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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gelenius’s fame does not rest entirely on his merit as a corrector of the press. He has also furnished Latin translations of Dionysius Halicarnassensis, Appian, Philo, Josephus, Origen, and others; all which shew him to have been a man of talents and learning. He published likewise an edition of Ammianus Marcellinus, in which he made a great number of judicious and ingenious emendations, and restored the strange transposition of pages, which is to be found in all the manuscript copies, and appears in Accursius’s edition. Besides these he published a dictionary in four languages, Greek, Latin, German, and Sclavonian; after which, he wrote annotations on Livy and Pliny, and gave an edition of Arnobius, with whom he is thought to have taken too many liberties.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

His works were: 1. “An Appendix concerning Longitude, 1633;” subjoined to the “Voyage of Captain Thomas James into the South Sea.” Jt is reprinted in Harris’s “Voyages,” 1748. 2. “A discourse mathematical, on the variation of the Magnetic Needle; together with the admirable diminution lately discovered, 1635.” 3. “An Institution Trigonometrical, explaining the dimensions of plain and spherical triangles, by sines, tangents, secants, and logarithms, &c. with an Appendix concerning the use of the forestaff, quadrant, and nocturnal, in navigation,” 1634; and again with additions, by William Ley bourn, in 1652. 4. “A Latin oration in praise of the Astronomy of Gassendns, spoken in Christ-churchhall, some time before he left the university.” There is of his a ms. entitled, “Diatriba Lunaris,” in the British Museum library, and some others mentioned in Birch’s “History of the Royal Society,” vol. IV.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He is said to have been impetuous in character and style, but his virtues were also great, his manners severe, and his piety exemplary. A considerable detail of the life of Gerberon is given in the literary history of the coagregation of St. Maur, published in 1770, 41O.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notwithstanding this reputation, his contemporaries we*e unwilling to place him in any other rank than that of a writer of light, easy compositions, in which the higher attributes of poetry are not to be found. Gesner, to conrince them of their mistake, produced his “Death of Abel,” in order to prove that he could soar to the sublime, which, however, we think he has not reached; the sublimity of this work appearing to us to be mere turgidity and affectation, more calculated to deprave taste than to gratify it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Giardini came to England in the spring of 1750. His first public performance in London was at a benefit concert, on which occasion he played a solo and concerto, and though there was very little company, the applause was so loud, long, and furious, as nothing but that bestowed on Garrick had ever equalled. Inconsequence, he soon was engaged and caressed at most of the private concerts of the principal nobility, gentry, and foreign ministers; at the Castle and King’s-arms concert in the city; and in 1754 he was placed at the head of the opera band; in which he introduced a new discipline, and a new style of playing, much superior in itself, and more congenial with the poetry and music of Italy, than the languid manner of his predecessor Festing.

In 1756, on the failure and flight of the Impresario, or undertaker of the opera, Vaneschi, Mingotti, and Giardini joined their interests, and became managers, but found themselves involved at the end of the season in such difficulties, that they were glad to retire. Giardini, while in the opera management, besides arranging pasticcios, set several entire dramas; but though he had so great a hand on his instrument, so much fancy in his cadences and solos, yet he had not sufficient force or variety to supply a whole evening’s entertainment at the Lyric theatre, although he continued to throw in a single air or rondeau into the operas of other masters, which was more applauded than all the rest of the drama. In 1762, in spite of former miscarriages, Giardini and Mingotti again resumed the reins of opera government. But, after struggling two years, they again resigned it, and from this period Giardini was forced to content himself with teaching ladies of rank and fashion to sing, and the produce of a great annual benefit* He continued here unrivalled as a leader, a solo player, and a composer for his instrument, still augmenting the importance of his instrument and our national partiality for the taste of his country, till the admirable productions and great performers of Germany began to form a Teutonic interest and Germanic body here, which, before Giardini’s departure from London, became very formidable rivals to him and his Roman legion.

At the end of 1784, he went to Italy, and after remaining on the continent till the summer of 1789, returned to this country, bringing with him a female pupil and her whole family. He then attempted aburletta opera at the little theatre in the Hay market, while the operahouse, which had been burned down, was rebuilding; but his speculation failed. During his absence the public had learned to do without him, and reconciled themselves to his loss; his health, hand, and eyes were impaired; he was dropsical, his legs were of an enormous size, and little of his former superiority on his instrument remaine 1, but his fine tone. He composed quartets that pleased very much, but in which he never played any other part in public than the tenor. The style of music was changed; he printed many of his old compositions which used to please; but now could gain neither purchasers nor hearers, so that about 1793, he went to Petersburg with his burletta troop; which seems to have pleased as little there and at Moscow, as in London; and he is said to have died in this hist city in great wretchedness and poverty!

Of this performer, Dr. Burney says, that if he “has been surpassed by a few in taste, expression, and execution, his tone and graceful manner of playing are still unrivalled; nor does any one of all the admirable and great performers on the violin, surpass all others so much at present, as Giardini did, when at his best, all the violinists in Europe.” Giardini’s private character appears to have been of the worst description; and although possessed of such talents and intellects as art and nature scarcely ever allowed to the same individual, yet by extravagance, caprice, and a total want of benevolence and rectitude of heart, he died a beggar, unfriended and unpitied.

