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

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

When he had at length formed his final resolution, he prepared himself in earnest for that employment he so ardently loved, and in wMch he so eminently excelled. He was frequently in the company of the most admired actors; he obtained introductions to the managers of the theatres; be tried his talent in reciting particular and favourite portions of plays; and sometimes wrote criticisms upon the action and elocution of the players. His diffidence, however, withheld him from trying his strength at first upon a London theatre: he thought the hazard too great; and therefore commenced his noviciate in acting, with a company of players then ready to set out for Ipswich, under the direction of Mr. Giffard and Mr. Dunstall, in the summer of 1741. The first effort of his theatrical talents wast exerted in Aboan, in “Oroonoko;” and met with applause equal to his most sanguine desires. Under the assumed name of Lyddal, he not only acted a variety of characters in plays, particularly Chamont in the “Orphan,” captain Brazen in the “Recruiting Officer,” and sir Harry Wildair; but he likewise attempted the active feats of the harlequin. In every essay he was gratified with constant and loud applause, and Ipswich has always boasted of having first seen and encouraged this memorable actor.

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

Garrick’s fame was now so extended, that an invitation, upon very profitable conditions, was sent him to act in Dublin, during the months of June, July, and August, 1742; which invitation he accepted, and went, accompanied by Mrs. Woffington. His success there exceeded all imagination; he was caressed by all ranks as a prodigy of theatrical accomplishment; and the playhouse was sd crouded during this hot season, that a very mortal fever was produced, which was called Garrick’s fever. He returned to London before the winter, and attended closely to his theatrical profession, in which he was now irrevocably fixed. To pursue the particulars of his life through this would be to give an history of the stage; for which, we rather choose, and it is more consistent with our plan, to refer to Davies’s very minute account.

In April 1747 he became joint-patentee of Drury-lane theatre with Mr. Lacy. July 1749, he was married to mademoiselle Viletti; and, as if he apprehended that this change of condition would expose him to some sarcastical wit, he endeavoured to anticipate it, by procuring his friend Mr. Edward Moore, to write a diverting poem upon his marriage. In truth this guarding against distant ridicule, and warding off apprehended censure, was a favourite peculiarity with him through life. When he first acted Macbeth, he was so alarmed with the fears of critical examination upon his new manner, that during his preparation for the character, he devoted some part of his time to write an humourous pamphlet upon the subject. It was called, “An Essay on Acting in which will be considered, the mimical behaviour of a certain fashionable faulty actor, &c. To which will be added, a short criticism on his acting Macbeth.”

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

After he had been abroad about a year and a half, he turned his thoughts homewards; and arrived in London in April 1765. But, before he set out from Calais, he put in practice his usual method of preventing censure, and blunting the edge of ridicule, by anticipation, in a poem called “The Sick Monkey,” which he got a friend to print in London, to prepare his reception there. The plan of it was, the talk and censure of other animals and reptiles on him and his travels. Wretched, surely, must be the life of a man exposed continually to public inspection, if thus afraid of censure and ridicule, and afraid with so little reason. In the mean time the piece died stillborn; and his historian says, “is among the few things he wrote, which one would wish not to remember.” After his return, he was not so constantly employed as formerly in the fatigues of acting; he had now more leisure to apply himself in writing; and in a few months he produced two dramatic pieces.

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

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

, was grandson of M. de Garsault, groom of the king’s grand stable, whom M. de Colbert made inspector general of the studs throughout the kingdom in 1663. His uncle was captain of the ktng’s studs, and he was appointed captain in reversion, but did not succeed to the place; he nevertheless paid much attention to horses, and was by that means qualified to publish his “Nouveau parfait Marechal,” the fourth edition of which is, 1770, 4to. It is the best French work on that subject; nor has it been exceeded by any that have since appeared. M. de Garsault had before translated Snape’s “Anatomy of a Horse” from the English, which translation appeared in 1737, 4to. In 1756 he published his treatise on carriages, including a description of a coach that cannot be overturned; which he made use of a long time. “Le Guide du Cavalier,” 1769, 12mo, is the last work published on horses by this author; he afterwards employed his leisure hours in painting, engraving, and several other works; as “les Fails des Causes celebres,” 12mo; *‘ le Notionaire de ce qu’il y a de plus utile dans les Connoissances acquises," 8vo. He wrote also in the collection of the academy of the sciences, thd arts of the tennis-racket maker, the peruke-maker, tha taylor, the sempstress, the shoemaker, the harness-maker, the sadler, and a collection of plants engraved, in 4 vols, 8vo. A palsy brought him insensibly to his grave, November 1778, at the age of 85.

, a celebrated poet and physician, was born of a good family in Yorkshire, and sent from school to Peter-house-college in Cambridge; where making choice of physic for his profession, he acquainted himself with the fundamental principles and preparatory requisites of that useful science. At the same time he had an admirable genius and taste for polite literature; and, being much delighted with those studies, he continued at college, employing his leisure hours in that way, till he took the degree of M. D. July 7, 1691. Soon after this, resolving to undertake the practice of his profession in London, he offered himself a candidate to the college of physicians; and, being examined March 12, 1631-2, was admitted fellow June 26th following.

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

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

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

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

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

In the mean time, with the same feelings, he had written a dedication for an intended edition of Lucretius, in 1711, to his late majesty king George I. then elector of Brunswick; and on the accession of that prince to the throne, had the honour of being knighted with the duke of Marlborough’s sword, was appointed king’s physician in ordinary, and physician general to the army. These were no more than just rewards even of his medical merit. He had gone through the office of censor of the college in 1702, and had practised always with great reputation, and a strict regard to the honour and interest of the faculty; never stooping to prostitute the dignity of his profession, through mean and sordid views of self-interest, by courting even the most popular and wealthy apothecaries. In a steady adherence to this noble principle, he concurred with the much celebrated Dr. Radcliflfe, with whom he was also often joined in physical consultations.

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

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

Dr. Garth was interred Jan. 22, in the church of Harrow-on-the-hill, near London, where he had caused a vault to be built for himself and his family; being survived by an only daughter, married to the honourable colonel William Boyle, a younger son of the honourable colonel Henry Boyle, uncle to the last earl of Burlington of that name.

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

To the last he maintained his gaiety and briskness; and, in company with his friends, was always ready to give way to those innocent sallies of pleasantry, that facetiousness and hilarity which are the natural fruits of an unblemished life, and of a benevolent disposition. In 1795 he married a second wife; but she died long before him. The day previous to his death he said to a friend, in the words of Grotius, “Heu vitam perdidi operose nihil agendo” adding,that he had firm reliance on God’s goodness through Christ. He died next day, the 1st March, 1812, and was interred in Bunhill-fields burying-ground.

In person he bore so striking a resemblance to the first earl of Chatham, that he was sometimes mistaken for him. This likeness once produced considerable sensation in the house of commons. Lord Chatham was pointed to in the gallery; all believed him to be there; the person really present was Dr. Garthshore. He died worth about 55,000l. and by his will, made only a few days before -his death, after the payment of a considerable number of legacies, names as residuary legatee, John Maitland, esq. M. P.

