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

It was sufficiently known how steady he was in the interests of the church of England, against the innovations of the presbyterians and independents; but his zeal against these was mixed with greater compassion than it was towards the papists: and this raised him up many adversaries, who charged him with puritanism. He used to call the controversies concerning episcopacy, and the newfangled arguments against the church of England, “insects of a day;” and carefully avoided polemical disputes, being altogether of sir Henry Wotton’s opinion, “disputandi pruritus, ecclesise scabies.” The fact was, that he loved pious and good men of all denominations, and it is this candour which has given a value to his works superior to those of his opponents. For the many errors which occur in his histories, it is surely easy to find an apology in this single circumstance, that the whole of them were compiled and published within about twenty years, during which he was obliged to remove from place to place in quest of literary leisure, and freedom from the cruel severities of the times. His “Church History* 1 is the most incorrect of all his works, and Strype has pointed out a great many errors in the transcription of historical documents, to which perhaps Fuller had not the easiest access. His” Worthies" was a posthumous publication, by his Son, and although less perfect than he could have made it, had his life been spared a few years longer, with the opportunities which the return of peace might have afforded, yet it contains many interesting memorials; and he was the second (see Samuel Clarke) who published what may be called English biography. This work has for many years been rising in price and- estimation, and the public has lately been gratified by a new edition, in 2 vols. 4to, edited by Mr. Nichols, with many improvements and additions, from the communications of his literary friends.

, so called from the trade of a fuller, which he exercised in his monastic state, intruded himself into the see of Antioch, in the fifth century, and after having been several times deposed and condemned on account of the bitterness of his opposition to the council of Chalcedon, was at last fixed in it, in the year 482, by the authority of the emperor Zeno, and the favour of Acacius, bishop of Constantinople, Among the innovations which he introduced to excite discord in the church, was an alteration in the famous hymn which the Greeks called Tris-agion. After the words “O God most holy, &c.” he ordered the following phrase to be added in the eastern churches, “who has suffered for us upon the cross.” His design in this was to raise a new sect, and also to fix more deeply in the minds of the people, the doctrine of one nature in Christ, to which he was zealously attached. His adversaries, and especially Fcelix, the Roman pontiff, interpreted this addition in a quite different manner, and charged him with maintaining, that all the three persons of the Godhead were crucified and hence his followers were called Theopaschites. To put an end to the controversy, the emperor Zeno published in the year 482 the “Henoticon,” or decree of onion, which was designed to reconcile the parties, and Fullo signed it; but the effects of the contest disturbed the church for a long time after his death, which happened in the year 486.

, an English antiquary, was the son of a tradesman at Penshurst, in Kent, where he was born in Nov. 1632, and his early capacity being known to the celebrated Dr. Hammond, who was minister of that place, he took him with him to Oxford during the usurpation. There he procured him the place of chorister in Magdalen college, and at the same time had him educated at the school belonging to that college. In 1647 he became a candidate for a scholarship in Corpus Christi college, and succeeded by his skill in classical learning. The next year he was ejected by the parliamentary visitors, along with his early patron, Dr. Hammond, to whom, however, he faithfully adhered, and was serviceable to him as an amanuensis. Dr. Hammond afterwards procured him a tutor’s place in a family, where he remained until the restoration, and then resuming his scholarship at college, was created M. A. and obtained a fellowship. He was, several years after, presented by his college to the rectory of Meysey Hampton, near Fairford, in Gloucestershire, on which he resided during his life, employing his time that was not occupied in professional duties, in the study pf history and antiquities, particularly what regarded his own country. He died June 28, 1688, according to Wood, but Atkins mentions his successor, Dr. Beale, with (he date 1697. Wood informs us that Mr. Fulmau made large collections of history, but published little. We have, however, of his, 1. “Academiae Oxoniensis Notitia,” Oxford, 1665, 4to, reprinted at London in 1675, with additions and corrections from Wood’s Latin history, the sheets of which he communicated to Mr. Fulman as they came from the press. 2. “Appendix to the Life of Edmund Stunton, D. D. wherein some passages are further cleared, which were not fully held forth by the former authors,” Lond. 1673. This is a censure of some particulars in Mayow’s Life of Dr. Stanton. 3. “Corrections and Observations on the first part of Burnet’s History of the Reformation,” not a distinct publication, but communicated by the author to Burnet, who published them at the end of his second volume, and, according to Wood, not completely. Fulman also collected what are called the “Works of Charles I.” but happening to be taken ill about the intended time of publication (1662), the bookseller employed Dr. Periuchief as editor. It contains, however, Fulman’s notes. Many of his ms collections are in the library of Corpus Christi college. He will occur to be noticed hereafter as editor of Dr. Hammond’s works.

, an Italian cardinal and antiquary, the descendant of a noble family of Bergamo, was born there in 1685, He studied at Milan and Pavja, and made considerable progress in the knowledge of the civil and canon law. He went afterwards to Rome, where he held several ecclesiastical preferments, and in each was admired as much for his integrity as knowledge. Benedict XIV. who well knew his merit, was yet averse to raising him to the purple, on account of some disputes between them which took place in 1750. Yet it is said that Furietti might have received this high honour at that time, if he would have parted with his two superb centaurs, of Egyptian marble, which he found in 1736 among the ruins of the ancient town of Adrian in Tivoli, and which the pope very much wanted to place in the museum Capitolinum. Furietti, however, did not ehuse to give them up, and assigned as a reason: “I can, if I please, be honoured with the purple, but I know the court of Rome, and I do not wish to be called cardinal Centaur /” In 1759, however, Clement XIII. a year after his accession to the papal dignity, sent the cardinal’s hat to him, which he did not long enjoy, dying in 1764.

, called Bibaculus, perhaps from his excessive drinking, an ancient Latin poet, was born at Cremona about the year of Rome 650, or 100 before Christ. He wrote annals, of which Macrobius has preserved some fragments. They are inserted in Maittaire’s “Corpus Poetarum. >r Quintilian says, that he wrote iambics also irt a very satirical strain, and therefore is censured by Cremutius Cordus, in Tacitus, as a slandering and abusive writer. Horace is thought to have ridiculed the false sublime of his taste; yet, according to Macrobius, Virgil is said to have imitated him in many places. But some are of opinion that the” Annals" may be attributed to Furius Antias, or Anthius, a contemporary poet, whose fragments are likewise in Maittaire’s collection.

, one of the astrological impostors of the seventeenth century, was born at Wheatly near Oxford, Dec. 31, 1627. His father, William, was a farmer of that place, and his mother was a daughter of sir John Curzon of Waterperry, knt. Our conjuror was first put apprentice to Thomas Nicols, a taylor, in Oxford, but leaving his master in 1644, he went up to London, and became a pupil of the noted William Lilly, under whom be profited so far as to be soon enabled “to set up the trade of almanack-making and fortune-telling for himself.” His pen was employed for many years on nativities, almanacks, and prodigies. There is, we believe, a complete collection of his printed works in the new catalogue of the British Museum, and vre hope we shall be excused for not transcribing the list. Dodd, who has given an account of him, as a Roman catholic, says that some of his almanacks, reflecting upon the management of state affairs during the time of Oates’s plot, brought him into trouble. While other astrologers were content to exercise their art for the benefit of their own country only, Gadbury extended his to a remote part of the globe, as, in 1674, he published his “West India, or Jamaica Almanack” for that year. He collected and published the works of his friend sir George Wharton in 1683, 8vo. His -old master Lilly, who quarrelled with him, and against whom he wrote a book called “Anti-Merlinus Anglicus,” says he was a “monster of ingratitude,” and “a graceless fellow;” which is true, if, according to his account, he had two wives living at one time, and one of them two husbands. Lilly adds, that be went to sea with intention for Barbadoes, but died by the way in his voyage. When this happened we are not told. Lilly died in 16S1, and according to Wood, Gadbury was living in 1690. “The Black Life of John Gadbury” was written and published by Partridge in 1693, which might be about the time of his death, but his name, as was usual, appeared long after this in an almanack, similar to that published in his life-time. There was another astrologer, a Job Gadbury, who was taught his art by John, and probably succeeded him in the almanack, and who died in 1715.

, an eminent botanist, was born at Calw, in the duchy of Wirtemberg, March 12, 1732. His father, physician to the duke of Wirtemberg, and his mother, both died in his early youth. He was at first destined by his surviving relations for the church, and when he disliked that, the law. was recommended; but at length, from an early bias towards the study of natural history, he resorted to physic, as most congenial to his disposition, and removed to the university of Gottingen, in the 19th year of his age. Here the lectures of Halier and others instructed him in anatomy, physiology, and botany, but he studied these rather for his own information and amusement, than as a means of advancement in the practice of physic. After this he undertook a tour through Italy, France, and England, in the pursuit of knowledge in botany. On his return he took the degree of M. D. and published an inaugural dissertation on the urinary secretion, after which he devoted two years to the study of mathematics, optics, and mechanics, constructing with his own hands a telescope, as well as a common and solar microscope. In the summer of 1759 he attended a course of botanical lectures at Leyden, under the celebrated Adrian Van Royen. He had for some time acquired the use of the pencil, in which he eminently excelled, and which subsequently proved of the greatest use to him in enabling him to draw the beautiful and accurate figures of the books he published. Having bestowed great attention upon the obscurer tribes of marine animals and plants, particularly with a view to the mode of propagation of the latter, as well as of, other cryptogamic vegetables, he revisited England, and spent some time here, as well in scrutinizing the productions of our extensive and varied coasts, as in conversing with those able naturalists Ellis, Collinson, Baker, and others, who were assiduously engaged in similar pursuits. He communicated a paper to the royal society on the polype called Urtica marina, and the Actinia of Linnseus, comprehending descriptions and figures of several species, which is printed in the 52d volume of the Philosophical Transactions; and he prepared several essays on the anatomy of fishes, and other obscure matters of animal and vegetable physiology, part of which only has hitherto been made public. Soon afterwards Dr. Gsertner became a member of the royal society of London, and of the imperial academy of sciences at Petersburg. In 1768, he was instituted professor of botany and natural history at Petersburg, and about a year afterwards he began to plan and prepare materials for the great work on which his eminent reputation rests, the object of which was the illustration of fruits and seeds for the purposes above-mentioned. His situation at Petersburg, however, seems not to have suited either his health or disposition. After having performed a journey into the Ukraine, in which he collected many new or obscure plants, he resigned his professorship at the end of two years, steadily refusing the pension ordinarily attached to it, and retired in the autumn of 17 70 -to his native town, where he married. At the end of eight years he found it necessary, for the perfection of his intended work, to re-visit some of the seats of science in which he had formerly studied, in order to re-examine several botanical collections, and to converse again with persons devoted to similar inquiries with his own. Above all, he was anxious to profit by the discoveries of the distinguished voyagers Banks and Solander, who received him with open arms on his arrival at London, in 1778, and, with the liberality which ever distinguished their characters, freely laid before him all their acquisitions, and assisted him with their own observations and discoveries. A new genus was dedicated to Gaertner by his illustrious friends in their manuscripts; but this being his own sphenoclea, has been superseded by another and a finer plant. He visited Thunberg in his return through Amsterdam, that distinguished botanist and traveller being then lately arrived from Japan; nor were the acquisitions of Gartner less considerable from this quarter. He further enriched himself from the treasures at Leyden, laid open to him by his old friend Van lloyen; and arrived at home laden with spoils destined to enrich his intended publication. Here, however, his labours and his darling pursuits were interrupted by a severe disorder in his eyes, which for many months threatened total blindness; nor was it till after an intermission of four or five years that he was able to resume his studies.

Mr. Gainsborough was a man of great generosity. If he selected for the exercise of his pencil, an infant from a cottage, all the tenants of the humble roof generally participated in the profits of the picture; and some of them iVequently found in his habitation a permanent abode. His liberality was not confined to this alone: needy relatives and unfortunate friends were further iucumbrances on a spirit that could not deny; and. owing to this generosity of temper, that affluence was not left to his family which so much merit might promise, and such real worth deserve. There were other traits in his personal character less amiable. He was very capricious in his manners, and rather fickle and unsteady in his social connections. This was sufficiently evinced by his general conduct towards the royal academy, and by his whimsical behaviour to sir Joshua Reynolds. Soon after he settled in London, sir Joshua thought himself bound in civility to pay him a visit. Gainsborough, however, took not the least notice of him for several years, but at length called upon him, and requested him to sit for his picture. Sir Joshua complied, and sat once, but being soon after taken ill, was obliged to so to Bath for his health. On his return to London. perfectly restored, he sent Gainsborough word that he was returned; Gainsborough only replied, that he was glad to hear that sir Joshua Reynolds was well, but never afterwards desired him to sit, nor had any other intercourse with him, until he himself was dying, when he sent to request to see sir Joshua, and thanked him for the very liberal and favourable manner in which he had always spoken of his works. Sir Joshua had indeed proved his opinion of his talents, by paying an hundred guineas for his exquisite picture of the “Girl attending pigs,” for which Gainsborough asked but sixty.

Mr. Edwards mentions three etchings by the hand of Gainsborough. The first is small, and was done as a decoration to the first “Treatise on Perspective,” which was published by his friend Mr. Kirby; but it is curious to observe, that what little of perspective is introduced, is totally false; but from the date of that work Gainsborough must have been at that time very young. The second is an oak tree, with gypsies sitting under it boiling their kettle; the size 11 J inches by 17. Both these were finished by the graver, though not improved, by Mr. Wood. The third, a more extensive view, represents a man ploughing on the side of a rising ground, upon which there is a windmill; the sea terminates the distance. This he called the Suffolk Plough. It is extremely scarce, for he spoiled the plate by impatiently attempting to apply the aquafortis, before his friend, Mr. Grignion, could assist him, as was agreed. Its size 16 inches by 14. He also attempted two or three small plates in aqua tinta, but was not very successful with them, as he knew little of the process.

This was about 1703; and Wall’s defence of Infant Baptism coming out in less than two years after, proved an occasion for Gale to^exert his talents in controversy. Soon after the publication of that book, he undertook to answer it, and pursued the subject in several letters written in 1705 and 1706; which were handed about in manuscript several years, till he consented to make them public in 171 J, under the title of “Reflections on Mr. Wall’s History of Infant Baptism.” The extraordinary merit of this piece raised him to the first place amoirg the baptists; yet he did not think fit to take upon himself the preacher’s office immediately. He was five and thirty years of age before he began to preach constantly and statedly J; when he was chosen one of the ministers of the baptist congregation in Paul’s alley, near Barbican. As he was zealous to maintain and propagate those notions which he thought authorized by primitive antiquity, he became chairman to a society for promoting what they called primitive Christianity; from July 3, 1715, to Feb. the 10th following. This society met every week, at Mr. Winston’s house in Cross-street, Hatton-garden, which they named the “Primitive Library.” But though Dr. Gale testified a strong desire to extinguish all disputes among Christians, he was by no means willing to give up his own peculiar opinions. Hence it was that when Mr. Wall consented to hold a conference with him upon the subject of infant baptism, the dispute ended, as usual, without any good issue; and Wall was so far from being satisfied with the arguments of his antagonist, that he drew up an answer to the Reflections, and published it under the title of “A Defence of the History of Infant Baptism,” in 1719. This book, as well as the History, was so much approved by the university of Oxford, that Wall was honoured with the degree of D. D. upon the occasion. Dr. Gale’s Reflections were not without considerable advocates; and it is supposed, that he meditated an answer to Dr. Wall’s reply, but a premature death prevented the execution of tins and several designs which he had formed, for the promotion of Oriental learning and his own notions of scriptural knowledge, as he was seized with a fever, Dec. 1721, of which, after an illness of about three weeks, he died, in his forty-second year.

, a learned divine among the nonconformists, was born in 1628, at King’s-Teignton in Devonshire, where his father, Dr. Theophilus Gale, was then vicar, with which he likewise held a prebend in the church of Exeter. Being descended of a very good family in the West of England, his education was begun under a private preceptor, in his father’s house, and he was then sent to a school in the neighbourhood, where he made a great proficiency in classical learning, and was removed to Oxford in 1647. He was entered a commoner in Magdalen college, a little after that city, with the university, had been surrendered to the parliament; and their visitors in the general reformation (as they called it) of the university, had put Dr. Wilkinson into the presidentship of Magdalen college, who took particular notice of young Gale, and procured him to be appointed a demy of his college in 1648. But the current of kindness to him was far from stopping here; he was recommended to the degree of bachelor of arts Dec. 1649, by the commissioners, long before the time appointed for taking that degree by the statutes of the university, viz. four years after admission. Of this departure from the usual term of granting a degree they were so sensible, that care was taken by them to have a particular reason set forth, for conferring it so early upon him; expressing, that he was fully ripe for that honour, both in respect of his age. and the excellence of his abilities. It was probably owing to the countenance of the same patrons that he was chosen fellow of his college in 1650, in preference to many of his seniors, who were set aside to make room for him. It is acknowledged, however, that he deserved those distinctions. He took the degree of M. A. June 18, 1652, and being encouraged to take pupils, soon became an eminent tutor, and had, among other pupils, Ezekiel Hopkins, afterwards bishop of Raphoe, in Ireland.

He accumulated the degrees of B. and D. D. in 1675; and June 7, 1676, was collated to the prebend Consumpt. per mare in the cathedral of St. Paul. He was also elected in 1677 into the royal society, of which he became a very constant and useful member, was frequently of the council, and presented them with many curiosities, particularly a Roman urn with the ashes, found near Peckham in Surrey (part of these burnt bones he gave to Mr. Thoresby); and in 1685, the society having resolved to have honorary secretaries, who would act without any view of reward, Dr. Gale was chosen with sir John Hoskyns into that office, when they appointed the celebrated Halley for their clerkassistant, or under-secretary, who had been a distinguished scholar of our author’s at St. Paul’s school. Dr. Gale continued at the head of this school with the greatest reputation for 25 years, till 1697, when he was promoted to the deanry of York; and being admitted into that dignity Sept. 16, that year, he removed thither. This preferment was no more than a just reward of his merit, but he did not live to enjoy it many years. On his admission, finding the dean’s right to be a canon-residentiary called in question, he was at the expence of procuring letters patent in 1699, to annex it to the deanry, which put the matter out of all dispute. On his removal from London,' he presented to the new library, then lately finished at hi9 college in Cambridge, a curious collection of Arabic manuscripts. During the remainder of his life, which was. spent at York, he preserved an hospitality suitable to his station and his good government of that church is mentioned with honour. Nor has that care which he took, to repair and adorn that stately edifice, passed without a just tribute of praise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, 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.

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."

, 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 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.

, 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.

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.

, 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.

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

, a French 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.

, 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.

, 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 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.

, 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.

, 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.

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.

, 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 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.

, 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.

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.

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.

"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.

, 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.

, 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.

, 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.

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

, the oldest British historian, surnamed The Wise, was, according to Leland, born in Wales, in the year 511, but according to others, in 493. Where he was educated is uncertain; but from his writings he appears to have been a monk. Some writers say that he went over to Ireland others, that he visited France and Italy; but they agree that after his return to England, he became a celebrated and assiduous preacher ofChristianity. Leland says that he retired to one of the small islands in the Bristol Channel called the Hulms; but that, being disturbed by pirates, he removed thence to the monastery of Glastonbury, where he died. But all this is supposed to belong to another of the name, called Gildas Albanius. Du Pin says he founded a monastery at Venetia in Britain. The place and time of his death are as uncertain as ther particulars of his history which may be found in our airthorities. He is the only British author of the sixth century whose works are printed; and they are therefore valuable on account of their antiquity, and as containing the only information of the times in which he wrote. The only book, however, attributed to him with certainty, i$ his “Epistola de excidio Britanniæ, et castigatio ordinis ecclesiastici,” Lond. 1525, 8vo, Basil, 1541, 8vo, Lond. 1567, 12mo, Paris, 1576, Basil, 1568, 12mo, and by Gale, in his “Rerum Anglic. Scriptores veteres,” fol. 1684—7. There is also an English translation, Lond. 1652, 12mo. In this he laments over the miseries and almost total ruia of his countrymen, and severely reproves th corruption and profligacy of the age. The first part contains a vague accwnnt of events from the Roman invasion to his own umes. There were two other Gildas’s of the sixth century, whom some make distinct persons, and others consider as one and the same.

, a learned general of the Augustines, and cardinal, was so called from the place of his birth. He was well skilled in languages, and much consulted by the learned of his age on that account. He opened the Lateran council under Julius II. 1512, and conducted several affairs of importance for Leo X. He died November 12, 1532, at Rome. This cardinal left “Commentaries” on some of the “Psalms;” “Remarks on the First Three Chapters of Genesis” “Dialogues, Epistles, and Odes,” in praise of Pontanus, &c. which may be found in Martenne’s “Amplissima Collectio,” and contained many useful notices respecting the state of learning and events of his time.

