Nag’s head consecration.

Mr. Gilpin having spent three years abroad, was now fully satisfied in all his more considerable scruples. He wanted no further conviction of the bad tendency of popery: he saw the necessity of some reformation, and began to think every day more favourably of the present one. The doctrine of the corporal presence indeed he had not yet fully considered; but he looked upon it as a mystery, which it rather became him to acquiesce in than examine. The principal end of his going abroad being thus answered, he was desirous, of return ing iion:eb,ut ap the Marian persecution was still raging, his mends suggested that it was little less than madness to think of going to a place, from whence all of his sentiments were endeavouring to withdraw themselves. But it is most probable, that his purpose to return at this time was in pursuance of the bishop of Durham’s advice; who, rinding the infirmities of age increase upon him, and believing his nephew totally unqualified to advance himself in life, might be desirous of providing for him before l.is death; and hoped that his power, in that remote part of the kingdom, would be a sufficient protection for him against his enemies. It is, however, certain that he came into England during the heat of the persecution, and went immediately to the bishop, who was then in his diocese. Here this humane prelate kept himself withdrawn during most of that violent reign, to avoid having any hand in measures which he abhorred.

The bishop received him with great friendship, and within a very little time, gave him the archdeaconry of Durham, to which the rectory of Easington was annexed. Upon removing to this parish, he found it in great disorder, and set himself in earnest to reprove vice publicly and privately; and to explain the nature of true religion, with a freedom by no means suited to those dangerous times. In his office of archdeacon he endeavoured to reform the clergy, to discountenance pluralities, and to repress their private vices; and this he persisted in, notwithstanding the bishop hinted to him that more caution would be necessary in such times. It is, however, a little surprising that the bishop had not foreseen how much he must necessarily expose his nephew to the popish party, by placing him in such a station. He knew he could not temporize; and he must know, that without temporizing, he would soon be most obnoxious to those in power; with whose persecuting principles he was well acquainted. The consequence was as might have been expected; a clamour was raised against Mr. Gilpin as a heretic, and he was accused in form before the bishop of Durham, who, however, very artfully screened him at this time; but soon after, Mr. Gilpin finding the duties of his archdeaconry and rectory too nauch for his strength, and that they could not be divided, resigned both, and was for some time without any office in the church, except that of living with the bishop as one of his chaplains.

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

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

For many interesting and honourable anecdotes of the conduct of this extraordinary man we must refer to his life by his descendant the late rev. William Gilpin. The present article has reached its utmost length, but will not be useless it' it direct the attention of the reader to one of the most exemplary pieces of biography in our language. It remains only to notice, that after a life devoted to every virtue that can dignify the character of an ecclesiastic, he found himself in February 1583 so weak, from a fall, and the infirmities of age, as to be sensible that his end wag drawing near. He told his friends of his apprehensions, and spoke of his death with great composure. He was soon confined to his chamber; but retained his senses to the last. A few days before his death, he desired his friends, acquaintance, and dependents, &c. might be called into his chamber; and being raised in his bed, addressed himself to them on matters of eternal concern. He also sent for several persons, who had hitherto made no good use of his advice, and upon whom he imagined his dying words might have a better eftect, but his speech began to faulter before he had finished his exhortations. The remaining hours of his life he spent in prayer, and broken conversation with some select friends, mentioning often the consolations of the gospel, declaring they were the only true ones, and that nothing else could bring a man peace at the last. He died March 4, 15S3, in the sixtysixth year of his age.

Thus died Bernard Gilpin, who, for his exemplary piety, laborious virtue, and unbounded benevolence, deserves to have his name transmitted to posterity with respect and reverence, and who obtained, and most deservedly, among his contemporaries, the title of the Northern Apostle. By his unwearied application he had amassed a great stock of knowledge, and was indeed ignorant of no part of learning at that time in esteem. He had given more than common attention to the study of the dead languages, to history and divinity; he is said to have excelled in poetry, but he expended little time in the pursuit of any thing that was foreign to his profession. His temper was naturally warm, but, by degrees, he succeeded in obtaining an entire command of himself. His disposition was serious, yet, among his particular friends, he was cheerful and even facetious. His severity had no other object but himself: to others he was mild, candid, and indulgent. His “Sermon preached at the court at Greenwich, before K. Edward VI.” in 1552, is the only revised composition of Mr. Gilpin’s that has survived him. It is printed in his Life by bishop Carleton, 1636, 12mo, fourth edition; and in that more elaborate and elegant life by his descendant, first printed in 1753, 8vo.

, a late artist, and a descendant of the Apostle of the North, was born at Carlisle in 1733, from whence, after having acquired some relish for the art from his father, who was a captain in the army, he came to London, and was articled to a ship-painter. His first interesting works were composed of some market groups which struck his eye from his window. Soon after he went to Newmarket, being encouraged by the late William, duke of Cumberland, where he executed many compositions which might have vied with Hogarth in point of character. In the duke’s stud he acquired that knowledge of the horse, which he afterwards displayed with such superior spirit and beauty; and when we see with what felicity he applied it to the higher departments of the art, to historic compositions in the triuiph of Camillas, the election of Darius, the story of Phaeton, we must lament that such talents should have been drawn aside to the meaner employment of horse-portrait painting, which occupied too much of his valuable life.

, to whom the invention of the compass has been ascribed, was a Neapolitan, and born about the year 13OO. At that time the sovereigns of Naples were younger branches of the royal family of France; and, to mark the circumstance of this invention of the compass originating with a subject of Naples, Gioia distinguished the north with a fleur de lis, a, particularity which has been adopted by all nations, to whom the use of this instrument is known. Some have pretended that the ancients wer6 not ignorant of the power of the magnet; but it is certain 'that Pliny, who often speaks of the load-stone, knew nothing of its appropriate direction to the pole. Some authors also have conferred the honour of this important discovery on the Chinese, and it has by Dr. Wallis been ascribed to the English. However this may be, the territory of Principato, which is part of the kingdom of Naples, and in which place Gioia was born, bears a compass for its arms. If it be only an improvement of an invention, though but partially known, which may be imputed to Gioia, he is without dispute entitled to a distinguished place in the rank of those who have contributed to the benefit of society.

, a skilful mathematician, was born December 13, 1633, at Bitonto. He spent his youth in idleness and debauchery, and married a young woman without any fortune; and having killed one of his brothersin-law, who reproached him with his indolence and laziness, he entered as a soldier in a fleet fitted out by the pope against the Turks. The admiral, finding that he did not want genius, gave him a writer’s place which happened to be vacant; and Giordani, being obliged in consequence to learn arithmetic, eagerly studied that of Clavius, and acquired a taste for mathematics. Returning to Rome, in 1659, he was made keeper of the castle of St. Angelo, and devoted the leisure that office afforded him to mathematical studies, in which he made so rapid a progress, that queen Christina chose him for her mathematician during her stay at Rome; and Louis XIV, appointed him to teach mathematics in the academy of painting and sculpture which he had founded in that city, 1666. Giordani was made engineer to the castle of St. Angelo by pope Clement X., appointed mathematical professor at the college della Sapienza 1685, and admitted into the academy of the Arcadi, May 5, 1691. He died November 3, 1711. His principal works are, “Euclide restitute,” foiio; “De componendis gravium momentis,” folio; “Fundamentum doctrines motus gravium,” 1705, folio; “Ad Hyacinthum Christophorum Epistola,” 1705, folio.

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

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

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

Giotto is said to have been the inventor of Mosaic work, and of crucifixes. The former has been disproved in our Archasologia. The latter rests on a story which we hope has as little foundation. It is thus related: “Giotto, intending one day to draw a crucifix to the life, wheedled a poor man to suffer himself to be bound to a cross for an hour, at the end of which he was to be released, and receive a considerable reward for it; but instead of this, as soons he had fastened him, he stabbed him dead, and then fell to drawing when he had finished his picture, he carried it to the pope, who liked it so well, that he was resolved to place it over the altar of his own chapel: Giotto told him, as he liked the copy so well, he would show him the original. What do you mean, said the pope? Will you show me Jesus Christ on the cross in person? No, said Giotto, but I will show your holiness the original from whence I drew this, if you will absolve me from all punishment. The pope promised this, which Giotto believing, attended him to the place where it was: as soon as they were entered, he drew back a curtain, which hung before the dead man on the cross, and told him what he had done. The pope, troubled at so barbarous an action, repealed his promise, and told Giotto, that he should surely be put to an exemplary death. Giotto, with a seeming resignation, only begged leave to finish the piece before he died, which was granted him, and a guard set upon him to prevent his escape. As soon as the picture was delivered into his hands, he took a brush, and dipping it into a sort of stuff ready for that purpose, daubed the picture all over with it, so that nothing of the crucifix could be seen. This made his holiness stark mad, and he swore, that Giotto should he put to the most cruel death, unless he drew another equal to the former; if so, he would not only give him his life, but also an ample reward in money. Giotto, as he had reason, desired this under the pope’s signet, that he might not be in danger of a second repeal. This was granted to him; and taking a wet spunge, he wiped off all the varnish he had daubed on the picture, so that the crucifix appeared the same in all respects as it did before. Upon this, the pope remitted his punishment. And they say, that this crucifix is the original, from which the most famous crucifixes in Europe are drawn.”

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

His works consist of seventeen productions, which were first printed separately; but afterwards collected and published in 2 vols. folio, at Basil 15SO, and at Leyden 1696. The most valued pieces among them are, “Historia de Deis Gentium,” <( Historian Poetarum tarn Grajcorum, quam Latinorum Dialogi decem,“and,” Dialogi duo de Poetis nostrorum.“The first of these books is one of the last he composed, and full of profound erudition. The other two, which make up 'the history of the ancient and modern poets, are written with great exactness and judgment. Vossius speaks highly of this work, as the production of great judgment and learning, as well as industry, and observes, that though his professed design is to collect memoirs concerning their persons, characters, and writings in general, yet he has occasionally interspersed many things, regarding the art of poetry, which may be useful to those who intend to cultivate it. Joseph Scaliger, indeed, would persuade us, though not very consistently, that nothing can be more contemptible than the judgment be passes on the poets he treats of: for in another place he allows all the works of Giraldus to be very good, and that no man knew better how to temper learning with judgment. There is a work also by Giraldus,” De annis & mensibus, ciEterisque temporis partibus, una cum Kalendario Romano & Grocco,“written with a view to the reformation of the kalerular, which was afterwards effected by pope Gregory XIII. about 1582. There are likewise among his works a few poems, the principal of which is entitled,” Epistola in qua agitur de incommodis, quse in direptione Urbana passus est ubi item est quasi catalogus suorum, umicorurn Poetarum, & deileaiur interitus Herculis Carclinalis Rangonis.“This poem is annexed to the Florentine edition of th6 two dialogues concerning his contemporary poets; and contains a curious literary history of that time. To other praises bestowed upon Giraldus by authors of the first name, we may add that of Casaubon, who calls him,” vir solide doctus, & in scribendo accuratus,“a man solidly learned and an accurate writer. Thuanus says, that” he was excellently skilled in the Greek and Latin tongues, in polite literature, and in antiquity, which he has illustrated in several works; and that, though highly deserving a better fate, he struggled all his life with illhealth and ill-fortune." His books he bequeathed to his relatives John Baptist Giraldi and Pasetius.

His works are all written in Italian, except some orations, spoken upon extraordinary occasions, in Latin. They consist chiefly of tragedies: a collection of which was published at Venice 1583, in 8vo, by his son Celso Giraldi; who, in his dedication to the duke of Ferrara, takes occasion to observe, that he was the youngest of five sons, and the only one who survived his father. There are also some prose works of Giraldi: one particularly upon comedy, tragedy, and other kinds of poetry, which was printed at Venice by himself in 1554, 4to. Some make no scruple to rank him among the best tragic writers that Italy has produced; but perhaps the work by which he now is best known is his “Hecatommiti,” an hundred novels in the manner of Boccaccio, which have been frequently printed. There is a scarce volume of his poems printed at Ferrara in 1537, at the close of which is a treatise of Cielio Calcagnini, “De Imitatione,” addressed to Giraldi.

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

, advocate to the parliament of Paris, and to the council, and member of the French academy, was born at Paris in 1596. His abilities an 1 probity recommended him to some very honourable employments, and he particularly enjoyed the confidence of cardinal Mazarin. He was author of the following translations “Dialogues des Orateurs,” 4to. “l'Apologie de Socrate” “riiist. Sacree de Sulpice Severe;” “I'Apologetique de Tertullien,” for which he was received into the academy; “la Cite de Dieu, de St. Augustin,” I vol, 4to.; “Epitres Choisies de St. Augustin,” 5 vols. 12mo. He died in 1665, at Paris. His son, Francis, who was provincial of the Minim order, gained great reputation by some devotional works; but deserves little credit for his principal publication, “Les Vies des Saints,” fol. which although esteemed for its piety, is full of fables, and far from accurate as to facts. P. Raft'ron, of the same order, has written his life, 12mo.

, a German physician, was born in 1595, at Cologne, where his father was a surgeon. His first application to letters was at Bremen; whence he returned to Cologne, and devoted himself to philosophy, physic, and chirurgery. He studied four years under Peter Holtzem, who was the elector’s physician, and professor in this city; and he learned the practical part of surgery from his father. To perfect himself in these sciences, he went afterwards into Italy, and made some stay at Padua; where he greatly benefited himself by attending the lectures of Jerome Fabricius ab Aquapendente, Adrian Spigelius, and Sanctorins. He was here made M. D. After having visited the principal towns of Italy, he returned to his country in 1618, and settled at Bremen; where he practised physic and surgery with so much success, that the archbishop of this place made him his physician in 1628. He was also made physician of the republic of Bremen. The time of his death is not precisely known; some say 1640, but the dedication of his last work is dated Oct. 8, 1652. He published at Bremen, “ Speculum Chirurgorum,” in 1619, 8vo; reprinted in 1628, 4to; “Methodus Medendse Paronychia?,” in 1633; “Tractatus de Polypo Narium affectu gravissimo,” in 1628; and “Gazophylacium Polypusium Fonticulorum & Setonum Reseratum,” in 1633. These four pieces were collected and published, with emendations, tinder the title of his Works, at London, in 1729, 4to, with his life prefixed, and some curious tracts on Roman antiquities. It must needs suggest an high opinion of this young physician, that though he died a young man, yet his works should be thought worthy of a republication 100 years after; when such prodigious improvements have been made in philosophy, physic, and sciences of all kinds, of which he had not the benefit.

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

, a distinguished writer, was born in 1636, at Plymouth in Devonshire, where he probably received the first rudiments of his education, and was entered at Exeter-college, Oxford, April 19, 1652. He was placed under Samuel Conant, an eminent tutor, and having made great proficiency in his studies, he proceeded B. A. Oct. II, 1655. The following year, he removed to Lincoln-college, probably upon some view of preferment. Taking the degree of M. A. June 29, 1658, he assumed the priestly office, according to the forms used by the sectaries at that time, and became chaplain to Francis Rouse, esq. then made provost of Eton-college, by Oliver Cromwell, and designed for one of his house of lords. Had tin* patron lived a little longer, Glanvil’s expectations would, no doubt, have been fully answered; since according to Wood, he entirely complied with the principles of the then prevailing party, to whom his very prompt pen must needs have been serviceable. But Rouse dying the same year, he returned to his college in Oxford, and pursued his studies there during the subsequent distractions in the state. About this time, he became acquainted with Mr. Richard Baxter, who entertained a great opinion of his genius, and continued his respect for him after the restoration; when they espoused different causes. The friendship was equally warm on Glanvil’s side, who, Sept. 15, 1661, addressed an epistle to his friend, professing himself to be an admirer of his preaching and writings; he v also offered to write something in his defence, but yielded to his advice, not to sacrifice his views of preferment to their friendship.