, a Scotch divine of considerable talents and zeal, and one of the founders of the Secession church in Scotland, (See Erskine, Ebenezer, and Ralph), and the leader of that division of the seceders called the Antiburghers, was born in Perthshire, in 1713, and was educated at the university of Edinburgh. Soon after 1730, violent disputes occurring in the general assembly of the church of Scotland, respecting the law of patronage, Mr. Gib was among the keenest opponents of private church patronage, and in 1733 was with three others dismissed from his pastoral charge. These afterwards formed congregations of their own, to one of which, at Edinburgh, Mr. Gib was ordained, in April 1741. This congregation gradually increased, and with others of the same kind, was in a flourishing state, when in 1746 a schism took place among them respecting the swearing of the oaths of burgesses, and from this time the secession church was divided into two parties, called burghers and antiburghers, and Mr. Gib was considered as the ablest advocate for the latter. In 1774 he published “A display of the Secession testimony,” 2 vols. 8vo, and in 1786 his “Sacred Contemplations,” at the end of which was an “Essay on Liberty and Necessity,” in answer to lord Kames’s Essay on that subject. Mr. Gib died at Edinburgh, June 18, 1788, and was buried in the Grey-friars church-yard, where art elegant monument has been erected to his memory, at the expence of his congregation, among whom he had unweariedly laboured for the long period of forty-seven years.

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

Edward Gibbon, the more immediate subject of thii article, was born at Putney April 27, O. S. 1737. His mother was Judith Porten, the daughter of a merchant of London. He was the eldest of five brothers and a sister, all of whom died in their infancy. During his early years, his constitution was uncommonly feeble, but he was nursed with much tenderness by his maiden aunt, Mrs. Catherine Porten, and received such instruction during intervals of health, as his years admitted. At the age of seven he was placed under the care of Mr. John Kirkby, the author of “Automathes,” a philosophical fiction. In his ninth year, January 1746, he was sent to a school at Kingston upon Thames, kept by Dr. Woodeson and his assistants; but even here Ins studies were frequently interrupted by sickness, nor does he speak with rapture either of his proficiency, or of the school itself. In 1747, on his mother’s death, he was recalled home, where, during a residence of two years, principally under the eye of his affectionate aunt, he appears to have acquired that passion for reading which predominated during the whole of his life.

In 1749 he was entered in Westminster-school, of which, within the space of two years, he reached the third form, but his application was so frequently rendered useless by sickness and debility, that it was determined to send him to Bath. Here, and at Putney, he recovered his health so far as to be able to return to his books, and as he approached his sixteenth year, his disorder entirely left him. The frequent interruptions, however, which he had met with, and probably a dread of the confined air of the city of Westminster, had induced his father to place him at Esher, in Surrey, in the house of the rev. Philip Francis, the translator of Horace. But his hopes were again frustrated. Mr. Francis preferred the pleasures of London to the instruction of his pupils; and our scholar, without farther preparation, was hurried to Oxford, where, on April 3, 1752, before he had accomplished his fifteenth year, he was matriculated as a gentleman commoner of Magdalencollege*.

To Oxford, he informs us, he brought “a stock of erudition that might have puzzled a doctor, and a degree of ignorance of which a school-boy would have been ashamed.” During the last three years, although sickness interrupted a regular course of instruction, his fondBess for books increased, and he was permitted to indulge it by ranging over the shelves without plan or design. His indiscriminate appetite fixed by degrees in the historical line, and he perused with greatest avidity such historical books as came in his way, gratifying a curiosity of which he could not trace the source, and supplying wants which he could not express. In this course of desultory reading be seems inconsciously to have been led t6 that particular branch in which he was afterwards to excel. But whatever connection this had with his more distant life, it was by no means favourable to his academical pursuits. He was exceedingly deficient in classical learning, and went to Oxford without either the taste or preparation which could enable him to reap the advantages of academical education. This may probably account for the harshness with which he speaks of the English universities. He informs us that he spent fourteen months at Magdalencollege, which proved the most idle and unprofitable of his whole life; but why they were so idle and unprofitable, we cannot learn from his Memoirs. To the carelessness of his tutors, indeed, he appears to have had some reason to object, but he allows that he was disposed to gaiety and to late hours, and therefore complains with little justice, that he was not taught what he affected to despise. The truth seems to be, that when he sat down to write his Memoirs, the memoirs of an eminent and accomolisued seholar, he found a blank which is seldom found in the bicM graphy of English scholars; the early displays of genius, the laudable emulation, and the well-earned honours; he found that he owed no fame to his academical residence, and therefore determined that no fame should be derivable from an univefsity education.