In the same year (1728) he published “The Prophecies of the Old Testament respecting the Messiah, considered, and proved to be literally fulfilled in Jesus,” in answer to Collins’ s “Scheme of literal Prophecy considered.” Becoming now a preacher of high reputation among dissenters of all denominations, many of whom wished to hear Dr. Gill frequently, but could not be expected to join his congregation, a weekly lecture was established by subscription in 1729, which he continued to preach until 1756, when age, and a multiplicity of engagements, obliged him to resign it. Here a numerous congregation heard those sermons, many of which he moulded afterwards into treatises for publication, particularly his “Treatise on the doctrine of the Trinity,” which appeared in 1731. One object of this treatise was to check the progress Sabellianism had at this time made among the baptists. In 1735, and following years, he published his “Cause of God and Truth,” 4 vols. 8vo, a defence of the Calvinistic against the Arminian sentiments, on the subjects of election, original sin, &c. Dr. Gill’s supralapsarian opinions in this (for such he held with great zeal) being animadverted on in an anonymous pamphlet, he published an answer called “Truth defended, c.” In 1737 he again engaged in controversy on the subject of baptism, with Mr. Samuel Browne, a dissenting minister.

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

, an eminent English divine, and for his excellent character and usefulness, called the “Apostle of the North,” was descended from a good family in Westmoreland, and born in 1517, at Kentmire in that county. He was the son of Edwin Gilpin, by Margaret daughter of William Laton of Delain in Cumberland. From his earliest youth he was inclined to a contemplative life, thoughtful, reserved, and serious, which giving his parents an early presage of his future piety, they determined to educate him for the church. His first years wete spent at a public school, whence he was removed to Oxford, and at the age of sixteen was entered upon the foundation at Queen’s college. Besides his academical studies, to which he applied with great industry, he appears to have read while here some of the works of Erasmus, which at their first appearance were not very popular, and discovered in them a treasure of real learning, which he had in vain sought after in the writings then in most esteem. But as he had now determined to apply himself to divinity, he made the Scriptures his chief study; and was particularly anxious to gain an accurate knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew languages, in the study of which he was much assisted by Mr. Neal, a fellow of New college, and afterwards Hebrew professor at Oxford. He had not been long in the university before he was considered as a young man of good parts and considerable learning, and admired and loved for a remarkable sweetness of disposition, and unaffected sincerity in his manners. At the usual term he took the degree of M. A. and about the same time was elected fellow of his college.

Soon after queen Elizabeth’s accession, a general visitation was held. An assembly of divines, among whom were Parker, Grindal, and Sandys, having finished a body of injunctions aud articles, commissions were issued out, impowering proper persons to enforce them; the oath of supremacy was to be tendered to the clergy, and a subscription imposed. When the visitors came to Durham, Mr. Gilpin was requested to preach before the clergy, against the pope’s supremacy. To this he had no objection, but did not like the thoughts of subscribing, having some doubts with regard to one or more of the articles. His curate having not these scruples, he hoped that his subscription might satisfy the visitors; but next clay, when the clergy were assembled to subscribe, as an instance of respect Mr. Gilpin was first called upon. The emergency allowed him no time for reflection. He just considered with himself, that upon the whole these alterations in religion were certainly right; that he doubted only in a few immaterial points; and that, if he should refuse, it might be a means to keep others back. He then took up the pen, and, with some hesitation, at length subscribed. Afterwards retiring, he sent a letter to the visitors, acquainting them in what sense he subscribed the articles; which they accepted very favourably.

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

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

Accordingly, he had the prudence to take a different method; and turning his thoughts to a subject not only inoffensive in itself, but entirely popular at that time, viz. a defence of experimental philosophy against the notional way of Aristotle and the schools, he published it this year, under the title of “The Vanity of Dogmatizing, or confidence in opinions, manifested in a discourse of the shortness and uncertainty of our knowledge and its causes, with some reflections on Peripateticism, and an apology for philosophy,” 1661, 8vo. These meetings, which gave rise to the Royal Society, were much frequented at this time, and encouraged by learned men of all persuasions; and this small discourse introduced him to the knowledge of the literary world in a very favourable light. He had an opportunity of improving by the weakness of an antagonist, whom he answered in an appendix to a piece called “Scepsis Scientifica, or confessed ignorance the way to science, in an Essay on the Vanity of Dogmatizing, and confident opinion,” 1665, 4to. Our author dedicated this piece to the royal society, in terms of the highest respect for that institution; and the society being then in a state ef infancy, and having many enemies, as might be expected in an undertaking which seemed to threaten the ruin of the old way of philosophizing in the schools, the “Scepsis” was presented to the council by lord Brereton, at a meeting, Dec. 7, 1664; when his lordship also proposed the author for a member, and he was elected accordingly in that month.

, a Scotch clergyman, and founder of a sect, was born at Dundee, 1638, and educated in the New-college, at St. Andrew’s, where he took his degrees, and was settled minister of a country church, near the place of his nativity. In 1727 he published a treatise to prove that the civil establishment of religion was inconsistent with Christianity, for which he was deposed, and became the father of a new sect, called from him Glassites; and afterwards from another leading propagator, Sandemanians. Some account of their tenets will be given under the article Sandeman. Glass wrote a great number of controversial tracts, which have been published at Edinburgh, in 4 vols. 8vo. He died at Dundee, in 1773, aged seventy-five.

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

At the usual period Glover became engaged in the Hamburgh trade, but continued his attachment to literature and the muses, and was, says Dr. Warton, one of the best and most accurate Greek scholars of his time. It is mentioned in the life of Green, that he published “The Spleen” of that poet, in which he is complimented on account of his study of the ancient Greek poets, and his wish to emulate their fame. Green had probably seen some part of “Leonidas,” which was begun when he was young, and had been submitted in specimens to many of his friends. This poem was first published in 1737, in a 4to volume, consisting of nine books. Its reception was highly flattering, for in this and the following year it passed through three editions. It was dedicated to lord Cobham, one of his early patrons, and whom, it is supposed, he furnished with many of the inscriptions at Stowe, now erased. It was also strongly recommended by such of that nobleman’s political friends as were esteemed the arbiters of taste. Lord Lyttelton, in the periodical paper called “Common Sense,” praised it in the warmest terms, not only for its poetical beauties, but its political tendency, “the whole plan and purpose of it being to show the superiority of freedom over slavery; and how much virtue, public spirit, and the love of liberty, are preferable, both in their nature and effects, to riches, luxury, and the insolence of power.” The same nobleman also addressed verses to our author, in which he inveighs with much asperity against the degeneracy of the times, but, not very consistently, compares England to Greece, and France to Persia. Other writers, particularly Fielding, in the paper called “The Champion,” took up the pen in favour of “Leonidas,” which being published just after the prince of Wales had been driven from St. James’s, and began to keep a separate court, it was praised by the whole of this new court, and by the adherents in general of opposition, not beyond its merit, but too evidently from a motive which could not always prevail, and which ceased to animate their zeal in its favour, when Walpole, the supposed author of all our national grievances, was compelled to resign.

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

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

Since the above sketch of Glover was abridged from a more full account drawn up for another work, the attention of the public has been recently called to his history by the publication of a diary, or part of a diary, written by him. This, which appeared in 1813, is entitled “Memoirs of a distinguished Literary and Political Character, from the resignation of sir Robert Walpole in 1742 to the establishment of lord Chatham’s second administration in 1757.” It was immediately followed by “An Inquiry concerning the Author of the Letters of Junius, with reference to the Memoirs of a celebrated literary and political character,” the object of which is to prove that Glover was the author pf these Letters; and although this is not the place to enter into this controversy, we are inclined to think with the author of this “Inquiry,” that no one yet named as the author of Junins, and whose claim has been at all supported by facts, has much chance to stand in competition with Glover.

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

, an eminent civilian, the third son of John Godolphin, esq. was descended from an ancient family of his name in Cornwall, and born Nov. 29, 1617, at Godolphin, in the island of Scilly. He was sent to Oxford, and entered a commoner of Gloucester-hall, in 1632; and having laid a good foundation of logic and philosophy, he applied himself particularly to the study of the civil law, which he chose for his profession; and accordingly took his degrees in that faculty, that of bachelor in 1636, and of doctor in 1642-3. He has usually been ranked among puritans for having written two treatises published by him in 1650 and jL 1651, entitled, 1. “The Holy Limbec, or an extraction of the spirit from the Letter of certain eminent places in the Holy Scripture.” Other copies were printed with this title, “The Holy Limbec, or a Semicentury of Spiritual Extractions,” &c. 2. “The Holy Harbour, containing the whole body of divinity, or the sum and substance of the Christian Religion.” But whatever may be the principles maintained in these works, which we have not seen, it is certain that when he went to London afterwards, he sided with the anti-monarchical party; and, taking the oath called the Engagement, was by an act passed in Cromwell’s convention, or short parliament, July 153, constituted judge of the admiralty jointly with William Clarke, LL. D. and Charles George Cock, esq. In July 1659, upon the death of Clarke, he and Cock received a new commission to the same place, to continue in force no longer than December following.

, son of the preceding, was born at Havington in Northamptonshire, 1561; and, after a good foundation of grammar-learning, was sent to Christ Church college, Oxford, where he was elected a student in 1678, while his father was dean. He proceeded B. A. in 1580, and M. A. in 1583; about which time he wrote an entertaining piece upon a philosophical subject, where imagination, judgment, and knowledge, keep an equal pace; but this, as it contradicted certain received notions of his times, he never published. It came out about five years after his death, under the title of “The Man in the Moon; or, a discourse of a voyage thither;” by Domingo Gonsales, 1638, 8vo. It has been several times printed, and shews that he had a creative genius. Domingo Gonsales, a little Spaniard, is supposed to be shipwrecked on an uninhabited island, where he taught several ganzas, or wild geese, to fly with a light machine, and to fetch and carry things for his conveniency. He, after some time, ventured to put himself into the machine, and they carried him with great ease. He happened to be in this aerial chariot at the time of the year when these ganzas, which were birds of passage, took their flight to the moon, and was directly carried to that planet. He has given a very ingenious description of what occurred to him on his way, and the wonderful things which he saw there. Dr. Swift seems to have borrowed several hints from this novel, in his Voyage to Laputa; but it is more to Dr. Godwin’s praise that he appears to have been well acquainted with the Copernican system. He suppressed also another of his inventions at that time, which he called “Nuncius inanimatus,” or the “Inanimate Messenger.” The design was to communicate various methods of conveying intelligence secretly, speedily, and safely; but although he asserts that by an agreement settled between two parties, a message may be conveyed from the one to the other, at the distance of many miles, with an incredible swiftness, yet he does not reveal the secret. It appears, however, to have given rise to bishop Wilkins’s “Mercury, or secret and swift Messenger.” It is said that he afterwards communicated the secret to his majesty, but why it was not acted upon is not mentioned by his biographers. The pamphlet was published in 1629, and afterwards, in 1657, was translated by the learned Dr. Thomas Smith, and published with “The Man in the Moon.”

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

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

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

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

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

, one of the great opponents of Arminius, and from whom the Calvinists were at one time called Gomarists, was born at Bruges, Jan. 30, 1S63. His father and mother, Avho were protestants, retired into the palatinate in 1578, and sent him to Strasburgh to study under the celebrated John Stimulus. Three years after he went to prosecute his studies at Newstad, where the professors of Heidelberg found a refuge when Lewis, the elector palatine, had banished them because they were not Lutherans. In 1582 he came to England, and heard at Oxford the divinity lectures of Dr. John Rainolds, and at Cambridge those of Dr. William Whitaker, and at this latter university he was admitted to the degree of bachelor of divinity, June, 1584. The elector Lewis dying in 1583, prince Casimir, his brother, restored the professors of Heidelberg, to which place Gomar returned from Cambridge, and spent two years. In 1587 he accepted an invitation from the Flemish church at Francfort to be their minister, and exercised the functions of that office until 1593, when his flock were dispersed by persecution. The following year he was appointed professor of divinity at Leyden, but before entering upon the office, he took his degree of doctor at Heidelberg. Here he remained quietly until 1603, when his colleague Arminius began to place himself at the head of a party, known by his name ever since, and Gomarus resisted him with a zeal which his enemies have construed into bigotry and intolerance. The truth seems to have been that Arminius and his followers, while they disputed with equal warmth, chose to represent the subjects of their disputes as matters of indifference which need not interrupt church-fellowship, while Gomarus considered them as essentials. Vorstius having succeeded Arminius, Gomarus foresaw only a renewal of the controversy under such a colleague, and retired to Middleburgh in 1611, where he preached and read lectures until 1614. He was then invited by the university of Saumur to be professor of divinity, and four years after he exchanged this for the professorship of divinity and Hebrew at Groningen, where he remained during the rest of his life. The only times when he was absent were, once when he attended the synod of Dort, where the errors of Arminius were condemned; and again when he went to Leyden in 1633 to revise the translation of the Old Testament. He died Jan. 11, 1641. His various works, most of which had been published separately, were printed together at Amsterdam in 1644, fol. He was a man of acknowledged abilities, especially in the Oriental languages.

He lived many years in the enjoyment of these honours, and had his fortune increased by an additional pension from M. Seguier, chancellor of France. These marks of esteem do honour to his patrons, for he openly professed the reformed religion, although in such a manner as to avoid giving offence, or shocking the prejudices of those with whom he associated. He had always enjoyed very good health; but, as he was one day walking in his room, which was customary with him, his foot slipped; and, falling down, he hurt himself so, that he was obliged almost constantly to keep his bed to the end of his life, which lasted near a century. However, in 1657, when at the age of 90, he published a large collection of epigrams; and, many years after, a tragedy called “Dana'ides.” This was some time before his death; which did not hap*­pen till 1666. In manners he was modest and regular, sincere in his piety, and proof against all temptations. He was of a hot and hasty temper, much inclined to anger, though he had a grave and reserved countenance. He was also a man of wit, and not always very guarded in the use of it. Having shown one of his performances to cardinal Richelieu, he said “Here are some things 1 do not understand.” “That is not my fault,” answered Gombauld, and the cardinal wisely affected not to hear him. His posthumous works were printed in Holland in 1678, with this title, “. Traites & Lettres de Monsieur Gombauld sur la Religion.” They contain religious discourses, and were most esteemed of all his works by himself: he composed them from a principle of charity, with a design to convert the catholics, and confirm the protestants in their faith.

, a divine and poet of the seventeenth century, was born at London in 1600, whence, he was sent by his father in 1614 to Christ church, Oxford, where, soon after his being entered, he was elected a student on the royal foundation. At about seven years standing, he here took his degrees of bachelor and master of arts, and before he left the university, which was in 1627, he had the degree of bachelor of divinity conferred on him. Being now in orders, he distinguished himself as a, preacher at the university. For some time, during the plague at Oxford, he resided at Flower in Northamptonshire, and was afterwards vicar of Thorncornbe in Devonshire, where it is probable that he resided till his death, which was in 1646. He was accounted a good preacher, and printed a volume of “Sermons,” Lond. 1634, which were well esteemed. As a devotee to the Muses, be published several poems; particularly a sort of heroic attempt, called the “Levite’s Revenge,” being meditations, in verse, on the 19th and 20th chapters of Judges, and a tragedy called “Lodowick Sforza, duke of Milan,” 1632, 12mo. "Both were reprinted with a few occasional verses in 1633, 12mo, reprinted in 1638.

In 1540 he was appointed by the convocation to be one of the revisers of the translation of the New Testament, and St. John’s gospel was allotted to his share. He was also named one of the commissioners for reforming the ecclesiastical laws, both by Henry VIII. and Edward VI. as well as by the university of Cambridge; and had a hand in compiling the “Common Prayer Book” of the church of England, 1548 and likewise “The Institution of a Christian Man,” which was called the Bishops’ Book, as being composed by archbishop Cranmer, and the bishops Stokesly, Gardiner, Sampson, Repps, Goodrich, Latimer, Shaxton, Fox, Barlow, &c. Besides this, he was of the privy council to king Henry VIII. and Edward VI. and employed by them in several embassies, and other business of the state. In 1551, he was made lord chancellor of England, in the room of lord Rich, which office he discharged with singular reputation of integrity, though in matters of religion he was suspected by some, of too much disposition to temporize in favour of popery, upon the accession of queen Mary; and Dodd, though somewhat faintly, claims him as a popish bishop. It is certain he was suffered to retain his bishopric to his death, although the seals were taken from him. He was esteemed a patron of learned men; and expended large sums in building and embellishing his palaces, particularly at Ely, where the long gallery carries tokens of his munificence. He died at Somersham May 10, 1554; and was buried in the middle of the presbytery of his cathedral church, under a marble, with his effigies in brass, mitred, in his pontifical habit, and the great seal, as lord chancellor, in one of his hands, and an inscription round it.

, one of the most violent of the republican sectaries in the time of Charles I. but whom no sect seems to own, was born in 1593, and educated at Queen’s college, Cambridge. In 1633 he was presented to the living of St. Stephen’s, Coleman-street, from which he was turned out by what was called the “committee for plundered ministers,” because he refused to baptise the children of his parish promiscuously, and refused to administer the sacrament to his whole parish. He was an independent, and carried on many warm disputes with the presbyterian party. What was more singular in these days, was his embracing the Arminian doctrines, which he defended with great vigour both by the pulpit and press; and such was the general turbulence of his temper, and conceit in his own opinions, that he is said to have been against every man, and every man against him. Being a decided republican, he peculiarly gratified the savage spirit of the times by promoting the condemnation of the king, which he afterwards endeavoured to justify in a pamphlet called “The Obstructors of Justice,” the wickedness, absurdity, and impiety of which Mr. Neal has very candidly exposed. At the restoration it was thought he would have been excepted from the act of indemnity, but, although he afterwards was permitted to live, a proclamation was issued in 1660 against the above pamphlet, and in that he is stated to have been “late of Coleman-street, clerk,” and-to have fled. His pamphlet was burnt by the hands of the hangman. Returning afterwards, he kept a private conventicle in Coleman-street, where he died in 1665. His works, now in very little repute, are chiefly theological, among which the following may be mentioned: 11 Redemption Redeemed,“in folio.” The divine Authority of the Scriptures,“4to;” An Exposition of the Ninth Chapter of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans," 4to.

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

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

, a very celebrated puritan divine, was born at Bow near Stratford, Middlesex, Nov. 1, 1575, and educated at Eton school, whence he went in 1595 to King’s college, Cambridge. He was endowed with considerable powers of mind, and by close application to study, accumulated a great fund of learning. Such was his ardour and regularity in his literary pursuits, that during his first three years, he slept only one night out of college, and for nine years never missed college prayers at halfpast five in the morning, unless when from home. It was his invariable rule to read fifteen chapters in the Bible every day, at three times. When chosen reader of logic and philosophy in the college, he was equally precise in regularity of duty and attendance. Having taken his degrees, and been admitted into orders, he was in 1608 preferred to the rectory of St. Anne’s Blackfiiars, London, where he became extremely popular; and having instituted a lecture on Wednesday mornings, it was frequented by many persons of the first rank. Having, however, imbibed some of the prejudices which were then so common against the church of England, he was occasionally censured, and at one time threatened with a prosecution in the Star-chamber for having become a member of a society for the purchase of impropriations; but this did not take effect, and the subsequent disturbances relieved him from any farther molestation. In 1643, he was nominated one of the assembly of divines, and took an active part in the various proceedings instituted by the then ruling powers for the reformation of the church. But when in 1648, he saw the lengths to which their reformations tended, he united with a large body of his brethren in declaring against putting the king to death. For forty-five years, says Granger, he was the laborious, the exemplary, and the much loved minister of St. Anne’s Blackfriars, where none ever thought or spoke ill of him, but such as were inclined to think or speak ill of religion itself. He died Dec. 12, 1653. He appears, indeed, to have had the suffrages of all his contemporaries, and is honourably mentioned by many foreign divines. He was at one time offered the provostship of King’s college, but declined it; his usual saying was, that it was his highest ambition “to go from Blackfriars to heaven.” He published several pious tracts and some sermons, which bishop Wilkins classes among the most excellent of his time; but his principal work was “A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 1655, fol. He had also a share in the commentary on the Bible, usually called “The Assembly’s Annotations.”

, an eminent sculptor and architect of Paris, lived under Francis I. and Henry II. and is supposed to have designed the fronts of the old Louvre. This artist’s figures, in demi -relief, have never been surpassed; nor can any thing of that kind be more beautiful than his Fountain of the Innocents, in the street of St. Denis at Paris. The cariatides which support a tribune in the hall of the Hundred Swiss at the Louvre are no less so. Many more of his works may be seen in that city, which are the admiration of connoisseurs, and remind us of the simple and sublime beauties of the antique style; for which reason he is justly called the Corregio of sculpture.