This affair also involved Glanvil in a scurrilous dispute with Henry Stubbe, who was then, as Wood observes, a summer practitioner at Bath; and bearing no good-will to the proceedings of Glanvil, took Crosse’s part, and encouraged him to write against the virtuosi, and at the time entered the lists himself and the follpwing pamphlets passed between them. I. “The Plus Ultra reduced to a Nonplus,” &c. 1670, 4to, Stubbe. 2. “A prefatory Anwer to Mr. HenryStubbe, the doctor of Warwick, wherein the malignity, &c. of his Animadversions are discovered. 1 * 1671, 12mo, Glanvil. 3.” A Preface against Ecebolius Glanvil, F. R.S. subjoined to his Reply, &c. Oxford,“167 I, 4to, Stubbe. The doctor also fell upon his antagonist, in his” Epistolary Discourse concerning Phlebotomy,“167 t, 4to; upon which Glanvil immediately published” A farther Discovery of Mr. Stnbbe, in a brief reply to his last pamphlet,“1671, 8vo, to which was added,” Ad clerum Somersetensem Epistola Προσφωνησισ.“And the doctor among other things, having censured the new philosophy, as tending to encourage atheism our author published his” Philosophia Pia,“&c. 1671, 8vo, which closed the controversy. When, however, Dr. Meric Casaubon entered the lists in his” Letter to Peter du Moulin," 1663, and managed the argument with more candour and greater knowledge, Glanvil chose to be silent; because not willing to appear in a controversy with a person, as he says, of fame and learning, who had treated him with so much civility, and in a way so different from that of his other assailants. While he was thus pleading the cause of the institution in general, he shewed himself no unuseful member in respect to the particular business of it. The society having given out some queries to be made about mines, our author communicated a paper in relation to those of Mendip hills, and such as respect the Bath, which was well received, ordered to be registered, and afterwards printed in their transactions.

He published a great number of tracts besides what have been mentioned. Among which are, 1. “A Blow at Modern Sadducism,” &c. 1668, to which was added, 2. “A Relation of the fancied Disturbances at the house of Mr. Mumpesson;” as also, 3. “Reflections on Drollery and Atheism.” 4. “Palpable Evidence of Spirits and Witchcraft,” &c. 1668. 5. “A Whip for the Droll Fidler to the Atheist,” 1668. 6. “Essays on several important subjects in Philosophy and Religion,” 1676, 4to. 7. “An Essuy concerning Preaching,” 1678, 8Vo, to which was added, 8. “A seasonable Defence of Preaching, -and the plain way of it.” 9. “Letters to the Duchess of Newcastle.” 10. Three single Sermons, besides four printed together, under the title of “Seasonable Reflections and Discourses, in order to the Conviction and Cure of the scoffing Infidelity of a degenerate age.” As he had a lively imagination, and a flowing style, these came from him very easily, and he continued the exercise of his pen to the last; the press having scarcely finished his piece entitled “The zealous and impartial Protestant,” &c. 1680, when he was attacked by a fever, which baffling the physician’s skill, cut him off in the vigour of his age. He died at Bath, Nov. 4th, 1680, about the age of forty-four. Mr. Joseph Pleydel, archdeacon of Chichester, preached his funeral sermon, when his corpse was interred in his own parish church, where a decent monument and inscription was afterwards dedicated to his memory by Margaret his widow, sprung from the Selwins of Gloucestershire. She was his second wife; but he had no issue by either. Soon after his decease, several of his sermons, and other pieces, were collected and published with the title of “Some Discourses, Sermons, and Remains,” 1681, 4to, by Dr. Henry Horneck, who tells us that death snatched him away, when the learned world expected some of his greatest attempts and enterprizes. Horneck gave a large, and apparently very just character of Glanvil, who was unquestionably a man of learning and genius, and although he retained the belief in witchcraft, surmounted many of the other prejudices of his time.

, son of the above, was born at Dundee, in 1725, and brought up a surgeon, in which capacity he went several voyages to the West Indies, but not liking his profession, he accepted the command of a merchant’s ship belonging to London, and engaged in the trade to the Brazils. Being a man of considerable abilities, he published in 1 vtol. 4to, “A Decription of Teneriffe, with the Manners and Customs of the Portuguese who are settled there.” In 1763 he went over to the Brazils, taking along with him his wife and daughter; and in 1765 set sail for London, bringing along with him all his property; but just when the ship came within sight of the coast of Ireland, four of the seamen entered into a conspiracy, murdered captain Glass, his wife, daughter, the mate, one seaman, and two boys. These miscreants, having loaded their boat with dollars, sunk the ship, and landed at Ross, whence they proceeded to Dublin, where they were apprehended and executed Oct. 1764.

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

Wood observes, that he died much lamented, as a person to whose learned lucubrations and deep disquisitions in physic not only Great Britain, but remoter kindoms, owe a particular respect and veneration, and it is certain that he was exceeded in judgment and accuracy by none of the English anatomists, who followed the steps of Harvey. Boerhaave terms him “omnium anatomicorum exactissimus,” and Haller speaks in praise of all his writings. Several of his original manuscripts, which were in sir Hans Sloane’s possession, are now in the British Museum.

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

In 1744, he was offered employment of a very different kind, being nominated in the will of the duchess of Marlborough, to write the duke’s life, in conjunction with Mallet. Her grace bequeathed 500l. to each on this condition, but Glover immediately renounced his share, while Mallet, who had no scruples of any kind where his interest was concerned, accepted the legacy, and continued to receive money from the late duke of Maryborough on the same account, although after twenty years of talk and boast, he left nothing behind him that could shew he had ever seriously begun the work. Glover’s rejection of this legacy is the more honourable, as at this time his affairs became embarrassed; from what cause we are not told. It may be conjectured, however, that he had shared the usual fate of those who are diverted from their regular pursuits by the dreams of political patronage. From the prince he is said to have received at one time a complete set of the classics, elegantly bound, and at another time, during his distresses, a present of 500l. But it does not appear that when the friends of “Leonidas” came into power, they made any permanent provision for the author.

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

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

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

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

, a herald and heraldic writer, was the son of Thomas Glover, of Ashford in Kent, the place of his nativity. He was first made Portcullis Poursuivant, and afterwards in 1571, Somerset herald. Queen Elizabeth permitted him to travel abroad for improvement. In 1582, he attended lord Willoughby with the order of the garter, to Frederick II. of Denmark. In 1584, he waited with Clarenceux on the earl of Derby, with that order to the king of France. No one was a greater ornament to the college than this gentleman; the suavity of his manners was equal to his integrity and skill: he was a most excellent, and very learned man, with a knowledge in his profession which has never been exceeded, perhaps been paralleled; to this, the best writers of his own and more recent time* bear testimony. He left two treatises, one “I)e Nobilitate politica vel civili” the other “A Catalogue of Honour” both of which were published by his nephew, Mr. Thomas Milles, the former in 1608, the latter in 1610, both folio, to “revive the name and learned memory of his deceased friend and uncle, whose private studies for the public good deserved a remembrance beyond forgetful time.” His answer to the bishop of Ross’s book, in which Mary queen of Scots’ claim to the crown was asserted, was never published. He made great collections of what had been written by preceding heralds, and left of his own labours relative to arms, visitations of twenty-four counties, and miscellaneous matters belonging to this science, all written by himself. He assisted Camden in his pedigrees for his Britannia; communicated to Dr. David Powell, a copy of the history of Cambria, translated by H. Lloyd; made a collection of the inscriptions upon the funeral monuments in Kent; and, in 1584, drew up a most curious survey of Herewood castle, in Yorkshire. Mr. Thoresby had his collection of the county of York taken in 1584, and his catalogue of northern gentry whose surnames ended in son. He died in London, says Stow, April 14, (Lant and others, 10), 1588, aged only forty-five years, and was buried in St. Giles’s church, Cripplegate. His loss was severely felt by all our lovers of English antiquities. His “Ordinary of Arms” was augmented and improved by Edmondson, who published it in the first volume of his Body of Heraldry.

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

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

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

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

, a learned philologist, was born in 1485, in Westphalia. He acquired a high reputation for learning, and taught for a considerable time at the college of Bois-le-Duc in Louvain, where he died Jan. 25, 1539. Erasmus, who was his intimate friend, highly valued his character, and respected his erudition. He wrote notes on Cicero’s Offices, edited a new edition of Lucan, and published a Latin translation of Lucian’s “Hermotinus,” a dialogue on the sects of philosophers.

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

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

His memory was long preserved by certain drops, which were his invention, and bore his name; but which, like all such nostrums, are now forgotten. His receipts “Arcana Goddardiana,” were published at the end of the “Pharmacopoeia Bateana,” 1691. He had several learned treatises dedicated to him as a patron of learning, made by persons well acquainted with him, such as Dr. Edmund Dickinson and Dr. Wallis, who highly praise his extensive learning, his skill in his profession, knowledge of public affairs, and generous disposition, his candour, affability, and benevolence to all good and learned men. Of this last there is one instance worth preserving; and that is, his taking into his apartment, at Gresham, Dr. Worthington, who lodged with him for the conveniency of preparing for the press the works of Mr. Joseph Mede, which he finished and published in 1664. According to Dr. Seth Ward, bishop of Salisbury, he was the first Englishman who made that noble astronomical instrument the telescope.

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

He was a very voluminous author, both in prose and verse. Moreri, after giving a list of fifty works, adds many fugitive pieces of devotional poetry. One of his principal works is his “Ecclesiastical History,” intended to be comprized in 3 vols fol. The first appeared in 1653, containing the “History of the first eight centuries;” but as he did not finish the other two, they remained in manuscript. He was, however, the first person who gave a “Church History” in the French language. He was the author also of a “Translation of the Psalms into French verse,” which were so well approved, that those of the reformed religion have not scrupled to use them at home in their families, instead of the version of Marot, which is adapted and consecrated to the public service. Of this work Basil Kennet has given a criticism in the preface to “An Essay towards a Paraphrase on the Psalms,” 1709, 8vo. The Jesuit, Vavassor, wrote a piece on purpose to prove that our author had no true taste for poetry; and Boileau remarks several defects in his poetical performances.

, an eminent lawyer, and one of the most learned men of his age, was born October 17, 1549, at Paris. He was the son of Leon Godefroi, counsellor to the Chatelet. He had acquired a great reputation in the parliament, but embracing the reformed religion, was obliged to retire to Geneva, and taught law both there and in some German universities. In 1618 he was sent by the elector palatine to Louis XIII. who, among other marks of favour, presented him with his picture, and a gold medal. But being again obliged to quit the palatinate, during war, he went to Strasburgh, where he died September 7, 1622, leaving a great number of valuable works; the principal of which are, 1. “Notae in quatuor Libros institutionum.” 2. “Opuscula varia juris.” 3. “Corpus juris civilis, cum notis.” These notes are excellent: the best editions are those by Vitré, 1628, and by Elzevir, 1683, 2 vols. fol. 4. “Praxis civilis, ex antiquis et recentioribus scriptoribus.” 5. “Index Chronologicus legum et novellarum a Justiniano imperatore compositarum.” 6. “Consuetudines Civitatum et Provinciarum Galliae, cum notis,” fol. 7. “Quaestiones politico ex jure communi in Historia desumptae.” 8. “Dissertatio de nobilitate.” 9. “Statuta regni Gallise cum jure communi collata,” fol. 10. “Synopsis statutorum municipalium,” an edition, Greek and Latin, of the “Promptuarium juris” of Harmenopules. “Conjectures,” and several “Lectures upon Seneca,” with a defence of these Conjectures, which had been attacked by Gruter. “A Collection of the ancient Latin Grammarians,” &c. The following works are also ascribed to Denis Godefroi “Avis pour reduire les Monnoies a leur juste Prix et Valeur,” 8vo. “Maintenue et Defense des Empereurs, Rois, Princes, Etats, et Republiques; centre les Censures Monitoires, et Excommunications des Papes,” 4to. “Fragmenta duodecim Tabularum suis nunc primum Tabulis restituta,” 1616, 4to. His “Opuscula” have been collected and printed in Holland, fol.

, son of Theodore, was born August 24, 1615, at Paris. He made use of his father’s Memoirs, and like him studied the History of France. Louis XIV. appointed him keeper and director of the chamber of accounts at Lisle, in which city he died June 9, 1681. He published “Le Ceremonial de France,” written by his father and the History of Charles VI. and Charles VII. printed at the Louvre, each in 1 vol. folio that of the Crown Officers, from the time at which that of John le Feron ends; “Memoires et Instructions pour servir dans les Negociations et les Affaires concernant les Droits du Roi,” 1665, fol. which had been attributed to chancellor Seguier, &c. 2 He left several children who were eminent among them.

, director of the chambre des comptes at Lisle, was another son of the second Denys, who published in 1706 an elegant edition of the “Memoires de Philippe de Commines;” and in 1711 a new edition of the “Satyre Menipee.” He also left the “Journal de Henri III.” with notes, and some new pieces, 2 vols. 8vo; a very curious book against that by Pere Guyard, a Jacobin, entitled “La Fatalite” de St. Cloud;“' Mem. de la Reine Marguerite,” 8vo, &c. No author has given so clear an account of the league, nor published so many curious pieces respecting the parties engaged in it. He died in February, 1732.

, earl of Godolphin, and lord high treasurer of England, descended from a very ancient family in Cornwall, was the third son of Francis Godolphin, K. B. by Dorothy, second daughter of sir Henry Berkley, of Yarlington in Somersetshire. He had great natural abilities, was liberally educated, and inheriting the unshaken loyalty of his family, entered early into the service of Charles II. who after his restoration made him one of the grooms of his bed-chamber. In 1663, when attending his majesty to the university of Oxford, he had the degree of M. A. conferred upon him. In 1678, he was twice sent envoy to Holland, upon affairs of the greatest importance; and the next year was made one of the commissioners of the treasury, which trust he discharged with integrity, and being considered as a man of great abilities, was sworn of the privy council. In 1680 he openly declared for the bill of exclusion of the duke of York; and in the debate in council, whether the duke should return to Scotland before the parliament met, he joined in the advice for his going away; and though the rest of the council were of the contrary opinion, yet the king acquiesced in his and lord Sunderland’s reasons. In April 1664 he was appointed one of the secretaries of state, which he soon resigned for the office of first commissioner of the treasury, and was created baron Godolphin of Rialton in Cornwall. He had hitherto sat in the house of commons as representative for Helston and for St. Mawe’s.

On the accession of James II. he was appointed lord chamberlain to the queen, and on the removal of the earl of Rochester, was again made one of the commissioners of the treasury. On the landing of the prince of Orange, he was one of the commissioners sent by king James to treat with that prince, which employment he discharged with great address and prudence. In the debate concerning the vacancy of the throne, after the abdication of king James, his lordship, out of a regard to the succession, voted for a regency; yet when king William was advanced to the throne, his majesty appointed him one of the lords commissioners of the treasury, and a privy-councillor, and in 1690 he was appointed first lord of the treasury. In 1695, he was one of the seven lords justices for the administration of the government, during the king’s absence, as he was likewise the year following, and again in 1701, when he was restored to the place of first commissioner of the treasury, from which he had been removed in 1697. On the accession of queen Anne, he was constituted lord high treasurer, which post he had long refused to accept, till the earl of Marlboro ugh pressed him in so positive a manner, that he declared, he could not go to the continent to command the armies, unless the treasury was put into his hands; for then he was sure that remittances would be punctually made to him. Under his lordship’s administration of this high office, the public credit was raised, the war carried on with success, and the nation satisfied with his prudent management. He omitted nothing that could engage theteubject to bear the burthen of the war with chearfulness; and it was owing to his advice, that the queen contributed one hundred thousand pounds out of her civil list towards it. He was also one of those faithful and able counsellors, who advised her majesty to declare in council against the selling of offices and places in her household and family, as highly dishonourable to herself, prejudicial to her service, and a discouragement to virtue and true merit, which alone ought and should recommend persons to her royal approbation. And so true a friend was his lordship to the established church, that considering how meanly great numbers of the clergy were provided for, he prevailed upon her majesty to settle her revenue of the first-fruits and tenths for the augmentation of the small vicarages. In July 1704 he was made knight of the garter; and in December 1706, advanced to the dignity of earl of Godolphin and viscount Rialton. But notwithstanding all his great services to the public, on the 8th of August 1710, he was removed from his post of lord high treasurer.