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

His father was now advised to send him fot some time to Lausanne, in Switzerland, where he was placed, with a moderate allowance, under the care of. Mr, Pavilliard, a Calvinist minister. Mr. Pavilliard was instructed to reclaim his pupil from the errors of popery; but as he could not speak English, nor Mr. Gibbon French, some time elapsed before much conversation of any kind became practicable. When their mutual industry had removed this obstacle, Mr. Pavilliard first secured the attention and attachment of his pupil by kindness, then directed his studies into a regular plan, and placed within his power such means of information as might remove the errors into which he had fallen. This judicious method soon proved successful; on Christmas day 1754, after“a full conviction,” Mr. Gibbon received the sacrament in the church of Lausanne; and here it was, he informs us, that he suspended his religious inquiries, acquiescing with implicit belief in the tenets and mysteries which are adopted by the general consent of catholics and protestants.

His ad vantages in other respects were so important during his residence at Lausanne, that here, for the first time, he appears to have commenced that regular process of instruction which laid the foundation of all his future improvements. His thirst for general knowledge returned, and while he was not hindered from gratifying his curiosity in his former desultory manner, certain hours were appropriated for regular studies. His reading had now a fixed object, and that attained, he felt the value of the acquisition, and became more reconciled to regularity and system. He opened new stores of learning and taste, by acquiring a knowledge of the Greek, Latin, and French languages. Of this proficiency, although his tutor ought not to be robbed of his share of the merit, it is evident that Mr. Gibbon’s unwearied industry and laudable avidity of knowledge were at this time uncommon, and bespoke a mind capable of the/ji'vghest attainments, and deserving of the highest honours! wkhin the compass of literature. To mathematics only, he showed a reluctance; contenting himself with understanding the principles of that science. At this early age it is probable he desisted merely from finding no pleasure in mathematical studies, and nothing to gratify curiosity; but as in his more mature years it was his practice to undervalue the pursuits which he did not choose to follow, he took an opportunity to pass a reflection on the utility of mathematics, with which few will probably agree. He accuses this science of “hardening the mind by the habit of rigid demonstration, so destructive of the finer feelings of moral evidence, which must determine the actions and opinions of our lives.” So easy is it to find a plausible excuse for neglecting what we want the power or the inclination to follow.

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

During this alternation of study and pleasure, he became enamoured of a mademoiselle Susan C&rchod, a young lady whose personal attractions were embellished by her virtues and talents. His addresses were favoured by her and by her parents, but his father, on being consulted, expressed the utmost reluctance to this “strange alliance,” and Mr. Gibbon yielded to his pleasure. His wound, he tells us, was insensibly healed by time, and the lady was not unhappy. She afterwards became the wife of the celebrated M. Neckar.

In 1758 he was permitted to return to England, after an absence of nearly five years. His father received him with more kindness than he expected, and rejoiced in the suecess of his plan of education. During his absence his father had married his second wife, miss Dorothea Patton, whom his son was prepared to dislike, but found an amiable and deserving woman. At home he was left at liberty to consult his taste in the choice of place, company, and amusements, and his excursions were bounded only by the limits of the island and the measure of his income. He had now reached his twenty-first year; and some faint efforts were made to procure him the employment of secretary to a foreign embassy. His step-mother recommended the study of the law; but the former scheme did not succeed, and the tatter he declined. Of his first two years in England, he passed about nine months in London, and the remainder in thecountry. But London had few charms, except the common ones that can be purchased. His father had no fixed residence there, and no circles into which he might introduce his son. He acquired an intimacy, however, in the house of David Mallet, and by his means was introduced to lady Hervey’s parties. The want of society seems never to have given him much uneasiness, nor does it appear that at any period of his life he knew the misery of having hours which he could not fill up. At his father’s house at Buriton, near Petersfield, in Hampshire, he enjoyed much leisure and many opportunities of adding to his stock of learning. Books became more and more the source of all his wishes and pleasures, and although his father endeavoured to inspire him with a love and knowledge of farming, he could not succeed farther than occasionally to obtain his company in such excursions as are usual with country gentlemen.

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

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

About the time when this essay appeared, Mr. Gibbon was induced to embrace the military profession. He was appointed captain of the south battalion of the Hampshire militia, and for two years and a half endured “a wandering life of military servitude.” It is seldom that the memoirs of a literary character are enlivened by an incident like this. Mr. Gibbon, as may be expected, could not divest his mind of its old habits, and therefore endeavoured to unite the soldier and the scholar. He studied the art of war in the Memoires Militaires of Quintus Icilius (M. Guichardt), while from the discipline and evolutions of a modern battalion, he was acquiring a clearer notion of the phalanx and the legion, and what he seems to have valued at its full worth, a more intimate knowledge of the world, and such an increase of acquaintance as made him better known than he could have been in a much longer time, had he regularly passed his summers at Buriton, and his winters in London. He snatched also some hours from his military duties for study, and upon the whole, although he does not look back with much pleasure on this period of his life, he permits the reader to smile at the advantages which the historian of the Roman empire derived from the captain of the Hampshire grenadiers. At the peace in 1762-3, his regiment was disbanded, and he resumed his studies, the regularity of which had been so much interrupted, that he speaks of now entering on a new plan. After hesitating, probably not long, between the mathematics and the Greek language, he gave the preference to the latter, and pursued his reading with vigour. But whatever he read or studied, he appears to have read and studied with a view to historical composition, and he aspired to the character of a historian long before he could fix upon a subject. The time was favourable to Mr. Gibbon’s ambition. He was daily witnessing the triumphs of Hume and Robertson, and he probably thought that a subject only was wanting to form his claim to equal honours.