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

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

The only other circumstances of his history are, that he was esteemed a man of great learning, and lived and died in affluence. That he possessed a munificent spirit, we have a most decisive proof in his contributing largely, if not entirely, to the rebuilding of the conventual church of St. Mary Overy, or, as it is now called, St. Saviour’s church, Southwark, and he afterwards founded a chauntry in the chapel of St. John, now used as a vestry. He appears to have lost his sight in the first year of Henry IV. and did not long survive this misfortune, dying at an advanced age in 1402. He was interred in St. Saviour’s church, and a monument was afterwards erected to his memory, which, although it has suffered by dilapidations and injudicious repairs, still retains a considerable portion of antique magnificence. It is of the gothic style, covered with three arches, the roof within springing into many angles, under which lies the statue of the deceased, in a long purple gown on his head a coronet of roses, resting on three volumes entitled Vox Clamantis, Speculum Meditantis, and Confessio Amantis. His dress has given rise to some of those conjectures respecting his history which cannot now be determined, as his being a knight, a judge, &c.

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

About this time he was presented to an exhibition (or bursary, as it is called) in the university of St. Andrew, which he accepted, but found reason soon after to decline, upon discovering that it subjected him to repeat a course of languages and philosophy, which the extent of his acquisitions, and the ardour of his ambition, taught him to hold in no great estimation. In 1770, therefore, he resumed his studies at Edinburgh, and, having finished the usual preparatory course, was admitted into the theological class: but the state of his health, which soon after began to decline, did not allow him to deliver any of the exercises usually prescribed to students in that society. In autumn 1771, his ill-health, that had been increasing almost unperceived, terminated in a deep consumption; the complicated distress of which, aggravated by the indigence of his situation, he bore with an heroic composure and magnanimity, and continued at intervals to compose verses, and to correspond with his friends, until after a tedious struggle often months, he expired July 26, 1772, in the 24th year of his age. His poems, consisting of elegies and miscellaneous pieces, were collected, and printed at Edinburgh, 1773, 8vo. There are few of them entitled to superior praise, and certainly none that can justify the length to which the detail of his life and opinions has been extended. Unfortunately als, these poems were reprinted in a late collection, and among them a specimen of his Latin poetry, called a Sapphic ode, and styled “a correct and manly performance for a boy of fifteen.” But so far from being correct, it is not even a decent attempt, and the lines are formed with such total ignorance of the Sapphic measure, that it has justly been said, “a boy producing such at one of our public schools could only be considered as intending to insult the master.” It seems difficult, therefore, to form any judgment of the illiteracy of those “most industrious and accomplished students of his standing,” whom he surpassed in “classical learning.”

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

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

Although it is impossible to deny Grainger the credit of poetical genius, it must ever be regretted that where he wished most to excel, he was most unfortunate in the choice of a subject. The effect of his “Sugar Cane,” either as to pleasure or utility, must be local. Connected as an English merchant may be with the produce of the West Indies, it will not be easy to persuade the reader of English poetry to study the cultivation of the sugar plant merely that he may add some new imagery to the more ample stores which he can contemplate without study or trouble. In the West Indies this poem might have charms, if readers could be found; but what poetical fancy can dwell on the ceconomy of canes and copper-boilers, or find interest in the transactions of planters and sugar-brokers? His invocations to his muse are so frequent and abrupt, that “the assembled wits at sir Joshua ReynoldsV might have found many passages as ludicrous as that which excited their mirth. The solemnity of these invocations excites expectation, which generally ends in disappointment, and at best the reader’s attention is bespoke without being rewarded. He is induced to look for something grand, and is told of a contrivance for destroying monkies, or a recipe to poison rats. He smiles to find the slaves called by the happy poetical name of swains, and the planters urged to devotion The images in this poem are in general low, and the allusions, where the poet would be minutely descriptive, descend to things little and familiar. Yet this is in some measure forced upon him. His muse sings of matters so new and uncouth to her, that it is impossible” her heavenly plumes“should escape being” soiled.“What muse, indeed, could give a receipt for a compost of” weeds, mould, clung, and stale,“or a lively description of the symptoms and cure of the yaws and preserve her elegance or purity Where, however, he quits the plain track of mechanical instructions, we have many of those effusions of fancy which will yet preserve this poem in our collections. The description of the hurricane, and of the earthquake, are truly grand, and heightened by circumstances of horror that are new to Europeans. The episode of Montano in the first book arrests the attention very forcibly, and many of the occasional reflections are elegant and pathetic, nor ought the tale of Junio and Theana to be omitted in a list of the beauties of this poem. The” Ode to Solitude,“already noticed, and the ballad of Bryan and Pereene,” are sufficient to attest our author’s claim to poetical honours; and the translation of Tibullus gives proofs of classical taste and learning.

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

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

, deacon of the church of Aix, was born in 1692, at Brignolles in Provence, of a mercantile family. He was educated in his own country, but came young to Paris, where his literary taste and talents procured him many friends, by whose assistance he increased his stores of knowledge, and as his income was very limited, entered upon a course of literary labours. He was a contributor, as far as vol. XIX. to the “Bibliotheque frangotse,” a well-known journal printed in Holland; and when Desfontaines was obliged to discontinue his “Nouvelliste du Parnasse,” (in which Granet had written) and obtained permission to carry it on again under another title, he engaged Granet' s services in this new undertaking called “Observations sur les ecrits modernes.” It began in 1735, and was published weekly until Sept. 1743, whep the King revoked the privilege. Busied as Granet was on this work, he found leisure to undertake in 1738 the continuation of a journal entitled “Reflexions sur les ouvrages de litterature.” This he extended as far as twelve volumes. It contains many extracts and remarks given with taste and judgment, but others that are merely repetitions of what he had written for the “Observations sur les ecrits modernes,” He had also a trick of inserting letters to himself, when he wished to publish satire without being accountable for it, but it is not thought that this disguise was of much avail. It was perhaps his misfortune that he was. obliged by the narrowness of his circumstances to employ himself thus on the labours of others, and in preparing new editions, when he might have executed original works that would have done him credit. Indeed a few months before his death he hinted to his friends that necessity only had forced him to this drudgery, and that he had no consolation but in the hope that he should one clay or othet be at liberty to employ his talents in a more creditable way. He had learned English, and in order to make that a source of profit, translated sir Isaac Newton’s “Chronology,” which he published at Paris in 1728, 4to, with an excellent preface, of which he took care to speak very highly in the 14th vol. of the “Bibliotheque Francoise,” and, probably by way of blind, speaks very differently there of some of his contemporaries, from what he had advanced in his preface. In short he appears to have perfectly understood the trade of reviewing. One of his best editions is that of the works of M, de Launoy, which was published at Geneva, 10 vols. fol. with a valuable preface, a life, and a “Launoiana,” consisting of very curious articles. Moreri gives a numerous list of other editions and publications to which he wrote prefaces and notes. He died at Paris April 2, 1741, and a spirited eloge was written on him by the abbe Desfontaines.

His lordship continued steady in the same sentiments, which were so opposite to those of the court, and inconsistent with the measures taken by the administration, that he must needs be sensible a watchful eye was kept ever upon him. Accordingly, when the flame broke out against his friends, on account of what is sometimes called Atterbury’s plot, in 1722, his lordship, as some say, to avoid a second imprisonment in the Tower, withdrew to France, but others attribute his going thither to a degree of profusion which had embarrassed his circumstances. He had been at Paris but a little while, when the first volume of Burnet’s “History of his oun Times” was published. Great expectations had been raised of this work, which accordingly he perused with attention; and finding the characters of the duke of Albemarle and the earl of Bath treated in a manner he thought they did not deserve, he formed the design of doing them justice. This led him to consider what had been said by other historians concerning his family; and, as Clarendon and Echard had treated his uncle sir Richard Granvilie more roughly, his lordship, being possessed of memoirs from which his conduct might be set in a fairer light, resolved to follow the dictates of duty and inclination, by publishing his sentiments upon these heads. These pieces are printed in his works, under the title of “A Vindication of General Monk,” &c. and “A Vindication of Sir Richard Greenville, General of the West to King Charles I.” &c. They were answered by Oldmixon, in a piece entitled “Reflections historical and politic,” c. 1732, 4to, and by judge Burnet, in “Remarks,” &c. a pamphlet. His lordship replied, in “A Letter to the author of the Reflections,” &c. 1732, 4to, and the spring following, there came out a very rough answer in defence of Echard, by Dr. Colbatch, entitled “An Examination of Echard’s Account of the Marriage Treaty,” &c.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Graves’s publications were very numerous. His first was The Festoon; or, a collection of Epigrams, with an Essay on that species of composition.“In 1772 he produced” The Spiritual Quixote,“in 3 vpls. intended as a satire on the itinerant and illiterate preachers among the methodists, and which might have been pronounced one of the most amusing and interesting novels of his time, had he not, in pursuit of his main object, incautiously introduced the language of scripture, which, whether used by methodists, or others, can never be a legitimate subject of ridicule. He next published” A Translation from the Italian of Galates; or, a treatise on Politeness, by De la Casa, archbishop of Benevento.“He soon after published” Columelia, or the distressed Anchoret,“in 2 vols. to show the consequence of a person of education and talents retiring to solitude and indolence in the vigour of youth: in this it is thought he alluded to his friend Shenstone. He also published two volumes of poems under the title o” Euphrosyne,“which have gone through several editions, but he is rather entitled to the merit of an agreeable versifier, than that of a genuine poet. Then appeared his” Eugenius; or, Anecdotes of the Golden Vale,“in 2 vols. In 1778 appeared” Recollections of some particulars in the life of William Shenstone, esq. in a series of letters to W. Seward, esq. F. R. S.“This was published to vindicate the character of his friend from the criticisms and censure of Dr. Johnson, Mr. Gray, and Mr. Mason. The following is a list of his subsequent publications, although probably not in chronological order.” Plexippus; or, the aspiring Plebeian,“in 2 vols.” Hiero on the condition of Royalty,“from the Greek of Xenophon” Fleurettes,“a translation of Fenelon’s Ode on Solitude, and other French authors” The Life of Commodus,“from the Greek of Herodian” The Rout,“from a young man in town to his friend in the country” The Meditations of Antoninus, translated from the Greek;“” The Reveries of Solitude,“consisting of pieces of prose and verse” The Coalition or, Opera rehearsed,“a comedy in three acts” The Farmer’s Son,“a moral tale, in the ballad metre” Sermons on various subjects,“in 1 vol.” Senilities,“consisting of pieces in prose and verse. His last publication was” The Invalid, with the obvious means of enjoying Life, by a Nonagenarian.“The above, we believe, is a tolerably correct list of the publications of Mr. Graves; whose works, although the” Spiritual Quixote" only will be much called for hereafter, will always be read with pleasure, there being a sprightliness and epigram* matic turn in his writings which was peculiar to himself, and which he retained to the last. In Mr. Graves ended the bright associates of their time, composed of Shenstone, Whistler, and Jago.

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

From Leghorn he proceeded to Florence, where he was received with particular marks of esteem by the grand duke of Tuscany, Ferdinand II. to whom he had inscribed a Latin poem from Alexandria, in which he exhorted that prince to clear those seas of pirates, with whom they were extremely infested. He obtained, likewise, admittance into the Medicean library, which had been denied to him as a stranger when he was here in his former tour. ' From Florence he went to Rome, and took most exact measurements of all the ancient remains of that city and neighbourhood; after which he returned to Leghorn, where taking his passage in a vessel called the Golden Fleece, at the end of March, he arrived at London before Midsummer 1640, with a curious collection of Arabic, Persic, anci Greek Mss. together with a great number of gems, coins, and other valuable antiquities, having spent full three years in this agreeable tour.

doubt might justly be called Annus in a piece of sir Isaac Newton, pubConfusionis, as the ancients called that lished along with the most correct ediyear in which Julius Caesar corrected tions of it, in 1737, 8vo. Mr. Greaves

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

, surnamed the Great, was born of a patrician family, equally conspicuous for its virtue and nobility at Rome, where his father Gordian was a senator, and extremely rich; and, marrying a lady of distinction, called Sylvia, had by her this son, about the year 544. From his earliest years he discovered genius and judgment; and, applying himself particularly to the apophthegms of th ancients, he fixed every thing worth notice in his memory, where it was faithfully preserved as in a store-house; he also improved himself by the conversation of old men, in which he took great delight. By these methods he made a great progress in the sciences, and there was not a man. in Rome, who surpassed him in grammar, logic, and rhetoric; nor can it be doubted but he had early instructions in the civil law, in which his letters prove him to have been well versed: he was nevertheless entirely ignorant of the Greek language. These accomplishments in a young nobleman procured him senatorial dignities, which he filled with great reputation and he was afterwards appointed praefect of the city by the emperor Justin the Younger but, being much inclined to a monastic life, he quitted that post, and retired to the monastery of St. Andrew, which he himself had founded at Rome in his father’s house, and put it under the government of an abbot, called Valentius. Besides this, he founded six other convents in Sicily; and, selling all the rest of his possessions, he gave the purchase-money to the poor.

Here he had indulged himself with the hopes of gratifymg his wish, in the enjoyment of a solitary and unruffled lite, when Pelagius II. dying Feb. 8, 590, he was elected pope by the clergy, the senate, and the people of Rome; to whom he had become dear by his charity to the poor, whom the overflowing of the Tiber, and a violent plague, had left perishing with hunger. This promotion was so disagreeable to him, that he employed all possible methods to avoid it; he wrote a pressing letter to the emperor, conjuring him not to confirm his election, and to give orders for the choice of a person who had greater capacity, more vigour, and better health than he could boast; and hearing his letter was intercepted by the governor of Rome, and that his election would be confirmed by the imperial court, he fled, and hid himself in the most solitary part of a forest, in a cave firmly resolved to spend his days there, till another pope should be elected and, the people despairing to find him, a new election ensued. In this case, the Roman clergy, always fond of miracles, tell us that Gregory would never accept the papal chair, till he had manifestly found, by some celestial signs, that God called him to it. It is pretended, that a dove flying before those who sought for him, shewed them the way they were to go; or that a miraculous light, appearing on a pillar of fire over his cavern, pointed out to them the place of his reeat.

In the year 599, he wrote a letter to Serenus bishop of Marseilles, commending his zeal in breaking some images which the people had been observed to worship, and throwing them out of the church; and the same year a circular letter to the principal bishops of Gaul, condemning simoniacal ordinations, and the promotions of laymen to bishoprics he likewise forbad clerks in holy orders to live with women, except such as are allowed by the canons and recommended the frequent holding assemblies to regulate the affairs of the church. The same year he re-r fused, on account of some foreseen opposition, to take cognizance of a crime alleged against the primate of Byzacena, a province in Africa. About the same time he wrote an important letter to the bishop of Syracuse, concerning ceremonies, in which he says, “That the church of Rome followed that of Constantinople, in the use of ceremonies; and declares that see to be undoubtedly subject to Rome, as was constantly testified by the emperor and the bishop of that city.” He had already this year reformed the office of the church, which is one of the most remarkable actions of his pontificate. In this reform, as it is called, he introduced several new customs and superstitions; amongst the rest, purgatory. He ordered pagan temples to be consecrated by sprinkling holy water, and an annual feast to be kept, since called wakes in England, on that day; with the view of gaining the pagans in England to the church-service. Besides other less important ceremonies, added to the public forms of prayer, he made it his chief care to reform the psalmody, of which he was excessively fond. Of this kind he composed the “Ainiphone ,” andnch tiines as hest suited the psalms, the hymns, the prayers, the verses, the canticles, the lessons, the epistles and gospels, the prefaces, and the Lor-i’s prayer. He likewise instituted an academy of chanters for all the clerks, as far as the deacons exclusively: he gave them lessons himself, and the bed, in which he continued to chant amidst his last illness, was preserved with great Generation in the palace of St. John Lateran for a long time, together with the whip with which he used to threaten the young clerks and singing hoys, when they sang out of tune. He was so rigid in regard to the chastity of ecclesiastics, that he was unwilling to admit a man into the priesthood who was not strictly free from defilement by any commerce with women. The candidates for orders were according to his commands questioned particularly on that subject. Widowers were excepted, if they had observed a state of continency for some considerable tiifie.

, was born A. D. 324, at Azianzum, an obscure village belonging to Nazianzum, a town of the second Cappadocia, situated in a poor, barren, and unhealthy country. His parents were persons of rank, and no less eminent for their virtues: his father, whose name was also Gregory, had been educated in a religion called Hypsistarianism*, to which, being the religion of his ancestors, he was a bigot in his younger years; and the deserting it not only lost him the kindness of his friends, but estranged him from his mother, and deprived him of his estate. This, however, he bore with great cbearfulness for the sake of Christianity, to which he was converted by his wife, though not without the help of an emphatical dream; he was afterwards made bishop of Nazianzum, being the second who sat in that chair, where he behaved with great prudence and diligence. Nor was our author’s mother less eminent; descended of a pious family, sh was herself, for piety, so much the wonder of her age, that this son was said to have been the pure effect of her prayers, and of a vow to devote him to God, after the example of Hannah; and upon his birth she was careful to perform her vow.

Theodosius being highly solicitous about the peace of the church, summoned a council to meet at Constantinople in May anno 382. This is called the second general council, in which the Nicene Creed was ratified; and, because the article concerning the Holy Ghost was but barely mentioned, which was become one of the principal controversies of the age, and for the determination of which the council had been chiefly summoned, the fathers now drew up an explanatory creed, composed, as it is said, by Gregory of Nyssen, and is the same which in our liturgy is called the Nicene Creed. The see of Constantinople was also now placed next in precedence to that of Rome. Our author carried a great sway in that council, where all things went on smoothly, till at last they fell into disturbances on the following occasion.

He went not long after to Arabia; and, having dispatched the affairs of the Arabian churches, he proceeded to Jerusalem, having engaged to confer with the bishops of those parts, and to assist in their reformation. Upon his arrival, finding the place overrun with vice, schism, and faction, some shunning his communion, and others setting up altars in opposition to him, he soon grew weary of it, and returned with a heavy heart to Antioch: and being on this occasion consulted afterwards, whether it was an essential part of religion to make pilgrimages to Jerusalem (which, it seems, was the opinion of the monastic disciplinarians at that time), he declared himself freely in the negative. After this, he was summoned to the great council at Constantinople, where he made no inconsiderable figure, his advice being chiefly relied on in the most important cases; and particularly the composition of the creed, called by us the Nicene creed, was committed to his care. He composed a great many other pieces, commentaries on different parts of the scriptures; sermons; lives, and letters. There is a good edition of his works by Fronton du Due, 1615, 2 vols. fol. and another of 1638, 3 vols. fol. more ample, but not so correct. They are, however, in less estimation than the works of almost any of the fathers. He lived to a great age, and was alive when St. Jerom wrote his “Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers” in the year 392; and two years after was present at the synod of Constantinople, on adjusting the controversy between Agapius and Bagadius, as appears by the acts of that council. He died March 9, 396. He was a married man, and lived with his wife Theosebia, even after he was bishop. Gregory Nazianzen, in a consolatory letter to his sister on her death, gives her extraordinary commendations.

Thus furnished, he began to apply himself more directly to the charge committed to him, and he was said to b^> endowed with the power of working miracles: hence the title of Thaurnaturgus, or wonder-worker, is constantly ascribed to him in the writings of the church. St Basil assures us, that upon this account the Gentiles used to call him a second Moses. In this faithful and successful government of his flock he continued quietly till about anno '2bO, when he fled from the Decian persecution; but, as soon as the storm was over, he returned to his charge, and in a general visitation of his diocese, established in every place anniversary festivals and solemnities in honour of the martyrs who had suffered in the late persecution. In the reign of Galienus, about the year 260, upon the irruption of the northern nations into the Roman empire, the Goths breaking into Pontus, Asia, and some parts of Greece, created such confusion, that a neighbouring bishop of those parts wrote to Gregory for advice what to do: our author’s answer, sent by Euphrasymus, is called his “Canonical Epistle,” still extant among his works. Not long afterwards was convened that synod at Antioch, wherein Paul of Samosata, bishop of the place, which he did not care to lose, made a feigned recantation of his heretical opinions. Our St. Gregory was among the chief persons in this synod which met in the year 264, but did not long survive it, dying either this or most probably the following year.