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

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

In 1785, a Mrs. Skeggs, with whom she had contracted an ardent friendship, and who resided at Lisbon, being pregnant, Miss Woollstonecraft, shocked with the idea hat she might die in childbed at a distance from her fri( ds, passed over to Lisbon to attend her, leaving the school under the management of her sisters; an exertion of friendship the more entitled to praise that it proved hurtful to her school, which oon after her return she was compelled to abandon. Perhaps, however, this was not wholly a matter of compulsion, for we are told that “she had a rooted aversion to that sort of cohabitation with her sisters, which the project of the school imposed.” She now appears to have meditated literary employment as a source of profit, and exhibited a specimen of her talents in a l'2mo pamphlet, entitled “Thoughts on the Education of Daughters,” for the copy-right of which she obtained the sum of ten guineas from the late Mr. Johnson, bookseller, of St. Paul’s church-yard, who afterwards proved one of her most liberal patrons. After this she was employed for some months, as a governess, in the family o an Irish nobleman, at the end of which she returned again to literary pursuits, and from 1787, when she came to reside in London, produced “Mary, a Fiction,” “Original Stories from real life,” made some translations from the French, and compiled “The Female Reader,” on the model of Dr. Enfield’s “Speaker.” She wrote also some articles in the “Analytical Review,” which was established by her publisher, in 1788.

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

Besides the works already noticed, she published “A moral and historical view of the French Revolution,” of which one volume only was published, and “Letters from Norway.” The latter contains much elegant description and just remark. The former could be noticed only at the time of its publication. The gay illusions of the French revolution soon disappeared. After her death some miscellanies, letters, and an unfinished novel, were published by her husband, in 4 vols. 12mo, with a Life of the authoress. Much of both had better been suppressed, as ill calculated to excite sympathy for one who seems to have rioted in sentiments alike repugnant to religion, sense, and decency.

, an English prelate, was born in 1517 at Oakingham in Berkshire; and being put to the grammar-school there, quickly made such a progress as discovered him to be endowed with excellent parts. But his parents being low in circumstances, he must have lost the advantage of improving them by a suitable education, had they not been noticed by Dr. Richard Layton, archdeacon of Bucks, a zealous promoter of the reformation, who, taking him into his house, and instructinghim in classical learning, sent him to Oxford, where he was entered of Magdalen college about 1538. Not long after, he lost his worthy patron; but his merit, now become conspicuous in the university, had procured him other friends; so that he was enabled to take the degree of B. A. July 12, 1543. The same merit released his friends from any farther expence, by obtaining him, the year ensuing, a fellowship of his college; and he proceeded M. A. in 1547. But he did not long enjoy the fruits of his merit in a college life; his patron, the archdeacon, had taken care to breed up Godwin in the principles of the reformation, and this irritating some popish members of the college, they made his situation so uneasy, that, the free-school at Brackley in Northamptonshire becoming vacant in 1549, and being in the gift of the college, he resigned his fellowship, and accepted it. In this station, he married the daughter of Nicholas Purefoy, of Shalston, in the county of Bucks, and lived without any new disturbance as long as Edward VI. was at the helm: but, upon the accession of Mary, his religion exposed him to a fresh persecution, and he was obliged to quit his school. In this exigence, although the church was his original intention, and he had read much with that view, yet now it became more safe to apply to the study of physic; and being admitted to his bachelor’s degree in that faculty, at Oxford, July 1555, he practised in it for a support till Elizabeth succeeded to the throne, when he resolved to enter into the church. In this he was encouraged by Bullingham, bishop of Lincoln, who gave him orders, and made him his chaplain; his lordship also introduced him to the queen, and obtained him the favour of preaching before her majesty; who was so much pleased with the propriety of his manner, and the grave turn of his oratory, that she appointed him one of her Lentpreachers. He had discharged this duty by an annual appointment, with much satisfaction to her majesty, for a series of eighteen years. In 1565, on the deprivation of Sampson, he was made dean of Christ church, Oxford, and had also the prebend of Milton-ecclesia in the church of Lincoln conferred on him by his patron bishop Bullingham. This year also he took his degrees of B. and D. D. at Oxford. In 1566, he was promoted to' the deanery of Canterbury, being the second dean of that church: and queen Elizabeth making a visit to Oxford the same year, he attended her majesty, and among others kept an exercise in divinity against Dr. Lawrence Humphries, the professor; in which the famous Dr. Jewel, bishop of Salisbury, was moderator. In June following he was appointed by archbishop Parker, one of his commissioners to visit the diocese of Norwich; and that primate having established a benefaction for a sermon on Rogation Sunday at Thetford in Norfolk and other places, the dean, while engaged in this commission, preached the first sermon of that foundation, on Sunday morning July 20, 1567, in the Green-yard adjoining to the bishop’s palace at Norwich. In 1573 he quitted his prebend of Milton-ecclesia, on being presented by Cooper, then bishop of Lincoln, to that of Leighton-Bosard, the endowment of which is considered the best in the church of Lincoln. In 1576 he was one of the ecclesiastical commissioners, empowered by the queen to take cognizance of all offences against the peace and good order of the church, and to frame such statutes as might conduce to its prosperity.

The see of Bath and Wells had in 1584 been vacant since the death of Dr. Gilbert Berkley in Nov. 1581. To this bishopric the queen now nominated dean Godwin, who accordingly was consecrated Sept. 13, 1584. He immediately resigned the deanery of Canterbury; and as he arrived at the episcopal dignity “as well qualified,” says his contemporary, sir John Harrington, “for a bishop as might be, umeproveable, without simony, given to good hospitality, quiet, kind, and affable,” it is to be lamented that he was unjustly opposed in the enjoyment of what he deserved. At the time of his promotion there prevailed among the courtiers no small dislike to the bishops; prompted by a desire to spoil them of their revenues. To cover their unjust proceedings, they did not want plausible pretences, the effects of which Godwin too severely experienced. He was a widower, drawing towards seventy, and much enfeebled by the gout, when he came to the see; but in order to the management of his family, and that he might devote his whole time to the discharge of his high office, he married a second wife, a widow, of years suitable to his own. An illiberal misrepresentation, however, of this affair was but too readily believed by the queen, who had a rooted aversion to the marriages of the clergy, and the crafty slanderers gratified their aim in the disgrace of the aged prelate, and in obtaining part of his property. This unfortunate affair, which affected his public character as well as his private happiness, contributed not a little to increase his infirmities. He continued, however, attentive to the duties of his function, and frequently gave proof that neither his diligence nor his observation were inconsiderable. During the two last years of his life, his health more rapidly declined, and he was also attacked with a quartan ague. He was now recommended by his physicians to try the benefit of his native air. Accordingly he came to Oakingham with this intention, but breathed his last there, Nov. 19, 1590. He was buried in the chancel of Oakingham church, where is a modest inscription to his memory, written by his son, the subject of the next article.

He became B. D. in 1593, and D. D. in 1595; in which year, resigning the vicarage of Weston, he was appointed rector of Bishop’s Liddiard, in the, same county. He still continued assiduous in pursuing ecclesiastical biography; and, having made an handsome addition to his former collections, published the whole in 1601, 4to, tinder the title, “A Catalogue of the Bishops of England, since the first planting of the Christian religion in this island; together with a brief history of their lives and memorable actions, so near as can be gathered of antiquity.” It appears, by the dedication to lord Buckhurst, that our author was at this time chaplain to this nobleman, who, being in high credit with queen Elizabeth, immediately procured him the bishopric of Llandaff. This was said to be a royal reward for his Catalogue, and this success of it encouraged him to proceed. The design was so much approved, that afterwards he found a patron in James I.; and sir John Harrington, a favourite of prince Henry, wrote a treatise by way of supplement to it, for that prince’s use. This was drawn purely for that purpose, without any intention to publish it; but it appeared afterwards with the title of “A brief view of the state of the Church of England.” It is carried on only to the year 1608 (when it was written) from the close of our author’s works. Our author therefore devoted all the time he could spare from the duties of his function towards completing and perfecting this Catalogue; and published another edition in 1615, with great additions and alterations. But, this being very erroneously printed, by reason of his distance from the press, he resolved to turn that misfortune into an advantage and accordingly sent it abroad the year after, in a new elegant Latin dress partly for the use of foreigners, but more perhaps to please the king, to whom it was dedicated, and who in return gave him the bishopric of Hereford, to which he was translated in 1617. His work has since been reprinted, with a continuation to the time of publication, 1743, by Dr. Richardson, in an elegant folio volume, with a fine portrait of Godwin, and other embellishments.

In 1616 he published in Latin, “Rerum Anglicarum Henrico VIII. &c.” which was translated and published by his son, Morgan Godwin, under the title of “Annales of England, containing the reigns of Henry VIII. Edward VI. and queen Mary,” fol. These, as well as his lives of the bishops, are written in elegant Latin, and with much impartiality. In 1630, he published a small treatise, entitled “A computation of the value of the Roman Sesterce and Attic Talent.” After this he fell into a low and languishing disorder, and died in April 1633. He married, when a young man, the daughter of Wollton, bishop of Exeter, by whom he had many children. He appears to have been a man of great learning and personal worth, and a zealous champion for the church of England. His son, Dr. Morgan Godwin, was archdeacon of Shropshire, and translated, as we have noticed, his father’s “Annales.” He was ejected by the parliamentary commissioners, and his family reduced to distress: he died in 1645, leaving a son of his own names, who was educated at Oxford, and afterwards became a minister in Virginia, under the government of sir William Berkeley, but was at last beneficed near London. When he died is not mentioned. He wrote some pamphlets, while in Virginia, on the state of religion there, and the education of the negroes. The late rev. Charles Godwin, an antiquary, and benefactor to Baliol college, Oxford, who died in 1770, appears to have been a son of Charles Godwin, of Mon mouth, another son of bishop Francis Godwin.

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

, an eminent and learned bookseller, was born Dec. 11, 1635, at Middleburg. Losing Jhis father early in life, he was so unfortunate as to have a harsh father-in-law, who, being no scholar himself, would not permit the young man to devote his time to study, but forced him to choose some business. Goere'e fixed on that of a bookseller, as one which would not wholly exclude him from the conversation of the learned, nor from the pursuit of his studies; and he accordingly found time enough, notwithstanding his necessary occupations, to cultivate his genius, and even to write several valuable books, in Flemish, on architecture, sculpture, painting, engraving, botany, physic, and antiquities. He died May 3, 1711, at Amsterdam. His principal works are, “Jewish Antiquities,” 2 vols. fol. “History of the Jewish Church, taken from the Writings of Moses,” 4 vols. fol. “Sacred and Prophane History,” 4to “Introduction to the practice of universal Painting,” 8yo “Of the Knowledge of Man with respect to his Nature, and Painting,” 8vo “Universal Architecture,” &c.

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

, a divine and dramatic writer, was born in Essex, about 1592, and was educated at Westminster-school, from which, at the age of eighteen, he entered as a student of Christ Church college, Oxford. Here he completed his studies, and, by dint of application and industry, became a very able scholar, obtained the character of a good poet, and, being endowed with the powers of oratory, was, after his taking orders, esteemed an excellent preacher. He had the degree of B. D. conferred on him before he quitted the university, and, in 1623, was preferred to the living of East Clandon, in Surrey. Here, notwithstanding that he had long been a professed enemy to the female sex, and even by some esteemed a woman-hater, he unfortunately tied himself to a wife, the widow of his predecessor, who was aXantippe, and he being naturally of a mild disposition, became at last unable to cope with so turbulent a spirit, backed as she. was by the children she had by her former husband. It was believed by many, that the uneasiness he met with in domestic life shortened his days. He died in July 1629, being then only thirty -five years of age, and was buried on the 27th of the same month *at his own parish church. He wrote several pieces on different subjects, among which are five tragedies; none of which were published till some years after his death. Philips and Winstanley have ascribed a comedy to this author, called “Cupid’s Whirligig;” but with no appearance of probability; since the gravity of his temper was such, that he does not seem to have been capable of a performance so ludicrous. In the latter part of his life he forsook the stage for the pulpit, and wrote sermons, some of which appeared the year he died. With the quaintness common to the sermons of James Ist’s time, they have a portion of fancy and vivacity peculiar to himself. To these works may be added, his “Latin Oration at the Funeral of sir Henry Savile,” spoken and printed at Oxford in 1622; another in Christ Church cathedral, at the funeral of Dr. Godwin, canon of that church, printed in London, 1627.

, an ingenious French writer, was born at Paris in 1716, where his father was an advocate, and himself became a counsellor to the parliament. By close study, and by great assiduity in his pursuits, he produced in 1758 a work that obtained a temporary reputation, and was translated into English, entitled c< Origine des Loix, des Arts, des Sciences, et de leur Progres chez les anciens Peuples," 3 vols. 4to; reprinted in 1778, in six volumes 12mo. This work treats of the origin and progress of human knowledge, from the creation to the age of Cyrus, but displays more genius than erudition, and is rather an agreeable than a profound work. He died of the small-pox, May 2, 1758, immediately after the publication of his work; leaving his Mss. and library to his friend, Alexander Conrad Fugere, who died only three days after him, in consequence of being deeply affected by the death of Goguet, who was a man of much personal worth. Goguet had begun another work on the origin and progress of the laws, arts, sciences, &c. in France, from the commencement of the monarchy, the loss of which the admirers of his first production much regretted.

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

, a man of some poetical turn, but principally known as a translator, in the sixteenth century, was a native of London. In 1563 we find him living with secretary Cecil at his house in the Strand, and in 1577 in the parish of Allhallows, London Wall. Amongst his patrons, as we may collect from his dedications, were, sir Walter Mildmay, William lord Cobham, Henry earl of Huntingdon, lord Leicester, sir Christopher Hatton, lord Oxford, and Robert earl of Essex. He was connected with sir Philip Sydney, for he finished an English translation of Philip Mornay’s treatise in French, on the “Truth of Christianity,” which had been begun by Sydney, and was published in 1587. His religious turn appears also from his translating many of the works of the early reformers and protestant writers, particularly Calvin, Chytraeus, Beza, Marlorat, Hemingius, &c. He also enlarged our treasures of antiquity, by publishing translations of Justin in 1564; and of Csesar in 1565. Of this last, a translation as far as the middle of the fifth book by John Brend, had been put into his hands, and he therefore began at that place, but afterwards, for uniformity, re-translated the whole himself. He also published translations of Seneca’s Benefits, in 1577; of the Geography of Pomponius Mela the Poly history of Solinus, 1587, and of many modern Latin writers, which were then useful, and suited to the wants of the times. Warton thinks his only original work is a “Discourse of the Earthquake that happened in England and other places in 1580,” 12mo; and of his original poetry, nothing more appears than an encomiastic copy of verses prefixed to Baret’s “Alvearie” in 1580. His chief poetical translation is of “Ovid’s Metamorphoses,” the first four books of which he published in 1565, and the whole in 1567. Pope, who read much in old English translations, used to say “it was a pretty good one considering the time when it was written.” The style is certainly poetical and spirited, and his versification clear; hi manner ornamental and diffuse; yet with a sufficient observance of the original. He has obtained a niche in the “Biographia Dramatica” for having translated a drama of Beza’s, called “Abraham’s Sacrifice,” 1577, 18mo.

