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

The works of this laborious scholar, were, 1. “Opuscula Mythologica Ethica et Physica, Gr. & Lat.” Cantab. 1671, 8vo, reprinted at Amsterdam, 1688, 8vo, with great improvements. This collection consists of Palaephatus, Hefaclitus, & Anonymus de incredibilibus Phurnutus de natura deorum Sallustius de diis Ocellus Lucanus; Timæus Locrus de anima mundi Demophili, Democratis, & Secundi philosophorum sententiae Joan n is Pediasimi desiderium de tnuliere bona et mala Sexti Pythagorei sententice Theophrasti characteres Pythagoreorum frag-, menta; & Heliodori Darisseci capita opticorum. 2. “ Historiæ Poeticæ Scriptores antiqui, Greecè & Latinè. Aecessere breves notæ, & indices necessarii,” Paris, 1675, 8vo. These are, Apollodorus Atheniensis, Conon Grammaticus, Ptolonutus Hephxstion, Parthenius Nicuensis, & Antoninus Liberalis. 3. “Rhetores Selecti, Gr. & Lat. viz. Demetrius Phalereus de Elocutione; Tiberius Rhetor de schematibus Demosthenis; Anonymu* Sophista de Rhetorica; Severi Alexandrini Ethopceisc. Demetrium emendavit, reliquos e Mss. edidit & Latine vertit, omnes notis illustravit Tho. Gale,” Oxon. 1676, 8vo. 4. “Jamblicbus Chalcidensis de Mysteriis. Epistola Porphyrii de eodem argumento, Gr. & Lat. ex versione T. G.” Oxon. 1678, 8vo. 5. “Psalterium juxta exemplar Alexandrinum,” Oxon. 1678, 8?o. 6. “Herodoti Halicarnassensis Historiarnin libri X. ejusdem narratio de vita Homeri excerpta e Ctesia, & H. Stephani Apologia pro Herodoto accedunt chronologia, tabula geographica, variantes Jectiones, &c.” Lond. 1679, fol. a most excellent edition. 7. An edition of “Cicero’s Works” was revised by him, Lond. 1681, 1684, 2 vols. fol. 8. “Histories Anglicanoe Scriptores quinque, &c.” Oxon. 1687, fol. This volume contains Annales de Margan, from 1066 to 1232. Chronicon Thomae Wikes from 1066 to 1334. Annales Waverleienses from 106t3 to 1291. G. Vinisauf Itinerarium regis Ricardi in terram Hierosolymitanam. Chronica Walteri de Hemingford, from 1066 to 1273. He reserved the remainder of this last Chronicle for another volume, which he intended to publish, but did not live to execute. Concerning this, see Hearne’s Preface to his edition of Hemingford, p. xxiii. 9. “A Discourse concerning the Original of Human Literature with Philology and Philosophy,” Phil. Trans, vol. VI. p. 2231. 10. “Historiae Britannicse, Saxonicae, AngloDanicae, Scriptores quindccim, &c.” Oxon. 1691, folio. This volume contains “Gildas de excidio Britannia-, Eddji vita VVilfridi, Nennii historia, Asserii annales, Higdeni Polychronicon, G. Malmesburiensis de antiquitate Glastoniensis ecclesiae, & libri V. de pontificibus Angliae, Histona Ramesiensis, Historia Eliensis, Chronica Joh. Wallingford, Historia Rad. Diceto, Forduni Scotichronicon, Alcuinus de pontificibus Eboracensibus.” This is called by Gale the first volume; and that which contains the Quinque Scriptores (Ingulphus, Peter Blesensis, Chron. de Mailros, Annales Burtonenses, and the Historia Croylandensis) though published in 1684 (by Mr. William Fulrnan under the patronage of Bp. Fell) is called the second, as the authors are of a more modern date. 11. A collection of “Latin Prayers,” by dean Gale, in ms. was in the possession of Dr. Ducarel. He left in ms. “Origenis Philocalia, variis manuscriptis collata, emendata, & nova versione donata” “Jamblichus de vita Pythagoras” and “Antonini Itinerarium Britannia” the latter published afterwards by his son, as were his Sermons preached on public occasions in 1704.