, St., or frequently called Geregius Florentius Gregorius, an eminent bishop and writer of the sixth century, descended from a noble family of AuTergne, was born about the year 544. He was educated by his uncle Gallus, bishop of Clermont, and became so eminent for learning and virtue, as to be appointed bishop of Tours in the year 573. He assisted at the council held at Paris in the year 577, respecting Pretextat, bishop of Rouen, and strongly opposed the violence of some of the members of that assembly, particularly Chilperic and Fredegonde. He went afterwards to visit the tomb of > the apostles at Rome, where he formed a friendship with St. Gregory the Great, and died Norember 27, 595. This bishop wrote a “History of France,” in ten books; eight books of “The Miracles, or Lives of the Saints;” and other works, in the library of the fathers. The best edition-is that by Dom Ruinart, 1699, fol. His history is very useful; for though the style is dry and coarse, and the author extremely simple and credulous, yet an ingenious critic may easily separate the truths contained in it from the falsehoods. This work has been translated into French by the abbeé de Marolles, 1668, 2 vols. 8vo.

, a Flemish geometrician, was born at Bruges in 1584, and became a Jesuit at Rome at twenty years of age. He studied mathematics under the learned Jesuit Clavius. He afterward became a reputable professor of those sciences himself, and his instructions were solicited by several princes he was called to Prague by the emperor Ferdinand II. and Philip IV. king of Spain was desirous of having him to teach the mathematics to his ion, the young prince John of Austria. He was not less estimable for his virtues than his skill in the sciences. His well-meant endeavours were very commendable, when his holy zeal, though for a false religion, led him to follow the army in Flanders one compaign, to confess the wounded and dying soldiers, in which he received several wounds himself. He died of an apoplexy at Ghent, in 1667, at eighty-three years of age.

In 1672 he published “The great and new art of weighing Vanity or a discovery of the ignorance and arrogance of the great and new artist, in his pseudo-philosophical writings. By M. Patrick Mathers, arch-bedal to the university of St. Andrew’s. To which are annexed some tentamina de motu penduli et projectorum.” Under this assumed name, our author wrote this little piece to expose the ignorance of Mr. Sinclare, professor at Glasgow, in his hydrostatical writings, and in return for some ill-usage of that author to a colleague of Mr. Gregory’s. In the same year, sir Isaac Newton, on his wonderful discoveries in the nature of light, having contrived a new reflecting telescope, and made several objections to Mr. Gregory’s, this gave birth to a dispute between those two philosophers, which was continued during that and the following year, in the most amicable manner on each side; Mr. Gregory defending his own construction so far, as to give his antagonist the whole honour of having made the catoptric telescopes preferable to the dioptric; and shewing, that the imperfections in these instruments were not so much owing to a defect in the object-speculum as to the different refrangibility of the rays of light. In the course of this dispute, our author described a burning concave mirror, which was approved by sir Isaac, and is still in good esteem. Several letters that passed in this dispute are printed by Dr. Desaguliers, in an appendix to the English edition of Dr. David Gregory’s “Elements of Catoptrics and Dioptrics.” All this while he attended the proper business of his professorship with great diligence, which taking up the greatest part of his time, especially in the winter season, interrupted him in the pursuit of his proper studies. These, however, led him to farther improvements in the invention of infinite series, which he occasionally communicated to his intimate friend and correspondent Mr. Collins. In 1674 Mr. Gregory was called to Edinburgh, to fill the chair of mathematics in that university. This place he had held but little more than a year, when, in October 1675, being employed in shewing the satellites of Jupiter through a telescope to some of his pupils, he was suddenly struck with total blindness, and died a few days after, to the great loss of the mathematical world, at only thirty-seven years of age.

, professor of medicine in the university of Edinburgh, was born at Aberdeen in 1724. He was the third son of James Gregory, M. D. professor of medicine in King’s college, Aberdeen, by Anne, daughter of the rev. George Chalmers, principal of King’s college there. His grandfather was David Gregory of Kinardie, and his grand-uncle the James Gregory, whose life we have first given, the inventor of the reflecting telescope. Though the father of Dr. John Gregory died when he was very young, his education was carefully superintended, and he made a rapid progress in his studies, and like the rest of his ancestors became deeply versed in mathematical knowledge. He also cultivated an elegant and just taste, clearness -and beauty of expression, with precision of judgment, and extensive knowledge. He was the early, intimate, and constant friend and associate of Drs. Gerard, Beattie, and the other eminent men who belonged to the university of Aberdeen. In 1742, he went to Edinburgh, to prosecute the study of medicine, and thence to Leyden in 1745, and to Paris in 1746, for further improvement. On his return he was appointed professor of philosophy in King’s college, Aberdeen, and had at the same time the degree of M. D. conferred upon him. He held this professorship for a few years. In 1754, he went to London, where he. cultivated the acquaintance, and fixed the esteem and friendship of' some of the most distinguished literati there. Edward Montague, esq. an eminent mathematician, maintained a firm friendship for the doctor, founded on a similarity of manners and studies. His, lady the celebrated Mrs. Montague? and George lord Lyttelton, were of the number of his friends; and it is not improbable that he would have continued in London, and practised there in his profession, if the death of his brother Dr. James Gregory, professor of physic in King’s college, Aberdeen, in 1756, had not occasioned his being recalled to his native university to fill that chair. His occupations in physic now began to be active; he gave a course of lectures in physic, and practised in his profession, with great success. In the above-mentioned year, while at London, he was elected a fellow of the royal society. In 1766, on the death of Dr. Robert Whytt, the ingenious professor of the theory of physic at Edinburgh, Dr. Gregory was called to succeed him, as his majesty’s first physician in Scotland; and about the same time he was chosen to fill the chair of professor of the practice of physic, which was just resigned by Dr. Rutherford. Dr. Gregory gave three successive courses of practical lectures. Afterwards by agreement with his ingenious colleague, Dr. Cullen, they lectured alternate sessions, on the practice and institutions of medicine, with just and universal approbation, till the time of Dr. Gregory’s death.

, D. D. a divine and miscellanebus writer, was descended from a family, originally from Scotland, but a branch of which was settled in Ireland. His father, who had been educated in Trinity college, Dublin, held, at the time of his son’s birth, the living of Edernin, and a prebend in the cathedral of Ferns. Dr. Gregory was born April 14, 1754, and after his father’s death in 1766, was removed to Liverpool, where his mother fixed her residence. He passed some time under the tuition of an excellent schoolmaster of the name of Holder), by whom he was much distinguished for his proficiency in learning. As it was his mother’s desire that he should be brought up to commerce, he spent some years in mercantile employments; but a taste for literature, which continued to be his ruling propensity, produced a final determination in favour of a learned profession. Although the regular process of education for this purpose had been interrupted, the intervening variety of pursuit and observation proved the foundation of a great store of information relative to the arts and sciences, to commerce, manufactures, and political institutions, that was very useful in his subsequent compilations. When his destination was fixed, he passed an interval of study at the university of Edinburgh, and in 1776 entered into holy orders. He first officiated as a curate at Liverpool, where he distinguished himself as a preacher, and wrote some occasional pieces in the periodical journals and magazines, particularly against the slave trade, which he had the spirit to attack in the principal seat of that traffic. In 1782 he removed to London, and obtained the curacy of St. Giles’s Cripplegate, in which parish he became very popular, both in that capacity and afterwards as their morningpreacher. His other London preferments, if they may be so called, were the curacy and lectureship of St. Botolph’s, the lectureship of St. Lute’s, one of the weekly lectureships of St. Antholin’s, and a small prehend in St. Paul’s, which he relinquished for the rectory of Stapleford in Hertfordshire. He was also some time one of the evening preachers at the Foundling hospital. In 1804 he was presented by Mr. Addington, now lord Sidmbuth, to the valuable living of West Ham in Essex, where in a little time the powers of his constitution, although apparently a strong one, suddenly gave way, and he died, after a short confinement, March 12, 1808.

, descended of an ancient family distinguished by many honourable persons, which took its name from a town so called in Norfolk, was the younger son of sir Richard Gresham, knight, alderman, sheriff, and lord mayor of London, an opulent merchant, and a man of great public spirit, who died in February 1548. His brother, sir John Gresham, was also an opulent merchant, and had served the offices of alderman, sheriff, and lord mayor. He died of a pestilential fever in 1556, after, among other acts of munificence, endowing the free school of Holt in Norfolk, and bestowing the government of it on the fishmongers’ company in London. Thomas, the son of the preceding sir Richard, was born in 1519 at London, and bound apprentice to a mercer there while he was young: but, to enlarge his mind by an education suitable to his birth and fortune, was sent to Caius college, then Gonvil-hall, in Cambridge; where he remained a considerable time, and made such improvements in learning, that Caius the founder of the college styles him “doctissimus mercator,” the very learned merchant. However, the profits of trade were then so great, and such large estates had been raised by it in his own family, that he afterwards engaged in it, and was admitted a member of the Mercers’ company in 1543. About this time he warned Anne, the daughter of William Femley, esq. of West Creting, in Suffolk, und widow of William Heade, of Fulham, in Middlesex, esq., by whom he had a son named Richard, who not long after succeeded his father in the office of agent to king Edward for taking up money of the merchants at Antwerp, and removed to that city with his family in 1551.

In the performance of these services, Gresham often stretched his own credit, and kept up the exchange at his own risk, by which he frequently lost several hundred pounds at a time; and on one particular time he took up 50,000l. for the king’s service. In the course of these transactions, he had frequently occasion to meddle with political affairs, as well as those immediately committed to his charge, through the application of the emperor’s sister, then regent in the Netherlands, as well as that of the Icing his master; so that he made at least forty journeys from England to Antwerp during the remainder of the short reign of Edward VI. These services were so acceptable to the young monarch, that about three weeks before his death, he granted to Mr. Gresham, as a mark of his favour, Iool a year to him and his heirs for ever. Mr. Gresham also obtained, in the course of that reign grants of estates and reversions to the value of about 300l. a year. He was but a young man when first employed by king Edward; and the skill and prudence displayed in the various matters in which he was employed, discovered an uncommon knowledge of mercantile affairs. But notwithstanding his abilities, and the considerable services he had rendered to the crown, he was, upon the accession of queen Mary, removed from his agency. This induced him to draw up a memorial of his services to the late king, which he sent to a minister of state to be laid before her majesty; and the services lepresented as done, not only to the king, but to the nation in general, by the increase both of money and trade, and the advancement of the public credit, being observed to be fact, he was taken soon after into the queen’s service, and reinstated in his former employment, as appears by the commissions given him at different times during that reign. After the decease of queen Mary, in 1558, he was taken immediately into the service of queen Elizabeth, who employed him on her accession to provide and buy up arms; and in 1559 she conferred on him the honour of knighthood, and appointed him her agent in foreign parts. In this state of credit and reputation, he thought proper to provide himself with a mansion-house in the city, suitable to his station and dignity; and with this spirit built a large and sumptuous house for his own dwelling, on the west-side of Bishopsgate-street, London, afterwards called Gresham-college, where he maintained an establishment becoming his character and station. But this flow of prosperity received a heavy check by the loss of his only son, aged 16 years, who died in 1564, and was buried in St. Helen’s church, opposite to his mansion house.

At this time the merchants of London met in Lombardstreet, exposed to the open air and all the injuries of the weather. To remedy wbich inconvenience, sir Thomas’s father during his shrievalty wrote a letter to sir Thomas Audeley then lord-privy-seal, acquainting him that there were certain houses in that street belonging to sir George Monoux, which if purchased and pulled down, a handsome exchange might be built on the ground; he therefore desired his lordship to move his majesty, that a letter might be sent to sir George, requiring him to sell those houses to the mayor and commonalty of the city of London for that purpose. The building he supposes would cost upwards of 2000l., 1000l. of which he doubts not to raise before he was out of his office: but nothing effectual was done in it. Sir Thomas therefore took up his father’s design, and improving upon his spirit, proposed that if the citizens would give him a piece of ground in a proper place large enough for the purpose, he would build ari exchange at his own expence with large and covered walks, where the merchants and traders of all sorts might daily assemble and transact business at all seasons, without interruption from the weather or impediments of any kind. This generous offer was gratefully accepted, and in 1566 several houses upon Cornhill and the back of it, with three alleys, called Swan-alley, New-alley, and St. Christopher’s alley, containing in all eighty houses, were purchased by the citizens for more than 3532l. and sold for 478l. on condition of pulling them down, and carrying off the stuff. This done, the ground-plot was made plain at the charges of the city, and possession given to sir Thomas, who was styled “Agent to the queen’s highness” and who, on the 7th of June, laid the first stone of the foundation and the work was forthwith followed with such diligence, that by Nov. 1567, the same was covered with slate, and the shell shortly after fully finished. It is said that the timber of which this fabric was built, was first framed and put together at Battisford, near Ipswich, in Suffolk, and thence brought to London.

Mr. Ward has drawn sir Thomas’s character at large, and observes, that he had the happiness of a mind every way suited to his fortune, generous and benign; ready to perform any good actions and encourage them in others. He was a great friend and patron of our celebrated rnartyrologist John Fox. He was well acquainted with the ancient and several modern languages; he had a very comprehensive knowledge of all affairs relating to commerce, whether foreign or domestic; and his success was not less, being in his time esteemed trie richest commoner in England. He transacted queen Elizabeth’s mercantile affairs so constantly, that he was called “The Royal Merchant,” and his house was sometimes appointed for the reception of foreign princes upon their first arrival at London. As no one could be more ready to perform any generous actions which might contribute to the honour of this country, so he very well knew how to make the best use of them for the most laudable purposes. Nor was he less serviceable both to the queen and her ministry on other occasions, who often consulted him, and sought his advice in matters of the greatest importance relating to the welfare of the government. But the most shining part of his character appears in his public benefactions. The royal exchange was not pnly a singular ornament to the city of London, and a great convenience to the merchants, who wanted such a place to meet and transact their affairs in, but likewise contributed very much to the promotion of trade, both by the number of shops erected there, and the much greater number of the poor; who were employed in working for them. And the donation of his own mansionhouse for a seat of learning and the liberal arts, with the handsome provision made for the endowment and support of.it, was such an instance of a generous and public spirit as has been equalled by few, and must perpetuate his memory with the highest esteem and gratitude so long as any regard to learning and virtue is preserved among us. Nor ought his charities to the poor, his alms-houses, and the liberal contributions to the ten prisons and hospitals in London and Southwark, to be omitted.

During the life of the treasurer Cecil, he obtained no advancement in the court or state; but, in 1615, some time after his death, was made under-treasurer and chancellor of the exchequer; in consequence of which he was called to the board of privy-council. In 1617 he obtained from the king a special charter, confirming all such liberties as had been granted to any of his ancestors in behalf of the town of Alcester, upon a new reserved rent of ten shillings a year; and, in 1620, was created lord Brooke of Beau* champ-court. He obtained this dignity as well by his merit and fidelity in the discharge of his offices as by his noble descent from theNevils, Willoughbys de Brook, and Beauchamps. In September 1621, he was made one of the lords of the king’s bed-chamber; and on this, resigning his post in the exchequer, he was succeeded therein by Richard Weston, afterwards earl of Portland. After the demise of king James, he continued in the privy-council of Charles I. in the beginning of whose reign he founded a historylecture in the university of Cambridge, and endowed it with a salary of lOOl. per annum. He did not long survive this last act of generosity; for, though he was a munificent patron of learning and learned men, he at last fell a sacrifice to the extraordinary outrage of a discontented domestic. The account we have of this fatal event is, that his lordship, neglecting to reward one Ralph Heywood, who had spent the greatest part of his life in his service, this attendant expostulated thereupon with his lordship in his bed-chamber, at Brook-house in Holborn; and, being severely reproved for it, presently gave his lordship a mortal stab in the back with a knife or sword; after which he withdrew into another room, and, locking the door, murdered himself with the same weapon. He died September 30, 1628, and his corpse being wrapt in lead, was conveyed from Brook-house, Holborn, to Warwick; where it was interred on the north side of the choir of St. Mary’s church, there, in his own vault, which had formerly been a chapter-house of the church; and where, upon his monument, there is this inscription: “Fulke Greville, servant to queen Elizabeth, counsellor to king James, and friend to sir Philip Sidney. Tropheum peccati.” He made that dear friend the great exemplar of his life in every thing; and Sidney being often celebrated as the patron of the muses in general, and of Spenser in particular, so we are told, lord Brooke desired to be known to posterity under no other character than that of Shakspeare’s and Ben Jonson’s master, lord-chancellor Egerton and bishop Overal’s patron. His lordship also obtained the office of clarencieux at arms for Mr. Camden, who very gratefulty acknowledged it in his life-time, and at his death left him a piece of plate in his will. He also raised John Speed from a mechanic to be an historiographer.

In 1651 he accumulated the degrees of divinity, and completed that of doctor the ensuing act, when he preached the “Concio ad Clerum” with applause. In 1654 he was appointed one of the assistants to the commissioners of Warwickshire, for the ejectionof such as were then called scandalous, ignorant, and insufficient ministers and school^ masters. He continued at St. Michael’s greatly esteemed and beloved among his parishioners, till his majesty’s restoration; after which he resigned his benefice in pursuance to the act of conformity in 1661, although bishop Hacket was urgent with him to conform, and allowed him to preach a month beyond the prescribed time, but he delivered his farewell sermon, and afterwards restricted his labours to a few private hearers. Even in this, however, he was carefully watched, and underwent some severe trials, particularly an imprisonment of six months. He still, however, preserved the respect and affection of the citizens of Coventry till his death, which happened October 22, 1689. He published “A Sinner’s Justification by Christ, &c. delivered in several Sermons on Jer. ii. 6, 1670,” 8vo; and “Meditations upon our Saviour’s Parable of the Prodigal Son, &c. 1678,” 4to, both at the request, and for the common benefit, of some of his quondam parishioners.

Here she was with her beloved books in 1550, when the famous Roger Ascham called on a visit to the family in August; and all the rest of each sex being engaged in a hunting-party, he went to wait upon lady Jane in her apartment, and found her reading the “Phaedon” of Plato in the original Greek. Astonished at it, after the first compliments, he asked her, why she lost such pastime as there needs must be in the park; at which smiling, she answered, “I wist all their sport in the park is but a shadow to that pleasure that I find in Plato. Alas, good folk, they never felt what true pleasure meant.” This naturally leading him to inquire how a lady of her age had attained to such a depth of pleasure both in the Platonic language and philosophy, she made the following very remarkable reply: “I will tell you, and I will tell you a truth, which perchance you will marvel at. One of the greatest benefits which ever God gave me is, that he sent me so sharp and severe parents, and so gentle a schoolmaster. For when I am in presence either of father or mother, whether I speak, keep silence, sit, stand, or go, eat, drink, he merry or sad, be sewing, playing, dancing, or doing any thing else, I am so sharply taunted, so cruelly threatened, yea presently sometimes with pinches, rips, and bohs, and other ways (which I will not name, for the honour I bear them), so without measure misordered, that 1 think myself in hell, till time come that I must go to Mr. Aylmer, who teachfcth me so gently, so pleasantly, with such fair allurements to learning, that I think all the time nothing while I am with him; and, when I am called from him I fall on weeping, because whatsoever I do else but learning is full of grief, trouble, fear, and wholly misliking unto me. And thus my book hath been so much my pleasure, and bringeth daily to me more pleasure and more, and that in respect of it all other pleasures in very deed be but trifles and troubles unto me” What reader is not melted with this speech What scholar does not envy Ascham’s felicity at this interview He was indeed very deeply affected with it, and to that impression we owe the discovery of some farther particulars concerning this lovely scholar.

, an ingenious and learned English divine, the son of John Grey of Newcastle, was born there in 1694, and in 1712 was entered of Lincoln college, Oxford, where he took the degree of B. A. May 15, 1716, and that of M. 4- January 16, 1718-19. May 1, he was ordained deacon, and priest April 10, 172Q, by Crew bishop of Durham, to whom he was chaplain and secretary, and who gave him, in 1721, the rectory of Hinton, near Brackley, in Northamptonshire; and obtained for him, from lord Willoughby de Broke, the rectory of Kimcote in Leicestershire. ' He was alsp a prebendary of St. Paul’s. In 1746, he was official and commissary of the archdeaconry of Leicester. In 1730, he published at Oxford a “Visitation-Sermon” and, the same year, '< Memoria Technica or a new Method of artificial Memory“a fourth edition of which came out in 1756. At this time also appeared his” System of English Ecclesiastical Law, extracted from the Codex Juris Ecclesiastic! Anglican!“of bishop Gibson, 8vo. This was for the use of young students designed for orders; and for this the university gave him the degree of D. D. May 28, 1731. He printed an assize sermon in 1732, called” The great Tribunal,“and in 1736, was the author of a large anonymous pamphlet, under the title of” The miserable and distracted State of Religion in England, upon the Downfall of the Church established,“8vo and, the same year, printed another Visitation- Sermon. He also published” A new and easy Method of learning Hebrew without points, 1738;“” Historia Josephi,“and” Paradigmata Verborum, 1719;“” Liber Jobi, 1742;“”Answer to Warburton’s Remarks,“1744;” The last Words of David,“1749;” Nova Methodus Hebraice discendi diligentius recognita & acl Usum Scholarum accornmodata, &c.“1751;” A Sermon at the opening of Steane chapel, Northampt.“1752; and, lastly, an English translation of Mr. Hawkins Browne’s poem” De Animi Immortalitate,“1753. He died Feb. 28, 1771, in his 77th year. He married Joyce, youngest daughter of the rev. John Thicknesse of Brazen-nose-college, Oxford, and sister of the late Philip Thicknesse, esq. by whom he left three daughters, the eldest of whom married Dr. Philip Lloyd, dean of Norwich, and was well-known for her genius in working in worsted, and for her painted windows in that cathedral. Dr. Grey was buried at Hinton, as is his widow, who died Jan. 12, 1794, aged eighty-nine. His” Memoria Technica" was at one time a very popular book, and the system has lately in part been revived by a foreigner, which has been the means of again directing the public attention to Dr. Grey’s book; but it seems agreed that such helps are of very little substantial efficacy, and that attention and exercise are the only means to assist or prolong memory. Dr. Grey was a man of piety and liberality, as appears by his frequent correspondence with Dr. Doddndge.