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

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

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

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

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

On his return to England, he resided partly in Gray’sinn, and partly at Walthamstow. In his “Flowers” he informs us, that he had, in the midst of his youth, determined to abandon all vaine delights, and to return to Gray’s-inn, there to undertake again the study of the common law; and that at the request of five gentlemen of the inn, namely Francis and Anthony Kinwelmersh, Messrs. Vaughan, Nevile, and Courtop, he wrote what he calls his “Memoires.” These tasks, however, may have been performed at an earlier period of life, if it can be proved that he left the inn twice before this time, but his general design now was to trust to his wit, and to publish his early poems, and those other works, written in his more serious moments, that were intended to counteract the licentious tendency of his amatory verses. In the summer of 1575, he accompanied queen Elizabeth in one of her stately progresses, and wrote for her amusement, in the month of July, a kind of mask, entitled “The Princely Pleasures of Kenelworth Castle.” Some of the verses were not only written, but spoken by him on this occasion; but the whole of the entertainment, owing to the unfavourable weather, was not performed. On his return from this progress, his principal residence, while preparing his works, was at Waltliamstow. Here it appears, by Whetstone’s account, he wrote the “Steele Glasse,” the “Glass of Government,” the “Delicate Diet,” a book of hunting, and the “Doom’s Day Drum,” which last was not published until after his death. He left other pieces behind him, some of which were afterwards printed in various collections, but without his name.

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

Although his age is not mentioned by any of his biographers, yet from various expressions in his works, it may be conjectured that it did not exceed forty years, and even a much shorter period might be fixed upon with great probability. His stay at Cambridge was perhaps not long; in 1566, when his comedy of the “Supposes” was acted at Gray’s-inn, he is denominated one of the students. In one of his prefaces, he calls himself of middle age; his exploits in the army are consistent with the prime of life; and it is certain that he did not survive these above five years. The editions of Gascoigne’s works are all extremely scarce, and often imperfect. An account of them may be seen in the late edition of the English poets, from which this article is taken.

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

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

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

Besides the weight of his decisions in the King’s-bench, already mentioned, he was engaged in reforming and regulating other public affairs, pursuant to the resolutions and directions of the parliament. Of this we shall give one instance. The attornies being even then grown by their multitude and mal-practice a public grievance, an act was made in 1410, not only for the reduction and limitation of them to a certain number for every county, but also for their amendment and correction; as that they should be sworn every terra to deal faithfully and truly by their clients, and in breach thereof be imprisoned for a twelvemonth, and then make their ransom according to the king’s will: and it being farther enacted, that the justices of both benches should make this regulation, sir W. Gascoigne must unavoidably have had a principal part in promoting; the general benefit by redressing that grievance.

This unparalleled example of firmness and civil intrepidity upon that bench, happened in the latter end of Henry IVth’s reign, which our chief justice did not long survive. He was called to the parliament which met in the first year of Henry V. but died before the expiration of the year, Dec. 17, 1413. He was twice married, and had a train of descendants by both his wives: by the former, the famous earl of Strafford, in the reign of Charles I.

, one of the revivers of literature, and an able grammarian, took his name from the village of Barzizza, near Bergamo, where he was born in 1370. It is thought that he studied at Bergamo, and kept a private school there. He afterwards became professor of the belles lettres at Pavia, Venice, Padua, and Milan. He was in this last mentioned city in 1418, when pope Martin V. passed through in his return from the council of Constance. Barzizza was on this occasion appointed to pay him the compliments of the city, and the two universities of Pavia and Padua having sent orators to the pope, he was also' employed in preparing their intended speeches. He was during the rest of his life patronized by the duke Philip-Maria-Visconti, and enjoyed the esteem due to his learning and talents until his death at Milan about the end of 1430.

His Latin works, consisting of treatises on grammar and rhetoric, orations, letters, &c. do not form the only title he has to be considered among the revivers of learning and elegant Latinity. He merited this honour also, like Aurispa and Guarino, for his ability in explaining the ancient classics, and in decyphering the manuscript copies which at that time engaged the curious researches of the learned world. His “Epistles” form an epoch in the history of French printing. When two doctors of the Sorbonne, William Fichet, and John de la Pierre, had engaged from Germany three printers, Gering, Crantz, and Friburger, to come to Paris, in 1459, a printing-press was set up in the house of the Sorbonne, and Gasparino’s “Epistles” were the first typographical production in France. The title was “Gasp. Pergamensis (Bergomensis) Epistolre,” 4to, without date, but printed in 1470. All Gasparino’s works were collected and printed by cardinal Furietti at Rome, 1725, 4to, with those of his son Guiniforte. This son was born at Pavia in 1406. He had not the same reputation for eloquence and elegance as his father; but his works shew that he had studied the ancients with equal assiduity. He lectured at Novara on Cicero’s Offices, and Terence’s comedies, when a lucky circumstance introduced him to Alphonso king of Arragon. Being admitted to address him at Barcelona, in 1432, the king was so struck with his eloquence, as immediately to appoint him one of his council, and Guiniforte in consequence had the honour to accompany him in his expedition to the coast of Africa. Falling sick, however, in Sicily, he obtained leave to return to Milan, but without any loss of the king’s respect and friendship for him. Here the duke Philip of Milan gave him the title of his vicar-general. With this he held the office of professor of moral philosophy, the duties of which were frequently interrupted by his being employed in diplomatic affairs to the courts of Arragon and Rome. After the death of Philip, his successor appointed Guiniforte to be ducal secretary, and he passed the rest of his life in that office. It is thought he died about the end of 1459.

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

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

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

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

He resided at Digne till 1653; when, in company of Francis Bernier, physician, and Anthony Poller, his amanuensis, he returned to Paris. Here he lived in the house of M. Monmor, master of the court of requests, at whose request he had formerly engaged to write the life of Tycho Brahe, and then made several collections with that view; and this request being now renewed, he immediately set about the work, and published it at Paris, with the lives of Copernicus, Purbachius, and Regiomontanus, in 1654, 4to. But he neither suffered this nor any other business to prevent him from going on with his astronomical observations, and had no sooner finished the last-mentioned book than he proceeded to complete his system of the heavens. While he was thus employed, too intensely for the feeble state of his health, he relapsed into his former disorder, which had been relieved by the intermission of his studies; so that he was neither able to enjoy his garden-walks, nor the society of his friends, with his usual alacrity; and in the autumn of his years, his case became desperate.

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

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

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

His large and valuable library, together with his astronomical and philosophical apparatus, was purchased by the emperor Ferdinand III. and afterwards deposited, with other choice collections, in the imperial library at Vienna. The edition of his "works above mentioned contains the philosophy and life of Epicurus the author’s own philosophy; his astronomical works the lives of Peiresc, Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Pnrbach, Regiomontanus, John Muller, &c. a refutation of the Meditations of Des Cartes; Epistles; and other treatises. Bernier, a celebrated Freuch physician, has given an accurate view of the philosophy of Gassendi in his abridgment of it, published in French at Lyons, in 1684, in eight volumes 12mo. The Life of Gassendi, accurately written by Bougerelle, a priest of the oratory, was published at Paris in 1737.