, esq. F. R. and A. Ss. eldest son of the preceding, was born in 1672, and was educated under his father at St. Paul’s school, whence he was admitted of Trinity-college, Cambridge, 1691, made scholar of 'that house 1693, and afterwards fellow (being then B. A.) in 1697. He was possessed of a considerable estate at Scruten, in Yorkshire, now in the possession of his grandson Henry Gale, esq. and represented North Allerton, in that county, in 1705, 1707, 1706, and 1710. His name was added to the commissioners of stamp duties, Dec. 20, 1714, and was continued in a subsequent commission, May 4, 1715-, and he was appointed a commissioner of excise Dec. 24 of the same year. In this he continued uutii 1735, when he was wantonly displaced by sir Robert Waipole, for which no other reason was assigned than that sir Robert wanted to provide for one of his friends, an act of arbitrary tyranny which cannot be too severely condemned. Mr. Gale was the first vice-president of the society of antiquaries; and when that learned body, in 1721, proposed to collect accounts of all the ancient coins relative to Great Britain and its dominions, Mr. Gale undertook the Reman series, and his brother Samuel the Danish. Though he was considered as one of the most learned men of his fege, he only published the following books:

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

, brother of the preceding, and youngest son of the dean, was born in the parish of St Faith, near St. Paul’s, London, Dec. 17, 16$2, was educated under his father at St. Paul’s school, and intended for the university, but his elder brother Roger being sent to Cambridge, and his father dying 1702, he was provided for in the custom-house, London, and at the time of his death was one of the land surveyors there. He was one of the revivers of the society of antiquaries in 1717, and their first treasurer. On resigning that office Feb. 21, 1740, the society testified their opinion of his merit and services, by presenting him with a handsome silver cup, value ten guineas, with a suitable inscription. He was a man of great learning and uncommon abilities, and well versed in the antiquities of England, for which he left many valuable collections behind him; but printed nothing in his life-time, except “A History of Winchester Cathedral,” London, 1715, begun by Henry earl of Clarendon, and continued to that year, with cuts. A few of his communications have been since printed in the “Archoeologia,” and spme in the “Bibl. Top. Britannica.” He died of a fever Jan. 10, 1754, at his lodgings at Hampstead. His library and prints were sold by auction in the same year, by Langford, but his Mss. became the property of Dr. Stukeley, who married his sister, and some of them, afterwards descended to Dr. Ducarel, at whose sale they were purchased by Mr. Gough. A list of them, which may be seen in our authority, sufficiently attests his industry and knowledge as an antiquary.

, an English surgeon, was born in 1507; and educated under Richard Ferris, afterwards serjeantsurgeon to queen Elizabeth. He was surgeon in the army of king Henry VIII. at Montruil, in 1544; and in that of king Philip at St. Quintin, in 1557, but afterwards settled in London, and became very eminent in the practice of surgery. He was living in 1586. Tanner gives the following list of his writings: “The Institution of a Chirurgeon.” “An Enchiridion of Surgery,” in four books. “On Gun-shot wounds.” “Antidotarie,” in two books. All these were printed together, London, 1563, 8vo. “A compendious method of curing praeternatural Tumours.” “On the several kinds of Ulcers, and their cure.” “A Commentary on Guido de Cauliaco.” “An Herbal, for the use of surgeons.” “A brief declaration of the worthy Art of Medicine, and the office of a Chirurgeon.” “An epitome of Galen de Natural. Facultat.” The two last were printed with a translation of " Galen de Methodo MedenoV' It cannot be supposed that any of these are now of much value, but some of them contain curious information respecting the state of the profession at that time.

, a physician of great repute at Palermo; and not for skill and learning in his profession only, but for his taste also, and knowledge of theology, mathematics, poetry, and polite literature in general, was born in 1605. There are several works of his in Italian, upon different maladies; and some also in Latin, particularly “Hippocrates Redivivus paraphrasibus illustratus,” published in 1650. We owe to him also a collection of little pieces of the Sicilian poets, entitled “The Sicilian Muse,” in five volumes. He died in 1675, greatly regretted; for he was a kind of oracle with his countrymen.