, called Bolognese, was born at Bologna in 1606, and studied under A. Caracci, to whom he was related. He was a good designer of figures, but became chiefly distinguished for his landscapes. When he arrived at Rome, Innocent X. did justice to his merit, employed him to paint in the Vatican and the Q,uirinal, and even in churches. This pope used to visit him when at work, and talk familiarly with him. His reputation reached cardinal Mazarine at Paris, who sent for him, settled a large pension on him, and employed him for three years in embellishing hi? palace and the Louvre, by the order of Lewis XIII. The troubles of the state, and the clamours raised against the cardinal, whose party he warmly espoused, put him so much in danger, that his friends advised him to retire among the Jesuits, for whom he painted a decoration for the exposition of the sacrament during the holy days, according to the custom of Rome. This piece was much relished at Paris: the king honoured it with two visits, and commanded him to paint a similar piece for his chapel at the Louvre. Grimaldi after that returned to Italy, and at his arrival at Rome found his great patron Innocent X. dead; but his two successors Alexander VII, and Clement IX. honoured him equally with their friendship, and found him variety of employment. His chief power lay in landscape, though he designed figures well, and his pencil equalled his design, light, and flowing with great depth of colour, bolder in the masses and the dash of bushy foliage than Caracci’s, but perhaps tc-o green. The gallery Colon n a, at Rome, has many of his views, which remained chiefly in Italy, less known on this side of the Alps than those of Poussin and Claude. He understood architecture, and has engraved in aqita fortis forty-two landscapes in an excellent manner, five of which are after Titian. Grimaldi was amiable in his manners, as well as skilful in his profession: he was generous without profusion, respectful to the great without meanness, and charitable to the poor. The following instance of his benevolence may serve to characterise the man. A Sicilian gentleman, who had retired from Messina with his daughter, during the troubles of that country, was reduced to the misery of wanting bread. As he lived over-against him, Grimaldi was soon informed of it; and in the dusk of the evening, knocking at the Sicilian’s door, without making himself known, tossed in money and retired. The thing happening more than once, raised the Sicilian’s curiosity to know his benefactor; who, finding him out, by hiding himself behind the door, fell down on his knees to thank the hand that had relieved him: Grimaldi remained confused, offered him his house, and continued his friend till his death. He died of a dropsy at Rome in 1G60, and left a considerable fortune among six children; of which the youngest, named Alexander, was a pretty good painter.

, a poet of considerable rank in his time, was a native of Huntingdonshire, and received the first part of his academical education at Christ’s college in Cambridge, where he became B. A. in 1539 or 1540. Removing to Oxford in 1542, he was elected fellow of Merton college; but, about 1547, having opened a rhetorical lecture in the refectory of Christ church, then newly founded, he was transplanted to that society, which gave the greatest encouragement to such students as were distinguished for their proficiency in criticism and philology. The same year he wrote a Latin tragedy, which probably was acted in the college, entitled “Archipropheta, sive Joannes Baptista,” dedicated to the dean, Richard Cox, and printed Colon. 1548, 8vo. In 1548, he explained all the four books of Virgil’s Georgics in a regular prose Latin paraphrase, in the public hall of his college, which was printed at London in 1591, 8vo. He wrote also explanatory commentaries, or lectures, on the <c Andria“of Terence, the Epistles of Horace, and many pieces of Cicero, perhaps for the same auditory. He translated Tully’s Offices into English, which he dedicated to the learned Thirlby, bishop of Ely, printed at London, 1553, 8vo, and reprinted in 1574 and 1596. He also made translations from some of the Greek classics; but these, Mr. Warton thinks, were never published; among others was the” Cyropaedia.“Bale mentions some plays and poems, but not with sufficient precision to enable us to know whether they were in Latin or English. It is allowed, however, that he was the second English poet after lord Surrey who wrote in blank verse, and added to Surrey’s style new strength, elegance, and modulation. In the disposition and conduct of his cadences, says our poetical historian, he often approaches to the legitimate structure of the improved blank verse, although he is not quite free from those dissonancies and asperities, which in his time adhered to the general character and state of English diction. Both Mr. Warton and Mr. Ellis have given specimens of his poetry from” The Songes written by N. G.“annexed to the” Songes and Soanettes of uncertain Auctours“in TottelPs edition of lord Surrey’s Poems (reprinted in the late edition of the English poets). As a writer of verses in rhyme, Mr. Warton thinks that Grimbold yields to none of his contemporaries, for a masterly choice of chaste expression, and the concise elegancies of didactic versification; and adds that some of the couplets in his” Praise of Measure-keeping,“or moderation, have all the smartness which mark the modern style of sententious poetry, and would have done honour to Pope’s ethic epistles. It is supposed that he died about 1563. Wood and Tanner, and after them, Warton, are decidedly of opinion that he is the same person, called by Strype” one Grimbold," who was chaplain to bishop Ridley, and who was employed by that prelate while in prison, to translate into English Laurentius Valla’s book against the fiction of Constantine’s Donation, with some other popular Latin pieces against the papists. In Mary’s reign, it is said that he was imprisoned for heresy, and saved his life by recantation. This may be true of the Grimbold mentioned by Strype, but we doubt whether he be the same with our poet, who is mentioned in high terms by Bale, on account of his zeal for the reformed doctrines, without a syllable of his apostacy, which Bale must have known, and would not have concealed.

, a celebrated lawyer, and master of the rolls in the seventeenth century, descended from a very ancient family, was born at Brad fieldball, near Manningtree, in Essex, about 1594. Where he had his early education is not known, but he studied law in Lincoln’s-inn, and practised with considerable success. In August 1638 he was chosen recorder of Colchester, and representative for that place in the parliament which met at Westminster April 13, 1640, and again in the parliament which met Nov. 3 of the same year. The measures he at first supported were those of the party which finally overthrew the government, and although he argued chiefly against such abuses as might have been reformed by a better understanding between the conflicting parties, yet his violence against the court, and particularly a bitter speech he made against archbishop Laud, seem to prove that he was too much swayed by the popular clamour of the times, and too readily became one of the committees for the redress of grievances, real or imaginary, as well as for bringing those to punishment who were most obnoxious to the people. In 1642 he was made one of the lieutenants of the county of Essex, in pursuance of the parliament’s ordinance for the militia, and in August the same year, came down to Colchester and proclaimed sir John Lucas a traitor, for intending to assist the king. When he came, however, to penetrate more deeply into the designs of the reformers, he began to withdraw his countenance from them, and when in 1647 he was appointed one of the commissioners to treat with the king at Newport, in the isle of Wight, his majesty had every reason to be pleased with his candour and moderation. On his return to parliament, he argued for accepting the king’s concessions, and being at the same time one of the commissioners for disbanding the army, was, among others, forcibly excluded from the house by a party of soldiers. After the murder of the king, he went abroad for some time, but in 1656 we find him elected to Cromwell’s parliament as one of the sixteen, representatives for the county of Essex, but not approved by the council, against whose decision he signed a spirited re* monstrance. In February 1659-60 he was chosen one of the new council of state, in whom the executive power was lodged by the remains of the long parliament that restored Charles II.; and a few months after, he was also chosen speaker of the house of commons in what was called the “Healing parliament” which met April 25, 1660. In May following, he waited on the king at Breda, and on his majesty’s arrival, and the settlement of the government, was appointed master of the roils Nov. 3, 1660, which office he filled for nearly twenty-four years with great ability and integrity. He was aiso appointed in the same year chief steward of the borough or St. AlbanV, and recorder of Harwich, and from the restoration to the time or his death, continued to represent Colchester in parliament. For several years he entertained Dr. Gilbert Burntt, afterwards bishop of Salisbury, as his chaplain, or preacher at the rolls; and much assisted him in his “History of the Reformation.” Burnet in his “Own Times” has given an affectionate and probably faithful character of sir Harbottle, who appears to have been a man of real worth, piety, and moderation in his latter days. Sir Harbottle died Dec. 31, 1683, aged about ninety, and was buried in the chancel of St. Michael’s church, St. Alban’s. He was twice married, first to Mary, daughter of sir George Croke, an edition of whose “Reports” he published, 3 vols. folio; and secondly to Anne, daughter of sir Nathaniel Bacon, of Culford-hall, in Suffolk. Other particulars of his family may be seen in our authorities.

His patron, Cecil, then lord treasurer, recommended him to the first chair in the church, which became vacant by the death of archbishop Parker. Accordingly he was translated to the see of Canterbury, in which he was confirmed, February 15, 1575. On May 6, 1576, he began his metropolitical visitation, and took measures for the better regulation of his courts; but the same year fell under her majesty’s displeasure, upon account of the favour he shewed to what was called the exercise of prophesying.

This refusal was dated December 20, 1576. The queen therefore having given him sufficient time to consider well his resolution, and he continuing inflexible, she sent letters next year to the bishops, to forbid all exercises and prophesyings, and to silence all preachers and teachers not lawfully called, of which there were no small number; and in June the archbishop was sequestered from his office, and confined to his house by an order of the court of starchamber. In November the lord-treasurer wrote to him about making his submission, with which he not thinking fit to comply, his sequestration was continued; and iri January there were thoughts of depriving him, which* how-­ever, were laid aside. June 1579, his confinement was either taken off, or else he had leave to retire to his house at Croydon; for we find him there consecrating the bishop of Exeter in that year, and the bishops of Winchester, and Lichfield and Coventry, the year following. This part of his function was exercised by a particular commission from the queen, who in council appointed two civilians to manage the other affairs of his see, the two of his nomination being set aside. Yet sometimes he had special commands from the queen and council to act in person, and issued out orders in his own name; and in general was as active as he could be, and vigilant in the care of his diocese as occasion offered. In 1580, for instance, when there happened a violent earthquake, our archbishop having issued an order for prayer and humiliation, composed a prayer for families throughout his diocese, which was allowed by the council, who in a letter to him commended his great zeal, and required him to enjoin the observation of his new order of prayer in all other dioceses. The council also referred to him the decision of a dispute that happened the same year at Merton college, Oxford, of which he was visitor, as archbishop; and soon after he was employed by the lord treasurer in a controversy between the university and town of Cambridge.

, a man eminently learned in his day> and one of the revivers of literature, was born at Bristol in 1442, and educated at Winchester-school. He was elected thence to New college, Oxford, in 1467; and in 1479, presented by the warden and fellows to the rectory of Newton-Longville, in Buckinghamshire. But his residence being mostly at Oxford, the society of Magdalen college made him their divinity reader, about the beginning of Richard the Illd’s reign; and that king corning soon after to Oxford, he had the honour to hold a disputation before him, with which his majesty was so pleased, that he rewarded him graciously. In 1485 he was made a prebendary of Lincoln, and in 1488 he quitted his reader’s place at Magdalen college, in order to travel into foreign countries; for though he might be reckoned a great master of the Greek and Lati languages in England, where the former especially was then scarcely understood at all, yet he well knew that a more perfect knowledge of it might be attained; and accordingly he went into Italy, and studied there some time under Demetrius Chalcondyles and Politian. He returned to England, and fixed himself in Exeter college, at Oxford, in 1491, where he took the degree of B. D. Here too he publicly taught the Greek language, and was the first who introduced a better pronunciation of it than had been known in this island before. But the introduction of this language alarming many, as a most dangerous innovation, the university divided itself into two factions/distinguished by the appellation of Greeks and Trojans, who bore each other a violent animosity, and proceeded to open hostilities. Anthony Wood says, “I cannot but wonder when I think upon it, to what a strange ignorance were the scholars arrived, when, as they would by no means receive it, but rather scoff and laugh at it; some against the new pronunciation of it, which was endeavoured to be settled; others at the language itself, having not at all read any thing thereof. It is said that there were lately a company of good fellows (Cambridge men as 'tis reported) who, either out of hatred to the Greek tongue, or good letters, or merely to laugh and sport, joined together and called themselves Trojans: one, who was the senior, and wiser than the rest, called himself Priam, another Hector, a third Parys, and the rest by some ancient Trojan names who, after a jocular way, did oppose aa Grecians, the students of the Greek tongue.” In this situation Grocyn was, when Erasmus came ta Oxford; and if he was not this great man’s tutor, yet he certainly assisted him in attaining a more perfect knowledge of the Greek. He was, however, very friendly toErasmus, and did him many kind offices, as introducing him to archbishop Warham, &c. He also boarded him gratis in his house, although he was by no means in affluent circumstances. We cannot be surprized therefore that Erasmus speaks of him often in a strain which shews that he entertained the most sincere regard for him, as well as the highest opinion of his abilities, learning, and integrity. About 1590 he resigned his living, being then made master of Allhallows college, at Maidstone,in Kent, though he continued still to live mostly at Oxford. Grocyn had no esteem for Plato, but applied himself intensely to Aristotle, whose whole works he had formed a design of translating, in conjunction with William Latimer, Linacre, and More, but did not pursue it. While his friend Cotet was dean of St. Paul’s, Grocyn gave a remarkable evidence of the candour and ingenuousness of his temper. He read in St. Paul’s cathedral a public lecture upon the book of Dionysius Areopagita, commonly called “Hierarchia Ecclesiastica;” it being customary at that time for the public lecturers, both in the universities, and in the cathedral thurches, to read upon any book, rather than upon the scriptures, till dean Colet reformed that practice. Grocyn, in the preface to his lecture, declaimed with great warmth against those who either denied or doubted of the authority of the book on which he was reading. But after he had continued to read a few weeks, and had more thoroughly examined the matter, he entirely changed hi sentiments; and openly and candidly declared that he had been in an error; and that the said book, in his judgment, was spurious, and never written by him who, in the Acts of the Apostles, is called Dionysius the Areopagite. But when dean Colet had introduced the custom of reading lectures upon some part of the scriptures at his cathedral, he engaged Grocyn, according to Dr. Knight, as one of the most learned and able men he could meet with, in that useful employment.

Grotius, having chosen the law for his profession, had taken an opportunity before he left France, to obtain a doctor’s degree in that faculty; and upon his return he attended the law-courts, and pleaded his first cause at Delft with universal applause, though he was scarcely seventeen; and he maintained the same reputation as lung as he continued at the bar. This employment, however, not filling up his whole time, he found leisure to publish the same year, 1599, another work, which discovered as much knowledge of the abstract sciences in particular as the former did of his learning in general. Stevin, mathematician to prince Maurice of Nassau, composed a small treatise for the instruction of pilots in finding a ship’s place at sea; in which he drew up a table of the variations of the needle, according to the observations of Plancius, a celebrated geographer, and added directions how to use it. Grotius translated into Latin this work, which prince Maurice had recommended to the college of admiralty, to be studied by all officers of the navy; and, because it might be equally useful to Venice, he dedicated his translation to that republic. In 1600, he published his “of Aratus,” which discovers a great knowledge in physics, and especially astronomy. The corrections he made in the Greek are esteemed very judicious: the notes shew that he had reviewed several of the rabhies, and had some knowledge of the Arabic tongue; and the verses he made to supply those of Cicero that were lost have been thought very happy ‘imitations of that writer’s style. In the midst of these profound studies, this extraordinary young man found time to cultivate the muses, and with such success, that he was esteemed one of the best Latin poets in Europe. The prosopopoeia, in which he makes the city of Ostend speak, after having been three years besieged by the Spaniards, was reckoned a masterpiece, and was translated intoJFrench by Du Vae’r, Rapin, Pasquier, and Malherbe; and Casanbon turned it into Greek. Neither did Grotius content himself with writing small pieces of verse; he rose to tragedy, of which he produced three specimens; the first, called “Adamus Exul,” was printed in Leyden, in 1601, with which, however, he became afterwards dissatisfied, and would not let it appear in the collection of hi* poems published by his brother. “Christus patiens,” his second tragedy, was printed at Leyden in 1608, and much approved: Casaubon greatly admires its poetical fire. Sandys translated it into English verse, and dedicated it to Charles I. It was favourably received in England, and in Germany proposed as the model of perfect tragedy. His third was the story of Joseph, and its title “Sophornphanceus,” which, in the language of Egypt, signifies the Saviour of the World; he finished this in 1633, and the following year, at Hamburgh.

But no city ventured publicly to protect him; and the States-General, thinking themselves affronted by this boldness in continuing in the country without their leave, and by the repugnance he shewed to ask them pardon, issued an ordinance, December 10, 1631, enjoining all bailiffs of the country to seize his person, and give them notice: yet such was the general sympathy of his countrymen, that no person would execute it; and, to employ himself till his fate should be determined, he resolved to follow the business of a chamber-counsel. With this view he desired his brother, in a letter dated February 16, 1632, to send him what law books he might want for that office but of these he could make no long use; for, the States-General on March 10 renewed their ordinance, upon pain to those who would not obey, of lo.sing their places, and with a promise of 2000 florins to any one who should deliver him into the hands of justice. Upon this he thought proper to seek for an asylum elsewhere; and, on March 17, he set out from Amsterdam on his way to Hamburgh, and passed the fine season at an agreeable seat called Okenhuse, near the Elbe, belonging to William Morth, a Dutchman. On the approach of winter, he went to Hamburgh, and lodged with one Van Sorgen. a merchant: but the town did not prove agreeable to him, and he passed his time but heavily till the return of his wife from Zealand in autumn 1633. She had always been his consolation in adversity, and rendered all his sufferings more tolerable, not more by her affection, than by her good sense, and resources of mind. Her business at Zealand was to collect the remains of their fortune, which she probably brought with her to HambufgnY While he continued here, some advantageous proposal? were made him from Spain, Poland, Denmark, the duke 1 of Holstein, and several other princes; but still entertaining the thought of a reconciliation with his native country, it was long before he could be prevailed upon to abandon it, to which measure the following circumstances at last contributed.

“But another sort of answer is due to some of those who have criticised Grotius, and that answer might be given in the words of Grotius himself. He was not of such a stupid and servile cast of mind, as to quote the opinions of poets or orators, of historians and philosophers, as those of judges, from whose decision there was no appeal. He quotes them, as he tells us himself, as witnesses whose conspiring testimony, mightily strengthened and confirmed by their discordance on almost every other subject, is a conclusive proof of the unanimity of the whole human race on the great rules of duty and the fundamental principles of morals. On such matters poets and orators are the most unexceptionable of all witnesses for they address themselves to the general feelings and sympathies of mankind they are neither warped by system, nor perverted by sophistry; they can attain none of their objects; they can neither please nor persuade if they dwell on moral sentiments not in unison with those of their readers. No system of moral philosophy can surely disregard the general feelings of human nature and the according judgment of all ages and nations. But where are these feelings and that judgment recorded and preserved In those very writings which Grotius is gravely blamed for having quoted. The usages and laws of nations, the events of history, the opinions of philosophers, the sentiments of orators and poets, as well as the observation of common life, are, in truth, the materials out of which the science of morality is formed; and those who neglect them are justly chargeable with a vain attempt to philosophise without regard to fact and experience, the sole foundation of all true philosophy. “If this were merely an objection of taste, I should be willing to allow that Grotius has indeed poured forth his learning with a profusion that sometimes rather encumbers than adorns his work, and which is not always necessary to the illustration of his subject. Yet, even in making that concession, I should rather yield to the taste of others than speak from my own feelings. I own that such richness and splendour of literature have a powerful charm for me. They fill my mind with an endless variety of delightful recollections and associations. They relieve the understanding in its progress through a vast science, by calling up the memory of great men and of interesting events. By this means we see the truths of morality clothed with all the eloquence (not that could be produced by the powers of one man, but) that could be bestowed on them by the collective genius of the world. Even virtue and wisdom themselves acquire new majesty in my eyes, when I thus see all the great masters of thinking and writing called together, as it were, from all times and countries, to do them homage, and to appear in their train.