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

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

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

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

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

He survived the bishop of Rochester’s banishment but a few years. The gout, with which he had been much afflicted in the latter part of his life, put a period to it, Nov. 24, 1725. He died at his canon’s lodgings in Christ Church, and was buried in that cathedral without any monument: but, as Dr. Willis observes, he left a sufficient monument of himself in his writings, and his virtues are far from being yet forgotten. His widow died in 1761, and his daughter, married to the Rev. Dr. Bromley, in 1768. Besides the pieces already mentioned, he published “A moral proof of a Future State,” in 8vo, which being printed without his name, gave occasion to ascribe some other pieces of a similar nature to him, but without any certainty.

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

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

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

He had, in some of his discourses at Lincoln’s-inn, delivered his opinion concerning lots and lotteries, and shewn the lawfulness of the lusorious, and the unlawfulness of divinatory lots which being misrepresented, he published “A Discourse of the nature and use of Lots; a treatise historical and theological, 1619,” 4to. This publication made a great noise, and drew him afterwards into a controversy; but before that happened, he made a tour through the Low Countries, in company with two friends, and a nephew of his, then a young student. They set out July 13, 1620, and arriving at Middleburgh in Zealand, Gataker preached in the English church there; and in his travels confuted the English papists in Flanders. His mother, yet aliv-^, was apprehensive of some mischief befalling him, as he was a known adversary to the popish cause; but he returned with his companions safe Aug. 14, having viewed the most considerable places in the Low Countries. During this short stay he had an opportunity of seeing the distressed state of the protestants in Holland; with which he was so much affected, that he even thought it behoved the English to give up some national interests then disputed by them, for fear of ruining the protestant cause.

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

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

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

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

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

, one of the French missionaries in China, whose knowledge of that country was carried to a wonderful extent by an active spirit of inquiry, was born at Caillac, in 1708, and in 1721 was sent by the Jesuits, to which order he belonged, to China, where he resided thirty -eight years. He acted as interpreter at the court of Pekin; and his knowledge of the sciences and History of China were matter of astonishment to the Chinese themselves. He sent many curious memoirs on the subject to Europe, besides which, he published a good history of Gengiskhan, in 4to, 1739; and after his death appeared a translation of the “Chou King,” in 1771, a work held in the utmost veneration by the Chinese. Gaubil died at Pekin July 24, 1759. His eulogium may be found in the 31st volume of the “Lettres curieuses et edifiantes.”

, an eminent German physician, was born at Heidelberg in 1705, and was educated partly among the Jesuits, and partly in the orphan-house at Halle, under the celebrated professor Franke. He became afterwards a pupil of the learned Boerhaave, and a professor of medicine in the university of Leyden, where he took the degree of doctor in 1725. He died Nov. 29 r 1780, leaving several works of considerable value. 1. “Dissertatio Inauguralis de solidis humani corporis partibus,” Leyden, 1725. 2. “Libellus de methodo concinnandi formulas medicamentorum,” ibidem, 1739, 1767; Franckfort, 1750, and in French, Paris, 1749. 3. “De fregimine Mentis, quod Medicorum est,” Leyden, 1747; 1763. In this work he describes the effects resulting from the empire of the body over the mind. 4. “Institutiones Pathologiae Medicinalis,” ibid. 1758; This work also passed through several editions and translations. 5. “Adversariorum varii argument! Liber unus,” ibid. 1771. 6. “Oratio Panegyrica in auspicium sseculi tertii Academic Batavse quae Leidse est,” &c. 1775, foh an excellent historical sketch of the rise and progress of the university of Leyden

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

, an English prelate, of more fame than character, was son of John Gauden, vicar of Mayfield in Essex, where he was born in 1605. He was first educated at Bury St. Edmunds in Suffolk, whence he was removed to St. John’s-college in Cambridge; and having made a good proficiency in academical learning, took his degrees in arts. About 1630, he married a daughter of sir William Russel of Chippenham in Cambridgeshire, and was presented to that vicarage. He also obtained the rectory of Brightwell in Berkshire, which bringing him near Oxford, he entered himself of Wadham-college in that university, and became tutor to two of his father-in-law’s sons; other young gentlemen, and some noblemen, were also put under his care. He proceeded B. D. July 1635; and D.D.July 8, 1641.

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

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

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

In 1659, as soon as the first dawn of the restoration began to shew itself, the doctor printed “itf<* Jaxpwa, Ecclesiae Anglicanae suspiria;” “The tears, sighs, complaints, and prayers of the Church of England, setting forth her former constitution, compared with her present condition, also th visible causes and probable cures of her distemper,” in four books, folio. The same year, upon the death of bishop Brownrigg in 1659, whose funeral sermon he preached and published, with his life, he succeeded him as preacher to the Temple; and upon the return of Charles II. he succeeded the same bishop in the see of Exeter, Nov. 1660, having been made king’s chaplain before. The value of a bishopric was greatly enhanced at this time, by the long intermission that had happened in renewing the leases of their estates, during the abolition of episcopacy. In this view, the nomination to Exeter might be looked upon as a present from his majesty of 20,000l. since the bishop received that sum in fines on the renewal of leases.

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

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

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

, bishop of Brescia, about the end of the fourth and the beginning of -the fifth century, was elected to that see by the prelates and the people of the province, while performing a journey of devotion to the east, but it appears that he was very reluctant to take upon him the office. Having at length accepted it, he was sent in the year 405 to Constantinople, with the legates of pope Innocent, to re-establish St. Chrysostom in his see, and to hold a general council. The time of his death is fixed by some at the year 410, and by others at 427. The 25th of October is celebrated as his day. He was author of several works, a life of his predecessor Philaster, and of letters and other pieces, which are inserted in the fifth volume of the “Bibliotheca Patrum;” but the most complete edition of his works was published at Brescia, in 1738, by Paul Galeardi, a canon of Brescia. His style is plain, but neither animated nor correct.

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

, was born about 1685, of a noble family, at Louviers. His refusing to sign the Formulary having put a stop to his degrees in the Sorbonne, he retired to the seminary of St. Magloir, and devoted himself to the study of theology. On his return home, he was appointed subdeacon of Evreux, but opposing the bull Unigenitus, was obliged to quit that diocese, upon which de Langle, bishop of Boulogne, gladly received him into his house, and ordained him priest; from that time Gaultier was the prelate’s counsellor, proctor, grand vicar, friend, and secretary. De Langle dying in 1724, Colbert bishop of Montpellier, took Gaultier to be his librarian, as was supposed, but in fact to be his adviser, confessor, and secretary; while he was looked upon at Montpellier merely as a quiet inoffensive man, with just abilities sufficient to take down the bishop’s books and put them in order again. Colbert died in 1738, and Gaultier went the same year to Paris, where he lived as retired as at Montpellier, only visiting his native place once a year for relaxation. In the last of these journies, returning to Paris with a friend, their post-chaise was overset, and Gaultier being dangerously hurt by his fall, was carried to Gaillon as the nearest place, where he died five days after, October 30, 1755. Besides what he wrote for messrs. Langle and Colbert, he left various works on the affairs of his time, all anonymous except the largest, which has been published since his death, and is entitled

, an able divine and mathematician, was born at Lindau, in Swabia, in 1667, and after some education here, was sent to Ulm, and afterwards to the university of Jena, where he took the degree of M. A. and became a considerable proficient in mathematics. After this he spent some time in different German universities, improving himself in theology and mathematics, and then visited Amsterdam and London. In 16y3 he was ordained, and appointed in 1728 principal pastor of Lindau. His leisure hours he devoted to mathematical and philosophical pursuits, became a lecturer in these branches of science, in which character his reputation procured him the correspondence of many of the most learned mathematicians in foreign countries. He was a practical mechanic, as well as an able illustrator of the higher branches of science; and many of the instruments which he made use of were constructed by himself. He had begun the erection of an observatory, but death terminated his labours in 1738. He was the author of “Gnomonica Mechanica Universalis;” of various calendars, and calculations and descriptions of eclipses; of other philosophical treatises, and of sermons. His Ephemerides and astronomical observations were received by the royal academies of sciences at Paris and Berlin, and several of them were inserted in the Memoirs of those learned societies.