During his service in the militia, he revolved several subjects for historical composition, and by the variety of them, it does not appear that he had any particular purpose to serve, or preconceived theory to which facts were to bend. Among the subjects he has enumerated, we find the expedition of Charles VIII. of France into Italy the crusade of Richard I. the barons 1 wars against John and Henry III. the history of Edward the Black Prince the lives, with comparisons of Henry V. and the emperor Titus the life of sir Philip Sidney, and that of the marquis of Montrose. These were rejected in their turns, but he dwelt with rather more fondness on the life of sir Walter Raleigh; and when that was discarded, meditated either the history of the Liberty of the Swiss; or that of the republic of Florence under the house of Medicis.

His designs were, however, now interrupted by a visit to the continent, which, according to custom, his father thought necessary to complete the education of an English gentleman. Previous to his departure he obtained recommendatory letters from lady Hervey, Horace Walpole (the late lord Orford), Mallet, and the duke de Nivernois, to various persons of distinction in France. In acknowledging the duke’s services, he notes a circumstance which in some degree unfolds his own character, and exhibits that superiority of pretensions from which he never departed. “The duke received me civilly, but (perhaps through Maty’s fault) treated me more as a man of letters than as a man of fashion.” Congreve and Gray were weak enough to be offended on a similar account, but that Mr. Gibbon, whose sole ambition was to rise to literary fame, should have for a moment preferred the equivocal character of a man of fashion, is as unaccountable as it is wonderful that, at an advanced period of life, he should have recorded the incident.

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

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

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

After the death of his father in 1770, an event which left him the sole disposer of his time and inclinations, he sat down seriously to the composition of his celebrated history. For some years he had revolved the subject in his mind, and had read every thing with a view to this great undertaking, which his election for the borough of Leskeard in 1775 did not much interrupt. The first volume was published Feb. 17, 1776, and received by the public with such avidity, that a second edition,in June, and a third soon after, were scarcely adequate to the demand. To use his own language, his book was on every table, and almost on every toilette: the historian was crowned by the taste or fashion of the day. From the ample praises of Dr. Robertson, and of Mr. Hume, he appears to have derived more substantial satisfaction. Hume anticipates the objections that would be made to the fifteenth and sixteenth chapters, with his usual arrogance and contempt of religion. *' When I heard of your undertaking (which was some time ago) I own I was a little curious to see how you would extricate yourself from the subject of your two last chapters. I think you have observed a very prudent temperament; but it was impossible to treat the subject so as not to give grounds of suspicion against you, and you may expect that a clamour will arise. This, if any thing, will retard your success with the public; for in every other respect your work is calculated to be popular. But among many other marks of decline, the prevalence of superstition in England prognosticates the fall of philosophy and decay of taste; and though nobody be more capable than you to revive them, you will probably find a struggle in your first advances."

Mr. Gibbon’s reflections on this subject, in his Memoirs, are not very intelligible, unless we consider him as employing irony. He affects not to have believed that the majority of English readers were so fondly attached even to the name and shadow of Christianity; and not to have foreseen that the pious, the timid, and the prudent would feel, or affect to feel, with such exquisite sensibility. If he had foreseen all this, he condescends to inform us that “he might have softened the two invidious chapters.” He seems to rejoice that “if the voice of our priests was clamorous and bitter, their hands were disarmed from the power of persecution;” and adhered to the resolution of trusting himself and his writings to the candour of the public, until Mr. Davis, of Oxford, presumed to attack, ' not the faith, but the fidelity of the historian.“He then published his” Vindication,“which, he says,” expressive of less anger than contempt, amused for a while the busy and idle metropolis.“Of his other antagonists he speaks with equal contempt,” A victory over such antagonists was a sufficient humiliation.“It is not, however, quite certain that he obtained this victory; the silence of an author is nearly on a par with the flight of a warrior, and it is evident that the contempt which Mr. Gibbon has so lavishly poured on his antagonists, in his” Memoirs,“has more of passionate resentment than of conscious superiority.' Of his first resentment and his last feelings, he thus speaks” Let me frankly own, that I was startled at the first discharge of ecclesiastical ordnance but, as soon as I found that this empty noise was mischievous only in the intention, my fear was converted into indignation; and every feeling of indignation or curiosity has long since subsided into pure and placid indifference."