, an eminent modern Italian dramatist, was born at Venice in 1707. In his infancy the drama was his darling amusement, and all his time was devoted to the perusing comic writers, among whom was Cicognini, a Florentine, little known in the dramatic commonwealth. After having well studied these, he ventured to sketch out the plan of a comedy, even before he went to school. When he had finished his grammatical studies at Venice, and his rhetorical studies at the Jesuits’ college in Perugia, he was sent to a boarding-school at Rimini, to study philosophy, but he paid far more attention to the theatres, entered into a familiar acquaintance with the actors, and when they were to remove to Chiozza, made his escape in their company. This was the first fault he committed, which, according to his own confession, drew a great many others after it. His father had intended him to be a physician, like himself: the young man, however, was wholly averse to the study. He proposed afterwards to make him an advocate, and sent him to be a practitioner in Modena; but a horrid ceremony of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, at which he was present, inspired him with a melancholy turn, and he determined to become a Capuchin. Of this, however, he was cured by a visit to Venice, where he indulged in all the fashionable dissipation of the place. He was afterwards prevailed upon by his mother, after the death of his father, to exercise the profession of a lawyer in Venice, but by a sudden reverse of fortune he was compelled to quit at once both the bar and Venice. He then went to Milan, where he was employed by the resident of Venice in the capacity of secretary, and becoming acquainted with the manager of the theatre, he wrote a farce entitled “II Gondoliere Veneziano,” the Venetian Gondolier; which was the first comic production of his that was performed and printed. Some time after, Goldoni quitted the Venetian resident, and removed to Verona, where he got introduced to the manager of the theatre, for which he composed several pieces. Having removed along with the players to Genoa, he was for the first time seized with an ardent passion for a lady, who soon afterwards became his wife. He then returned with the company to Venice, where he displayed, for the first time, the powers of his genius, and executed his plan of reforming the Italian stage. He wrote the “Momolo,” “Courtisan,” the “Squanderer,” and other pieces, which obtained universal admiration. Feeling a strong inclination to reside some time in Tuscany, he repaired to Florence and Pisa, where he wrote “The Footman of two Masters,” and “The Son of Harlequin lost and found again.” He returned to Venice, and set about executing more and more his favourite scheme of reform. He was now attached to the theatre of S. Angelo, and employed himself in writing both for the company, and for his own purposes. The constant toils he underwent in these engagements impaired his health. He wrote, in the course of twelve months, sixteen new comedies, besides forty-two pieces for the theatre; among these many are considered as the best of his productions. The first edition of his works was published in 1753, in 10 vols. 8vo. As he wrote afterwards a great number of new pieces for the theatre of S. Luca, a separate edition of these was published, under the title of “The New Comic Theatre:” among these was the “Terence,” called by the author his favourite, and judged to be the master-piece of his works. He made another journey to Parma, on the invitation of duke Philip, and from thence he passed t Rome. He had composed 59 other pieces so late as 1761, five of which were designed for the particular use of Marque Albergati Capacelli, and consequently adapted to the theatre of a private company. Here ends the literary life of Goldoni in Italy, after which he accepted of an engagement of two years in Paris, where he found a select and numerous company of excellent performers in the Italian theatre. They were, however, chargeable with the same faults which he had corrected in Italy; and the French supported, and even applauded in the Italians, what they would have reprobated on their own stage. Goldoni wished to extend, even to that country, his plan of reformation, without considering the extreme difficulty of the undertaking. His first attempt was the piece called “The Father for Love;” and its bad success was a sufficient warning to him to desist from his undertaking. He continued, during the remainder of his engagement, to produce pieces agreeable to the general taste, and published twenty-four comedies; among which “The Love of Zelinda and Lindor” is reputed the best. The term of two years being expired, Goldoni was preparing to return to Italy, when a lady, reader to the dauphiness, mother to the late king, introduced him at court, in the capacity of Italian master to the princesses, aunts to the king. He did not live in the court, but resorted there, at each summons, in a post-chaise, sent to him for the purpose. These journeys were the cause of a disorder in the eyes, which afflicted him the rest of his life; for being accustomed to read while in the chaise, he lost his sight on a sudden, and in spite of the most potent remedies, could never afterwards recover it entirely. For about six months lodgings were provided him in the chateau of Versailles. The death, however, of the dauphin, changed the face of affairs. Goldoni lost his lodgings, and only, at the end of three years, received a bounty of 100 Louis in a gold box, and the grant of a pension of four thousand livres a year. This settlement would not have been sufficient for him, if he had not gained, by other means, farther sums. He wrote now and then comedies for the theatres of Italy and Portugal; and, during these occupations, was desirous to shew to the French that he merited a high rank among their dramatic writers. For this purpose, he neglected nothing which could be of use to render himself master of the French language. He heard, spoke, and conversed so much in it, that, in his 62d year, he ventured to write a comedy in French, and to have it. represented in the court theatre, on the occasion of the marriage of the king. This piece was the “Bourru Bienfaisant;” and it met with so great success, that the author received a bounty 'of 150 Louis from the king, another gratification from the performers, and considerable sums from the booksellers who published it. He published soon after, another comedy in French, called “L'Avare Fastueux.” After the death of Lewis XV. Goldoni was appointed Italian teacher to the princess Clotilde, and after her marriage, he attended the late unfortunate princess Elizabeth in the same capacity. His last work was the “Volponi,” written after he had retired from court. It was nis misfortune to live to see his pension taken away by the revolution, and, like thousands in a similar situation, he was obliged to pass his old age in poverty and distress. He died in the beginning of 1793. As a comic poet, Goldoni is reckoned among the best of the age in which he flourished. His works were printed at Leghorn in 1788—91, in 31 vols. 8vo. He has been reckoned the Moliere of Italy, and he is styled by Voltaire “The Painter of Nature.” Dr. Burney says that he is, perhaps, the only author of comic operas in Italy who has given them a little common sense, by a natural plot, and natural characters; and his celebrated comic opera of the “Buona Figliuola,” set by Piccini, and first performed in London Dec. 9th, 1766, rendered both the poet and composer, whose names had scarcely penetrated into this country before, dear to every lover of the Italian language and music, in the nation.

, an eminent poet and miscellaneous writer, was born on Nov. 29, 1728, at a place called Pallas, in the parish of Forney and county of Longford in Ireland. His father, the rev. Charles Goldsmith, a native of the county of Roscommon, was a clergyman of the established church, and had been educated at Dublin college. He afterwards held the living of Kilkenny West in the county of Westmeath. By his wife, Anne, the daughter of the rev. Oliver Jones, master of the diocesan school of Elphin, he had five sons, and two daughters. His eldest son, Henry, went into the church, and is the gentleman to whom our poet dedicated his “Traveller.” Oliver was the second son, and is supposed to have faithfully represented his father in the character of the Village Preacher in the “Deserted Village.” Oliver was originally intended for some mercantile employment, as his father found his income too scanty for the expences of the literary education which he had bestowed on his eldest son. With this view he was instructed in reading, writing, and arithmetic, at a common school, the master of which was an old soldier, of a romantic turn, who entertained his pupil with marvellous stories of his travels and feats, and is supposed to have imparted somewhat of that wandering and unsettled turn which so much appeared in his pupil’s future life. It is certain that Oliver had not been long at this humble school before he proved that he was “no vulgar boy.” He made some attempts in poetry when he was scarcely eight years old, and by the inequalities of his temper and conduct, betrayed a disposition more favourable io the flights of genius than the regularity of business. This after some time became so obvious, that his frfends, who had at first pleaded for his being sent to the university, now determined to contribute towards the expence, and by their assistance, he was placed at a school of reputation, where he might be qualified to enter the college with the advantages of preparatory learning.

In June 1744, when in his fifteenth year, he was sent to Dublin college, and entered as a sizer, under the rev. Mr. Wilder, one of the fellows, but a man of harsh temper and violent passions, and consequently extremely unfit to win the affections and guide the disposition of a youth simple, ingenuous, thoughtless, and unguarded. His pupil, however, made some progress, although slow, in academical studies. In 1747, he was elected one of the exhibitioners on the foundation of Erasmus Smyth; and in 1749, two years after the regular time, he was admitted to the degree of bachelor of arts. His indolence and irregularities may in part account for this tardy advancement to the reputation of a scholar, but much may likewise be attributed to the unfeeling neglect of his tutor, who contended only for the preservation of certain rules of discipline, while he gave himself little trouble with the cultivation of the mind. On one occasion he thought proper to chastise Oliver before a party of young friends of both sexes, whom, with his usual imprudence, he was entertaining with a supper and dance in his rooms. Oliver immediately disposed of his books and cloaths, left college, and commenced a wanderer, without any prospect, without friends, and without money. At length, after suffering such extremity of hunger, that a handtul of grey peas which a girl gave him at a wake, appeared a luxurious meal, he contrived to acquaint his brother with his situation, who immediately clothed him, and carried him back to college, effecting at the same time a reconciliation between him and his tutor, which, it may be supposed, was more convenient than cordial on either side.

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

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

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

In 1765 he published “The Traveller,” which at once established his fame. The outline of this he formed when in Switzerland, but polished it with great care, before he submitted it to the public. It soon made him known and admired, but his roving disposition had not yet left him. He had for some time been musing on a design of penetrating into the interior parts of Asia, and investigating the remains of ancient grandeur, learning, and manners. When he was told of lord Bute’s liberality to men of genius, he applied to that nobleman for a salary to enable him to execute his favourite plan, but his application was unnoticed, as his name had not then been made known by his Traveller. This poem, however, having procured him the unsolicited friendship of lord Nugent, afterwards earl of Clare, he obtained an introduction to the earl of Northumberland, then lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who invited our poet to an interview. Goldsmith prepared a complimentary address for his excellency, which, by mistake, he delivered to the groom of the chambers, and when the lord lieutenant appeared, was so confused that he came awa.y without being able to explain the object of his wishes. Sir John Hawkins relates, that when the lord lieutenant said he should be glad to do him any kindness, Goldsmith answered, that “he had a brother in Ireland, a clergyman, that stood in need of help as for himself, he had no dependence on the promises of great men he looked to the booksellers they were his best friends, and he was not inclined to forsake them for others.” This was very characteristic of Goldsmith, who, as sir John Hawkins adds, was “an ideot in the affairs of the world,” but yet his affectionate remembrance of his brother on such an occasion merits a less harsh epithet. Goldsmith was grateful for the kindness he had received from this brother, and nothing probably would have given him greater pleasure than if he had succeeded in transferring the earl’s patronage tp him. From this time, however, although he sometimes talked about it, he appears to have relinquished the project of going to Asia. “Of all men,” said Dr. Johnson, “Goldsmith is the most unfit to go out upon such an inquiry for he is utterly ignorant of such arts as we already possess, and consequently could not know what would be accessions to our present stock of mechanical knowledge. He would bring home a grinding barrow, and think that he had furnished a wonderful improvement.”

In the month of March 1773, his second comedy, “She Stoops to Conquer,” was performed at Covent-garden, and received with the highest applause, contrary to the opinion of the manager, Mr. Colman. It is founded upon an incident which, his biographer informs us, happened to the author in his younger clays, when he mistook a gentleman’s house for an inn. In the same year he appeared before the public in a different character. A scurrilous letter, probably written by Kenrick, was inserted in the London Packet, a paper then published by the late Mr. Thomas Evans, bookseller in Paternoster-row. Goldsmith resented no part of the abase in this letter but that which reflected on a young lady of his acquaintance. Accompanied by one of his countrymen, he waited on Mr. Evans, and stated the nature of his complaint. Mr. Evans, who had no concern in the paper, but as publisher, went to examine the file, and while stooping for it, Goldsmith was advised by his friend, to take that opportunity of caning him, which he immediately began to do; but Evans, a stout and high-blooded Welchman, returned the blows with so much advantage, that Goldsmith’s friend fled, and left him in a shocking plight. Dr. Kenrick, who was then in the house, came forward, and affecting great compassion for Goldsmith, conducted him home in a coach. This foolish quarrel afforded considerable sport for the newspapers before it was finally made up.

“In the spring of 1774, being embarrassed in his circumstances, and attacked with his usual malady, his indisposition, aggravated too by mental distress, terminated in a fever, which on the 25th of March had become exceedingly violent, when he called in medical assistance. Although he had then taken ipecacuanha to promote a vomit, he would proceed to the use of James’s fever-powder, contrary to the advice of the medical gentlemen who attended him. From the application of these powders he had received the greatest benefit in a similar attack nearly two years before, but then they had been administered by Dr. James himself in person. This happened in September 1772. But now the progress of the disease was as unfavourable as possible; for, from the time above-mentioned, every symptom became more and more alarming till Monday April 4th, when he died, aged forty-five.”

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

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

Amidst all this profound literature, his religion is said to have been plain and practical. He lamented and abhorred the factions and disputes, especially about indifferent matters, which disgraced Christianity, and therefore had no inclination to enter into the controversies of his time. He married a lady of a very good family, and well allied, with whom he lived twenty-four years, and who survived him, together with two sons, who studied the civil law at Leyden, and became considerable men in Holland.

, brother to the preceding, excelled likewise in the knowledge of the Arabic language, and taught it in the seminary belonging to the Carmelites at Rome, into which order, much against his brother’s will, he entered very early, and now was of great service to those monks who were intended to be sent on missions into the east. Being himself appointed to this service, he visited every part of Syria and Palestine, and founded a monastery of his order on mount Libanus, over which he presided till he was recalled to Rome. While abroad he wrote a letter to his brother, informing him that instead of the opposition and persecution which he expected, he had met with nothing but civilities and caresses from persons of distinction, when they found that he was the brother of James Golius, whom they still remembered with the highest regard. At Rome he was employed as one of the principal assistants of Sergius Risius, archbishop of Damascus, in preparing his edition of the Arabic Bible, which was published in 1671 by the direction of the college “De Propaganda.” After it was completed, Colitis was appointed visitor of the missions of the East Indies, and died at Surat about 1673. He was author of translations into Arabic of Thomas a Kempis’ Imitation of Jesus Christ; of sermons on the Evangelists; an “Historic Discourse of St. Gregory of Decapolis;” several small devotional pieces, and a translation from Arabic into Latin, of a “Collection of Parables and Proverbs.”

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

In the mean time, he was constantly seen at those meetings of all the persons of quality and merit, which were kept at the house of Mad. Rambouillet. This was like a small choice court, less numerous indeed than that of the Louvre, but, had charms which entirely engaged the heart of Gombauld; and he frequented it with great pleasure, as well as with more assiduity than any other, the Louvre not excepted. Thus he passed his time in a way the most agreeable to a poet, and at length devoted himself entirely to the belles lettres. He published several things, of which the most admired was his “Endymion,” a romance in prose. It was printed in 1624. 2. “Amarantha, a Pastoral.” 3. A volume of “Poems.” 4. A volume of “Letters,” all published before 1652. He was now accounted one of those choice spirits, who make up the ministry in the republic of letters, and form the schemes of its advancement. In this employ we find him among those few men of wit, whose meetings in 1626 gave rise to the Academy of Belles Lettres, founded by cardinal Richelieu; and, accordingly, he became a member of that society at its first institution. He was one of the three who was appointed to examine the statutes of the new academy in 1643, and he afterwards finished memoirs for completing them. On March 12, 1635, he read a discourse before the academy upon “Je ne scai quoi,” which was the sixth of those that for some years were pronounced at their meetings the first day of every week.

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

, was born at St Eulalia, near Toledo, in 1515, and was educated at Alcala, where he obtained a high character for diligence and learning. He was patronized by Philip II. who engaged him to prepare an edition of the works of Isidore, which death prevented him from completing. It was afterwards finished and published by John Grialus. He was author of many works; but the most esteemed is a “Life of Cardinal Ximenes,” 1569, folio, and afterwards inserted in a collection of the writers on Spanish history. Gomez died in 1580.