, a very popular English poet, was born in 1688, near Barnstaple, in Devonshire; and at the freeschool there, acquired a taste for classical literature, but his family estate being much reduced, his fortune was not sufficient to support him as a gentleman; and his friends, therefore, bound him apprentice to a silk-mercer in London. But this step being taken without consulting the taste and temper of the youth, the shop soon became his aversion, and in a few years his master, upon the offer of a small consideration, willingly consented to give up his indentures. Being thus released, he indulged himself in that course of life to which he felt himself irresistibly inclined poetry became at once his delight and his talent; and he suffered not his muse to be disturbed by any disagreeable attention to the expence of cultivating his mind.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At length the first volume of his “Le monde primitif” made its appearance in 1773, and was continued until it extended to 9 vols. 4to, in which he endeavours to trace the history of the moral and physical world to its origin. Perhaps no man ever endeavoured to compass so great a variety of objects; and although the author has indulged in some paradoxical notions, yet his learning, extensive reading, and sentiment, create a reverence for his talents, and it is not without reason that the French rank this work among those which have done the greatest honour to their nation. D'Alembert was so struck with the first volume, that he asked if it was the academy of forty (the number of the French academy) that were employed in executing so vast an undertaking, and expressed the greatest astonishment, when told that Gebelin was the sole author.

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

Gebelin was one of the most learned men of his time, and not only familiar with the ancient and modern languages, but with natural history, mathematics, mythology, ancient monuments, statues, gems, inscriptions, and every species of knowledge and research which goes to form the accomplished antiquary. Besides the “Monde primitif,” he published, 1. “Le Patriote Fran$ais et impartiale,” 1753, 2 vols. 12 mo. 2. “Histoire de la guerre des Cevennes, ou de la guerre des Camisards,” 1760, 3 vols. 12mo. 3. “L'Histoire Naturelle de la Parole, ou precis de la Grammaire Universelle,” 1776, 8vo. This forms a part of his “Monde primitif.” 4. “Dictionnaire etymologique et raisotme des racines Latines, a l'usage des jteunes gens,” 1780, 8vo. 5. “Lettre sur le Magnetisme Animal,” 4to; his defence of this quackery, which for a time was too much encouraged even in this country. 6. “Devoirs du prince et du citoyen,” a posthumous publication which appeared in 1789, 8vo.

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

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

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

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

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

An attack had been made upon him as an infidel, in the Gentleman’s Magazine, soon after his death, and it was said that “his dying recantation, like that of Voltaire, had been studiously concealed.” In answer to this, his learned, but somewhat too affectionately partial biographer, John Mason Good, F. R. S. gives an account of an interview between Dr. Geddes and M. St. Martin, a catholic priest, which we shall transcribe.

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

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

, the eldest son of an old and respectable family in the shire of Tweedale, in Scotland, was born about 1710, and received the first rudiments of learning in his father’s family, under private tutors. His genius was quick, and, as he took great pleasure in reading, he soon made considerable progress in the learned languages, and the elements of philosophy. As soon as he understood Latin and Greek, he entered with remarkable spirit into the sentiments of the ancient writers, and discovered an ardent desire for a more intimate knowledge of them. He afterwards studied the different branches of philosophy at the university of Edinburgh, and particularly applied to mathematical learning, in which he made uncommon proficiency, under the tuition of the late learned Colin Maclaurin. After he had acquired a competent knowledge of philosophy, his thoughts were turned to the law, which he proposed to make the peculiar study and profession of his life. After the usual course of preparatory study for this employment, he was admitted advocate, and practised at the bar for several years with growing reputation; but he did not arrive to the greatest eminence in his profession, as he was cut oft“by a lingering consumption in 1749, before he was forty years of age. His character was in all respects amiable and worthy. He retained through his whole life that keen relish for ancient literature which he had imbibed in his youth and what time he could spare from the duties of his profession, and the necessary affairs of his family, was devoted to the study of the ancient poets, philosophers, and historians. The fruit of these studies was” An Essay on the Composition and Manner of Writing of the Ancients, particularly Plato," Glasgow, 1748, 8vo. He is said to have left papers sufficient to make another volume, but they have not been published.

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

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

, a Swedish naturalist, and called the Reaumur of that nation, was born in 1720, and after being educated in classical learning at Utrecht, studied tinder Linnæus at Upsal. Having an interest in the mines of Dannemora, he greatly improved the working of them by machinery of his own invention; and the improvements which he at the same time introduced in the cultivation of his estates procured him a very large fortune, which he expended in acts of munificence, such as endowing schools, repairing churches, and making provision for the poor. His opulence and reputation raised him to the honours of chamberlain, marshal of the court, knight of the order of Vasa, &c. a member of the academy of Stockholm, and at corresponding member of that of Paris. He died irt March 1778. His studies in natural history produced his “Memoires pour servir a Pbistoire des Insectes,” 7 vols. generally bound in 9, 4to, illustrated with valuable and accurate engravings. The first volume of this work is extremely rare, for which a singular reason has been assigned. The author, it is said, was so hurt at the indifferent reception the public gave to it, as to commit to the flames the unsold copies, which made by far the greater part of the impression. Nor, when he recovered fromthis caprice, and pursued his undertaking, did he forget the fate of his first attempt, as he announced that the last volume would be given gratis to the purchasers of the first.

, an eminent Lutheran divine, doctor of divinity, professor of Hebrew, minister of St. Thomas, preacher, confessor, and member of the elector of Saxony’s ecclesiastical councils, was born April 24, 1614, at Leipsic, and died August 22, 1681. He left valuable commentaries in Latin on Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, Daniel, and the Psalms a treatise on the “Mourning of the Jews,” in the same language and several other works which are esteemed, and were published at Amsterdam, 1695, 3 vols. fol.

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

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

Gelasius the elder, was bishop of Csesarea, in Palestine, and nephew of Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, by whom he was consecrated to Caesarea, in the year 380. He is classed by St. Jerome and others, among the ecclesiastical writers of his age. He wrote several works, which have been commended for the correctness and purity oi? their style; but there are extant only some fragments explanatory of the apostles* creed, and of the traditions of the church, which are in the Greek collection of testimonies, under the name of John Damascenus, in the Codex Claromont He died in the year 394.