It may not be unuseful to give in this place the titles at least, of the principal writings which his bold and disingenuous attack on Christianity called forth. These were, i. “Remarks on the two last Chapters of Mr. Gibbon’s History. In a letter to a friend.” (See Art. 8.) 2. “An Apology for Christianity, in a series of letters, addressed to Edward Gibbon, esq. By R. Watson, D. D. F. R. S. and regius professor of divinity in the university of Cambridge” (now bishop of Llandaff), 1776, 12mo. 3. “The History of the establishment of Christianity, compiled from Jewish and Heathen authors only; translated from the French of professor Bullet, &c. By William Salisbury, B. D. with notes by the translator, and some strictures on Mr. Gib ­bon’s Account of Christianity, and its first teachers,” 1776, 8vo. 4. “A Reply to the reasonings of Mr. Gibbon in his History, &c. which seem to affect the truth of Christianity, but have not been noticed in the answer which Dr. Watson hath given to that book. By Smyth Loftus, A. M. vicar of Coolock,” Dublin, 1778, 8vo. 5. “Letters on the prevalence of Christianity, before its civil establishment. With observations on a late History of the Decline of the Roman Empire. By East Apthorpe, M. A. vicar of Crovdon, 1778, 8vo. 6.” An Examination of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Chapters of Mr. Gibbon’s History. In which his view of the progressof the Christian religion is shown to be founded on the misrepresentation of the authors he cites; and numerous instances of his inaccuracy and plagiarism are produced. By Henry Edward Davis, B. A. of Baliol college, Oxford,“1778, 8vo. 7.” A few Remarks on the History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire; relative chiefly to the Two last Chapters. By a gentleman,“8vo. 8.” Remarks on the Two last Chapters of Mr. Gibbon’s History. By James Chelsum, D. D. student of Christ Church, Oxford, and chaplain to the lord bishop of Worcester: the second edition enlarged," 1778, 12mo. This is a second edition of the Anonymous Remarks mentioned in the first article, and contains additional remarks by Dr. Randolph, Lady Margaret’s professor of divinity in the university of Oxford.

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

The other most considerable works levelled at the History, upon general principles, were, 1, “Thoughts on the nature of the grand Apostacy, with reflections and observations on the Fifteenth Chapter of Mr. Gibbon’s History. By Henry Taylor, rector of Crawley, and vicar of Portsmouth in Hampshire, author of Ben Mordecai’s Apology for embracing Christianity,” 1781-2, 8vo. 2. Gibbon’s Account of Christianity considered; together with some strictures on Hume’s Dialogues concerning Natural Religion. By Joseph Milner, A. M. master of the grammarschool of Kingston-upon-Hull,“1781, 8vo. 3.” Letters to Edward Gibbon, esq. in defence of the authenticity of the 7th verse of the vth chapter of the First Epistle of St. John. By George Travis, A. M. v 1784, 4to. 4. “An Inquiry into the Secondary Causes which Mr. Gibbon has assigned for the rapid growth of Christianity. By sir David Dalrymple” (lord Hailes), 1786, 4to.

In addition to these antagonists, it may be mentioned that Dr. Priestley endeavoured to provoke Mr. Gibbon to a controversy. The letters which passed between them are republished in the Memoirs, and are interesting because highly characteristic of both parties. The literary world has seldom seen polemic turbulence and sceptical arrogance so ably contrasted. Of all Mr. Gibbon’s antagonists, he speaks with respect only of Dr. Watson. Davis, it is evident, gave him most uneasiness, because he was able to repel but a few of the many charges that writer brought against him. In sound, manly reasoning, clear, perspicuous, and well-founded, without an atom of controversial asperity, sir David Dalrymple’s Inquiry excels; and may perhaps be considered as completely proving, what it is of most importance to prove, that Mr. Gibbon’s attack on Christianity was unnecessary as to its connection with his history, and is* disingenuous as to the mode in which he conducted it. The controversy was upon the whole beneficial; the public was put upon its guard, and through the thin veil of lofty contempt, it is very evident that Mr. Gibbon repented that he had made a false estimate of the public opinion on the subject of religion.

The prosecution of his history was for some time checked by an employment of a different nature, but for which his talents were thought preferable to that of any writer connected with administration. At the request of the ministers of state, he was induced to answer a manifesto which the French court had issued against Great Britain, preparatory to war. This Mr. Gibbon ably accomplished in a “Memoire Justificatif,” composed in French, which was delivered as a state paper to the courts of Europe. For this service he was appointed one of the lords commissioners of trade and plantations, a place worth about 700l. or 800l. a year, the duties of which were not very arduous. His acceptance of this place, he informs us, provoked some of the leaders of the opposition, with whom he had lived in habits of intimacy, and he was unjustly accused of deserting a party in which he had never enlisted. At the general election, however, in 1780, he lost his seat in parliament, the voters of Leskeard being disposed to favour an oppositioncandidate.

In April 1781 he published the second and third volumes of his history, which excited as much attention, although less controversy, than his first volume. They were written with more caution, yet with equal elegance, and perhaps more proofs of just and profound thinking. His affection for his work appears to have been too warm to permit him to estimate the reception with which these volumes were honoured. He speaks, in his Memoirs, of what no person acquainted with the literary history of that very recent period can remember, of “the coldness and even prejudice of the town.” It is certain, and it is saying much, that they were received witja a degree of eagerness and approbation proportioned to their merit: but two volumes are not so speedily sold as one, and the promise of a continuation, while it gratified the wishes of his admirers, necessarily suspended that final sentence upon which the fame of the work was ultimately to depend.