, a French lady, whose romances and tales are known in this country by translations, was the daughter of Paul Poisson, a player, and was born at Paris in 1684. She was courted by M. de Gomez, a Spanish gentleman of small fortune, who, knowing her talents, foresaw many advantages from an union with her, while she, in accepting him, appears to have been deceived concerning his circumstances. Her works, however, procured some pensions, by which she was enabled to live at St. Germain-en-L.aye till 1770, in which year she died, respected by all who knew her. This lady left some tragedies, which may be found in her “Miscellaneous Works,” 12mo, but were all unsuccessful, and a great number of romances. “Les Journees Amusantes,” 8 vols. “Crementine,” 2 vols. “Anecdots Persanes,” 2 vols. “Hist, du Comte d'Oxford,” one vol. “La Jeune Alcidiane,” 3 vols. (see Gomberville) “Les CentNouvelles Nouvelles,” 36 parts comprised in 8 vols. These are all well written, and with great delicacy, and were at one time very popular in France.

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

, an English prelate, and the only one who forsook the church of England for that of Rome since the reformation, was born at Ruthvyn in Denbighshire, 1583. He was educated at Westminster school, whence, in 1600, he went to Trinity college, Cambridge. After taking orders, he got the living of Stapleford Abbots in Essex in 1607. Becoming acknowledged at court as a celebrated preacher, he obtained in 1617, a canonry of Windsor; in 1620, the deanery of Rochester, and in 1625 was consecrated bishop of Gloucester. In 1639, he refused to sign the seventeen canons of doctrine and discipline drawn up in a synod, and enjoined by archbishop Laud, who, after admonishing him three times, procured him to be suspended, and it appeared soon after that he was in all principles a Roman catholic. After this, and during the rebellion, he lived privately in Westminster, employing much of his time in researches in the Cottonian library. He died, in the open profession of popery, Jan. 19, 1655. He wrote, 1. “The Fall of Man, and Corruption of Nature, proved by reason,” 1616, 1624, 4to. 2. “Arguments and Animadversions on Dr. George Hackwil’s Apology for Divine Providence.” 3. “The two mysteries of Christian Religion, viz. the Trinity and Incarnation, explicated,” 1653, 4to. 4. “An Account of his Sufferings,” 1650. 5. “The Court of King James by Sir Anthony Weldon reviewed,” a ms. in the Bodleian.

, an eminent English prelate, was the second son of Edward Goodrich of East Kirby in Lincolnshire. He was admitted pensioner of Bene‘t college, Cambridge, soon after 1500, became fellow of Jesus college in 1510, commenced M. A. in 1514, and the following year was proctor of the university. Being of a studious turn, he made great proficiency in several branches of learning, particularly in the civil and canon laws. In 1529, he was appointed one of the syndics to return an answer from the university of Cambridge, concerning the lawfulness of king Henry VIII.’s marriage with queen Catherine: and from his readiness to oblige the king in that business, was recommended to his royal favour. He was presented to the rectory of St. Peter’s Cheap in London, by cardinal Wolsey, at that time commendatory of the monastery of St. Alban’s; and soon after was made canon of St. Stephen’s, Westminster, and chaplain to the king. On the death of Dr. West, bishop of Ely, his nephew and godson Dr. Nicholas Hawkins, archdeacon of Ely, at that time the king’s ambassador in foreign parts, was designed to succeed him; but he dying before his consecration could be effected, the king granted his licence to the prior and convent, dated March 6, 1534, to choose themselves a bishop; who immediately elected in their chapter-house the 17th of the same month, Thomas Goodrich, S.T.P. which was confirmed by the archbishop April 13th following, in the parish church of Croydon.

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

was a celebrated poet and translator, who lived in the sixteenth century, but of whom little is known, unless that he was educated at Christ’s College, Cambridge, whence he removed to Staples Inn. Mr. Ellis conjectures that he might have been born about 1538. We have no doubt that he was the same Barnaby Googe who was a relation and retainer to sir William Cecil, queen Elizabeth’s minister, and who was gentleman-pensioner t6 the queen. Mr. Churton thinks, with great probability, that he was the father of Barnaby Googe, master of Magdalen college, Cambridge, who was incorporated at Oxford in August 1605, when king James was there. In 1563 he published a very elegant little volume, now of the greatest rarity, entitled “Eglogs, Epitaphs, and Sonnetes.” One of the sonnets, superior, as the rest are, in point of harmony, to most of the productions of those days, is addressed to Alexander No well, afterwards the celebrated dean of St. Paul’s, and reprinted in Mr. Churton’s elaborate life of that divine. It is said there are only two copies of this volume in existence, one in the possession of Mr. Heber, who purchased it at George Steevens’s sale, and the other in the library of Trinity college, Cambridge Googe’s principal translation was the “Zodiake of Life,” from Marcellus Palingenius Stellatus, a very moral, but tiresome satire, perfectly unconnected with astronomy, the author merely distinguishing each of the twelve books of his poem by the name of a celestial sign. The first three books appeared in 1560, and the first six in 1561; the whole was printed complete in 1565, 12mo. In 1570 he translated from Naogeorgus, a poem on Antichrist; in 1577, Herebach’s ceconomical treatise on agriculture; and in 1579, Lopes de Mendoza’s Spanish proverbs, and afterwards Aristotle’s “Table of the Ten Categories.” The few specins published from these very rare works are highly favourable to the author’s talents and principles.

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

, a French physician of the thirteenth century, is said to have conferred honour on the medical faculty of Montpellier, where he began to teach and to practise in 1285. As was the custom of the time, he took his surname from the place of his birth (Gordon, in Rouvergne), and called himself Bernardus de Gordonio, and not Gordonus, as it is commonly written. According to the accounts of some writers, who place the death of this physician in 1305, he taught at Montpellier only twenty years; but others say that he was living in 1318. He left a considerable number of treatises, which were published together at Eerrara in 1487, at Venice in 1494, at Paris in 1542, and at Lyons in 1550.

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

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

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

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

, a native of Leontium, in Sicity, who flourished in the fifth century B. C. was a celebrated orator of the school of Empedocles. He was deputed in the year 427, by his fellow-citizens, to request succour of the Athenians against the people of Syracuse, whom he so charmed with his eloquence that he easily obtained what he required. He also made a display of his eloquence at the Olympic and Pythian games, and with so much success, that a statue of gold was erected to him at Delphi, and money was coined with his name upon it. In the latter part of his life he established himself at Athens, and lived till he had attained the age of one hundred and five years. He is reputed, according to Quintilian, to be the author and inventor of extemporaneous speaking, in which art he exercised his disciples. Hermogenes has preserved a fragment of his, from which we may infer that his manner was quaint and artificial, full of antithesis and pointed expression.

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

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

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

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

By this lady, who died May 27, 1774, he had an only son, the subject of this article, who was born Oct. 21, 1735, in a large house in Winchester-street, on the site of the monastery of the Austin friars. He received the first rudiments of Latin and Greek under the tuition of one Barnewitz, a Courlander; and afterwards, on his death, was committed to the care of the rev. Roger Pickering, a dissenting minister, a man unfortunate in life, but an accomplished scholar, who. died in 1755*; when Mr. Gough finished his Greek studies under Mr. Samuel Dyer, the friend of Dr. Johnson and of the contemporary literati. Under these instructors, Mr. Gough has not left us to question his proficiency, nor that early ambition to know and to communicate, which forms the instructive editor and author. At the very early age of eleven he commenced a task which would have reflected credit on any period of life, and he completed it with a perseverance of which there is probably no other instance in our literary annals. This was “The History of the Bible, translated from the French,” (of an Amsterdam edition of 1700) “by II. G. junior,” printed at London in 1747. Of this curious volume, consisting of 160 sheets in folio, his mother, delighted at such a display of laudable application, bore the expence of printing twenty-five copies, as presents to a few friends; and when completed at the press, it was marked, by way of colophon, “Done at twelve years and a half old,” after which, in the copy now before us, follows, “A short Chronology of the Holy Scripture,” in

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

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

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

vol. X. n^7; Qn Belatucader, p, 118,- XVII, XXV, more readily endeavoured to alleviate.“The deep concern which he felt at the dreadful fire that destroyed Mr. Nichols’s valuable property in 1808, was shewn in a series of the kindest consolatory letters, which were among the last he ever wrote. In one, dated September of that year, he requested Mr. Nichols to execute a confidential commission,” which,“he emphatically adds,” may be the last office you will have to do for your sincere friend.“This was nearly prophetic, for there was little now to be done that could contribute to his comforts.” The bright gem of intellect,“says his affectionate biographer,” though frequently clouded, had intervals of its former splendour and the frequent emanations of benevolence displayed through a long and painful illness, whilst they comforted and delighted those around him, added poignancy to the regret they experienced for those bitter sufferings which threatened to overwhelm a noble mind with total imbecility; from which, however, he was mercifully relieved, without any apparent struggle at the last, on Feb. 20, 1809, and was buried on the 28th, in the churchyard of Wormley, in Herts, in a vault built for that purpose, on the south side of the chancel, not far from the altar which for several years he had devoutly frequented.“The funeral, although, in conformity to his own directions, as little ceremonious as propriety would permit, was followed from Enfield to Wormley by crowds whose lamentations and regrets were unequivocally shown. The poor and the afflicted had indeed lost in Mr. Gough a father, protector, and benefactor. Enfield and its neighbourhood must long cherish a lively and grateful remembrance of his benevolence, which was at once extensive, judicious, and unostentatious. It was in him a principle and a system it began early, and continued to the last it embraced not only the present, but the future, and he had provided that his charity should continue to be felt long after the heart that dictated it had ceased to beat. His faithful domestics, when unable to continue their services, continued to receive their pay, in the shape of annuities; and as he possessed the attribute ascribed to” the merciful man," the generous steed, exempt by age from labour, and the cow no longer useful in the dairy, were permitted to close their useful lives in a luxuriant meadow reserved for that express purpose. The genuine personal character of Mr. Gough could only be appreciated by those who witnessed him in his domestic and familiar circle. Though highly and deservedly distinguished as a scholar, the pleasantry and the easy condescension of his convivial hours still more endeared him, not only to his intimates, hut oven to those with whom tin- forms and customs of the world rendered it necessary that he should associate.

In 1774, soon a I'trr tin; death of his mother, an event by which ho oamo in possession of an excellent family residence at Kiiliehl, with tho large estate hequeathed to him in reversion by his father, ho added greatly to all his other comforts, by marrying Aiiih-, fourth daughter of Thomas Hall, esq. of Goldings, Herts; a lady of distinguished merit, who after a long and alVec tionate union, has to lament the loss of him whose object through life was to increase her happiness.

, a protestant divine, and voluminous writer, was born at Senlis, Oct. 20, 1543, and studied divinity at Geneva, where he was ordained in October 1566, and was appointed one of the ministers of that city, a situation which he filled for the long space of sixtytwo years. His residence at Geneva was never discontinued but on account of three journies he took to France, on matters relating to the protestant churches, the one in 1576, when he went to Forez; the second in 1582, to Champagne, and the third in 1600, to Grenoble. The rest of his life he devoted to his pastoral duties, and to his numerous works, which prove him one of the most indefatigable writers of his time. He died Feb. 3, 1628, in his eighty-fifth year, and in full possession of his faculties. He preached but seven days before his death. Scaliger, who had a great esteem for him, says he was an ingenious man, who learnt all he knew without the assistance of a master.

Among the works which he edited and commented upon, were those of Plutarch, St. Cyprian, Seneca, &c. He made a collection of “Remarkable Histories,” in 2 vols. 8vo, and wrote several pieces relating to the history of his own times, particularly a “Collection of the most memorable events which occurred during the League, with notes and original documents,” in 6 vols. 4to. Many of his pieces were anonymous, but to these he usually affixed the initials S. G. S. signifying “Simon Goulart Senlisien.” He was so well acquainted with the secrets of literary history, and of anonymous publications, that Henry III. of France, wishing to know the author of a piece published under the assumed name of Stephanus Junius Brutus, and intended to propagate republican doctrines, sent a person to Geneva to consult Goulart, but the latter refused to communicate the fact, for fear of exposing the author to serious injury. He had a son, who was a minister of the Walloon church at Amsterdam, and a strenuous assertor of Arminian tenets, but did not attain his father’s reputation.

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

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

She wrote several things in prose and verse, which were collected into one volume, and published by herlself in 1636, with this title, “Les avis et les presens de la Demoiselle de Gournai.” She died at Paris in 1645, and epitaphs were composed for her by Menage, Valois, Patio, La Mothe Vayer, and others. It is not, however, very easy to appreciate her real character from these. Living at a time when literature was not much cultivated by the females in France, it is probable that she earned her reputation at no great expence of talents, and it is certain that her writings are little calculated to perpetuate her fame. It appears equally certain that she was as frequently the subject of ridicule among the wits, as of admiration among the courtiers. Those, however, who think her character an object of curiosity, may find ample information in our authorities.

, in Latin Goveanus, a learned Portuguese, of the fourteenth century, was born at Beja, and appointed principal of the college of St. Barbe at Paris, where he educated three nephews, who became celebrated for their learning. Martial Govea, the eldest, was a good Latin poet, and published a “Latin Grammar” at Paris. Andrew, his next brother, a priest, born in 1498, succeeded his uncle as principal of St. Barbe, and gained so great a reputation there, that he was invited to accept the same office in the college of Guienne, at Bourdeaux. This invitation he accepted in 1534, and continued at Bourdeaux till 1547, when John III. king of Portugal, recalled him to his dominions, to establish a college at Coimbra, similar to that of Guienne; and Govea took with him into Portugal the celebrated Buchanan, Grouchi, Guerenti, Fabricius, la Costa, and other men of learning, well qualified to instruct youth. He died June 1S48, at Coimbra, leaving no printed work. Anthony Govea, the youngest of these three brothers, and the most eminent of all, wrote several pieces on philosophy and law, and is mentioned with great encomiums by Thuanus, Ronsard, and all the learned. He taught with reputation at Bourdeaux, afterwards at Cahors, and Valence in Dauphiny, and died in 1565, aged sixty, at Turin, to which place Philibert had invited him. His principal works are, an “Apologetical Discourse” against Calvin, who had accused him of atheism in his treatise on scandal; some works on law, fol.; “ Variarum lectionum Libri duo,” fol. editions of Virgil and Terence, with notes “Epigrammatum Libri duo,” and “Epistolee.” The whole was printed at Rotterdam, 1766, fol. Manfred Govea, his son, born at Turin, became distinguished for his knowledge of the belles lettres, civil and canon law, and was counsellor of state at the court of Turin. He died in 1613, leaving “Consilia;” “Notes on Julius Florus;” some “Poetry,” and a funeral oration on the death of Philip II. king of Spain.

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

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

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

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

Being confirmed in this resolution, he gave in to the electoral college at Sambia in Prussia, a memorial, containing the reasons for his change, in 1695; and, leaving Koningsberg, set out in order to put it in execution in some catholic country. He was in the road to Erfurt in this design, when there were presented to him three tracts in answer to his memorial, from the elector of Brandenburgh, who had given immediate orders to three Prussian? divines to write them for the purpose. The names of these divines were Philip James Spener, Bernard Van Sanden, and John William Baier. The first was ecclesiastical counsellor to the elector, and principal minister at Berlin; and the second principal professor at Koningsberg. The three answers were printed the same year: the first at Berlin, the second at Koningsberg, both in 4to, and the third at Jana, in 8vo. Grabe was entirely disposed to pay all due respect to this address from his sovereign; and, having perused the tracts with care, his resolution for embracing popery was so much weakened, that he wrote to one of the divines, Spener, to procure him a safe-conduct, that he might return to Berlin, to confer with him. This favour being easily obtained, he went to that city, where Spener prevailed upon him so far as to change his design, of going among the papists, for another. In England, says this friend, you will meet with the outward and uninterrupted succession which you want take then your route thither this step will give much less dissatisfaction to your friends, and at the same time equally satisfy your conscience. Our divine yielded to the advice; and, arriving in England, was received with all the respect due to his merit, and presently recommended to king William in such terms, that his majesty granted him a pension of 100l. per annum, to enable him to pursue his studies.