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

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

, a learned German divine and historian, was born at Nimeguen, in 1482. He studied classical learning at Deventer, and went through his course of philosophy at Louvain with such success, that he was chosen to teach that science; and in that university he contracted a strict friendship with several learned men, particularly Erasmus. He made some stay at Antwerp, whence he was invited to the court of Charles of Austria, to be reader and historian to that prince; but, not liking to attend him into Spain, he entered into the service of Philip of Burgundy, bishop of Utrecht. He was his reader and secretary twelve years, that is, to 1524; after which, he executed the same functions at the court of Maximilian of Burgundy. Being sent to Wittemburg in 1526, in order to inquire into the state of the schools and of the church at that place, he faithfully reported what he had observed, and confessed he could not disapprove of a doctrine so conformable to the Scriptures, as that which he heard there; and upon this he forsook the popish religion, and retired towards the Upper Rhine. He married at Worms, and taught youth there for some time. Afterwards he was invited to Augsburg, to undertake the same employment; and at length, in 1534, he went thence to Marpurg, where he taught history for two years, and then divinity to his death. He died of the plague, Jan. 10, 1542. The story of his being assassinated by robbers is amply dispfoved by Bayle. He was a man well skilled in poetry, rhetoric, and history.

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

Gerard Geldenhaur was better known by the name of his country, than by that of his family; for he was usually called Gerardus Novjomagus; and Erasmus in his letters to him, gives him no other name. His works are, 1. “Historia Batavica, cum appendice de vetusta Batavorum nobilitate,” Strasburg, 1533, but Vossius mentions an edition of 1520.2. “De Batavorum insula.” 3. “Germanise Inferioris Historic,” Strasburg, 1532. 4. “Vita PJiilippi a Burgundia, Episcopi Uitrajectensis,” ibid. 1529. 5. “Catalogus Episcoporum Ultrajectinorum,” Marpurg, 1542, 8vo. 6. “Epistola ad Gulieluium Gelclrice Principem gratulatoria de Principatuum suorum adoptione,” Cologn, 1.541, 7. “Epistola de Zelandia,” Leyden, 1650, 4to. 8. “Satirse Octo,” Louvain, 1515.

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

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

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

, an eminent Italian writer, and a man of extraordinary qualities, was born of mean parents at Florence in 1498, and was brought up a taylor. Such, however, was his industry and capacity, that he acquired a knowledge of languages, and made uncommon progress in the belles lettres. Thuanus says, that he did not understand Latin, but this must be a mistake, as he translated, from Latin into Italian, “The Life of Alphonsus duke of Ferrara,” by Paul Jovius, and a treatise of iion Porzio, “De<OolQribus Oculorum,” at the request of those writers. His knowledge of Greek, however, was probably limited, as he translated the “Hecuba” of Euripides into Italian, from the Latin version. His principal excellence was in his native tongue, and he acquired the highest reputation, by the works he published in it. He was acquainted with all the wits and learned men of Florence; and his merit was universally known. He was chosen a member of the academy there,; and the city made him one of their burgesses. Yet he continued the exercise of his trade as a taylor, to the end of his life; and he tells us, in a letter lo F. Melchior, March 3, 1558, that he devoted workingdays to the careof his body, and Sundays and festivals to the culture of his understanding. The same letter shews his modesty, as hereproaches his friend for giving him honourable titles, which did not agree with the lowness of his condition. He died in 1563.

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

, professor of astronomy at Gresham-college, was the son of Henry Gellibrand, M. A. and some time fellow of All-Souls-college in Oxford. He was born in the parish of St. Botolph, Aldersgate, in London, in 1597: but his father settling upon a paternal estate at St. Paul’s Cray in Kent , he probably received the rudiments of his education in that neighbourhood. He was sent to Trinity-college, Oxford, in 1615; and took his first degree in arts, in 1619. He then entered into orders, and became curate of Chiddingstone in Kent; but, having conceived a strong inclination for mathematics, by hearing one of sir Henry Saville’s lectures in that science, he grew, by degrees, so deeply enamoured with it, that though he was not without good views in the church, he resolved to forego them altogether. He contented himself with his private patrimony, which was now come into his hands, on the death of his father; and the same year, becoming a student at Oxford, made his beloved mathematics his sole employment. In this leisure, he prosecuted his studies with so much diligence and success, that, before he became M. A. which was in 1623, he had risen to excellence, and was admitted to a familiarity, with the most eminent masters. Among others, Mr. Henry Briggs, then lately appointed Savilian professor of geometry at Oxford by the founder, shewed him particular countenance and favour. This, in a few years, was improved to a degree of intimate friendship, insomuch, that the professor communicated to him all his notions and discoveries, and, upon the death of Mr. Edmund Gunter, recommended him -to the trustees of Gresbaio -college, where he once held the geometric lecture, for the astronomy professorship. He was elected Jan. 22, 1626-7. His friend, Mr. Briggs, dying in 1630, before he had finished his “Trigonometria Britannica,” recommended the completing and publishing of that capital work to our author.

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

As to his character in the learned world, which is that of a mathematician, it must be confessed, that whatever progress he made, was chiefly the produce of a plodding industry, without much genius. Hence we see, that he was wot capable of discerning the true weight and force of the reasoning on which the Copernican system was built in his time; and to the same cause must be ascribed that confusion and amazement he was thrown into, upon considering the change (then, indeed, but just discovered) in the variation of the magnetic needle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

, marquis of St. Aubin, a French author, born in 1687, was first counsellor in the parliament of Paris, afterwards master of requests, and died in 1746. He wrote, I. “A Treatise on Opinion,” 1733, 8 vols. 12mo, which has been twice reprinted with additions. It contains a collection of historical examples, illustrating the influence of opinion in the different sciences. The work is well written; and though it displays more erudition than genius, contains many sound remarks to clear up facts, and remove errors. 2. “Antiquities of the Royal Family of France;” a work in which he displays a system of his own on the origin of the dynasties of that country, but not with sufficient success to subvert the opinions of others.

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

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

, a celebrated Benedictine, a zealous partizan of the league in France, and a writer for it, but also a learned writer in theology, was born at Riom in Auvergne, in 1537. He studied at Paris, and having acquired a profound knowledge of Hebrew, was professor of that language at the royal college for thirteen years. He was twice named for episcopacy, yet never obtained it, and at last died in a kind of exile at his priory of Semur in Burgundy, in consequence of the violence of his writings against Henry IV. As a polemic as well as a politician, he was a most violent and abusive writer, but is said to have been more prudent in his conduct than in his style. He died in 1597. The following verse, which was placed upon his tomb, served rather to prove the perishable nature of fame, than the merit of the man:

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

, a French poet of some celebrity, was born at Paris in 1636. Having lost his father early in life, he hoped to make his fortune in the Indies; but the ship he embarked in being taken by the English, for some time he taught French in London, and being enabled to return to France, he was made preceptor to mademoiselle de Blois, afterwards duchess of Orleans, He also became abbot of St. Vilmer, almoner to the duchess of Orleans, secretary to the duke of Maine, and member of the French academy. He died November 19, 1719. His principal work is in French verse, entitled “Principes de la Philosophic,” 12mo; he also wrote four tragedies, one of whicb, called “Penelope,” was much admired; and his “Joseph,” still more so, when performed in private at the duchess of Maine’s, at Clugni; but sunk under the more impartial taste of the French theatre. The two others are, “Zenolide Princess de Sparte,” and “Polymnestre.” In the collection of “Vers Choisis,” by Bouhours, is a very elegant, though not very argumentative epistle from the abbé Genest, to M. de la Bastide, persuading him to abjure the protestant religion. He had also a great share in the collection entitled “Lcs Divertissemens de Sceaux,” 2 vols. 12mo.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, son of the preceding, but unworthy of him, was born in London in 1590, matriculated a member of Christ church, at the very early age of nine, and took the degree of B. A. as a member of Jesus college in 1603. After this he was translated to St. John’s college, and thence elected probationer fellow of All Souls’ in 1607, by his father’s influence, for he was then under the statutable years. In this college he took a degree in civil law, but afterwards became extremely loose and dissipated, and a disgrace to his parents. It is said, however, that he went abroad, and returned a more sober character, and received a pension from the king. At what time he died is uncertain, but probably not before 1654. His latter years he employed in translating, 1. Paul Servita’s “History of the Inquisition,” Lond. 1629, 4to. 2. Malvezzi “On the success and chief events of the monarchy of Spain,” 1639, 12mo. 3. “Considerations on the lives of Alcibiades and Coriolanus,” by the same author, 1650, 12mo. 4. “A compendious Method for attaining the Sciences, in a short time, with the statutes of the academy founded by cardinal Richelieu,” from the French, 1654, 8vo. 5. “The antipathy between the French and the Spaniard,” from the Spanish, 1641, 12mo, dedicated to sir Paul Pindar, with a promise to publish some original work, which it is not known that he executed.

, brother of Alberic Gentilis, was born in 1565, and went into Germany with his father. He there studied at Tubingen, Wittenberg, and Leyden, and was a pupil of Lipsius. He was profoundly learned in the civil law, of which he was professor at Altorf, and was famous for the clear method in which he taught. He was also eminent for his knowledge in polite literature, and was of very amiable manners. He died in 1616, having been married little more than four years before his death, to a very beautiful lady from Lucca, by whom he left four children. His principal works were on civil law; as, 1. “De jure Publico Populi Romani.” 2. “De Conjurationibus.” 3. “De Donationibus inter Virum et uxorem.” 4. “De bonis Maternis et Secundis nuptiis.” These appeared between 1602 and 1606; but he published also at an earlier period, 5. “Epic Paraphrases of twenty-five of David’s Psalms,” 1584, in 4to. And, 6. “Tasso’s Jerusalem,” translated into Latin verse, and published in, 1585, 4to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

, an eminent divine of the church of Scotland, eldest son of the rev. Gilbert Gerard, minister of Chapel-Garioch, in Aberdeenshire, was born there Feb. 22, 1728; he was educated partly at the parish school of Foveran, whence he was removed to the grammar-school at Aberdeen, after his father’s death. Here he made such rapid progress, that he was entered a student in Marischal-college when he was but twelve years of age. He devoted his first four years to the study of Greek, Latin, the mathematics, and philosophy, and was at the close of the course admitted to the degree of M. A. He now commenced his theological studies, whtch he prosecuted at the universities of Aberdeen and Edinburgh. Immediately on the completion of his twentieth year, in 1748, he was licensed to preach in the church of Scotland, and in 1750 was chosen assistant to Mr. David Fordyce, professor of philosophy in the Marischal college at Aberdeen, and in two years afterwards, upon the death of the professor, Gerard was appointed to succeed him. Here, after a short time, the department assigned to Mr. Gerard was confined to moral philosophy and logic, the duties of which he discharged with conscientious and unwearied diligence, and with equal success and reputation. He was a member of a literary society at Aberdeen, consisting of Drs. Blackwell, Gregory, Reid, Campbell, Beattie, &c. which met very regularly every fortnight during the winter, when the members communicated their sentiments with the utmost freedom, and received mutual improvement from their literary discussions; and hence originated those well-known works, Reid’s “Inquiry into the Human Mind” Gregory’s “Comparative View;” Gerard’s “Essay on Genius” Beattie’s “Essay on Truth” andCampbell’s “Philosophy of Rhetoric.” In 1759 Mr. Gerard was ordained a minister of the church of Scotland, and in the following year he was appointed professor of divinity in the Marischal college, and about the same period he took his degree of D. D. He continued to perform the several duties attached to his offices till 1771, when he resigned the professorship, together with the church living, and was preferred to the theological chair in the university of King’s-college, a situation which he held till his death, which happened on his birth-day, Feb. 22, 1795. Dr. Gerard’s attainments were solid rather than brilliant, the effect of close and almost incessant study, and a fine judgment. He had improved his memory to such a degree, that he could in little more than an hour get by heart a sermon of ordinary length. He was author of “An Essay on Taste,” which was published in 1759, and which obtained for him the prize of a gold medal, from the society of Edinburgh. This work was afterwards much enlarged, and reprinted in 17 So. His “Dissertations on the Genius and Evidences of Christianity,” published in 1766, are well known and highly appreciated; so also are his “Essay on Gesius,” and his sermons in 2 volumes. In 1799 his son and successor, Dr. Gilbert Gerard, gave the world a posthumous work of much merit, which had been left among the papers of his father, entitled “The Pastoral Care,” which made a part of his theological course of lectures. As a clergyman the conduct of Dr. Gerard was marked with prudence, exemplary manners, and the most punctual and diligent discharge of his ministerial duties; his sermons were simple and plain, adapted to the common class of hearers, but so accurate as to secure the approbation of the ablest judges. As a professor of divinity, his great aim was not to impose by his authority upon his pupils any favourite system of opinions; but to impress them with a sense of the importance of the ministerial office; to teach them the proper manner of discharging all its duties; and to enable them, by the knowledge of the scriptures, to form a just and impartial judgment on controverted subjects. Possessing large stores of theological knowledge, he was judicious in selecting his subjects, happy and successful in his manner of communicating instruction. He had the merit of introducing a new, and in many respects a better plan of theological education, than those on which it had formerly been conducted. Having a constant regard to whatever was practically useful, rather than to unedifying speculations, he enjoined no duty which he was unwilling to exemplify in his own conduct. In domestic life he was amiable and exemplary; in his friendships steady and disinterested, and in his intercourse with society, hospitable, benevolent, and unassuming; uniting to the decorum of the Christian pastor, the good breeding of a gentleman, and the cheerfulness, affability, and ease of an agreeable companion.

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

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

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

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

, a learned French ecclesiastic, was born in 1629, at a village in the diocese of Rheims. He was admitted a doctor of the Sorbonne in 1661, chosen professor of rhetoric at the royal college in 1662, and was afterwards principal of the college at Rheims, where, by his will, he founded two scholarships. He died April 14, 1699, leaving several works in Latin and French; the principal are, a treatise “De Causis Majoribus,” 1691, 4to, in which he maintains that episcopal causes ought to be first judged by the metropolitan, and the bishops in his province. Innocent XL condemned this work in 168O. A treatise on the authority of kings over marriages, 1690, 4to; three letters “Sur le pecule des Religieux,” 1698, 12mo; a translation of the treatise by Panormus on the council of Basil, 8vo “Lettre sur la Comedie,” 12mo; “Lettre sur les Dorures et le Luxe des Habks des Femmes,” 12mo 3 &c. All the works of this author discover lively wit, great strength and solidity of reasoning, with much penetration and deep learning. He was chosen by the French clergy to publish the edition of “Rules” respecting the Regulars, with M. Hallier’s notes, 1665, 4to.