“But this is no place for discussions of taste, and I am very ready to own that mine may be corrupted. The work of Grotius is liable to a more serious objection, though I do not recollect that it has ever been made. His method is inconvenient and unscientific. He has inverted the natural order. That natural order undoubtedly dictates that we should first search for the original principles of the science in human nature then apply them to the regulation of the conduct of individuals and lastly, employ them for the decision of those difficult and complicated questions that arise with respect to the intercourse of nations. But Grolius has chosen the reverse of this method, tie begins with the consideration of the states of peace and war, and he examines original principles only occasionally and incidentally as they grow out of the questions which he is called upon to decide. It is a uecessary consequence of this disorderly method, which exhibits the elements of the science in the form of scattered digressions, that he seldom employs sufficient discussion on these fundamental truths, and never in the place where such a discussion would be most instructive to the reader. This defect in the plan of Grotius was perceived, and supplied by Puffendorff, who restored natural law to that superiority which belonged to it, and with great propriety treated the law of nations as only one main branch of the parent stock,” &c.

, an Italian poet, commonly called, from his misfortune, Cieco D‘Adria, was born Sept. 7, 1541, in the ancient town of Adria, which gives name to the gulph called the Adriatic. His parents were of a noble but decayed family. He lost his sight a few days after his birth, and never recovered it. Yet this did not check his proficiency in learning; able masters were provided, under whom he made astonishing progress, although we may conceive with considerable difficulty to his instructors. He lays, indeed, in one of his orations, that when a new master visited him, he used to say, *’ you must teach me how I am to teach you." His talents and acquirements, however, procured him very early fame, and such was his natural eloquence, that at the age of fourteen he was chosen on two very solemn occasions, the one when the queen of Poland visited Venice, and the other on the election of the Doge Lorenzo Priuli, to give a public harangue in that city, where Casa and other orators had been so much celebrated, and acquitted himself with the greatest credit. His youth and his blindness might probably procure him favour, but according to his biographer, he was received with equal applause at other times and places, and under other circumstances. Having an early turn for poetry as well as oratory, he attempted to write for the stage, and although inferior to the other dramatic poets who then flourished at Ferrara, Rome, and Florence, he became a favourite with the people of Adria. In other cities to which he was invited as a public speaker, at Ferrara, Bologna, and Rovigo, he was received with every mark of distinction. Several princesses, as Laura of Este, and Laura Gonzaga, who patronized genius, frequently visited him, and made him rich presents. Yet he remained poor, fortune being in general more liberal of honours than of riches. Although blind, he appears to have felt the tender passion, which he has often introduced in his lyric poetry and in his dramas; in the latter, indeed, he treats of love matters in a style which gives but an unfavourable idea of his delicacy. In 1585 he acquired much reputation at Vincenza by playing the part of CEdipus when represented by the academicians in the famous Olympic theatre of Palladio. He did not, however, appear on this occasion, until the last act, when CEdipus appears blind. He was at this time in full health, but was suddenly attacked with a disorder at Venice, which proved fatal Dec. 13 of that year. His remains were carried to his own country, and interred with great funeral honours. His works consist of orations, published at Venice 1598, 4to, and tragedies, two pastorals, and other pieces of poetry, printed separately. They are distinguished rather by genius than judgment, and abound in that play of words, and those extravagant metaphors which were so much the taste of the subsequent age, and which appear most out of place in his pastorals.

, was born at Glogaw in 1616, and died in 1664. He was called the Corneille of Germany, and acquired considerable reputation by his. compositions for the theatre, and is among the very first writers of tragedy in the catalogue of German writers. He also wrote, in a fine vein of irony, a “Critique on the ancient Comedies of the Germans.”

On his return to France, he pursued his literary turn, and produced “Le Connetable de Bourbon,” a tragedy, and afterwards two other tragedies, the “Gracchi,” and “Anna Bullen,” of which his biographer speaks very highly; but they were not published, the author being called to assist the celebrated M. de Saint Germain, in his reform of the French army. He is said to have been the soul of this minister; and much to his honour, he continued his friendship in his patron’s disgrace. After the new organization was completed, Guibert returned to his studies, and among others, wrote the famous panegyrics on marshal Catinat, and the chancellor de PHopital. He afterward assisted at the camp in Normandy; and during the disputes concerning the number of ranks in which troops should be drawn up, he published the “Refutation complete du systeme de M. Menil-Durand.”

The French government having determined to send troops to assist the Americans, the author was ordered on that service; but on the eve of embarking, he received counter orders; a disappointment which he attributed to the malice of his enemies, and which preyed on him very deeply. As soon as he had recovered from this mortification, he began a work entitled “Histoire de la Milice Francaise,” which, from the profound manner in which he treats his subject, might be called the history of the art of war, and of the military system of the nations of Europe, from the time of the Romans. He had brought it to the eleventh century, when he was drawn from his retirement by having obtained for his venerable father the appointment of governor of the invalids. While he was assisting in reforming the abuses of that noble institution, he wa admitted a member of the French academy; where his introductory address is said to have been much admired for its truly classical spirit. Two years afterward, his health obliged him to retire to the country: but he was soon recalled by the death of his father, to comfort his aged mother. It appears that one of the most estimable traits in Guibert’s character, was his filial piety.

, an eminent Scotch divine, the son of an opulent tradesman in Aberdeen, was born in that city in 1586, and received *a liberal education at Marischal college, then recently founded, with a view to the church. Before he took orders, however, he appeared as an autii:>r, by publishing, when only in his twentieth year, a treatise entitled “The New Sacrifice of Christian Incense,” London, 1608 and the same year, “The only way to Salvation,” printed also at London. Immediately after the publication of these, he appears to have taken orders, and was called to the pastoral charge of the parish of King EJward in the presbytery of Turriff and synod of Aberdeen. Here he passed some of the happiest years of his life, in high favour with Jiis parishioners and here in 1610 he married Katherine Rowen, daughter of Mr. Rowen or Rolland of Disblair, by whom he had no issue. In 1617, when king James I. visited Scotland, with a view to establish episcopacy, and brought bishop Andrews of Ely with him to assist in the management of that very delicate and ultimately unsuccessful attempt, Dr. Andrews, among other eminent men of the Scotch clergy whom he consulted, paid great regard to Mr. Guild; and the following year, when Andrews was promoted to the see of Winchester, Mr. Guild dedicated to him, one of his most useful works, entitled “Moses unveiled,” pointing out those fgures in the Old Testament which allude to the Messiah. Mr. Guild became, much about the same time, acquainted with Dr. Young, a countryman of his own, dean of Winchester, who introduced him to the king, by whom he was appointed one of the royal chaplains. This obligation he afterwards acknowledged in the dedication to his “Harmony of the Prophets,” a work which he published in the beginning of the reign of Charles I. It was afterwards printed with his “Moses unveiled,” in an edition now before us, dated Edinburgh, 1684.

When the commotions took place in consequence of king Charles’s endeavours to establish episcopacy in Scotland, the Perth articles, as they were called, were opposed by the Scotch covenant, which was subscribed by the majority of the clergy and people of Scotland, but not being so rigorously enforced as to prohibit all exercise of private judgment, Dr. Guild was permitted to subscribe it under such limitations as he was pleased to specify, which implied a loyal adherence to the king, but no condemnation of the articles of Perth, or of episcopal government. He was afterwards one of the commissioners in the general assembly of Scotland which met in 1638, and abolished the hierarchy of the church; and after his return from Glasgow, where this assembly met, officiated as formerly at Aberdeen in the pastoral function, and, with a view to beal the animosities then prevailing between the episcopal and presbyterian party, published “A friendly and faithful advice to the nobility, gentry, and others,” recommending that moderation which was then impossible, while the two great bodies who divided the sentiments of the two kingdoms, persisted in mutual encroachments. Yet notwithstanding an obvious leaning to the loyal side in Dr. Guild’s conduct, he was, on a vacancy, elected principal of King’s college, Aberdeen, in 1640, and preached his last sermon, as minister of Aberdeen, in June 1641. This was followed by a special mark of favour from his majesty, who bestowed upon Dr. Guild “a free gift of a house and garden, which had formerly been the residence of the bishop of Aberdeen.” He did'not, however, allow this to increase his private fortune, but wiih his usual liberality, devoted it to the service of the public, in benefactions to the college, the town, and the poor of the adjoining parish.

, a heraldic writer, was son of John Guillim of Westburg in Gloucestershire, but born in Herefordshire about 1565. He was sent to a grammar school at Oxford, and apparently entered a student of Brazen* nose college in 1581. Having completed his pursuit of literature in the university, he returned to Minsterworth in Gloucestershire; and had been there only a short space, when he was called to London, and made a member of the society of the college of arms, by the name of Portsmouth; and hence promoted to the honours of rouge-croix pursuivant of arms in ordinary in 1617 in which post he continued till his death, which happened May 7, 1621. His claim to a place in this work arises from the concern he had in a work entitled “The display of Heraldry,” published by him in 1610, folio, which has gone through many editions. To the fifth, which came out in 1679, was added a treatise of honour, civil and military, by captain John Loggan. The last was published, with very large additions, in 1724, and is generally esteemed the best book extant upon the subject, but the entire merit of it does not belong to Guillim, %ut to Barkham (See Barkkam), chaplain to archbishop Bancroft, who gave the manuscript to Guillim, and allowed him to publish it in his own name.

, called Quintus Icilius, an able writer on military tactics, was born at Magdeburg, and studied at the universities of Halle, Marpurg, and Leyden, where he applied to the classics, theology, and the oriental languages. He first carried arm* in the service of the United Provinces, and while thus einployed found leisure to prepare materials for his “Memoirs Militaires sur les Grecs et les Remains,” which induced him to obtain permission to visit England, where he re^­mained a year. The work was at length published, in two volumes quarto, 1757, received with much approbation, and went through five editions in France and Holland. In the same year he entered as a volunteer in the allied army, acquired the esteem of Ferdinand of Brunswick, and was recommended to the notice of Frederic II. of Prussia, who kept him near his person, often conversed with him on the art of war, and on account of his great knowledge on this subject, gave him the name of Quintus Icilius, the com* mander of Caesar’s tenth legion, when he appointed him to the command of a regiment formed out of the refuse of all nations, during the heat of the war. At the general peace he was one of the few persons whom his majesty admitted into his convivial parties at Potsdam, and to whom he gave the freest access to his library and coins, which latter Guise-hard increased so much, that he valued both at the sum of a hundred thousand dollars. The king, however, in his latter days, treated him with much disrespect, and took every opportunity to mortify him in the presence of others. Giiiscliard died May 13, 1775. Frederic purchased his library of his heirs for the sum of 12,000 dollars. Besides the work already mentioned, he was author of a very useful work to military or classical students, entitled “Memoires Critiques et Historiques sur plusieurs Points d'Antiquites Militaires,” in 4 vols. Hvo. Gibbon, who read his “Military Memoirs” with great attention, bestows high encomiums on him, and considers him as very superior to Folard, whom however Guischard affected too much to undervalue.

, an Italian poet of the thirteenth century, was usually called Fra Guittone, as belonging to a religious and military order, now extinct, called the cavalieri gaudenti, established in 1208, during the barbarous crusade carried on against the Albigenses. This abominable massacre, however, was over before Guittone became a member. Little else is known of his history, except that he founded the monastery of St. Mary at Florence, and died in the same year, 1293. The Florence “Collection of the ancient Italian poets,” 1527, contain his poetical works, amounting to about thirty sonnets and canzoni, partly on subjects of love, and partly of devotion, or of both mixed. In most of these is a harmony, taste, and turn of sentiment, more polished than is to be found among his predecessors, and which Petrarch has evidently studied, and sometimes imitated. His letters, published by Bottari, “Lettere de fra Guittone d'Arezzo con note,” Rome, 1745, are curious, not perhaps for intrinsic merit, but as the first specimens of Italian letter-writing.

His works were, “A contention for truth, in two publick disputations upon infant baptism, between him and Mr. Henry Denne, in the church of St. Clement-Danes, 26 Nov. 1657,” Lond. 16.58, 4to. “Schism unmasked; or a late conference between him and Mr. John Pierson, minister, on the one part, and two disputants of the Romish persuasion on the other, in May 1657.” This was published in 8vo, the year following, with a large preface, by a catholick at Paris. “A view and correction of the Common Prayer,” 1662. “The Paschal or Lent Fast, Apostolical and perpetual,” Lond. 1662, 4to. Besides these, it ought never to be omitted that he wrote that excellent prayer in our Liturgy, called “The general supplication.”

The truth is, Gu-nter’s inclination was turned wholly the same way with his genius; and it cannot be denied that he reached the temple of fame by treading in that road. To excite a spirit of industry in prosecuting mathematical knowledge, by lessening the difficulties to the learner; to throw new light into some things, which before appeared so dark and abstruse as to discourage people of ordinary capacities from attempting them; and by that means to render things of wonderful utility in the ordinary employment of life so easy and practicable as to be managed by the common sort; is the peculiar praise of our author, who effected this by that admirable contrivance of his famous rule of proportion, now called the line of numbers, and the other lines laid down by it, and fitted in his scale, which, after the inventor, is called “Gunter’s scale;” the description and use of which he published in 1624, 4to, together with that of his sector and quadrant already mentioned. His fame having reached the ears of his sovereign, prince Charles gave directions, that he should draw the lines upon the dials in Whitehall garden, which were destroyed in Charles Il.'s time, and give a description and use of them; and king James ordered him to print the book the same year, 1624. There was, it seems, a square sj;one there before of the same si?e and form, having five dials upon the upper part, one upon each of the four corners, and one in the middle, which was the principal dial, being a large horizontal concave; besides these, there were others on the sides, east, west, north, and south; but the lines on our author’s dial, except those which shewed the hour of the day, were greatly different. And Dr. Wallis tells us, that one of these was a meridian, in fixing of which great care was taken, a large magnetic needle being placed upon it, shewing its variation irom that meridian from time to time. If the needle was placed there with that intention by our author, it is a proof that his experiment at Deptford had made so much impression upon him, that he thought it worth while to pursue the discovery of the change in the variation, of which the world would doubtless have reaped the fruits, had his life been continued long enough for it. Unfortunately, however, for science, he died December 10, 1G26, about his forty-fifth year, and in the prim of life, at Gresham college, and was buried in St. Peter the Poor, Broad-street, without any monument or inscription; hut his memory will always be preserved in the mathematical world as an inventor, and the parent of instrumental arithmetic. The 5th edition of his works was published by Mr. Leybourn in 1674, 4to.

, king of Sweden, commonly called the Great, a title which, if great valour united with great wisdom, great magnanimity with regard to himself, and great consideration of the wants and infirmities of others, have any claim, he seems well to have deserved. He was born at Stockholm in 1594. His name Gustavus he inherited from his grandfather Gustavus Vasa, and he was called Adolphus from his grandmother Adolpha. His education was calculated to form a hero, and seems, in all respects, to have resembled that bestowed on Henry the Fourth of France. He had a great genius, a prodigious memory, and a docility and desire of learning almost beyond example. He ascended the throne of Sweden in 1611, being then no more than fifteen; but the choice he made of ministers and counsellors proved him fully adequate to govern. His valour in the field was tried first against Denmark, Muscovy, and Poland. He made an honourable peace with the two first, and compelled the last to evacuate Livonia. He then formed an alliance with the protestants of Germany against the emperor, and what is commonly called the league. In two years and a half he overran all the countries from the Vistula as far as the Danube and the Rhine. Every thing submitted to his power, and all the towns opened to him their gates. In 1631 he conquered Tilly, the imperial general, before Leipsic; and a second time at the passage of the Lech. In the following year, he fought the famous battle in the plains of Lutzen, where he unfortunately fell at the immature age of thirty-eight, Nov. 16, 1632. Besides his other noble qualities he loved and cultivated the sciences. He enriched the university of Upsal; he founded a royal academy at Abo, and an university at Dorp in Livonia. Before his time there were no regular troops in Sweden; but he formed and executed the project of having 80,000 men constantly well armed, disciplined, and cloathed. This he accomplished without difficulty, on account of the love and confidence which his subjects without reserve reposed in their king. Some historians have delighted to draw a parallel between Gustavus and the great Scipio, and it is certain that they had many traits of character in common. Scipio attacked the Carthaginians in their own dominions; and Gustavus undertook to curb the pride of Austria by carrying the war into the heart of her country. Here indeed the advantage is with Gustavus; for, the Carthaginian power was already debilitated; but the emperor’s had before never received any check. He died literally, as it is said of him, with the sword in his hand, the word of command on his tongue, and victory in his imagination. His life has been well written by our countryman Harte; and he appears in all respects to have deserved the high and numerous encomiums which writers of all countries have heaped upon his memory. Some have suspected this exalted character to have lost his life from the intrigues of cardinal Richelieu; others from Lawemburgh, one of his generals, whom Ferdinand the emperor is said to have corrupted. He left an only daughter, whom he had by the princess Mary of Brandenburg, and who succeeded her father at the age of five. This princess was the celebrated Christina queen of Sweden.

, a miscellaneous writer and compiler, whose name is now chiefly preserved by a geographical grammar, which it is said he did not write, was a gentleman descended from an ancient family, being the representative of the Guthries of Haukerton, in the county of Angus, Scotland. He was born at Brichen in that county in 1708, and educated at King’s college, Aberdeen, where he took his degrees, and followed the profession of a schoolmaster. He is said to have removed to London, in consequence of a love-affair, which created some disturbance in his family; others report that having but a small patrimony, and being an adherent of the unfortunate house of Stuart, he could not accept of any office in the state; he came therefore to London, and employed his talents and learning as, what he himself calls, “an author by profession.” His talents and learning were not of the inferior kind, when he chose to employ them leisurely; but he wrote hastily, and often in need, and seems to have cared little for his reputation, by lending his name frequently where he did not contribute with his pen. Among his first employments was that of compiling the parliamentary debates for the Gentleman’s Magazine, before Dr, Johnson had undertook that business; for this purpose Guthrie sometimes attended the house, but more frequently had to depend on very slight information. Connecting himself terwards with the booksellers, he compiled a variety of work among which are “A History of the English Peerage,” “History of the World,” 12 vols. 8vo, “A History of England,” “History of Scotland,” 10 vols. 8vo, and the well-known “Geographical Grammar,” said to have been really compiled by Knox the bookseller. Besides these, he translated “Quintilian,” 3 vols. 8vo, “Cicero’s Offices,” 8vo, and “Cicero’s Epistles to Atticus,” 2 vols. 12mo. Of his original compositions we have heard only of a beautiful poem, “The Eagle and Robin Red-breast,” in the collection of poems called the “Union,” where, however, it is said to be written by Archibald Scott, before 1600; “The Friends, a sentimental history,” 1754, 2 vols. 12mo; and “Remarks on English Tragedy,” a pamphlet. He was engaged, however, in many political papers and pamphlets, to which his name did not appear; and in 1745-6, received a pension of 200l. from government, for the services of his pen, which was continued during his life. In 1762 he renewed the offer of his services to the minister of the day, and they probably were accepted. He had the pen of a ready writer, and his periodical essays were perhaps his best. Much was expected from his “Peerage,” in which he was assisted by Mr. Ralph Bigland, each individual article being submitted to the inspection of the representative of the noble family treated of; yet, notwithstanding all this care, the work abounds with errors, contradictions, and absurdities His “History of England” merits greater praise, and had at least the honour of irritating Horace Wai pole to a gross abuse of Guthrie, because he had anticipated some of Walpole’s opinions concerning Richard III. Guthrie wrote at that time in the Critical Review, and pointed out his own discoveries. Boswell informs us, that Dr. Johnson esteemed Guthrie enough to wish that his life should be written. This, however, was neglected when the means of information were attainable. He died March I', 177O, and was interred in Marybone burial-ground, with a monument and inscription against the east wall.