From his first arrival he had resided a great part of his time in that university, with which he was exceedingly delighted. Besides the Bodleian library there, he met with several persons of the first class of learning in theological and sacred criticism, among whom he found that freedom of conversation and communication of studies which is inseparable from true scholars; but still the Alexandrian ms. was the chief object of his labour. He examined it with his usual diligence, and coniparing it with a copy from that of the Vatican at Rome, he found it in so many places preferable to the other, that he resolved to print it as soon as possible. With this view, in 170^, he drew up a particular account of the preferences of this to the Vatican ms. especially in respect to the book of “Judges,” and published it, together with three specimens, containing so many different methods of his intended edition, wishing to be determined in his choice by the learned. This came out in 1705, with proposals for printing it by subscription, in a letter addressed to Dr. Mill, principal of Edmund-hall, Oxford; and that nothing might be wanting which lay in the power of that learned body to promote the work, he was honoured with the degree of D. D. early the following year, upon which occasion Dr. Smalridge, who then officiated as regius professor, delivered two Latin speeches, containing the highest compliments to his merit. The success was abundantly answerable to his fondest wishes: besides the queen’s bounty, he received another present from his own sovereign the king of Prussia; and subscriptions from the principal nobility, clergy, and gentry, crowded daily upon him from all parts.

In the mean time, he fell into a dispute with Whiston, who had not only in private discourses, in order to support iiis own cause by the strength of our author’s character, but also in public writings, plainly intimated, “that the doctor was nearly of his mind about the Constitution of the Apostles, written by St. Clement, and that he owned in general the genuine truth and apostolical antiquity of that collection.” This calumny was neglected by onr author for some time, till he understood that the story gained credit, and was actually believed by several persons who were acquainted with him. For that reason he thought it necessary to inform the public, that his opinion of the Apostolical Constitutions was quite different, if not opposite, to Mr. Whiston’s sentiments about them; this he did in “An Essay upon two Arabic Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, and that ancient book called the Doctrine of the Apostles, which is said to be extant in them, wherein Mr. Whiston’s mistakes about both are plainly proved.”

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

Thirlby and Le Clerc are the only writers of reputation who have endeavoured to undervalue Grabe’s abilities, which have received due tribute from his other learned contemporaries. It is, however, with regret we find by a letter lately published from the Harleian Mss. that the year before his death, he was sinking under the complicated load of penury and ill-health. We can only hope that the lord treasurer, Harley, to whom the letter was addressed, administered such relief as was in his power; and this is the more probable from his having honoured his remains by a monument in Westminster-abbey. It remains yet to be noticed that his “Collatio codicis Cottoniani Geneseos cum eclitione Romana,” which lay long unnoticed in the Bodleian library, had ample justice done to it in 1778, by the attention and accuracy of Dr. Henry Owen; and that the whole of the Alexandrian ms. has since been very accurately published in fac-simile by the late rev. Dr. Woide of the British Museum.

His reputation for literary talents and acquirements was so high before he had reached his twenty-fourth year, that he was judged qualified for the chair; and, upon the deatH of Schulting, actually nominated to the professorship of Dnisburg by the elector of Brandenburgh: who at the same time yielded to his desire of visiting Antwerp, Brussels, Lorrain, and the neighbouring countries; in order to complete the plan he had laid down for finishing his studies before he entered upon the exercise of his office. Young as he was, he appeared every way qualified for this office, but held it no longer than two years; when he closed with an offer of the professorship of Deventer, which, though of less value than Duisburg, was more acceptable to him on many accounts. He had a singular affection for the place where first he indulged his inclination for these studies, and he had the pleasure of succeeding his much-beloved Gronovius, and that too by a particular recommendation, on his removal to Ley den. It must be remembered also, that he was a proselyte to Calvinism, which was the established religion at Deventer, and scarcely tolerated at Duisburg; and in Holland also it might occur to him that there was a fairer prospect of preferment, and in this he was not disappointed, as in 1661, the States of Utrecht made him professor of eloquence in that university, in the room of Paulus JEmilius.

Gruevius did great service to the republic of letters, not so much by original productions of his own, as by procuring many editions of authors, which he enriched with notes and excellent prefaces, as Hesiod, Callimachus, Suetonius, Cicero, Fiorus, Catullus, Tibiillus, Propertius, Justin, Csesar, Lucian. He published also, of the moderns, Casaubon’s “Letters,” several pieces of Meursius, Huet’s “Poemata,” Junius “De pictura veterum,” Eremita “De Vita aulica & civili,” and others of less note. But his chef d'ceirvre is his “Thesaurus Antiquitatum Romarmrnm,” in 12 vols. folio; to which he added afterwards “Thesaurus Antiq. & Histor. Italia?,” which were printed after his death, 1704, in 3 vols. folio. There also came out in 1707, “J. G. Graevii Prselectiones & CXX Epistoloe collects ab Alb*. Fabricio;” to which was added “Burmanni Oratio dicta in Graevii funere,” to which we are obliged for the particulars of this memoir. In 1717 was printed “J. G. Grsevii Orationes quas Ultrajecti habuit,” 8vo. A great number of his letters were published by Burman in his “Sylloge Epistolarum,” in 5 vols. 4to. And the late Dr. Mead, who had been one of his pupils, was possessed of a collection of original letters in ms. written to Graevius by the most eminent persons in learning, as Basnage, Bayle, Burman, Le Clerc, Faber, Fabricius, Gronovius, Kuster, Limborch, Puffendorff, Salmasius, Spanheim, Spinosa, Tollius, Bentley, Dodwell, Locke, Potter, Abbe Bossuet, Bignon, Harduin, Huet, Menage, Spon, Vaillant, &c. from 1670 to the year of his death.

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

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

, clock and watch maker, the most ingenious and accurate artist in his time, was born at Horsgills, in the parish of Kirklinton in Cumberland, in 1675. In 1688 he came up to London, and was put apprentice to a person in that profession; but after being some time with his master, he was received, purely on account of his merit, into the family of the celebrated Mr. Tompion, who treated him with a kind of parental affection as long as he lived. That Mr. Graham was/ without competition, the most eminent of his profession, is but a small part of his character he was the best general mechanic of his time, and had a complete knowledge of practical astronomy so that he not only gave to various movements for measuring time a degree of perfection which had never before been attained, but invented several astronomical instruments, by which considerable advances have been made in that science he also made great improvements in those which had before been in use and, by a wonderful manual dexterity, constructed them with greater precision and accuracy than any other person in the world.

A great mural arch in the observatory at Greenwich was made for Dr. Halley, under Mr. Graham’s immediate inspection, and divided by his own hand: and from this incomparable original, the best foreign instruments of the kind are copies made by English artists. The sector by which Dr. Bradley first discovered two new motions in the fixed stars, was of his invention and fabric. He comprised the whole planetary system within the compass of a small cabinet; from which, as a model, all the modern orreries have been constructed. And when the French academicians were sent to the north, to make observations for ascertaining the figure of the earth, Mr. Graham was thought the fittest person in Europe to supply them withinstruments by which meant they finished their operations in one year while those who went to the south, not being so well furnished, were very much embarrassed and retarded in their operations.

, a French historian, was born in 1565, and, after a liberal education, became counsellor and master of the requests to Mary de Medicis, queen of France. He frequented the court in his youth, and devoted himself to the service of Henry IV. by whom he was much esteemed and trusted. Being a man of probity, and void of ambition, he did not employ his interest with Henry to obtain dignities, but spent the greatest part of his life -in literary retirement. Among other works which he composed, are “The History of Henry IV.” and “The History of Lewis XIII. to the death of the Marshal d'Ancre,” in 1617; both which were published in /olio, under the title of “Decades.” The former he presented to Lewis XIII. who read it over, and was infinitely charmed with the frankness of the author: but the Jesuits, who never were friendly to liberality of sentiment, found means to have this work castrated in several places. They served “The History of Lewis XIII.” worse; for, Le Grain having in that performance spoken advantageously of the prince of Conde, his protector, they had the cunning and malice to suppress those passages, and to insert others, where they made him speak of the prince in very indecorous terms. Conde was a dupe to this piece of knavery, till Le Grain had time to vindicate himself, by restoring this as well as his former works to their original purity. He died at Paris in 1643, and ordered in his will, that none of his descendants should ever trust the education of their children to the Jesuits; which clause, it is said, has been punctually observed by his family.

, an ingenious Frenchman, was a native of Caen in the seventeenth century, and the discoverer of the art of making figured diaper. He did not, however, bring it to perfection, for he only wove squares and flowers; but his son Richard Graindorge, living to the age of eighty-two, had leisure to complete what his father had begun, and found a way to represent all sorts of animals, and other figures. This work he called Hautelice, perhaps because the threads were twisted in the woof. They are now called damasked cloths, from their resemblance to white damask. This ingenious workman, also invented the method of weaving table napkins; and his son, Michael, established several manufactures in different parts of France, where these damasked cloths are become very common. The same family has produced several other persons of genius and merit among these is James Graindorge, a man of wit and taste, and well skilled in antiquities he is highly spoken of by M. Huet, who was his intimate friend. His brother Andrew, also, doctor of physic of the faculty at Montpellier, was a learned philosopher, who followed the principles of Epicurus and Gassendi. He died January 13, 1676, aged sixty. He left, “Traite de la Nature du Feu, de la Lumiere, et des Couleurs,” 4to; “Traite de TOrigine des Macreuses,” 1680, 12mo, and other works. M. Huet dedicated his book “De Interpretatione” to this gentleman.

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

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

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

Soon after the publication of Tibullus, Dr. Grainger embraced the offer of an advantageous settlement as physician on the island of St. Christopher’s. During his passage, a lady on board of one of the merchant-men bound for the same place, was seized with the small-pox, attended with some alarming symptoms. He was sent for, and not only prescribed with success, but took the remainder of his passage in the same ship, partly to promote the recovery of his patient, but principally to have an opportunity of paying his addresses to her daughter, whom he married soon after their arrival at St. Christopher’s. By his union with this lady, whose name was Burt, daughter to Matthew William Burt, esq. governor of St. Christopher’s, he became connected with softie of the principal families on the island, and was enabled to commence the practice of physic with the greatest hopes of success. It is probable, however, that this was not his first attachment. In his preface to the translation of Tibullus, he insinuates that his acquaintance with the passion of love gives him a preference over Dart, who had attempted to transfuse the tender sentiments of that poet into English without the same advantage.

The transition from London to a West India island must have been very striking to a reflecting mind. The scenery and society of St. Christopher’s was new in every respect, and Grainger seems to have studied it with those mixed and not very coherent feelings of the poet and the planter, which at length produced his principal work, “The Sugar Cane.” On his return to England, at the conclusion of the war, he submitted this poem to his literary friends, and haying obtained their opinion and approbation, published it in a handsome quarto volume, in 1764. To the astonishment of all who remembered his dispute with Smollett, the “Sugar Cane” was honoured with the highest praise in the “Critical Review.” But Smollett was now on his travels^ and the Review was under the care of Mr. Hamilton, the proprietor and printer, a man who took no pleasure in perpetuating animosities, and who, with great respect for Dr. Smollett’s memory, did not deny that his vindictive temper was of no great service to the Review.

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

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

, in Latin, Gramondus, president of the parliament of Toulouse, and son of the dean of the counsellors to the same parliament, descended from an ancient family in Rouergue, who were long in possession of the estate of Gramont. He wrote in Latin a History of the reign of Louis XIII. from the death of Henry IV. to 1629. This history, the best edition of which is 1643, fol. may be considered as a supplement to that of the president du Thou, although much inferior both as to style and fidelity: the author flatters cardinal de Richelieu because he hoped for his favour; and abuses Arnauld d'Andilly, and others, from whom he had no expectations. He died in 1654. In 1623 he published his “Historia prostratae a Ludovico XIII. Sectariorum in Gallia rebellionis,” 4to, which contains some curious and interesting facts, mixed with strong prejudices against the protestants, which lead him to such excess of bigotry as to vindicate the horrible massacre of St. Bartholomew.

, son of Antony duke of Gramont, served as a volunteer under the prince of Conde, and Turenne, and came into England about two years after the restoration. He was under a necessity of leaving France for having the temerity to pay his addresses to a lady to whom Lewis XIV. was known to have a tender attachment. He possessed in a high degree every qualification that could render him agreeable to the licentious court of Charles II. He was gay, gallant, and perfectly well-bred, had an inexhaustible fund of ready wit, and told a story with extraordinary humour and effect. His vivacity infused life wherever he came, and was generally inoffensive. He had also another qualification very well suited to the company he kept. He had great skiil and success in play; and seems to have been chiefly indebted to it for support. Several of the ladies engaged his attention upon his first coming over; but miss Elizabeth Hamilton, whom he afterwards married, seems to have been his favourite, though some say he endeavoured to break off the connection. She was the daughter of sir George Hamilton, fourth son of James first earl of Abercorn. His “Memoirs” were written from his own information, and probably in much the same language in which they are related, by his brother-in-law, Anthony, who, following the fortunes of James II. entered the French service, and died at St. Germain’s, April 21, 1720. He was generally called Count Hamilton. Count Gramont died Jan. 10, 1707. There have lately been several editions of the “Memoirs” printefd here, both in French and English, and in a splendid form, illustrated with portraits. They contain many curious particulars respecting the intrigues and amusements of the court of Charles II. but present upon the whole a disgusting picture of depraved manners.

, a Franciscan friar, was born at Douay, in the early part of the seventeenth century, and has been styled the abbreviator of Descartes. He was an eminent professor both of philosophy and divinity in the university of Douay, where he associated much' with the English, and was sent by them as a missionary into England. His residence was chiefly in Oxfordshire, where he led a retired life. He is said to have been the first who reduced the Cartesian system to the method of the schools, and his work on this subject, which was frequently printed in England, first in 1671, 12mo, and afterwards, much enlarged in 4to, was also translated and published in folio. He carried on a controversy for some time with a Mr. John Serjeant on metaphysical subjects. He was alive in Oxfordshire in 1695, but no farther particulars of his history are now known. Among his works we find the following mentioned: 1. “L'homme sans passions, selon les sentimens de Seneque,” Hague, 1662, 12mo. 2. “ Scydromedia, seu Sermo quern Alphonsus de la Vida habtiit, coram Comite de Falmouth, de monarchia,” 1669, 16mo. 3. “Apologia Renati des Cartes contra Sam. Parkerum,” London, 1679, 12mo. 4. “Historia naturee variis expe*­rimentis elucidata,” ibid. 1673, 8vo, reprinted there in 1680, and at Norimb. 1678. 5. “Compendium rerum jucundarum, et memorabilium naturae,” Norimb. 1681, 8vo. 6. “Dissertatio de carentia sensus et cognitionis in Brutis,” Ley den, 1675, 8vo. 7. “L'Epicure Spiritual, ou, Pempire de la volupte sur les vertus,” Paris, 8vo, 8. “Historia sacra a mundo condito ad Constantinum magnum,” which is said to be his best performance.

, a French historical writer, was born Feb. 6, 1653, at St. Lo, in Normandy. After studying philosophy at Caen, he entered into the congregation of the oratory in 1671, where he applied to the belles lettres and theology, but quitted it in 1676, and went to Paris, where he engaged in the education of two young men of rank, the marquis de Vins, and the duke cTEstrees, and at the same time applied himself to the study of history under the direction of father Le Cointe, who formed a very high opinion of him. He first appeared as a writer in 1688, in “A History of the Divorce of Henry VIII. and Catharine of Arragon,” in three vols. 12mo. The main object of this work is to refute certain facts and arguments contained in the first two books of Burnet’s History of the Reformation. In 1685, when Burnet was at Paris, he had an interview with Le Grand in the presence of Messrs. Thevenot and Auzout, in which the latter proposed his doubts, and the former answered them, both preserving a tone of elegance and mutual respect. The publication of the above work, however, produced a controversy, in the course of which, in 1691, Le Grand addressed three letters to the bishop, to which he replied. How long the controversy might have continued is uncertain, as Le Grand was necessarily diverted from it in 1692, when he received the appointment of secretary to the abbe d'Estrees, in his embassy to Portugal. In this situation he continued till 1697. The leisure which his diplomatic functions allowed was employed in translations of voyages and travels from the Portuguese. In 1702 he accompanied the same minister in Spain, where he remained about two years as secretary. Soon after this, the marquis de Torci, minister of state, took him into his service, and employed his pen in drawing up several memorials concerning the Spanish monarchy, and other political topics, in which he acquitted himself with great ability, but most of them were printed without his name. He employed much of his time in writing a life of Louis XL; but, although this was quite finished in 1728, it still remains in manuscript. In that year, however, hepublished his translation of Lobo’s History of Abyssinia, with many additions; and about the same time his treatise “De la succession a la Couroune de France.” He died of an apoplectic stroke, April 30, 1733. He had been possessed of church preferment, and had held, for a time, the office of censor royal of books.