Soon after the meeting of the new parliament, he was chosen, on a vacancy, to represent the borough of Lymington in Hampshire, but the administration to which he had attached himself was now on its decline, and with itsfall the board of trade was abolished, and “he was stripped of a convenient salary, after having enjoyed it about three years.” Amidst the convulsions of parties which followed the dissolution of lord North’s administration, he adhered to the coalition from a principle of gratitude, but he obtained in return only promises of distant advancement, while he found that an additional income was immediately necessary to enable him to maintain the style of living ta which he had been accustomed. Andsuch at the same time was his indifference towards public business, and such his eagerness to pursue his studies, that no additional income would have been acceptable, if earned at the expence of parliamentary attendance, or official duties.

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

In this catalogue of advantages, we may perceive somewhat of caprice and weakness, and it may certainly be conjectured that a man of his internal resources might have discovered situations in England, both adapted to the purposes of ceconomy and retirement, and yielding intervals of society. But from his subsequent remarks, it appears that he was, either from pride or modesty, averse to the company of his literary associates, and preferred, in his hours of relaxation, that company in which the conversation leads, not to discussion, but to the exchange of mutual kindness and endearments. In this perhaps he is not singular; and in disliking the polemical turn which literary conversation too frequently takes, he is not to be blamed. What was most commendable, however, and what constantly predominated in the mind of Gibbon, was increase of knowledge. From that aim no opulence of itation could have diverted him, and whatever his friends or the state might have done for him, his own scheme, the constant wish and prayer of his heart, was for a situation in which books might be procured.

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

With the manuscript copy of these volumes he set out from Lausanne, and at the end of a fortnight arrived at the house of his friend lord Sheffield, with whom he resided during the whole of his stay in England. Having disposed of the copyright to his liberal publisher, the late Mr. Cadell, and the whole having been printed, the day of publication, he informs us, was delayed, that it might coincide with the fifty-first anniversary of his birth-day, May 8, 1788, when the double festival was celebrated by a cheerful literary dinner at Mr. Cadell’s house. On this occasion some elegant stanzas by Mr. Hayley were read, at which, Mr. Gibbon adds, “I seemed to blush.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gibbons died August 3, 1721, at his house in Bowstreet, Covent-garden, and in November of the following year, his collection, a very considerable one, of pictures, models, &c. was sold by auction. Among other things were two chimney-pieces of his work, the one valued at 100l. and the other at 120l.; his own bust in marble, by himself, but the wig and cravat extravagant; and an original of Simon the engraver, by sir Peter Lely, which had been much damaged by the fall of Gibbons’ house.

, a learned English Jesuit, was born in Winchester in 1549, and going abroad, became a man of considerable consequence in his order. Besides filling some 'ecclesiastic posts, he was professor of philosophy and divinity in Italy, Spain, Portugal, at Toulouse in France, and lastly at Doway, where he lived during his latter years, and employed his leisure time in publishing editions of various works from Mss. illustrated with notes. He died there June 21, 1632. His works are, 1. “Nicolai Harpsfeldii Hist. Eccles. Angliae.” 2. “Opera divi jElredi, abbatis Riavallensis, Cisterciensis,” Doway, 1631, 8vo. 3. “Divi Amaduei, Episc. Lausannae, de Maria virgine matre, Homilia? octo,” Audomaropoli (St. Omer’s), 12mo. 4. “Vita bead Gosvini, &c.” 5. “Summa casuum conscientiae Francisci Toleti cardinalis,” with notes. 6. “F. Riberee Comment, in duodecirn prophetas minores,” Doway, 1612, &c. &c.

, a pious dissenting divine, was born at Reak, in the parish of Swaffham Prior, near Newmarket, May 31, 1720. His father, of both his names, was for some years pastor of a congregation at Olney, in Buckinghamshire, and afterwards of another at Royston in Hertfordshire. He received his early education in Cambridgeshire, and in 1735 was placed under the care of Dr. Taylor, at Deptford. After going through a course of preparatory studies, he was ordained, according to the forms among the dissenters, in 1742, and appointed assistant preacher at the meeting in Silver-street. In this situation, however, he did not continue long, being in 1743, called to the pastoral charge of the independent congregation at Haberdashers’ hall, which he sustained the whole of his life.

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

, an eminent architect, was the son of Peter Gibbs of Footdeesmire, merchant in Aberdeen, and Isabel Farquhar, his second wife; he was born about the year 1674, and was educated at the grammar-school and the Marischal college of Aberdeen, where he took the degree of master of arts. Having, however, few friends, he resolved to seek his fortune abroad; and about 1694 left Aberdeen, whither he never returned. As he had always discovered a strong inclination to the mathematics, h spent some years in the service of an architect and masterbuilder in Holland. The earl of Mar happening to be in that country, about 1700, Mr. Gibbs was introduced to him. This noble lord was himself a great architect; and finding his countryman Mr. Gibbs to be a man of genius, he not only favoured him with his countenance and advice, but generously assisted him with money and recommendatory letters, in order, by travelling, to complete himself as an architect.