, called also Gænsfleisch de Sulgeloch, the reputed inventor of the art of printing, was born at Mentz, of noble and wealthy parents, about 1400. In 1427 he came to reside at Strasburgh a merchant, but appears to have returned to Mentz in 1430, and to have been a man of property in 1434. Between this and the year 1439 he had conceived and perhaps made some trials of the art of printing with metal types. In the archives of the city of Mentz, Schoepflin discovered a document of a process carried on by Guttenberg against one George Dritzehen, from which we learn that the former had promised to make the latter acquainted with a secret art that he had recently discovered. In the same document mention is made of four forms kept together by two screws, or press-spindles, and of letters and pages being cut up and destroyed, to prevent any person from discovering the art. The ablest writers have, however, differed upon the subject of the materials with which Guttenberg at first printed. Schoepflin supposed them to have been metal; Fournier, Meerman, and Fischer, were of opinion that they were composed of wood. In the years 1441-2 Guttenberg lived at Strasburg, as a wealthy man, and continued in the same place till 1446, when he returned again to Mentz, and seems to have opened his mind fully tc Fust, a goldsmith of the same place (See Fust), and prevailed on him to advance large sums of money in order to make more complete trials of the art. Between 1450 and 1455, the celebrated Bible of 637 leaves, the first important specimen of printing with metal types, was executed between Guttenberg and Fust. Exclusively of the Bible, Guttenberg is supposed to have printed some other works, but there is no book whatever extant with his name subscribed. He died about the latter end of 1467. More ample information and discussion on the invention of this noble art, and the claims of Guttenberg, may be found in Oberlin’s “Essai sur les annales de la vie de Jean Gutenberg,” 1801; Fischer’s “Essai sur les monumens Typographiques de Gutenberg,” 1802, 4to Danou’s “Analyse des opinions diverses sur l'origine de Plmprimerie,” 1803, Svojand the better known works of Schoepflin, Meerman, Fournier, Heinecken, and Lambinet.

, an eminent dissenting divine, of the independent persuasion, was a native of Hertford, where he was born in 1680, and having shewn a pious disposition from his youth, was admitted a member of the dissenting congregation of that place. He afterwards pursued his studies, with a view to the ministry, under Mr. Payne of Saffron Walden, and being admitted to preach at the age of twenty, became assistant to the rev. Mr. Haworth of Hertford, whom he afterwards succeeded in that congregation. Here he continued some years, and was very successful in opposing the Arian doctrines which had crept in among his Hock; and to strengthen his efforts he published in 1719, a small volume on the divinity of Christ, and in 1721, another on the divinity of the Holy Ghost. In 1727 he was invited to London, and became minister to a congregation in New Broad-street. In 1732 he received the degree of D. D. from one of the universities of Scotland. Besides his regular duty at New Broad-street, he was for niany years a preacher of the Tuesday’s lecture at Pinners* Hall, and of that at St. Helen’s on a Friday. In his avowal of his religious principles (those called Calvinistic) he was open, steady, and consistent, and his character and conduct were, in every point of view, uniform, and amiable. The goodness of his natural disposition, heightened by a spirit of real religion, exerted him to an activity which rendered his life very important. He was a kind and useful friend to the young, and extremely liberal to the poor, always devoting a tenth part of his annual income to charitable uses. After enjoying a considerable share of health for many years, he became lame and blind, but was enabled to continue his public services almost to the time of his death, which took place Nov. 22, 1761. Jle published a great variety of occasional sermons, and of pious tracts, and had a short controversy with Dr. Chandler, in which the latter is said to have appeared to very little advantage. But his great work was his “Paraphrase on the New Testament,” 1739 1752, 3 vols. 4to, and reprinted in 6 vols. 8vo, which is said to display a sound judgment, intimate acquaintance with the original, and considerable critical powers.

Gyllenborg afterwards waited on Charles XII. and was appointed, with baron Goertz, minister-plenipotentiary at the conferences of pacification which were opened with the court of Russia in the isle of Aland, but which terminated without success. In 1719 he was raised to the dignity of high chancellor of Sweden. In the beginning of the following year he also acted an important part in the negociations respecting the accession of Frederick I. to the throne, and gained constantly greater influence during the reign of this monarch, who appointed him counsellor of the Swedish empire, and chancellor of the university of Lund; and in 1739, when a great change took place in the senate and ministry, in which he took an active part, he was made president of chancery, minister for the foreign and home departments, and soon after chancellor of tin* university of Upsal. He died Dec. 14, 1746, with a high character for political talent, general learning, and ambition to promote learning and science in his country. He left to the university of Upsal, his valuable cabinet of natural history, remarkable for a great number of amphibious productions and corals, which Linnæus has described under the title “Amphibia Gyllenborgiana.” He appears also to have been a man of a religious turn of mind, from his translating into the Swedish language Sherlock’s “Discourse on Death,” but which he could not get licensed, as the Swedish clergy pretended to find some things in it contrary to sound doctrine. He procured it, therefore, to be printed in Holland, and distributed the whole edition for the benefit of his countrymen. He als* translated some English comedies, with alterations suitable to the genius of the Swedes, which were acted with applause at Stockholm. He had a concern in a periodical paper called the “Argus,” printed at Stockholm, but which, owing to the editor meddling imprudently with politics, appears to have been discountenanced. The count married an English lady, second daughter of John Wright, esq. attorney-general of Jamaica, and widow of Elias Deritt, esq. deputy o'f the great wardrobe under the duke of Montague, by whom he had no issue; the counts of his name in Sweden are his collateral relations. His lady’s daughter by Mr. Deritt, accompanying her mother to Sweden, was created countess Gyllenborg, and afterwards married Baron Sparre, on whose dqath she returned to England, where she died in 1766, and her daughter by the Baron died at Thirske in Yorkshire in 1778.

, who is said to have first suggested the weekly meetings of the royal society, and was one of its first fellows when established after the restoration, was born in 1605, at Newhausen, near Worms in the Palatinate, and educated at home. In 1625 he came to Oxford, and studied there about half a year, whence he went for the same time to Cambridge. He then visited some of the universities abroad, but returned to Oxford in 1629, and became a commoner of Gloucester-hall (now Worcester college). Here he remained three years, but without taking a degree, and, as Wood says, was made a deacon by Dr. Joseph Hall, the celebrated bishop of Exeter. He does not, however, appear to have proceeded farther in ecclesiastical ordination, and both in his translation of the “Dutch Annotations,” and in the lists of the royal society, we find him afterwards styled “Theodore Haak, Esq.” In the time of the German wars he was appointed one of the procurators to receive the benevolence money, which was raised in several dioceses in England to be transmitted to Germany, which he used to say “was a deacon’s work.” When the rebellion broke out in this country, he appears to have favoured the interests of parliament. In 1657 he published in 2 vols, folio, what is called the “Dutch Annotations upon the whole Bible,” which is a translation of the Dutch Bible, ordered by the synod of Dort, and first published in 1637. Wood says that the Dutch translators were assisted in this undertaking by bishops Carleton, Davenant, Hall, and other English divines, who were members of the synod of Dort; but, according to the preface, the only assistance they gave was in laying before the synod an account of the manner in which king James’s translation had been performed by the co-operation of a number of the most eminent divines in England. The synod accordingly adopted the same plan; and their annotations being considered of great value to biblical students, the Westminster assembly of divines employed Haak in making this English translation, and the parliament granted him a sole right in it for fourteen years from the time of publication. Haak also translated into Dutch several English books of practical divinity, and one half of Milton’s “Paradise Lost.” He left nearly ready for the press, a translation of German proverbs, but it does not appear that this was published. He was in 1645 one of several ingenious men (Dr. Wilkins, Dr. Wallis, Dr. Goddard, &c.) who agreed to meet once a week to discourse upon subjects connected with mathematics and natural philosophy, and it was he who first suggested this humble plan on which, the royal society was afterwards formed. Mr. Haak died at the house of his kinsman Dr. Slare, a physician near Fetter-lane, London, May 9, 1690, and was buried in St. Andrew’s church, Holborn. Dr. Horneck preached his funeral sermon. He appears to have been the friend and correspondent of the most learned men of his time, and has some observations and letters in the “Philosophical Collections,” published in May 1682. There is a portrait of him in the picture gallery at Oxford, which has never been engraved.

After the restoration of Charles II. he recovered all his preferments, and was offered the bishopric of Gloucester, which he refused; but he accepted shortly after that of Lichfield and Coventry, and was consecrated December 22, 1661. The spring following he repaired to Lichfield, where, finding the cathedral almost battered to the ground, he rebuilt it in eight years, in a very magnificent style, at the expence of 20,000l. of which he had 1000l. from the dean and chapter; and the rest was of his own charge, or procuring from benefactors. He laid out lOOOl. upon a prebendal house, which he was forced to live in, his palaces at Lichfield and Ecclestiall having been demolished during the civil war. He added to Trinity college, in Cambridge, a building called Bishop’s hostel, which cost him 1200l. ordering that the rents of the chambers should be laid out in books for the college library. Besides these acts of munificence, he left several benefactions by will; as 50l. to Clare-hall, 50l. to St. John’s college, and all his books, which cost him about 1500l. to the university library. He died at Lichfield, October 21, 1670, and was buried in the cathedral, under a handsome tomb, erected by his eldest son sir Andrew Hacket, a muster in chancery: he was twice married, and had several children by both his wives.

In 1611 we find Edmund Hakluyt, the son of our author, entered a student of Trinity college, Cambridge. In the same year, the northern discoverers, in a voyage to Peckora in Russia, called a full and active current they arrived at, by the name of Hakluyt’s River; and, in 1614, it appears that the banner and arms of the king of England were erected at Hakluyt’s Headland above-mentioned. Our historian died November 23, 1616, and was buried in Westminster-abbey. His ms remains, which might have made another volume, falling into the hands of Mr. Purchas, were dispersed by him throughout his “Pilgrimage,” printed 1613 1625, in 5 vols. fol. His own work, having become uncommonly scarce, was lately reprinted in five handsome quarto volumes, with some valuable additions.

, a most learned lawyer, an$ upright judge, was born at Alderley, in Gloucestershire, November J, 1609. His father was a barrister of Lincoln’s Inn, a man of such tenderness of conscience, as to withdraw from his profession because unwilling to tamper with truth in giving that colour to pleadings which barristers call doing their best for their client;" and this, with some other practices, customary in those days, appearing unworthy of his character, he retired to his estate in the country, where he died in 1614, at which time his son was but five years old. His wife having died two years before, their son was committed to the guardianship of Anthony Kingscot, esq. to whom he was related, and by whom, for grammatical learning, he was placed under the care of Mr. Staunton, vicar of Wotton-under-Edge, a noted puritan. In 1626 he was admitted of Magdalen-hall, Oxford, under the* tuition of Obadiah Sedgwick, another puritan, where he laid the foundation of that learning and knowledge, on which he afterwards raised so vast a superstructure. Here, however, he fell into many levitres and exr travagances, and was preparing to go along with his tutor, who went chaplain to lord Vere into the Low Countries, with a resolution of entering himself into the prince of Orange’s army, when he was diverted from this design by being engaged in a law-suit with sir William Whitmore, who laid claim to part of his estate. Afterwards, by the persuasions of Serjeant Glanville, who happened to be his counsel in this case, and had an opportunity of observing his capacity, he resolved upon the study of the law, and was admitted of Lincoln’s Inn, November 8, 1629. Sensible of the time he had lost in frivolous pursuits, he nowstudied at the rate of sixteen hours a day, and threw aside all appearance of vanity in his apparel. He is said, indeed, to have neglected his dress so much, that, being a strong and well-built man, he was once taken by a pressgang, as a person very fit for sea-service; which pleasant mistake made him regard more decency in his cloaths for the future, though never to any degree of extravagant finery. What confirmed him still more in a serious and regular way of life, was an accident, which is related to have befallen one of his companions. Hale, with other young students of the inn, being invited out of town, one of the company called for so much wine, that, notwithstanding all Hale could do to prevent it, he went on in his excess till he fell down in a fit, seemingly dead, and was with some difficulty recovered. This particularly affected Hale, in whom the principles of religion had been early implanted, and therefore retiring into another room, and, falling down upon his knees, he prayed earnestly to God, both for his friend, that he might be restored to life again, and for himself, that he might be forgiven for being present and countenancing so much excess: and he vowed to God, that he would never again keep company in that manner, nor drink a health while he lived. His friend recovered; and from this time Mr. Hale forsook all his gay acquaintance, and divided his whole time between the duties of religion and the studies of his profession. Noy, the attorney-general, who was one of the most eminent men of his profession, took early notice of him, directed him in his studies, and discovered so much friendship for him, that Mr. Hale was sometimes called Young Noy.

Some time before the civil wars broke out, he was called to the bar, and began to make a figure in the world; but, observing how difficult it was to preserve his integrity, and yet live securely, he resolved to follow those two maxims of Pomponius Atticus, who lived in similar times; viz. “To engage in no faction, nor meddle in public business, and constantly to favour and relieve those that were lowest.” He often relieved the royalists in their necessities, which so ingratiated him with them, that he became generally employed by them in his profession. He was one of the counsel to the earl of Strafford, archbishop Laud, and king Charles himself 5 as also to the duke of Hamilton, the earl of Holland, the lord Capel, and the lord Craven. Being esteemed a plain honest man, and of great knowledge in the law, he was equally acceptable to the presbyterians and the loyalists. In 1643 he took the covenant, and appeared several times with other lay -persons among the assembly of divines. He was then in great esteem with the parliament, and employed by them in several affairs, particularly in the reduction of the garrison at Oxford; being as a lawyer added to the commissioners named by the parliament to treat with those appointed by the king. In that capacity he was instrumental in saving the university, by advising them, especially the general Fairfax, to preserve that seat of learning from ruin. Afterwards, though no man more lamented the murder of Charles I. he took the oath called “The Engagement;” and, January 1651-2, was one of those appointed to consider of the reformation of the law. Cromwell, who well knew the advantage it would be to have the countenance of such a man as Hale to his courts, never left importuning him, till he accepted the place of one of the justices of the common bench, as it was called; for which purpose he was by writ made serjeant at law January 25, 1653-4. In that station he acted with great integrity and courage. He had at first serious scruples concerning the authority under which he was to act and, after having gone two or three circuits, he refused to sit any more on the crown side that is, to try any more criminals*. He had indeed so carried himself in some trials, that the powers then in being were not unwilling he should withdraw himself from meddling any farther in them; of which Burnet gives the following instance. Soon after he was made a judge, a trial was brought before him, upon the circuit at Lincoln, concerning the murder of one of the townsmen who had been of the king’s army, and was killed by a soldier of the garrison there. He was in the field with a fowling-piece on his shoulder, which the soldier seeing, he came to him, and said, he was acting

, an eminent scholastic divine of the thirteenth century, is supposed by some to have been a native of Gloucestershire, but others think he was a native of Hales in Norfolk. He was educated probably at Oxford, whence he went to the university of Paris, studied divinity and the canon law, and excelled so in both as to be called the “Irrefragable Doctor,” and the “Fountain of Life.” Nothing indeed can exceed the encomiums bestowed upon him in extravagance, although he appears to have been a good man, and well versed in the learning of his time. In 1222 he entered into the order of the Friars Minims, and took up his principal residence at Paris, where he died August 27, 1245. By order of Innocent IV. he wrote a commentary on the four books of sentences, or “Sum of Divinity,” printed at Nuremberg, 1482, and often reprinted; but there is a commentary on the sentences printed at Lyons in 1515, with his name to it, which is not his and Dupin is inclined to think that the “Sum of the Virtues,” Paris, 1509, and the “Destructorium Vitiorum,” Nuremberg, 1496, and Venice, 1582, are improperly attributed to his pen. Other works are enumerated by Dupin, of which doubts may be entertained, and many of his Mss. are said to be lost, but neither the authenticity of the one, or the loss of the other, "will now be thought matters of much interest or regret.

On May 24 of this year, Mr. Hales quitted his fellowship at Merton, and was admitted fellow of Eton college. He was then in orders, and had acquired fame as a preacher. In 1616 he held a correspondence with Mr. Oughtred, as appears by a letter of his to that excellent mathematician, printed in the General Dictionary, hi 1618 he accompanied sir Dudley Carlton, ambassador to the Hague, as his chaplain, by which means he procured admission into the synod of Dort, though he was not properly a member. This indeed seems to have been his principal view in accompanying sir Dudley, who, besides his brother the bishop of Llandaff, first English commissioner, recommended him to Bogerman, president of the synod, and some other leading men. Ail this afforded him a favourable opportunity of collecting that information respecting the proceedings of the synod, which was afterwards published in his “Golden Remains.” The effect of these proceedings on his own mind was, that he became a convert to Arminianism. His friend Mr. Faringdon. informs us that “in his younger days he was a Calvinist, but that some explanation given by Episcopius* of the text in St. John iii. 16, induced him, as he said, to” bid John Calvin good night.“It does not appear, however, from his sermons, that he became a decided anti-predestinarian, although he pleads strongly for a toleration between the two parties, and thinks they may remain in Christian charity with each other. It is more remarkable that he should be induced by the arguments advanced in this synod, to think with indifference of the divinity of Jesus Christ as a necessary article of faith. This, however, seems obvious from some passages in his” Tract on Schism;“and such was his free and open manner both of talking and writing on these subjects, that he soon incurred the suspicion of inclining to Socinianism. Dr. Heylin went so far as to attribute two works to him, published with fictitious names, which have been since printed in the” Phoenix;" but it has been proved that they were written by Socinian authors. His biographers, however, all allow that he may be classed among those divines who were afterwards called Latitudinarians. He returned from the synod Feb. 8, 1619.

“Hales, set by himself, most gravely did smile To see them about nothing keep such a coil. Apollo had spied him, but knowing his mind, Past by, and called Falkland that sat just behind.” But there is no proof that Mr. Hales of Eton was meant here, and still less proof of a letter in verse by sir John Suckling having been written to Mr. Hales at Eton, and beginning“” Sir, whether these lines do find you out," &c. It has more the appearance of one written to some person, at Oxford or Cambridge, than at Eton.

Dr. Hales, having been elected a fellow of the royal society in 1717, communicated to that learned body his first essay in Vegetable Physiology, containing an account of some experiments concerning the effect of the sun’s heat in raising the sap. In 1727 appeared the first edition of his “Vegetable Staticks,” in 8vo, illustrated by plates, of which a second edition was published in 1731, followed afterwards by several others. This work was translated into French by Buffon in 1735, and into Italian by a Neapolitan lady named Ardinghelli, in 1756. There are also German and Dutch editions. The original book was, in fact, the first volume of a work entitled “Statical Essays,” of which the second, relating to the circulation of the blood in animals, was called “Hemastaticks,” and came out in 1733. In this the subject of the urinary calculus also is treated chemically and medically. With a laudable view of preventing as well as curing, the sufferings and crimes of his fellow-creatures, this good man published anonymously “a friendly admonition to the drinkers of gin, brandy, and other spirituous liquors,” which has often been reprinted and distributed gratis, by those who consider the temporal and eternal interests of their fellow subjects rather than the increase of the revenue. His invention of a ventilator for mines, prisons, hospitals, and the holds of ships, laid before the royal society in 1741, and applied also to the ventilation and consequent preservation of corn in granaries, has proved one of the most extensively useful contrivances for the preservation of health and human life. His philosophy was not a barren accumulation for the ignorant to wonder at, or for its professor to repose on in sottish self-sufficiency and uselessness; but an inexhaustible bank, on which his piety and his benevolence were continually drawing. Such philosophy and such learning alone entitle their possessors to authority or respect, and such are the best fruits of religion. In this instance at least they were duly honoured, both at home and abroad. The fame of Hales was widely diffused throughout the learned world, of which he received a most distinguished testimony, in being elected one of the eight foreign members of the French academy of sciences, in 1753, in the place of sir Hans Sloane, who died that same year. In 1732 he had been appointed, by the British government, a trustee for settling a colony in Georgia. He was well acquainted with Mr. Ellis, and other naturalists of his day, with whose views and pursuits of all kinds he ardently concurred; but it does not appear that his foreign correspondence was extensive. His name does not occur among the correspondents of Haller, who nevertheless held him in the highest estimation, as a philosopher and a man. As a vegetable physiologist, Dr. Hales is entitled to the highest honour. His experiments and remarks led the way to those of Du Hamel, Bonnet, and all that have followed. His accuracy of observation, and fidelity of relation, have never been impeached, and his ideas in physics, in many instances, went before the knowledge of his day, and anticipated future discoveries: such are his observations relative to airs, and to vegetable secretions. One of his more able successors in the study of vegetable physiology has doubted the accuracy of one of his plates only, tab. 11, in which three trees, having been united by engrafting their branches, the intermediate one, by the earth being removed from its roots, is left hanging in the air, but an experiment of the late Dr. Hope’s at Edinburgh, upon three willows, of which Dr. Smith was an eye-witness, and which was conducted with success in imitation of this of Hales, puts his account beyond all doubt whatever.

After he had been called to the bar, he became first one of the common Serjeants, and then under-sheriff of the city of London, in both which offices he gave much satisfaction. In 1533 he was appointed summer reader of Gray’s-inn, and in 1540 double reader in Lent, and one of the judges of the sheriffs’ court. About the same time, according to Fox, he was a member of the house of commons, and was one of those who supported the bill for establishing the Six Articles by which popery was in a great measure upheld. He died in 1547, and was buried, but without any memorial, in the church of St. Bennet Sherehog, London. He wrote “The Union of the Houses of York and Lancaster,” Lond. 1548, folio. This was continued only to the reign of Henry VIII. 1532. The continuation to the latter end of that king’s reign in 1546, he left in manuscript, which falling into the hands of Grafton, he completed it, and printed it in 1550. In 1555 it was prohibited by proclamation. A third edition was printed in Lond. 1809, 4to, by the booksellers, who have reprinted the whole of the English Chronicles, with a care and at an expence which cannot be too highly commended.