, after Hippocrates prince of the Greek physicians, was a native of Pergamus in the Lesser Asia, where he was born about A. D. 131, in the reign of the emperor Adrian. His father, whose name was Nicon, was an able architect, and spared neither trouble nor expence in the education of his son. Galen studied with success all the philosophy of his time, but finally applied himself to medicine as his profession. Satyro and Peiops, two eminent physicians of his time, were his chief preceptors in that science. But his application to the works of Hippocrates contributed more than any other instruction to the eminence he attained.

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

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

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

He tells us in another place, that causes conspired in determining him to he was forced from Rome at this time that measure. Galen de lib. propr. by the plague, and apparently both c. 1. not been long returned, when Marcus acquainted him with his intention to take him in his train to Germany; hut Galen excused himself, alledging, that jEsculapius, for whom he had a particular devotion, ever since the God cured him of a mortal imposthume, had advertised him in a dream never to leave Rome again. The emperor yielding to his solicitations, he continued in the city; and it was during the absence of Marcus that he composed his celebrated treatise “De usu partium,” and some others.

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

Thus distinguished above his contemporaries, did this prince of physicians continue to practise at Rome, the capital of the world, till his death, which happened A. D. 201, in his 70th year. He had usually enjoyed a perfect state of health, the effect of observing a strict regimen both in diet and exercise: for, being subjected to frequent disorders in his younger days he studied his own constitution, and having fixed the methods of preserving it, followed them strictly. This was nothing more than taking care to eat such meats as. were of easy and equal digestion, abstaining particularly from summer fruits, confining himself to figs and raisins, and using a constant and equal exercise. By following these rules, he never had any distemper, except once a fever of one day’s continuance, occasioned by too much study and over-fatigue.

He was a man endowed with excellent parts, and, baring the advantage of the best education, became not only an eminent physician, but also a great philosopher; and was particularly happy in a facility of expression, and an unaffected eloquence; but the style of his works is extremely diffuse, his sentences are sometimes perplexed, and sometimes absolutely obscure. The great number of books which we have of his composing, to pass over those we have lost, are a convincing proof how little pains it cost him to write. Suidas tells us that he wrote not only ou physic and philosophy, but also on geometry and grammar. There are reckoned above five hundred books of his upon physic only, and about half that number upon other sciences. He even composed two books, containing a catalogue of his works; shewing the time and place in which some of them were composed, together with the occasion of writing them, and the proper order of reading them.

Without entering into a long detail of all the particular treatises written by Galen, a vast collection of which is ia the British Museum, it may be sufficient here to notice the different editions of the whole of his works that have been transmitted to us. The Greek editions are those of Aldus and Aud. Asulanus, printed at Venice, 1525, in 5 vols. folio, and of Hieron. Gemusæus, at Basil, 1538, in the same form. The Latin editions are, that of Paris, 1536, folio, printed by Simon Colinteus; and reprinted ?at Lyons, in 1554, with additions and corrections^ by Joan. Frellonius; that of Basil, 1542, folio, printed by Frobeiiius, and edited by Gemusæus; those of Basil again in 1549, 1550, and 1562; the last of which contains a preface by Conrad Gesner, in which he comments with great judgment on the merits of Galen and his works, and of his different translators: the edition of Venice, 1562, with the corrections of John Baptist Rasario: ten editions published at Venice by the Juntas in different years between 1541 and 1625; the ninth of which, printed in 1609, and the last, are precisely the same, and are the best and most correct: lastly, an edition printed at Venice in 1541—45, by John Farreeus, in 7 vols. 8vo, with the notes of Ricci. An edition of Galen’s works, both in Greek and Latin, in an elegant form, was published at Paris, in 13 vols. folio, by U6ii6 Chartier, including also the works of Hippocrates; it is deemed a correct work.

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

It is not, indeed Athenseus, but author was very ancient. Casaubor^'s the author of the arguments prefised notes upon Athcuaeus. to his books, that says this, but that from that time, and even furnished physicians to the emperors long after. Yet it gradually mouldered away; and notwithstanding the efforts of the moderns, the party of Galen is very numerous at this day.

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

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

Galen is likewise reproached with being superstitious; and we have given an instance of his opening a vein, in consequence of a dream. He teils us also in the same place, that he had two more dreams of the same kind; and says in another place, that, being once consulted in the case of a swelled tongue, he directed a purge, and somewhat cooling to be held upon the part; the patient took the purge, and had a dream the same night, jn which he was ordered to apply a gargle of lettuce juice, whicn succeeded very well. But this superstition was the religion of his country, of which Æsculapius, as he teils us, was the God, and was held to be that particular God whose province it was to assist the sick in dreams.