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

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

The story of this unhappy person shews how easily an innocent man may be destroyed by the malice of the few, working upon the credulity and superstition of the many: for, Grandier, though certainly a bad man, was as certainly innocent of the crimes for which he suffered. Renaudot, a famous physician, and the first author of the French gazette, wrote Grandier’s eulogium, which was published at Paris in loose sheets. It was taken from Menage, who openly defends the curate of Loudun, and calls the possession of those nuns chimerical. In 1693 was published at Amsterdam “Histoire des Diables de Loudun;” from which very curious account it appears, that the pretended possession of the Ursulines was an horrible conspiracy against Grandier’s life. As an author he is known only for a funeral oration for Scaevola de St. Martha, which is said to be an eloquent performafice.

, a philosopher and mathematician, was born Oct. 1, 1671, at Cremona, where his father, a branch of a decayed family, carried on the business of ai> embroiderer. His mother, a woman of considerable talents, taught him Latin, and gave him some taste for poetry. Being disposed to a studious life, he cliose the profession of theology, that he might freely indulge his inclination. He entered into the religious order of Camaldolitesj at Raverrna, in 1687, where he was distinguished for his proficiency in the different branches of literature and science, but was much dissatisfied with the Peripatetic philosophy of the schools. He had not been here long before he established an academy of students of his own age, which he called the Certanti, in opposition to another juvenile society called the Concordi. To his philosophical studies he added those of the belles lettres, music, and history. It appears to have been his early ambition to introduce a new system in education, and with that view he obtained the professorship of philosophy at Florence, by the influence of father Caramelli, although not without some opposition from the adherents to the old opinions. He now applied himself to the introduction of the Cartesian philosophy, while, at the same time, he became zealously attached to mathematical studies. The works of the great Torricelli, of our countryman Wallis, and of other celebrated mathematicians, were his favourite companions, and the objects of his familiar intercourse. His first publication was a treatise to resolve the problems of Viviani on the construction of arcs, entitled “Geometrica Demonstnuio Vivianeorum problematum,” Florence, 1609, 4to. He dedicated this work to the grand duke. Cosmo Til. who appointed the author professor of philosophy in the university of Pisa. From this time Grandius pursued the higher branches of mathematics with the stmost ardour, and had the honour of ranking the ablest mathematicians among his friends and correspondents. Of the number may be named the illustrious Newton, Leibnitz, and Bernoulli. His next publications were, “Geometrica dernonslratio theorematum Hugenianorum circa logisticam, seu Logarithmicam lineatn,” 1701, 4to, and “Quadratura circuii et hyperbola3 per infinitas hyperbolas et parabolas geometrice exhibita,” Pisa, 1703, 8vo. He then published “Sejani et Rufini dialogus de Laderchiana historia S. Petri Damiani,” Paris, 1705, awd “Dissertationes Camaldu lenses,” embracing inquiries into the history of the Camaldolites, both which gave so much offence to the community, that he was deposed from the dignity of abbot of St. Michael at Pisa; but the grand duke immediately appointed him his professor of mathematics in the university. He now resolved some curious and difficult problems for the improvement of acoustics, which had been presented to the royal society in Dublin, and having accomplished his objecvt, he transmitted the solutions, by means of the British minister at the court of Florence, to the Royal Society at London. This was published under the title of “Disquisitio geometrica in systema sonorum D. Narcissi (Marsh) archiepiscopi Armachani,” in 1709, when he was chosen a fellow of the royal society. This was followed by his principal work, “De infinitis infinitorum, et infinite parvorum ordinibus disquisitio geometrica,” Pisa, 1710, 4to, and by many other works enumerated by his biographer, few of which appear in the catalogues of the public libraries in this country. Among other subjects he defended Galileo’s doctrine respecting the earth’s motion, and obtained a complete victory over those who opposed it. He was deeply versed in subjects of political economy; and various disputes were referred to his decision respecting the rights of fishery, &c. He was appointed commissioner from the grand duke and the court of Rome jointly, to settle some differences between the inhabitants of Ferrara and Bologna, concerning the works necessary to preserve their territories from the ravages of inundation. For these and other important public services, he was liberally rewarded by his employers. He died at the age of sevejity-two, in July 1742.

, a French satirist and dramatic poet, was born 1676, in Perigord. He wrote a little comedy in three acts, when but nine years old, which was performed several days successively in the college of Bourdeaux, where he was a scholar; and at sixteen, produced his tragedy of “Jugurtha;” but the work which has made him most known, is a satire against the duke of Orleans, then regent, entitled, “The Philippicks,” in which he accused that nobleman of the most atrocious crimes. To avoid the punishment this work deserved, he fled to Avignon, in which city was a French officer, who had taken refuge there in consequence of having committed a murder, and received a promise of pardon if he could entice the author of the “Philippicks” into the French dominions. His attempt succeeded, and La Grange was conducted to the isle of St. Margaret; but 6nding means to make friends of his keepers, escaped in a boat to Villa Franca, notwithstanding a violent storm. The king of Sardinia gave him a considerable sum of money, and he went from thence into Spain; afterwards into Holland, where he remained till the duke of Orleans was dead. He was then permitted to end his days in France,­where he died in 1758, at the castle of Antoniat, his family seat. His works have been collected in 5 vols. small 12mo, and his tragedies have been as much admired, as his lyric efforts have been depreciated.

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

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

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

, lord Cullen, an eminent lawyer ind judge in Scotland, was descended from a younger >ranch of the ancient family of the Grants, of Grant, in iat kingdom; his ancestor in a direct line, being sir John Grant, of Grant, who married lady Margaret Stuart, daughter of the earl of Athol. He was born about 1660, and received the first part of his education at Aberdeen; but, being intended for the profession of the law, was sent to finish his studies at Leyden, under the celebrated Voet, with whom he became so great a favourite by his singular application, that many years afterwards the professor mentioned him to his pupils, as one that had done honour to the university, and recommended his example to them. On his return to Scotland, he passed through the examination requisite to his being admitted advocate, with such abilities as to attract the particular notice of sir George Mackenzie, then king’s advocate, one of the most ingenious men, as well as one of the ablest and most eminent lawyers, of that age. Being-thus 'qualified for practice, he soon got into full employ, by the distinguishing figure which he made at the Revolution in 1688. He was then only twenty-eight years of age; but, as the measures of the preceding reign had led him to study the constitutional points of law, he discovered a masterly knowledge, when the convention of estates met to debate that important affair concerning the vacancy of the throne, upon the departure of king James to France. Some of the old lawyers, in pursuance of the principles in which they had been bred, argued warmly against those upon which the Revolution, which had taken place in England, was founded; and particularly insisted on the inability of the convention of estates to make any disposition of the crown. Grant opposed these notions with great strength and spirit, and about that time published a treatise, in which he undertook, by the principles of law, to prove that a king might forfeit his crown for himself and his descendants -, and that in such a case the states had a power to dispose of it, and to establish and limit a legal succession, concluding with the warmest recommendations of the prince of Orange to the regal dignity.

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

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

, viscount Lansdowne, an English poet, was descended of a family distinguished for their loyalty; being second son of Barnard Granville, esq. brother to the first earl of Bath of this name, who had a principal share in bringing about the restoration of Charles II. and son of the loyal sir Bevil Greenvile, who lost his life fighting for Charles I. at Lansdowne in 1643. He was born in 1667, and in his infancy was sent to France, under the tuition of sir William Ellys, a gentleman bred up under Dr. Busby, and who was afterwards eminent in many public stations. From this excellent tutor he not only imbibed a taste for classical learning, but was also instructed in all other accomplishments suitable to his birth, in which he made so quick a proficiency, that after he had distinguished himself above all the youths of France in martial exercises, he was sent to Trinity-college, Cambridge, in 1677, at ten years of age; and before he was twelve, spoke some verses of his own composing to the duchess of York, afterwards queen-consort to James II. at her visit to that university in 1679. On account of his extraordinary merit, he was created M. A. at the age of thirteen, and left the college soon after.

In the first stage of his life, he seems rather to have made his Muse subservient to his ambition and thirst after military glory, in which there appeared such a force of genius as raised the admiration of Mr. Waller. But his ambition shewed itself most active on the duke of Monmouth’s rebellion and he requested his father to let him arm in defence of his sovereign but being then only eighteen years of age, he was thought too young for such an enterprize. It was not without extreme reluctance that he submitted to the tenderness of paternal restraint; which was the more mortifying, as his uncle the earl of Bath had on this occasion raised a regiment of foot for the king’s service; with the behaviour and discipline of which his majesty was so well pleased, that, on reviewing them at Hounslow, as a public mark of his approbation he conferred the honour of knighthood upon our author’s elder brother Bevil, who was a captain, at the head of the regiment. Thus, forbidden to handle his pike on this important occasion, he took up his pen after the rebellion was crushed, and addressed some congratulatory lines to the king.

By a laudable oeconomy Granville had hitherto preserved himself from those embarrassments, which in more advanced life he is said to have incurred, and his father, who was just dead, had made some provision for him, which was increased by a small annuity left him by his uncle the earl of Bath, who died not long after. These advantages, added to the favours which his cousin John Grenville had received from her majesty in being raised to the peerage by the title of lord Grenville of Pothericlge, and his brother being made governor of Barbadoes, with a fixed salary of 2000l. the same enabled him to come into the house of commons, as member for Fowey in Cornwall, in the first parliament of the queen. In 1706, his fortune was improved farther by the loss of his eldest brother, sir Bevil, who died that year, in his passage from Barbadoes, in the flower of his age, unmarried, and universally lamented. Hence our younger brother stood now as the head-branch of his family, and he still held his seat in the house of commons, both in the second and third parliaments of the queen. But the administration being taken out of the hands of his friends, with whom he remained steadily connected in the same principles, he was cut off from any prospect of being preferred at court.

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

SacheverelPs trial, which happened not long after, brought on that remarkable change in the ministry in 1710, when Mr. Granville^s friends came again into power. He was elected for the borough of Helston, but, being returned at the same time for the county of Cornwall, he chose to represent the latter; and on September 29, he was declared secretary at war, in the room of Robert Walpole, esq. afterwards the celebrated minister. He continued in this office for some time, and discharged it with reputation; and, towards the close of the next year, 1711, he married the lady Mary, daughter of Edward Villiers, earl of Jersey, at that time possessed of a considerable jointure, as widow of Thomas Thynne, esq. He had just before succeeded to the estate of the elder branch of his family, at Stow; and December 31, he was created a peer of Great Britain, by the title of lord Lansdowne, baron of Bideford, in the county of Devon. In this promotion he was one of the twelve peers who were all created at the same time; and so numerous a creation, being unprecedented, gave much offence, although but little in his case. His lordship was now the next male-issue in that noble family, in which two peerages, that of the earl of Bath, and that of lord Grenville of Potheridge, had been extinguished almost together: his personal merit was universally allowed; and as to his political sentiments, those who thought him most mistaken, allowed him to be open, candid, and uniform. He stood always high in the favour of queen Anne; and with great reason, having upon every occasion testified the greatest zeal for her government, and the most profound respect for her person. For these reasons, in the succeeding year, 1712, he was sworn of her majesty’s privy-council, made controller of her household, about a year after advanced to the post of treasurer in. the same office; and to his other honours, says Dr. Johnson, was added the dedication of Pope’s “Windsor Forest.” His lordship continued in his office of treasurer to the queen, until her death, when he kept company with his friends in falling a sacrifice to party-violence, being removed from his treasurer’s place by George I. Oct. 11, 1714.

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

His character, as drawn by Dr. Johnson, seems now uncontested. He was, says that eminent critic, a man illustrious by birth, and therefore attracted notice; since he is styled by Pope “the polite,” he must be supposed elegant in his manners, and generally loved; he was in times of contest and turbulence steady to his party, and obtained that esteem which is always conferred upon firmness and consistency. As a poet, Dr. Johnson has appreciated his merit with equal justice. He was indeed but a feeble imitator of the feeblest parts of Waller, and is far more to be praised for his patronage of poets, and the judgment he shewed in the case of Pope, than for any pretensions to rank among them. His prose style, however, is excellent, ancl far beyond that of his early contemporaries. Dr, Warton notices, as proofs of this, his “Letter to a young man on his taking orders;” his “Observations on Burnet,” his “Defence of his relation sir Richard Greenville,” his translation of some parts of Demosthenes, and his Letter to his father on the Revolution, written in 1688. The same critic, who must have been acquainted with some who knew him intimately, adds that his conversation was most pleasing and polite; and his affability, and universal benevolence and gentleness, captivating.

, a learned lawyer, was born at Delft in 1600. He wrote various works upon legal and political subjects, by which he acquired a considerable reputation. Among these are “Libertas Veneta, seu Venetorurn in se et suos imperandi Jus.” This was published in 1634, and in 1644 he defended the republic of Venice, in a dispute with the duke of Savoy concerning precedence; for which service, that republic created him a knight of St. Mark. He had also before this, attempted to confute Buchanan’s treatise “De Jure Majestatis,” in a work dedicated to Christina, queen of Sweden, who was known to be a great assertor of regal privileges. Grasswinkel defended the liberty of the seas against Selden, and Burgus, a native of Genoa, in his work “Maris Liberi Vindiciae,” and with so much judgment, in their opinion, that the States of Holland gave him a pension of 500 florins, with the title of Advocate-general of the marine, until an opportunity offered of rewarding his merit with a more honourable employment; which was afterwards that of advocate of the exchequer, and register and secretary of the chambre-mi-partie. He was author, likewise, of a treatise in two volumes, 4to, “On the Sovereignty of the States of Holland.” He died of an apoplexy at Mechlin, Oct. 12, 1666.

, a learned bishop of Amelia, was born in 1536 in the little city called Borgodi-san-Sepulcro in Tuscany. He was educated by cardinal Commendo, who trusted him with the most important affairs, and gave him a rich abbey. After this cardinal’s death, Gratiaiii was secretary to pope Sixtus V. then to cardinal Montalto and Clement VIII. who was partly indebted to him for his elevation to the papal chair, made him bishop of Amelia, sent him to Venice as nuncio, and would have even created him cardinal, but was dissuaded from it by cardinal Aldobraudino, because Gratiani was the duke of Florence’s subject. The air of Venice not agreeing with his health, he retired to Amelia, devoted himself to the duties of a holy bishop, and died there, 1611. He left “Synodal Ordinances;” “The Life of Cardinal Commendo,” 4to, which has been translated into French by M. Flechier; “De Bello Cyprio,” 4to; “De Casibus adversis illustrium virorum sui oevi,” 4to, translated into French by le Pelletier. In 1745, a posthumous work was published at Florence, “De Scriptis invita Minerva ad Aloysium fratrem libri viginti,” 4to.