, an eminent German lawyer, was a native of Pforzeim. He was a professor of law at Strasburg, where he died very old, Jan. 20, 1560. He was greatly distinguished and respected in his day. Thuanus calls him, 4t Virum optimum, & pariter doctrina ac morum suavitate excellentem.“His principal work is an excellent description of Greece, under the title of” Isagoge in tabulam Graeciae Nicolai Sophiani,“Basil, 1550, folio. There are besides of Gerbelius, 1.” Vita Joh. Cuspixiiani.“2.” De Anabaptistorum ortu & progressu" a curious work. He published also a New Testament, in 1521, 4to, an extremely rare edition, printed at Haguenau.

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

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

, one of the Jesuit missionaries in China, and author of some historical observations on great Tartary, and accounts of some of his travels, inserted in Du Halde’s History of China, was born in 1654, became a Jesuit in 1670, was sent to China in 1685, and arrived at Pekin in 1688. He obtained the highest favour with the emperor, for whom, he wrote “Elements of Geometry,” from Euclid and Archimedes; and a practical and speculative geometry, which were splendidly published at Pekin in the Chinese and Tartarian languages. The emperor permitted him to preach, and to appoint preachers throughout his vast dominions, bttt was always desirous to have him about his person. He died at Pekin in 1707, superior general of all the missions in China. He wrote an account of his journey to Siam, which has not been published.

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

The reputation of, these two works, whatever may now be thought of them, procured him the professorship of philosophy in the university of Turin in 1750, and he was also appointed a fellow of the royal academy which was instituted at that time. Many excellent memoirs from his pen are printed in the first five volumes of its transactions, published in 1759. In 1757 he published what was thought the most useful of all his works, the “Introduction to the Study of Religion,” against the infidel writers of his day. The merit of this work induced the pope Benedict XIV. to recommend him to his Sardinian majesty, to be tutor to the prince royal, afterwards the late (abdicated) king of Sardinia. For the use of his royal pupil he wrote an excellent treatise on duels; and during the time he was employed in the court of Turin, published three works in confutation of some paradoxes of as many eminent French writers,Melon, Montesquieu, and Rousseau. He confuted Melon in his doctrine, that luxury contributes tcr the prosperity of nations; Montesquieu, in his principle that monarchic governments can subsist without virtue; and Rousseau, in the whole of his system of education, exhibited in the Emile. This last appears to be the best. Rousseau himself acknowledged that it was the only book written against him which he thought worthy of being read to the end, a compliment, however, as much to himself as to Gerdil, and containing more vanity than truth. This work was translated into English, and published at London in 1764, under the title “Reflections on Education; relative both to theory and practice,” &c. 2 vols. 12mo. Gerdil afterwards diminished in some degree his general reputation by publishing a work on the phenomena of capillary tubes, in which he combated the doctrine of attraction. On this occasion the late celebrated astronomer La Lande said, *' Gerdil is learned in many other branches of science; and his reputation may safely dispense with this work.“In 1777, on the nomination of his Sardinian majesty, Gerdil was made a cardinal, and consequently left Turin for Rome, where, however, he lived in a state of comparative retirement, and is said to have been dissatisfied with the political conduct of the court of Rome, from which he foresaw many evils to the church. In 1801 he warmly opposed the intended negociations with the French consular government, and treated Buonaparte’s proposal for a concordate as an impudent hypocritical farce, and therefore openly dissented from it. It was generally reported that he told the late pope, Pius VI. that” by the signature of the concordate he had signed the destruction of religion," which in one sense was probably true. Gerdil was a catholic of the old school, and with him there was no religion but that of the church, and no power but that of the court of Rome. These predominant sentiments of his mind are not unfrequently discoverable in his works. He died at Rome, Aug. 17, 1802, much regretted by his admirers, by his colleagues, and by the public at large. He was buried by his own desire in the plainest manner, in the church of his convent of St. Charles, at Cattinari. The year after his death a complete edition of his works was published at Bologna, in 6 vols. 4to. They are written in Latin, Italian, and French.

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

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

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

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

His “Arati Phenomena, Latinis versions tradita,” was published at Venice, 1488, 4to, and reprinted by Morellus at Paris, 1559, 4to. Some epigrams attributed to him are among the “Poematia Vetera,” Paris, 1590, 12mo, and Cobourg, 1715, 1716, 8vo.

, an eminent lawyer, whose writings are much valued both for matter and manner, was born at Turin in 1551, of a noble Piedmontese family. For some reasons, not explained, his education was neglected until he had attained the age of twenty-two, but he then applied with great diligence to the study of the law, and after taking his degrees at Turin, was appointed professor of the canon-law. This was so much to his inclination, that he continued in the office, although promoted to be archdeacon of Turin, and apostolical prothonotary. As archdeacon he accompanied the archbishop of Turin to Rome, and acquired the esteem of the popes Sixtus V. Urban VII. Gregory XIV. and Clement VIII. By the last he was employed in compiling part of the Decretals, with notes and illustrations. After other honours and preferments had been bestowed on him, he was made archbishop of Tarantesia in Savoy. He died on an embassy at the court of Madrid in 1627. Besides his notes on the decretals, and other smaller pieces on the digest and code, he published “De Sacrorum immunitatibus lib. tres, &c.” Rome, 1591, folio. “Pomeiidianae sessiones in quibus Latin Linguse dignitas defenditur,” Turin, 1580, 4to. There is also an edition of his “Opera Omnia ab ipso recognita,” Rome, 1623, fol.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, a canon of Zurich, and professor of natural philosophy and mathematics in that university, probably belonging to the same family as Conrad, was born in 1709. He studied at Leyden and Basle with Haller, and maintained a close correspondence with him during the life of that distinguished man. Their taste for botany was the same, and their characters similar. His letters make an interesting part of the “Epistolae ad Hallerum,” and abound with solid and curious botanical criticism and information. He paid much attention to the cryptogamic class, and other difficult branches of the science, as well as to the anatomy and physiology of plants. He survived his learned friend twelve years, dying in 1790, at the age of eighty-one.