Thus furnished, Mr. Gibbs went from Holland to Italy, and there applied himself assiduously to the study of architecture, under the best masters. About 1710 he came to England; where he found his noble patron in the ministry, and highly in favour with the queen. Lord Mar introduced him to his friends as a gentleman of great knowledge in his profession; and an act of parliament having been passed about this time for building fifty new churches, Mr. Gibbs was employed by the trustees named in the act, and gave a specimen of his abilities, in planning and executing St. Martin’s church in the fields, St. Mary’s in the Strand, and several others. Being now entered on business, he soon became distinguished; and although his generous patron had the misfortune to be exiled from his native country, Mr. Gibbs’s merit supported him among persons of all denominations, and he was employed by persons of the best taste and greatest eminence. The liadcliffe library at Oxford, begun June 16, 1737, and finished in 1747; the King’s college, Royal library, and Senatehouse, at Cambridge; and the sumptuous and elegant monument for John Holies, duke of Newcastle, done by order and at the expence of his grace’s only child, the countess of Oxford and Mortimer, are lasting evidences of his abilities as an architect. Some years before his death, he sent to the magistrates of Aberdeen, as a testimony of his regard for the place of his nativity, a plan of St. Nicholas church, which was followed in the re-building of it, and which was probably among the last of his performances.

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

In 1728 he published a large folio of his designs, by which he realized 1500l. and sold the plates afterwards for 40O/.

, an elegant French scholar, was born January 17, 1662, at Aix in Provence. He took a bachelor’s degree in divinity, and was appointed professor of philosophy at Beauvais at the age of twenty-four, and professor of rhetoric four years after, at the Mazarine college, in which the exercises began 1688, and were opened by him with a public speech. He filled this chair with much credit above fifty years, and formed a great number of excellent scholars, by whom he had the art of making himself beloved. He was several times rector of the university of Paris, and defended its rights with zeal and firmness. In 1728 he succeeded his friend, the celebrated Pourchot, as syndic of the university; and it was in this character that he made a requisition in the general assembly of the university in 1739, by which he formed an opposition to the revocation of the appeal which the university had made from the bull Unigenitus to a future council; which step occasioned his being banished to Auxerre. He died in the bishop of Auxerre’s house, October 28, 1741. His principal work is entitled, “Jugement des Savans, sur les Auteurs qui ont traite de la Rhtorique,” 3 vois. 12mo. He also left “Traite de la veritable Eloquence,” and “Reflexions sur la Rheiorique,” in 4 books, where he answers the objections of P. Lami; “La Rhetorique, ou les Regies de TEloquence,” 12mo, the best work the French have upon that subject.

, LL. D. and D. D. a learned canonist of the same family as the preceding, was born at Aix in 1660. He first taught theology at the seminary of Toulon, then at Aix, and settled in Paris 1703. He refused all the benefices which were offered him, and spent his life in deciding cases of conscience, and questions in the canon law. He died December 2, 1736, at Paris. His chief works are, “Institutions Ecclesiastiques et Beneficiales.” The best edition is 1736, 2 vols. 4to. “Usages de PEglise Gallicane, concernant les Censures et l‘IrregulariteV’ 1724, 4to.” Dissertation sur Tautorite dn second ordre, dans le synode diocesain,“1722, 4to.” Tradition, ou Hist, de l'Eglise sur le Sacrement de Manage,“1725, 3 vols. 4to.” Consultations Canoniques sur les Sacrements en general, et en particulier,“1725, 12 vols. 12mo.” Corpus Juris Canonici per regulas naturali ordine dispositas, &c." 1737, 3 vols. fol.

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

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

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

Lastly, one more service to the church and clergy, performed by the bishop of London, was thought worthy of their grateful acknowledgements; namely, his distinguished zeal (after he had animated his brethren on the bench to concur with him) in timely apprizing the clergy of the bold schemes that were formed by the Quakers, in order to deprive the clergy of their legal maintenance by tithes; and in advising them to avert so great a blow to religion, as well as so much injustice to themselves, by their early application to the legislature, to preserve them in the possession of their known rights and properties. But, though the designs of their adversaries were happily defeated, yet it ought ever to be remembered, in honour of the memory of the bishop of London, that such umbrage was taken by sir Robert Walpole, on occasion of the advice given by him and his brethren to the clergy in that critical juncture, as soon terminated in the visible diminution of his interest and authority.