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

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

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

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

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

Being soon recalled to Naples, he was appointed a counsellor in the tribunal of commerce, an office of magistracy not incompatible with the order of a clergyman. He retained this place during the remainder of his life; and as it required much time and application to perform its duties, M. Galiani after this was no<t so active in literary exertions as he had been heretofore. In 1779 he published a work “on the Origin of the Neapolitan Dialect.” This performance, however, does not bear an accurate correspondence to the title, and was judged superficial and unsatisfactory. In 1780, he published a treatise on the Armed Neutrality, which he dedicated to the late empress Catherine of Russia. This work, on a question entirely new and complicated in the system of public law of Europe, fell likewise considerably short of the expectation entertained by his admirers. He died in 1789, and since his death it has been asserted that he was indebted to other writers for the substance of some of those volumes which he published under his own name, and by which he acquired his reputation; but we know not upon what authority this assertion has been made. Galiani was short in stature, full of vivacity, wit, and humour, and a great favourite on that account in all companies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

, a learned antiquary of France, member of the academy of inscriptions, and professor of Arabic in the royal college at Paris, was born of poor parents at Hollo, a little town of Picardy, in 1646. After having laid the foundation of learning at Noyon, he went to Paris, where he learned Hebrew and the Oriental languages; and afterwards made a long voyage into the East, and acquired an uncommon knowledge of the manners and of the doctrines of the Mahometans. He returned to his own country, and was made Arabic professor in 1709; but did not live many years after, 'his death happening at Paris in 1715. He was the author of several works, the principal of which are, 1. “An account of the Death of sultan Osman, and of the Coronation of the sultan Mustapha.” 2. “A collection of Maxims and Bon Mots, drawn from the Oriental writers.” 3. “A Treatise upon the origin of Coffee.” 4. “Arabian Tales.” All these are in French. The last, usually called “The Arabian Nights Entertainments,” is a popular book all over Europe, and has been published in various editions in English for above a century. Galland was also the author of many curious dissertations upon some scarce medals, which have been highly commended. He had likewise prepared a translation of the Alcoran, with notes; and a system of the Mahometan theology, more exact than any that has yet appeared; but he did not live long enough to publish them.

, was proctor- general of the domain of Navarre, counsellor of state, and deeply versed in the knowledge of the royal rights in France, and in the history qf that country. His works are replete with curious and profound erudition. They are, 1. “Memoirs for the History of France and Navarre,” folio. 2. “Treatises on the Ensigns and Standards of France,” &c. 3. “Discourse addressed to the king on the origin and rise of the City of Rochelle,” 8vo. 4. “A Treatise against the Franc -aileu, a claim of exemption from Imposts and personal Services,” in 4to. He is supposed to have died about 1644, but at what age is uncertain.

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

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

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

By his great benefits at the theatre, and fashion as a dancing-master at the principal schools and houses of the nobility and gentry, he, with unwearied diligence and excessive parsimony, had accumulated a fortune sufficient to purchase in 1786 the patent of the opera house, when he became sole impresario of that theatre.

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

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

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

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

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

, a native of Rome, where he died in 1605, excelled in theology, and was priest of the congregation of the oratory. His works were numerous, but he is chiefly known by his “Trattato de gli instrumenti di Martirio, &c.” “A Treatise on the different kinds of Cruelties inflicted by the pagans on the Martyrs of the primitive Church, illustrated with engravings of the instruments of torture made use of by them.” This work, first published in Italian in 1591, was compiled from unquestionable authorities. In 1594 the author translated it into Latin, and published it at Rome, under the title “De Sanctorum Martyrum Cruciatibus, &c.” illustrated with wood cuts. It has since gone through many editions on the continent. In 1591 he published his “History of the Virgins,” also in Italian “The Lives of certain Martyrs,” 1697, 4to “The Life of St. Philip Neri” and “De Monachatu Sancti Gregorii,” the account of St. Gregory when a monk, in 1604.