This author published two physiological dissertations on plants in 1740 and 1741, reprinted at Leyden in 1743, along with Linnæus’s “Oratio de peregrinatione intra patriam.” In these he treats of the life and structure of vegetables, their propagation, sexes, elastic motipn of some of their stamens, and their methodical classification. He reviews the experiments and observations of Leeuwenhoeck, Malpighi, Grew, Hales, &c. announces the then hovel system of Linnæus, whom, with a kind of prophetic spirit, he calls “a man destined to reform all natural history.” Yet with all their knowledge, Gesner and Haller were imposed on by one of the grossest deceptions. A person presented him with a common meadow Crowfoot, on some branches of which were stuck flowers of the common daisy. He immediately published, in 1753, a learned dissertation on vegetable monsters, entitled “de Ranunculo bellidifloro,” in which he exhibits a figure of this strange anomaly; and the mistake remained undetected till sir Joseph Banks obtained the original specimen after Gesner' s death. On its being softened with boiling water, in the presence of the president of the LiniiEean society, and several other botanists, the stem of the ranunculus came out of the base of the daisy, as from>a sheath; and indeed the different pubescence of each was Very distinguishable before their separation. A history of the whole is given by Mr. Konig, in his Annals of Botany, v. I. 368, with a plate drawn for sir Joseph Banks by Mr, Bauer, and signed by all the witnesses.

Gesner published at different times eleven dissertations in quarto, from 1759 to 1773, under the general title of “Phytographia Sacra,” and meditated a very extensive work on the characters of plants, for which he had prepared a considerable number of exquisitely engraved, though too much crowded, plates, some of which are in Dr. Smith’s possession; but this publication never took place. He wrote also on extraneous fossils, and composed an index to Weinmann’s “Phytographia,” printed in 1787 in 8vo. A catalogue of his library for sale was published in 1798, by which it appears to have been one of the best collections of botanical books ever offered to the public.

, a profound scholar and acute critic, was born at a village near Newburg, in Germany, in 1691. He was also of the family of Conrad Gesner. He lost his father at a very early age; but, by the kindness of a father-in-law, he was enabled to follow the bent of his natural inclination for learning-, and studied for eight years under Nicolas Keelerus, at Anspach. In consequence of the recommendation of Buddeus, he was ap-. pointed to superintend the public school of Weinheim, in which character he remained eleven years. From Weinheim he was removed to a situation equally honourable, and more lucrative, at Anspach; whence, after some other changes of no great importance in his situation, he finally returned to Gottingen. Here he received the reward of his talents and industry in several advantageous appointments. He was made professor of humanity, public librarian, and inspector of public schools, in the district of Luneburg. He died at Gottingen, universally lamented and esteemed, in. the year 1761.

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

, a Lutheran divine, was born at Boleslau, in Silesia, Nov. 8, 1559. After receiving the early part of his education at his native place, he was sent to Breslaw to pursue the studies preparatory to the profession of a divine, and thence to Strasburg, where having obtained an academic exhibition for five years, he employed that time in the study of philosophy, the mathematics, and the learned languages, particularly the Oriental. He now became private tutor to a noble Livonian, and in 1583 was admitted to the degree of master of arts. In 1592 he was invited to be professor of divinity in the university of Witteniberg, and was at the same time admitted to the degree of doctor of divinity. He also occupied the important posts of dean and rector of the university, assessor in the ecclesiastical consistory, and first preacher in the church; but the duties of these, with his close application, injured his health, and he fell a sacrifice to a complication of disorders, Feb. 7, 1605. His works are a Latin translation of “The Prophecy of Hosea;” “Disquisitions on the Psalter,” treating of the dignity, the use, the argument, and the connection of the Psalms, and many other works of a theological and controversial nature, to the amount of forty, which are enumerated in our authorities, and of which his commentaries and prelections on Isaiah, Joel, Obadiah, &c. appear to be the most valuable.

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

At this crisis, after he had secreted himself for some time in a hired room, he waited on Hempel, the king’s painter, whose friendship he had already gained, and requested that gentleman to follow him to his chambers. Here the walls were covered with paintings which he had just finished, entirely from his own invention. The painter complimented him, although with the proviso, that farther labour and experience would be necessary to render him an accomplished artist. Probably, by Hempel’s means, his father was persuaded not only to pardon him, but to grant him leave to prolong his stay at Berlin, where he formed an acquaintance with artists and men of letters. Krause, Hempei, Rainier, and Sulzer, were his principal companions, and Ramler, to whom he had communicated some of his poetical attempts, gave him very useful advice on the nature of poetical composition, and the defects which he perceived in Gesner' s pieces.

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

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

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

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

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

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

, a learned critic, was the son of an eminent lawyer, and born at Antwerp, Aug. 6, 1593. Many authors have called him simply John Caspar, and sometimes he did this himself, whence he was at one time better known by the name of Caspar than of Gevartius. His first application to letters was in the college of Jesuits at Antwerp, whence he removed to Louvain, and then to Douay. He went to Paris in 1617, and spent some years there in the conversation of the learned. Returning to the Low Countries in 1621, he took the degree of LL. D. in the university of Douay, and afterwards went to Antwerp,' where he was made town-clerk, a post he held to the end of his life. He married in 1625, and died in 1666. He had always a taste for classical learning, and devoted a great part of his time to literary pursuits. In 1621 he published at Leyden, in 8vo, “Lectionum Papinianarum Libri quinque in Statii Papinii Sylvas;” and, at Paris in 1619, 4to, “Electorum Libri tres, in quibus plurima veterum Scriptorum loco obscura et controv.ersa explicantur, illustrantur, et emendantur.” These, though published when he was young, have established his reputation as a critic. He derived also some credit from his poetical attempts, particularly a Latin poem, published at Paris, 1618, on the death of Thuanus. He kept a constant correspondence with the learned of his time, and some of his letters have been printed in the “Sylloge Epistolarum,” by Burman. Our Bentley mentions Caspar Gevartius as a man famous in his day; and tells us, that “he undertook an edition of the poet Manilius, but was prevented by death” from executing it.

, a learned historian and lawyer of the sixteenth century, was born in Franconia, but the dates of his birth and death are unknown, and even his works, although of great merit, have been for many years so scarce as to have escaped the knowledge of the foreign librarians and collectors. Maximilian, duke and afterwards elector of Bavaria, enrolled him in the number of his aulic counsellors, and made him at the same time keeper of the archives, a situation which enabled Gewold to bring to light many important historical documents, and to publish the following volumes: 1. “Genealogia serenissimorum Bojariae ducum, etquorundam genuinas effigies a Wolfgango Kiliano seri eleganter incisae,” Antwerp, 1605, fol. reprinted at Augsburgh, 1620, and again in German, in 1623. 2. “Chronicon monasterii Reicherspergensis in Bojoaria, ante annos CD congestum,” &c. Munich, 1611, 4to. This is uncommonly rare, but has been reprinted in Ludewig’s “Scriptores rerum Germanicarum.” 3. “Antithesis ad clariss. viri Marquardi Freheri assertionem de Palatino electoratu,” Munich, 1612, 4to. There were other pamphlets between Freher and Gewold on the same subject. 4. “Orationes Alberti Hungeri,” Ingolstadt, 1616, 8vo. 5. “Henrici monachi in Rebdorf annales,” ibid. 1618, 4to. 6. “Delineatio Norici veteris ejusque confinium,” ibid. 1619, 4to. 7. “Wigulaei Hunds metropolis Salisburgensis,” a reprint at Munich, 1620, 3 vols. fol. by Gewold, with a continuation and notes. 8. “Defensio Ludovici IV. imperatoris ratione electionis contra Abr. Bzovium,” Ingolstadt, 1618, 4to. 9. “Commentarius de septemviratu Romani imperii,” ibid. 1621, 4to.

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

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