The biographer of sir Robert Walpole allows that the inveteracy displayed against this eminent prelate for the conscientious discharge of his duty on this occasion, reflects no credit on the memory of that statesman. His esteem for Gibson had been so great, that when he was reproached with giving him the authority of a pope, he replied, “And a very good pope he is.” Even after theii; disagreement, he never failed to pay an eulogium to tha learning and integrity of his former friend. About this time, great pains were taken to fix upon this worthy prelate, the character of a haughty persecutor, and even of a Secret enemy to the civil establishment. To this end a passage in the introduction to his “Codex,” which suggested the groundlessness of the modern practice of sending prohibitions to the spiritual from the temporal courts, was severely handled, in a pamphlfet written by the recorder of Bristol, afterwards sir Michael Foster, as derogatory from the supreme power and superintendency of the court of king’s bench; and other writers, with less reason and no moderation, attacked our prelate in pamphlets and periodical journals. It is said also that he was obnoxious to the king, on a personal account, because he had censured, with a freedom becoming his character, the frequent recurrence of masquerades, of which his majesty was very fond. Bishop Gibson had preached against this diversion in the former reign: and he now procured an address to the king from several of the bishops, for the entire suppression of such pernicious amusements. In all this his zeal cannot be too highly commended; and to his honour be it recorded, that neither the enmity of statesmen, nor the frowns of princes, could divert his attention from the duties of his pastoral office; some of which consisted in writing and printinrg pastoral letters to the clergy and laity, in opposition to infidelity and enthusiasm; in visitation-charges, as well as occasional sermons, besides less pieces of a mixt nature, and some particular tracts against the prevailing immoralities of the age.

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

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

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

, a native of Morpeth in Northumberland, was famous in the sixteenth century, for the studies of physic, divinity, history, and botany, in which he made considerable progress. Bale bears witness to his character as a physician, by saying, that he performed almost incredible cures. He was a friend to the reformation, and wrote some pieces in defence of that cause, for which he was obliged to become a fugitive in the reign of queen Mary; but, on the accession of Elizabeth, returned, and died in London in 1562. Among his works are, 1. “A breve Chronicle of the bishops of Rome’s blessynge, &c.” a work supposed to be the same called by others “The treasons of the prelates,” in English rhyme, Lond. ICmo, printed by John Daye, consisting of only eight leaves. 2. “The sum of the acts and decrees made by divers bishops of Rome,” from the Latin, 12mo, no date. 3. “A treatise behoovefull as well to preserve the people from pestilence, as to help and recover them, &c.” 1536, 4to. The following remain in manuscript, “An herbal” “Treatise against unskilful chemists, &c.”

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

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

His mind being now a little accessible to impressions from the great works of nature, he paid particular attention to the theory of the earth, the moon, and the rest of the planets belonging to this system, of which the sun is thecentre and, considering the distance and magnitude of the different bodies belonging to it, and the distance of the fixed stars,he soon conceived each to be the centre of a different system. He vv.ell considered the laws of gravity, and that of the centripetal and centrifugal farces, and the cause of the ebbing and flowing of the tides; also the projection of the sphere, and trigonometry and astronomy. He never seemed better pleased than when he found his calculations agree with observation; and being well acquainted with the projection of the sphere, he was fond of describing all astronomical questions geometrically, and of projecting the eclipses of the sun and moon that way.

By this time he became possessed of a small library, and next turning his thought to algebra, he took up Emerson’s treatise on that subject, which, though the most difficult, he went through with great success and the management of surd quantities, and the clearing equations of high powers, were amusements to him while at work in the fields, as he generally could perform them by his memory; and if he met with any thing very intricate, he had recourse to a piece of chalk. The arithmetic of infinites, and the differential method, he made himself master of, and discovered that algebra and geometry were the very soul of the mathematics. He therefore paid a particular attention to them, and used to apply the former to almost every branch of the different sciences. The art of navigation, the principles of mechanics, the doctrine of motion of falling bodies, and the elements of optics became all objects of his study; and, as a preliminary to fluxions, which had only been lately discovered by sir Isaac Newton, he went through conic sections, &c. to make a trial of this last and finishing branch. Though he expressed some difficulty at his first entrance, yet he did not rest until he made himself master of both a fluxion and a flowing quantity.

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

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

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

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

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

As a minister, his sentiments were of the Calvinistic kind, as put forth by the elders of the baptist churches in and about London in 1677 and 1689. His preaching was sincere, lively, and pathetic; and his faculties remained so Ion* unimpaired, that it was generally said, “he would die popular,” which proved true, although febis is seldom the lot of the dissenting clergy, their flocks too often deserting them when their strength begins to fail, and their powers of popular attraction to relax. For the last twenty ­five years of his life, he preached a monthly lecture at the meeting in Little St. Helen’s, in connection with several ministers of the Independent persuasion. The last time he administered the Lord’s Supper was on June 6, 1784, when he was very weak and low. On the following evening, he preached a sermon to the “Friendly Society” which meet at Eagle-street, when he took an affectionate leave of them, and of all farther public duties. He died June 19th following, in the eighty-fourth year of his age, and was buried in Bunhill Fields. He left 400l. to the above meeting in Eagle-street, and his books, pictures, and manuscripts to the baptist academy at Bristol, where they are * buried in comparative obscurity. Dr. Gifford published nothing of his own, except the sermon above mentioned, but was frequently a contributor to literary undertakings. In 1763 he superintended through the press, and enlarged the edition of Folkes’s “Tables of English silver and gold Coins,” printed at the expence of the Society of Antiquaries, 2 vols. 4to. To this he added the Supplement, the Postscript, and six plates.

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

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

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