, an Italian Jesuit, was born at Macerata in 1593, and in his thirteenth year entered the Jesuits’ college, where he was educated, and where he afterwards taught rhetoric for twenty-four years. He died at Rome, Feb. 28, 1674. He is the author of some Latin orations, but principally of a history of the wars of the Netherlands, “Commentarii de Bello Belgico,” including the period from 1593 to 1609. This history, which is written in Latin, was published at Rome, 1671, 2 vols. fol. and in 1677 in 2 vols. 4to. It was afterwards translated into Italian by James Cellesi. His style is pure, but less flowing than his predecessor on the same subject, Strada.

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

, an Italian Jesuit, was born at Sabina, in Italy, in 1574, and was for some years a celebrated professor of rhetoric at Roma. He was then made rector of the Greek college in that city, where he died July 28, 1649. He published a small volume of orations on various literary arguments, an oration recited by him at the funeral of cardinal Bellarmine, also “Virgilianx VinUicationes,” with three commentaries on tragedy, comedy, and elegy, Rome, 1621, 4to. He was a strenuous defender of Virgil, in whose behalf, against Homer, he contended with madam Dacier. His most considerable publication was a commentary on Aristotle’s Morals, published at Paris, 2 vols. fol. 1632 1645.

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

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

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

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

, an illustrious Portuguese, is immortalized by his discovery of the passage to the East Indies by the Cape of Good Hope. The maritime town of Sines in Portugal was the place of his birth, his family was good, but not noble, till made so by the h.)no;irs he acquired. In 1497, Emanuel king of Portugal, earnestly desirous of making discoveries in those parts of the globe, appointed Gama to command an expedition to endeavour to sail round the Cape, then called the Cape of Tempests. Vasco highly pleased with this appointment, which suited his undaunted and adventurous spirit, sailed from the Tagus, July 8, having two ships besides his own, and a store ship. At Lisbon he was generally considered as going to certain destruction, and the whole equipment as devoted; but though, on his approach to the Cape, he actually encountered dreadful storms, his perseverance was not to be conquered. Like Columbus, he had to contend with the mutinous despondence of his own people, as well as with the elements, but was superior to all. Having doubled the Cape on the 20th of November, he sailed along the eastern coast of Africa, but met with inveterate hostility and treachery from the Moorish settlers, except the king of Melinda. He proceeded as far as Calicut, doubled the Cape again in April 1499, and returned to Lisbon in the space of two years and alifkost two months. The king and nation were overjoyed at this success, and he was created count of Vidiguere, and admiral of the Indian, Persian, and Arabian seas. Gama now rested a few years, while Cabral was sent out with thirteen ships; and John de Nova, with a reinforcement of three more, visited Calicut; but it was found that greater force was wanted, and in 1502, he set sail again, having twenty ships under his command. He returned in September 1503, with thirteen ships laden with riches. When Emanucl, kingof Portugal died, the credit of Gama continued unimpaired, and in 1524, he was by his successor, John III. appointed viceroy of India. He returned thither a third time, and established his seat of government at Cochin, but died on the 24th of December 1525, almost as soon as he was settled. He was honoured with the title of don fof himself and his posterity, and created a grandee of Portugal. Gama was formed by nature to conduct the most arduous enterprises. His intrepidity, which was invincible, was not more remarkable than his sagacity and prudence: and the feelings of his heart appear to wonderful advantage, when we find him, amidst all the extravagance of public applause, after his first return from India, drooping for the loss of his brother and companion of his voyage, Paulus de Gama, and unable to enjoy his fame. He had even sent his flag-ship home before him, under the command of Coello, his next officer, that he might attend and sooth the death-bed of tbis beloved brother. Such a victory of tenderness over ardent and successful ambition, gives a better picture of his heart than the most elaborate eulogium. The poem of Camoens, entitled “The Lusied,” on Gama’s first expedition, is now well known in this country by Mickle’s able translation.

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

, was an Italian poet of the sixteenth century, protected and beloved by cardinal Alexander Farnese r whose writings were much esteemed in his day, but now are thought flat and insipid. He wrote, 1. “A Latin treatise on Poetry, in which he dissuades Christian poets from using pagan mythology.” This was the amende honorublt for many licentious and profane poems written in his youth. 2. “A Latin poem on Columbus.” Also eclogues, entitled, “Venatoria,” and other productions. Muretus treats this author with the greatest contempt, bnt he is highly praised by Giraldi and Manutius. He died in 1586, at the age of 90.