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

, a native of Holhwic in the diocese of Minister, whose name was Graes, taught ethics and philosophy at Cologn, in a college of which he became the head, and died there May 22, 1542. His attachment to the catholic religion involved him in disputes with Reuchlin, Hutten, and other professors; who, to ridicule the style of the Romish divines, the monks, and some religious ceremonies, are supposed to have published “Epistolos obscurorum virorum ad Dominum Magistrum Ortuinum Gratium,” 1516 and 1517, 4to, in two parts, of which there have been editions since. But it is more probable that this book was really written by Van Hutten and John Jaeger, alias John Crotus, Luther’s contemporary and friend, and who afterwards returned to the church of Rome, and was then reproached by Christopher Olearius for writing such a satire. Erasmus is said to have been so pleased with it, as to be thrown into a violent fit of laughter, which burst an imposthume in his face. In 1710, a beautiful edition was published in 12 mo, at London, dedicated to the author of the Tatler. It was condemned by Leo X. March 15, 1517; and Gratius wrote in opposition to it, “Lamentationes obscurorum virorum non prohibits per Sedem Apostolicam,” Cologn, 1518, 8vo, reprinted in 1649. He also published “Triumphus B. Job,” in elegiac verse, in three books, Cologn, 1537, folio; “Fasciculus rerum expetendarum et fugiendarum,” Cologn, 1535, folio, reprinted under the inspection of Edward Brown, London, 1690, 2 vols. folio; which is a curious collection of pieces respecting the council of Basil.

, the celebrated author of the " Observations on the Bills of Mortality,' 7 was the son of Henry Graunt of Hampshire, who being afterwards settled in Birchin-lane, London, had this child born there, April 24, 1620. Being a rigid puritan, he bred him up in all the strictness of those principles; and designing him for trade, gave him no more education than was barely necessary for that purpose; so that, with the ordinary qualifications of reading, writing, and arithmetic, he was put apprentice to a haberdasher in the city, which trade he afterwards followed, but became a freeman of the Drapers’ company. He came early into business, and in a short time grew so much into the esteem of his fellow -citizens, that he was frequently chosen arbitrator for composing differences between neighbours, and preventing law-suits. With this reputation he passed through all the offices of his ward, as far as that of a common council-man, which he held two years, and was first captain and then major of the train bands. These distinctions were the effects of a great share of good sense and probity, rendered amiable by a mild and friendly disposition; which was all that was in those days expected from a tradesman of no great birth, and of small breeding. But Graunt’s genius was far from being confined within those limits: it broke through all the disadvantages of his slender education, and enabled him to form a new and noble design, and to execute it with as much spirit as there appeared sagacity in forming it.

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

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

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

, a French artist, well known in this as well as his own country, was born at Paris March 26, 1699. He does not appear to have had much education in his profession, but soon made some figure as a draughtsman. He accompanied La Rochalard, who was appointed governor-general of St. Domingo, and meeting in that island with the artist Frezier, was employed by him on a map of the country. Gravelot returned to France in 1745, where he applied principally to drawing; but finding himself in the midst of a number of eminent artists, among whom he despaired of distinguishing himself, he came over to London, where he lived thirteen years. He possessed great fertility of invention, and composed, with much judgment, small subjects for vignettes and other book ornaments; he drew also admirably ancient buildings, tombs, and prospects, and was much employed in all these branches by the artists of London. He drew the monuments of the kings for Vertue, and gave the designs, where invention was necessary, for Pine’s plates of the tapestry in the house of lords. He was also for some time employed in Gloucestershire, drawing churches and antiquities. Vertue compares his neat manner to Picart, and owns that in composition and design, he even excelled his favourite Hollar. He sometimes attempted painting small histories and conversations, and he designed as well as engraved some of the prints to sir The* mas Hanmer’s edition of Shakspeare, and those belonging to Theobald’s edition: but the finest specimen of his abilities as an engraver, is his large print of Kirkstall abbey. He returned to France about the beginning of the present reign, and executed for the booksellers of Paris, the beautiful designs with which they ornamented the works of Corneille, Racine, Voltaire, Boccaccio, Ariosto, Marmontel, &c. He died at Paris in 1773. He is said to have been a man of wit and talents, and perfectly acquainted with the history and theory of his art.

, an English divine and miscellaneous writer, was a younger son of Richard Graves, esq. of Mickleton, in Gloucestershire, where he was born in 1715. His father, who was an able antiquary, died in 1729. His son, Richard, was educated partly at home, under the rev. Mr.Smith, curate of the parish in which his father resided, and partly at a public school at Abingdon, in Berkshire, whence, at the age of sixteen, he was chosen a scholar of Pembroke college, Oxford. Soon after his arrival he joined a party of young men who met in the evening to read Epictetus, Theophrastus, and other Greek authors, seldom read at schools; and a short time after became the associate of his contemporaries, Shenstone the poet, and Anthony Whistler, who used to meet to read poetry, plays, and other light works. In 1736 he was elected a fellow of All Souls college, where he acquired the particular intimacy of sir William Blackstone; but instead of pursuing the study of divinity, according to his original intention, he now devoted his attention to physic, and attended in London two courses of anatomy. A severe illness, however, induced him to resume the study of divinity, and in 1740, after taking his master’s degree, he entered into holy orders. About the same time he removed with Mr. Fitzherbert, fatlier of lord St. Helen’s, to the estate of that gentleman at Tissington, in Derbyshire, where he remained three years enjoying in his house the highest pleasures of refined society. At the end of that period, he set off‘ to make the tour of the north, and while at Scarborough, accidentally met with a distant relation, Dr. Samuel Knight, archdeacon of Berkshire, and the author of the Lives of Colet and Erasmus, by whose recommendation he obtained a curacy near Oxford. This was particularly gratifying to Mr. Graves, who was then coming, by turn, into office in the college, and had been for some time desirous of procuring such a situation. He immediately took possession of his curacy, but as the parsonage-house was out of repair, he took a lodging with a gentleman -farmer in the neighbourhood. The attractions of the farmer’s youngest daughter made such a powerful impression on the heart of Mr. Graves that he resigned his fellowship and married her. After residing about two years on his curacy, he was presented by Mr. Skrine to the rectory of Claverton, where he went to reside in 1750, and till his death, was never absent from it a month at a time. As the narrowness of his circumstances obliged him to superintend in person the education of his children, he likewise -resolved to take other pupils under his tuition; and this practice he continued, with great credit to himself, upwards of thirty years. In 1763, through the interest of Ralph Allen, esq. of Prior-Park, he was presented to the living of Kilmersdon, in addition to tbat of Claverton, and that gentleman likewise procured him the appointment of chaplain to lady Chatham. His conversation was rendered highly agreeable by that epigrammatic turn which points his writings of the lighter kind. His constant good humour rendered him an acceptable companion in every society, his colloquial impromptus being frequently as happy as the jeux d’e^prit of his pen, while both were invariably the unmeditated effusions of a sportive fancy and guileless heart. He died at Claverton, Nov. 23, 1804, at the advanced age of ninety.

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

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

, an eminent English poet, was the fifth child of Mr. Philip Gray, a citizen and money-scrivener of London, and a man of such brutal manners, that his wife (whose maiden name was Dorothy Antrobus) was obliged in 1735 to apply to an eminent civilian for his advice as to a separation. Thomas was born in Cornhill, Dec. 20, 1716, and was the only one of many children who survived. The rest died in their infancy, from suffocation, produced by a fulness of blood; and he owed his life to a memorable instance of the love and courage of his mother, who removed the paroxysm which attacked him, by opening a vein with her own hand an instance of affection which he long rememhered with filial rev erence. Indeed it was to her exertions when her home was rendered unhappy by the cruelty of her husband, that our poet was indebted for his education, and consequently for the happiness of his life. We may readily, therefore, believe what Mason has told us, that “Gray seldom mentioned his mother without a sigh.”

He was educated at Eton, under the protection of Mr. Antrobus, his maternal uncle, who was at that time assistant to Dr. George, and also a fellow of Peter-house, Cambridge, where Gray was admitted as a pensioner in 1734, in his nineteenth year. At Eton his friendship with Horace Walpole (the late earl of Orford), and more particularly with Richard West, commmenced. In the latter, who was a son of the Irish lord chancellor West, henet with one whose proficiency in literature was considerable for his age, whose mind was amiable and ingenuous, wnose disposition was similar to his own, but whose loss he had to deplore, after a strict friendship of eight years. When Gray removed to Peter-house, West went to Christ church, Oxford, and Walpole to King’s -college, Cambridge. It is difficult to trace the line of study which Gray pursued at college. His correspondence at that time treats chiefly of his poetry, and other private pursuits; and he seems to have withdrawn himself entirely from the severity of mathematical studies, while his inquiries centered in classical literature, in the acquisition of modern languages, in history and other branches of polite literature. During his residence at college from 1734 to 1738, his poetical productions were some Latin verses entitled “Luna habitabilis,” inserted in the “Musae Etonenses;” a poem “Onthe marriage of the prince of Wales;” and a “Sapphic Ode to West,” both in Latin also a Latin version of the “Care selve beate” of the Pastor Fido, and fragments of translations in English from Statins and Tasso.

Gray returned by himself to England in 1741, in which year his father died. With a small fortune, which her feiTsbarvd’s i:n prudence had impaired, Mrs. Gray and a maiden sister retired to the house of Mrs. Rogers, another sister, at Sloke, near Windsor; and Gray, thinking his fortune not sufficient to enable him to prosecute the study of the law, and yet unwilling to hurt the feelings of his mother, hy appearing entirely to forsake his profession, pretended to change the line of study, and went to Cambridge to take his degree in civil law, but had certainly no thoughts of that as a profession. He went accordingly to Cambridge, in the winter 1742, where he took his degree of bachelor of civil law, and employed himself in a perusal of' the Greek authors with such assiduity, that in the space of about six years there were hardly any writers of note in that language, whom he had not only read but digested; remarking, by the mode of common-place, their contents, their difficult and corrupt passages, and all this with the accuracy of a critic, added to the diligence of a student. In his first year also he translated some parts of Propertins, and selected for his Italian studies the poetry of Petrarch. He wrote a heroic epistle in Latin, in imitation of the manner of Ovid; and a Greek epigram which he communicated to West; to whom, also, in the summer, when he retired to his family at Stoke, he sent his “Ode to Spring,” which was written there, but which did not arrive in Hertfordshire till after the death of his beloved friend, who expired June 1, 1742, aged twenty -six. In the autumn of this same year, Gray composed the ode. on “A distant prospect of Eton College,” and the “Hymn to Adversity,” and began the “Elegy in a Country Church Yard.” An affectionate sonnet in English, and an apostrophe which opens the fourth book of his poern “De principiis cogitandi” (his last composition in Latin verse) bear strong marks of the sorrow left on his mind from the death of West; and of the real affection with which he honoured the memory of his worth and of his talents.

In 1744 the difference between Walpole and Gray was adjusted by the interference of a lady who wished well to both parties. The lapse of years had probably softened their mutual resentment in a sufficient degree to admit again of correspondence on amicable terms. About this time Gray became acquainted with Mr. Mason, then a scholar of St. John’s college, whose poetical talents he had noticed, and some of whose poems he revised at the request of a friend. His bequests to Mr. Mason show that this intimacy was improved into the str.ctest friendship and confidence. He maintained also a correspondcnce with another friend, Dr. Wharton of Durham, and seems to have been on familiar terms with the celebrated Dr. Middleton, whose loss he afterwards laments. “I find a friend,” he says, “so uncommon a thing, that I cannot help regretting even an old acquaintance, which is an indifferent likeness of it.”

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

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

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

As a poet, it may be sufficient here to refer to our authorities, which are in the hands of every reader, with perhaps the exception of an excellent edition of his works, just published, by the rev. John Mitford, which we can recommend with perfect confidence. Dr. Johnson’s character of his poetry has excited a controversy, from which it may be truly said that Gray has emerged with additional lustre, yet if mere popularity were to determine the question, that critic bas in some instances spoken the sentiments of the majority, as well as his own. It were, however, to be wished for his own sake, that in his general colouring of Gray’s life and works, he had attended more to what he calls “the common-sense of readers, uncorrupted with literary prejudices.” Had this been the case, while some of his strictures might have been allowed, he would have been a powerful ally of those whose superior minds know how to feel and how to appreciate the merit of Gray, and who have assigned him one of the highest places among the English poets of the eighteenth century.

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

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

, an eminent mathematician and antiquary, was eldest son of John Greaves, rector of Colmore, near Alresford, in Hampshire, where, his son was born in 1602, and probably instructed in grammar learning by his father, who was the most celebrated school-master in that country. At fi/teen years of age he was sent to Baliol college, in Oxford, where he proceeded B. A. July 6, 1621. -Three years after, his superiority in classical learning procured him the first place of five in an election to a fellowship of Merton-college. On June 25, 1628, he commenced M. A. and, having completed his fellowship, was more at liberty to pursue the bent of his inclination, which leading him chiefly to oriental learning and the mathematics, he quickly distinguished himself in each of these studies; and his eminent skill in the latter procured him the professorship of geometry in Gresham college, which he obtained February 22^ 1630.

Immediately after his return, he acquainted archbishop. Laud, who was his liberal patron, with his intentions, and, being encouraged by his grace, set about making preparations for it. His primary view was to measure the pyramids with all proper exactness, and also to make astronomical and geographical observations, as opportunities offered, for the improvement of those sciences. A large apparatus of proper mathematical instruments was consequently to be provided; and, as the expence of purchasing these would be considerable, he applied for assistance to the city of London, but mefwith an absolute denial. This he very much resented, and in relating the generosity of his brothers upon his own money falling short, he observes, 44 That they had strained their own occasions, to enable him, in despite of the city, to go on with his designs.* 1 He had been greatly disappointed in his hopes of meeting with curious books in Italy he therefore proposed to make that another principal part of his business and to compass it in the easiest manner, he bought several books before his departure, in order to exchange them with others in the east. Besides his brothers, he had probably some help from Laud, from whom he received a general discretionary commission to purchase for him Arabic and other Mss. and likewise such coins and medals as he could procure. Laud also gave him a letter of recommendation to sir Peter Wyche, the English ambassador at Constantinople.

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

But upon his return, the ensuing national troubles proved greatly detrimental to his private affairs, and he suffered much for his loyalty to the king and his gratitude to Laud. After a short stay at Gresham college, which was no longer a place of safety for him, he went to Oxford, and set about digesting his papers, and preparing such of them as might be most useful for the press. In this business he was assisted by archbishop Usher, to whom he had been long known; and here he drew a map of Lesser Asia at his grace’s request, who was writing his dissertation of that country, printed in 1641.

Hitherto he had been able, in a considerable degree, to surmount his difficulties, there being still left, some members in the house of commons who had a regard for learning, among whom Selden made the greatest figure. That gentleman was burgess for the university of Oxford; and, being well known to our author before his travels, he dedicated his “Roman Foot” to him, under the character of his noble and learned friend: and his friendship was very serviceable to Greaves, in a prosecution in the parliament, in 1647, occasioned by his executorship to Dr. Bainbridge. This trust had so involved him in law-suits as entirely to frustrate his design of going to Leyden to consult some Persian Mss. necessary for publishing some treatises in that language. Upon the arrival of the parliamentary commissioners at Oxford, several complaints were made to them against him on the same account; which being sent by them to the committee of the house of commons, our author, probably by the interest of Selden (who was a member of that committee), was there acquitted, after which he applied to the court of aldermen and the committee of Camden-house for restitution. But though he evaded this farther difficulty by the assistance of some powerful friends, yet this respite was but short; however,

* The same method had been pro- Greaves is in the Phil. Trans. No. 257. posed to pope Gregory, who rejected } These are the most genrally-seit, as Mr. Greaves says, that he migbt ful parts of his -works. Th latter 19

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

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

, a Roman senator, and a man of letters, flourished in the reign of Caligula, and was greatly distinguished for eloquence, and for the study of philosophy, as well as for a moral conduct surpassing that of many of his contemporaries. He refused to obey the command of the emperor to appear as the accuser of Marcus Silanus, and suffered death in consequence, in the 40th year of the Christian sera. Seneca, who never speaks of him without admiration, says, that he was put to death because he was too good a man to be permitted to live under a tyrant. He is said to have written a treatise concerning agriculture and the management of vines. He was the father of the illustrious Cn. Julius Agricola.

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