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

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

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

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

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

, a French Jesuit, and the author of the enmity between the Jesuits and the Jansenists, in the church of Rome, was born at Angouleme in 1585, and having laid a good foundation of grammar-learning, entered of the Jesuits’ college in 1600. It was the special care of those fathers, to admit none into their society but youths of genius; and Garasse was not wanting in good natural parts, nor did he neglect to improve them by reading and study; of which he gave an admirable proof in his book of elegies on the death of Henry IV. and in a poem in heroic verse, addressed to Louis XIII. upon his inauguration, in the name of the college at Poictiers. The titles of these two pieces are, 1. “Elegiarum de funesta morte Henrici magni liber singularis,” Pictavii, 1611, 4to. 2. “Sacra Rhemensia Carolina Heroica nomine Collegii Pictavensis oblata Ludov. XIII. Regi Christianissimo in sua inauguratione,” ibid. The two following pieces are also ascribed to him: 1. “De la.Resemblance de la lumiere du Soleil & de la Justice,” Bourdeaux, 1612. 2. “Les champs Elysiens pour la Reception du Roy Louis XIII. lors qu‘il entroit a Bourdeaux a l’occasion de son Marriage.”

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

The two subsequent years he employed his pen in satire and panegyric, both grossly exaggerated. These panegyrics are, 1. “Oraisou L'Andrese de Nesmond premier President du Parlement de Bourdeaux.” This oration was made in 1616, when that president died, and was printed with his remonstrances at Lyons, 1656, 4to. 2. “Colossus Henrico Magno in ponte novo positus, Carmen,” Paris, 1617, 4to. That famous equestrian statue was erected Aug. 25, 1614. The satire is, “Le banquet des Playdoiers de Mr. Servin, par Charles de PEspinoell,” 1617, 8vo a virulent attack on the magistrate Servin.

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

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

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

This sentence was perfectly agreeable to the abbot of St. Cyran’s critique, which, after many hindrances raised by the Jesuits, came out the same year, entitled, “A Collection of the faults and capital falsities contained in the Theological Summary of F. Francis Garasse.” In answer to which, our author wrote, “Avis touchant la refutation, &c. Advice concerning the refutation of the Theological Summary of F. Garasse.” This came out also before the end of the year, and concluded the dispute between the two combatants in particular. But the two orders of Jesuits and Jansenists in general, of whom these were respectively the champions, grew from the consequences of it, into such an implacable hatred and animosity against each other, as seemed not be extinguishable by ordinary means. With respect to Garasse, the Jesuits used some kind of prudence. They did not obstinately persist in supporting him, but banished him to one of their houses at a great distance from Paris, where he was heard of no more. This punishment, to a man of his ambitious and busy temper, was worse than death. Accordingly, as if weary of such a life, when the plague raged violently in Poictiers, in 1631, he asked earnestly of his superiors to attend those that were seized with it; leave was granted, and in that charitable office, catching the contagion, he died among the infected persons in the hospital, on the 14th of June that year. He is styled by bp. Warburton, in his Commentary on the “Essay on Man,” an eminent casuist.

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

, better known to the public by the title of Lord Gardenstone, was born at Edinburgh June 24, 1721. His father was Alexander Garden, of Troop, an opulent land-holder in Aberdeenshire; and his mother was Jane, daughter of sir Francis Grant, of Cullen, one of the senators of the college of justice. After passing through the usual course of liberal education at school and at the university, he applied to the study of law as a profession, and in 1744 was admitted a member of the faculty of advocates, and called to the Scottish bar. In his practice as an advocate he soon began to be distinguished by a strong native rectitude of understanding; by that vivacity of apprehension and imagination, which is commonly denominated genius; by manly candour in argument, often more persuasive than subtilty and sophistical artifice; by powers which, with diligence, might easily attain to the highest eminence of the profession. But the same strength, openness, and ardour of mind which distinguished him so advantageously among the pleaders at the bar, tended to give him a fondness for the gay enjoyments of convivial intercourse, which was in some respects unfavourable to his progress in juridical erudition, yet without obstructing those promotions to which his talents entitled him. In 1764 he became his, majesty’s solicitor, and afterwards one of the judges in the courts of session and justiciary, the supreme judicatures, civil and criminal, for Scotland. On this occasion he assumed, according to the usual practice, the title of lord Gardenstone. His place in the court of session he continued to occupy till his death, but had some years before resigned the office of a commissioner of justiciary, and in recompense got a pension of 200l. per annum. Clear discernment, strong good sense, conscientious honesty, and amiable benevolence, remarkably distinguished his opinions and conduct as a judge.

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

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

In July 1726, Col. Gardiner married lady Frances Erskine, daughter to David fourth earl of Buchan, by whom he had thirteen children, five only of which survived their father, two sons and three daughters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The great and important attain* transacted under his administration, in bringing about the change in the constitution by queen Mary, are too much the subject of general history to be related here. The part that Gardiner acted is very well known; and although from the arrival of cardinal Pole in England, he held only the second place in affairs relating to the church, in matters of civil government, his influence was as great as before, and continued without the least diminution to the last. By his advice a parliament was summoned to meet in Oct. 1555. As he was always a guardian of the revenues of the ecclesiastics, both regular and secular, he had at this time projected, some additional security for church and abbey lands. He opened the session with a well-judged speech, Oct. 21, and. was there again on the 23d, which was the last time of his appearing in that assembly. He fell ill soon after, and died Nov. 12, aged seventy-two. His death was occasioned probably by the gout; the lower parts of his body, however, being mortified, and smelling offensively, occasion was hence taken to consider the manner of his death as a judgment. The report that he was seized with the disury in consequence of the joy with which he was transported on hearing of the martyrdom of Latimer and Ridley, has been disproved by the dates of that event, and of his illness, in this way. Fox says that when seized with the disorder he was put to bed, and died in great torments a fortnight afterwards. But, says Collier, Latimer and Ridley suffered Oct. 16, and Gardiner opened the parliament on the 2 1st, and was there again on the 23d, and lastly, died Nov. 12, not of the disury, but the gout. The reader will determine whether the disorder might not have been contracted on the 16th, and increased by his subsequent exertions; and whether upon the whole, Collier, with all liis prejudices in favour of popery, which are often very thinly disguised, was likely to know more of the master than the contemporaries of Gardiner. Godwin and Parker say that he died repeating these words, “Erravi cum Petro, at non flevi cum Petro;” i. e. “I have sinned with Peter, but I have not wept with Peter.”

He died at York place, Whitehall, whence his body was removed to a vault in St. Mary Overy’s church, Southwark; and after great preparations for the solemnity, was carried for final interment to Winchester cathedral.

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

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

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

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

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

, an eminent French surgeon, was born at Vitre, a small town in Brittany, on the 13th of July, 1683, where his father practised surgery. In order to improve himself, he spent five years in the hospital of Angers, and in the great naval hospitals of Brittany; and afterwards made two voyages in the navy. In 1711 he went to Paris, and studied under Winslow, Thibaut, Meri, &c. and afterwards gave a course of lectures on anatomy in the medical schools; and henceforth his reputation extended even to foreign countries; for he was elected a member of the royal society of London. He was also appointed demonstrator royal in the schools of medicine. On the establishment of the society of academicians, under the patronage of the king, in 1731, Garengeot was chosen “Commissaire pour les extraits,”' which office he retained until 1742. He then succeeded Terryer in the place of surgeon-major of the king’s regiment of infantry. He died at Cologne, in consequence of an attack of apoplexy, Dec. 10, 1759.

The first of the works of Garengeot, entitled “Traite” des Operations de Chirurgie,“was published at Paris in 1720, and translated into the English and German languages. 2.” Trait des Instrumens de Chirurgie,“printed at Paris and the Hague, 1723, and at Paris again in 1727, in two volumes, with plates. 3.” Myotomie humaine,“Paris, 1724, 1728, 1750, two volumes, 12mo. The last of these editions is much more correct than the two former. 4.” Splanchnologie, ou, Traite d'Anatomie concernant les visceres,“Paris, 1728, 1729, in 12mo; ibid. 1742, in two volumes, 12mo. A German edition was printed at Berlin, in 8vo, in 1733, which is said to contain some valuable matter, but chiefly belonging to Winslow and Morgagni. 5.” His last work was “L‘Operation de la Taille par l’appareil lateral corrigee de tous ses defauts,” Paris, 1730, in 12mo.

, a French protestant divine, was born in 1587, at Montauban. During his academical studies, he made so rapid a progress in divinity, that he was appointed minister at Puylaurens, when only twentyfour years of age, by the synod of Castres. He was afterwards minister and professor of divinity at Montauban, and died there in 1650. His principal works are, an epic poem in 12 books, entitled “Adolphidos,” in which he celebrates the great exploits of Gustavus Adolphus, in elegant Latin verse another Latin poem in praise of the protestant Swiss Cantons several theological theses a treatise “De Imputatione priuai peccati Adse,” 8vo another, “De Christo Mediators,” 4to and an explanation in Latin of Calvin’s Catechism, which he wrote with his colleague M. Charles, 8vo, &c.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But although his tragedies were read with great pleasure by all sorts of persons, and held in the highest estimation, when they had no better to read, upon the introduction of a more refined taste, they gradually fell into disesteem, and now only serve to shew, that France, like other nations, has been capable of admiring very indifferent poets. Besides tragedies, he wrote songs, elegies, epistles, eclogues, &c. of no better stamp. He died in 1590, after having obtained several considerable posts. Seneca the tragedian, was Garnier’s model, which single circumstance may easily give the learned reader an idea of his taste and manner. His dramatic works were printed collectively at Lyons, in one vol. 12mo, 1597, and reprinted at Paris in 1607.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

, 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.

If we consider the general merit of the poets in the early part of the Elizabethan period, it will probably appear that the extreme rarity of Gascoigne’s works has been the chief cause of his being so much neglected by modern readers. In smoothness and harmony of versification, he yields to no poet of his own time, when these qualities were very common; but his higher merit is that in every thing he discovers the powers and invention of a poet, a warmth of sentiment tender and natural, and a fertility of fancy, although this be not always free from the conceits of the Italian school. As a satirist, if nothing remained but his “Steele Glasse,” he may be reckoned one of the first. There is a vein of sly sarcasm in this piece, which appears to be original; and his intimate knowledge of mankind, acquired indeed at the expence probably of health, and certainly of comfort and independence, enabled him to give a more curious picture of the dress, manners, amusements, and follies of the times, than we meet with in almost any other author.

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.

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

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.

2. “An Answer to five captious questions propounded by a Factor for the Papacy, by parallel questions and positive resolutions,” London, 1673, 4to. To which is added, a letter to Mr. Fr. M. aim, 1636, written by Lucius viscount Falkland. This Fr. M. is the said “Factor for the Papacy.”

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

, 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

Socinien des Peres Berruyer et Hardouin,“1756, 3 vols. 12mo. This book is the most forcible, and the most esteemed of all that have been written against P. Berruyer. Among his other works are, 1.” Relation de ce qui s’est passe“durant la Maladie et la Mort de M. de Langle, Eveque de Boulogne,” 1724, 4to. 2. “The Preface to M. Colbert’s works,” 1739, 4to. 3. “Lettre a M. Berger de Charancy, Eveque de Montpellier,” 1740, 4to; it is known by the title of “Verges d'Heliodore.” 4. “Relation de la Captivite” de la Sceur Marie Desforges,“1741, 12mo. 5.” Les Jesuites convaincus d‘Obstination a perinettre l’Idolatrie dans la Chine,“1743, 12mo. 6.” Lettre au sujet de la Bulle de N. S. P. le pape, concernant les Kits Malabares,“1745, 12mo. 7.” Pope’s Essay on Man proved to be impious,“1746, 12mo. 8.” The Refutation of a Libel entitled La voix du Sage et du Peuple,“1750, 12mo. 9.” Vie de M. Soanen, Eveque de Schez,“175O, 4to and 12mo. 10.” Les Lettres Persannes convaincues d‘lmpieteV’ 1751, 12mo. II. “Hist, abreg^e du Parlement de Paris, durant les Troubles du Commencement du Regnede Louis XIV.” 1754, 12mo.

, 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:

Life is a jest, and all things shew it, I thought so once, but now I know 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.