, a learned English divine, was born in London in 1716. Of his parents little is known. His father is said to have occasionally resided at an old house at Poplar, which had a large hanging garden and a building at the bottom, and this, tradition reported, had been the laboratory of sir Richard Steele. The subject of this memoir was sent early to Eton, admitted on the foundation in 1729; and elected to King’s college, Cambridge, in 1735, where of course he became a fellow in 1738, and took the degrees in arts. Being recommended by Dr. Chapman to archbishop Potter, his grace appointed him his librarian at Lambeth in 1748, on the resignation of Mr. Jones. In that station he continued till the death of his patron in 1749; when archbishop Herring, who succeeded to the primacy, being sensible of his merit, not only continued him in that office, but, on his taking orders, appointed him one of his chaplains; and, in April 1750, collated him to the rectory of Harbledown (vacant by the promotion of Mr, Thomas Herring to the rectory of Chevening); in November 1752, the archbishop collated him also to the vicarage of Herne, which he held by dispensation; to which his grace afterwards added the sinecure rectory of Orpington, in the deanery of Shoreham, one of his peculiars. In 1756, Mr. Hall vacated Herne, on being presented to the vicarage of East Peckham by the dean and chapter of Canterbury, by whom he was much esteemed, having greatly assisted their auditor in digesting many of the records, charters, &c. preserved in their registry. In return, the late Dr. Walwyn (one of the prebendaries, who vacated that vicarage) was called by the archbishop to the rectory of Great Mongeham, void by the death of Mr. Byrch. On the death of archbishop Herring in 1757, he resigned the librarianship of Lambeth, and from that time resided chiefly at Harbledown, in a large house, which he hired, afterwards the seat of Robert Mead Wilmot, esq. Soon after the death of archbishop Herring, Mr. Hall was presented by his executors to the treasurership of the cathedral of Wells, one of his grace’s options. He was also at first a competitor for the precentorship of Lincoln, an option of archbishop Potter (which Dr. Richardson gained in 1760 by a decree of the house of lords); but soon withdrew his claim, well grounded as it seemed. His learning and abilities were great, but not superior to his modesty; and by his singular affability he obtained the love and esteem of all who knew him. His charitable attention to his poor parishioners, especially when they were ill, was constant and exemplary. At archbishop Seeker’s primary visitation at Canterbury, in 1758, Mr. Hall was “pitched upon” (his grace’s official expression) to preach before him at St. Margaret’s church, which he did from Acts xvii. 21. He died a bachelor, at Harbledown, Nov. 2, 1763, in the fortyseventh year of his age, after a short illness, occasioned by a violent swelling in the neck, which could not be accounted for by the eminent physicians who attended him. He was buried under the communion-table, at Harbledown -church, without any epitaph.

, an English poet of some note, was born at Durham, August 1627, and after one year spent at St. John’s college, Cambridge, removed to Gray’s-inn, London, where he was called to the bar; but entering into the politics of the times, and writing on subjects favourable to the rebellion, he attracted the notice of parliament, who sent him into Scotland to attend Oliver Cromwell, and afterwards distinguished him by other marks of favour: but, being too much addicted to pleasure, he fell a sacrifice to its indulgence; and returning to his native city of Durham, died there, August 1, 1656. In 1646 (during his short residence at Cambridge), being then but nineteen years of age, he published “Horas Vacivse, or Essayes,” a sufficient proof of his abilities. His poems came out the same year. He published the first English version of Longinus, which he entitled “The Height of Eloquence,” Lond. 1652, 8vo. This he translated from the Greek, as he also did “Hierocles upon the Golden Verses of Pythagoras;” before which is an account of the ingenious translator and his works, by John Davis of Kidwelly, by whom it was published in 1657, 8vo. Several of his poems are preserved in Nichols’s “Select Collection,” reprinted from a little volume, entitled “Poems by John Hall, Cambridge, printed by Roger Daniel, printer to the universitie, 1646, for J. Rothwell at the Sun in St. Paul’s Churchyard,” to which in 1647 was added “The Second Booke of Divine Poems by J. H.” which is now become exceedingly scarce. Recommendatory verses are prefixed to it by Jo. Pawson (his tutor), H. More, W. Dillingham, W. Harrington, Ja. Windet, R. Marshall, T. Smithsby, and Edw. Holland.

It must be allowed that the religious principles which he inculcated from the pulpit and the press, were much more consonant to what the puritans maintained, than the lax Arminianism for which Laud contended, but at the same time bishop Hall’s zeal for episcopacy was not inferior to that of any supporter of the church. Few men, indeed, wrote more, or suffered more, in the cause. He published, even when publishing became hazardous, several able treatises in defence of the liturgy and church discipline; and was the powerful antagonist of Marshall, Calamy, Young, Newcomen, and Spurstow, who wrote a celebrated book called Smectymnuus (a title made up of their initials, Christian and surname), and all this he boldly ventured, when the republican party had possessed themselves of the fortresses of civil and ecclesiastical government, and were about to substitute power for argument; nor was it long before they made him experience the dangers of a high station in the church.

He had from his first admission into college, pursued a general scheme for ascertaining the true places of the fixed stars, and thereby correcting the errors of Tycho Brahe. His original view was to carry on the design of that first restorer of astronomy, by completing the catalogue of those stars from his own observations; but upon farther inquiry, finding this province taken up by Hevelius and Flamsteed, he dropped that pursuit, and formed another; which was, to perfect the whole scheme of the heavens by the addition of the stars which lie so near the south pole that they could not be observed by those astronomers, as never rising above the horizon either at Dantzick or Greenwich. With this view he left the university, before he had taken a degree, and applied himself to sir Joseph Williamson, then secretary of state, and to sir Jonas Moore, surveyor of the ordnance, both encouragers of these studies; who, applauding his purpose, mentioned it to Charles II. The king was much pleased with the plan, and immediately recommended him to the East India Company, who readily promised to supply him with every convenience, and to carry him to St. Helena, then in their possession by a grant from the crown, which he had been told was a proper situation for his design. Accordingly he embarked for that island November 1676, and arriving there safely in three months, began his task; but the frequent fogs which hover over the island made it much more difficult than he expected, and it was only by embracing every opportunity which offered during his abode on the island, that he was enabled to execute his purpose. He ascertained the position of 350 Stars, and published an account of his labours in 1676, under the title of “Catalogus Stellarum Australian.” In honour of his royal patron, he formed a new southern constellation, to which he gave the name of “Kobur Carolinum,” or the “Royal Oak.” During his stay at St. Helena, he had an opportunity of observing the transit of Mercury over the sun’s disk; an observation of some importance, because it could not be completely made in Europe, the sun not being risen in that country at the beginning of the transit. Having returned to England November 1678, the king, greatly satisfied, gave him, at his own request, a letter of mandamus to the university of Oxford for the degree of M. A. the words of which are, that “his majesty has received a good account of his learning as to the mathematics and astronomy, whereof he has gotten a good testimony by the observations he has made during his abode in the island of St. Helena.” This letter was dated November 18, and the same month he was also chosen fellow of the royal society. Indeed his catalogue of these southern stars merited particular honour; it was an entirely new acquisition to the astronomical world, and might not unaptly be called “Ccelum Australe eo usque incognitum;” and thence he acquired a just claim to the title, which by Flamsteed was not long after given him, the Southern Tycho.

In 1679 he was appointed by the royal society to go to Dantzick, for the satisfaction of Hevelius the consul, to adjust a dispute between him and our Hooke, about the preference of plain or glass sights in astroscopical instruments. He set out May 14 of this year, with a letter recommendatory from the society, and arrived at that city on the 26th. He waited on the consul immediately, and after some conversation, agreed to enter upon the business of his visit that same night; on which, and every night afterwards, when the sky permitted, the two astronomers made their observations together till July 18, when Halley left Dantzick, and returned to England. Here he continued till the latter end of the following year, 1680; when he set out upon what is usually called the grand tour, accompanied by the celebrated Mr. Nelson, who had been his school-fellow, and was his friend. They crossed the water in December to Calais; and in the mid-way thence to Paris, Haliey had, first of any one, a sight of the remarkable comet as it then appeared a second time that year in its return from the sun. He had the November before seen it in its descent, and now hastened to complete his observations upon it, in viewing it from the royal observatory of France. That building had been finished not many years before; and Halley’s design in this part of his tour was to settle a friendly correspondence between the two royal astronomers of Greenwich and Paris; embracing in the mean time every opportunity of improving himself under so great a master as Cassini, as he had done before under Hevelius. From Paris he went with his fellow-traveller, by the way of Lyons, to Italy, where he spent a great part of the year 1681; but his affairs then calling him home, he left Mr. Nelson at Rome, and returned to England, after making some stay a second time at Paris.

, a learned English prelate, was born at Mansfield in Derbyshire, Jan. 18, 1733. He was the eldest son of Mr. Samuel Hallifax, apothecary, by Hannah, daughter of Mr. Jebb, of Mansfield, by which alliance our author became first cousin of the late sir Richard, and Dr. John Jebb. He was admitted of Jesus college, Cambridge, where he distinguished himself in his academical exercises, and he was in the list of wranglers, as they are called, and obtained the chancellor’s gold medal forclassical learning, and some prize dissertations. He proceeded A. B. in 1744, and A.M. in 1747, and afterwards removed to Trinity Hall (where are only two fellowships in divinity), and proceeded LL.D. in 1761. In Nov. 1765 he was presented to the rectory of Chaddington, in Buckinghamshire, and in 1768 was elected professor of Arabic in the university of Cambridge, which he resigned in 1770 on being made regius professor of civil law. In February 1774 he was appointed chaplain in ordinary to his majesty; in 1775 was created D. D. by royal mandate, and on the death of Dr. Topham succeeded him as master of the faculties in Doctors Commons. From Mrs. Galley, relict of Dr. Galley, prebendary of Gloucester, he received, without any solicitation on his part, but merely as a reward for his eminent services in the cause of religion, the valuable rectory of Warsop, in Nottinghamshire, in 1778. In 1781 he was advanced to the see of Gloucester, and thence was translated to the see of St. Asaph in 1787, being the first English bishop that was translated to that see, and the second that was translated to a bishopric in North Wales. He died of the stone, March 4, 1790, when only fifty-seven years of age. He married one of the daughters of Dr. Cooke, provost of King’s college, Cambridge, who wrote the elegant epitaph on his monument in the church of Warsop, where bishop Hallifax was buried at his own desire, near a favourite son who was interred there. By his wife he left another son and six daughters.

, a pious Scotch divine, and professor of divinity in the university of St. Andrew’s, was born at Duplin in the parish of Aberdalgy, near Perth, Dec. 25, 1674. His father had been minister of that parish, from which he was ejected after the restoration, for nonconformity. He died in 1682, and as the country was still unsafe for those who professed the presbyterian religion, his mother went over to Holland with her son, then about eight years old. During their stay there, he was educated at Erasmus’s school, and made great proficiency in classical literature. On his return to Scotland in 1687, he resumed his studies, and was also sent to the university. When he had finished his philosophical course there, he entered upon the study of divinity; and being, in June 1699, licensed to preach, he was in May 1700, appointed minister of the parish of Ceres, in which he performed the part of a zealous and pious pastor; but his labours proving too many for his health, the latter became gradually impaired. In April 1710, he was appointed by patent from queen Anne, professor of divinity in the college of St. Leonard at St. Andrew’s, through the mediation of the synod of Fife. On this occasion he entered on his office an inaugural oration, in qua, post exhibitam rationem suscepti muneris, examinatur schedula nupera, cui titulus ' Epistola Archimedis ad Regem Gelonem Albae Graecae reperta anno serae Christianas 1688, A. Pitcarnio, M. D. ut vulgo creditur, auctoreV Pitcairn’s reputation as a deist was at that time very common in Scotland, however justly he may have deserved it; and Mr. Halyburton’s attention had been much called to the subject of deism as revived in the preceding century. He did not, however, enjoy his professorship long, dying Sept. 23, 1712, aged only thirty-eight. It does not appear that he published any thing in his life-time; but soon after his death two works were published, which still preserve his memory in Scotland. 1. “The Great Concern of Salvation,” 1721, 8vo. 2. “Ten Sermons preached before and after the celebration of the Lord’s Supper,” 1722. But the work which proves his ability as a controversial writer, and the great extent of his reading, although it is less known than the preceding, is his “Natural Religion insufficient; and Revealed necessary to man’s happiness,” Edinburgh, 1714, 4to. This was written in confutation of the deism of lord Herbert and Mr. Blount. In this elaborate performance he largely and distinctly shews that the light of nature is greatly defective, even with respect to the discoveries of a Deity, and the worship that is to be rendered to him with respect to the inquiry concerning man’s true happiness with respect to the rule of duty, and the motives for enforcing obedience, &c. Dr. Leland says that “whosoever carefully examines what this learned and pious author has offered on these several heads, will find many excellent things; though the narrowness of his notions in some points has prejudiced some persons against his work, and hindered them from regarding and considering it so much as it deserves.”

, earl of Orkney, a brave officer, was the fifth son of William earl of Selkirk, and very early embraced the profession of arms. In March 1689-90 he was made a colonel, and distinguished himself with particular bravery at the battle of the Boyne, under king William, July 1, 1690; and those of Aghrim, July 12, 1691; of Steinkirk, Aug. 3, 1692, and of Lauden, July 19, 1693. Nor did he appear to less advantage at the sieges of Athlone, Limerick, and Namur. His eminent services in Ireland and Flanders through the whole course of the war, recommended him so highly to the favour of William III. that on Jan. 10, 1695-6, he was advanced to the dignity of a peer of Scotland, by the title of earl of Orkney. His lady, likewise, whom he married in 1695, and who was the daughter of sir Edward Villiers, knight-marshal, and a special favourite with the king, received a grant under the great seal of Ireland, of almost all the private estates of the abdicated king James, of very considerable value. Upon the accession of queen Anne, the earl of Orkney was promoted to the rank of majorgeneral March 9, 1701-2, to that of lieutenant-general Jan. 1, 1703-4, and in February following was made knight of the thistle. In 1704 his lordship was at the battle of Blenheim, which was crowned with so important a victory in favour of the allies; and he made prisoners of war a body of 1300 French officers and 12,000 common soldiers, who had been posted in the village of Blenheim. In July 1705, he was detached with 1200 men to march before the main body of the army, and to observe the march of a great detachment of the enemy, which marshal Villars had sent off to the Netherlands, as soon as he found the march of the allies was directed thither; and his lordship used such expedition, that he seasonably reinforced the Dutch, and prevented marshal Villeroy’s taking the citadel of Liege, about which his troops were then formed. The next month his lordship marched with fourteen battalionsof foot, and twenty-four squadrons of horse, to support the passage over the Dyle, which was immediately effected. In July 1706, he assisted at the siege of Menin; and on Feb. 12, 1706-7, was elected one of the sixteen peers for Scotland, to sit in the first parliament of Great Britain after the union. The same year he again served under the duke of Marlborough in Flanders; being in the latter end of May detached with seven battalions of foot from Meldart to the pass of Louvain, in order to preserve the communication with it, and on that side of Flanders; which his lordship did, and abode there during the time of the allied army’s encamping at Meldart. When they decamped on Aug. 1, to Nivelle, within two leagues of the French army, and a battle was expected, the earl, with twelve battalions of foot, and thirty squadrons of horse and dragoons, and all the grenadiers of the army, advanced a little out of the front of it, and lay all night within cannon-shot of the enemy; and the next morning charged their rear in their retreat for above a league and a half, and killed, disabled, and caused to desert, above 4000 of them. In the beginning of September following his lordship was again detached with another considerable body of troops to Turquony, under a pretence of foraging by the Scheld, but really with the design of drawing the enemy thither from Tournay to battle, and getting between them and the city. In November 1708, the earl commanded the van of the army at the passing of the Scheld; and in June the year following, assisted at the siege of Tournay, and took St. Amand and St. Martin’s Sconce; and on Aug. 20, was detached from the camp at Orchies towards St. Guilliampass, on the river Heine, towards the northward of Moms, in order to attack and take it, for the better passage of the army to Mons; and on the 30th of that month, was present at the battle of Malplaquet. In 1710 he was sworn of the privy-council; and made general of foot in Flanders, and in 1712 colonel of the royal regiment of foot-guards called the fuzileers, and served in Flanders under the duke of Ormond. In October, 1714, his lordship was appointed gentleman extraordinary of the bed-chamber to king George I. and on Dec. 17 following, governor of Virginia. He was likewise afterwards constable, governor and captain of Edinburgh castle, lord-lieutenant of the county of Clydesdale, and field-marshal. He died in London, at his house in Albemarle-street, Jan, 29, 1736-7.

Some of Hamilton’s poems were first published at Glasgow in 1748, and afterwards reprinted, not only without the author’s name, but without his consent, and even without his knowledge. He corrected, however, many errors of that copy, and enlarged some of the poems, though he did not live to make a new and complete publication. The improvements he made were carefully inserted in the edition published at Edinburgh in 1760, with the addition of many pieces taken from his original manuscripts. Since that time, although they have been inserted in the new edition of the English Poets, there has been no demand for a separate edition. It would be of importance, but it is seldom easy, to account for the various fates of poets. Hamilton, if not of the first class, and in whom we find only those secondary qualities which professor Richardson has so ably pointed out in the “Lounger,” surely excels some whose works are better known and more current. The neglect which he has experienced naay be partly attributed to his political principles, and partly to the local interest which his effusions excited, and to which they were long confined. Verses of compliment and personal addresses tnust have extraordinary merit, if they attract the notice of distant strangers. Prejudice, however, is now at an end, and the friends of Scottish genius, who have lately called the attention of the puhlic to this writer, have proved that he deserves a higher rank than has yet been assigned to him. He is perhaps very unequal, and the blemishes in his verse and diction to which professor Richardson has alluded are frequent, yet it is no inconsiderable merit to have been one of the first of his countrymen who cultivated the purity and harmony of the English language, and exhibited a variety of composition and fertility of sentiment that are rarely to be found in the writings of those whose poetical genius is of the second degree.

, a learned English divine, was born at Chertsey in Surrey, August 18, 1605; and was the youngest son of Dr. John Hammond, physician to Henry prince of Wales, svho was his godfather, and gave him his own name. In his infancy he was remarkable for sweetness of temper, the love of privacy, and a devotional turn. He was educated at Eton-school, and sent to Magdalen-college, Oxford, in 1618; of which, after taking his degrees in a regular way, he was elected fellow in July 1625. During the whole of his residence here, he generally spent thirteen hours every day in study; in the course of which he not only went through the usual academic studies, but read almost all the classics, writing emendations, critical remarks, &c. as he proceeded. Having applied himself also with great diligence to the study of divinity, he was admitted to holy orders in 1629, and soon, after took the degree of bachelor of divinity. In 1633 he was presented to the rectory of Penshurst in Kent, by Robert Sidney earl of Leicester. That nobleman, happening to be one of his auditors while he was supplying a turn at court for Dr. Frewen, the president of his college, and one of his majesty’s chaplains, was-so deeply affected with the sermon, and conceived so high an opinion of the preacher’s merit, that he conferred on him this living, then void, and in his gift. Upon this he quitted his college, and went to his cure, where he resided as long as the times permitted him, punctually performing every branch of the ministerial function in the most diligent and exemplary manner. In 1639 he took the degree of D. D.; in 1640, was chosen one of the members of the convocation, called with the long parliament, which began that year; and, in. 1643, made archdeacon of Chichester by the unsolicited favour of Dr. Brian Duppa, then bishop of Chichester, and afterwards of Winchester. The same year also he was named one of the assembly of divines, but never sat amongst them.

, of Hamden, in Buckinghamshire, a celebrated political character in the reign of Charles I. was born at London in 1594. He was of as ancient (Whitlocke says the ancientest) extraction as any gentleman in his county; and cousin-german to Oliver Cromwell, his father having married the protector’s aunt. In 1609 he was sent to Magdalen college in Oxford whence, without taking any degree, be removed to the inns of court, and made a considerable progress in the study of the law. Sir Philip Warwick observes, that “he had great knowledge both in scholarship and the law.” In his entrance into the world, he is said to have indulged himself in all the licence of sports, and exercises, and company, such as were used by men of the most jovial conversation; but afterwards to have retired to a more reserved and austere society, preserving, however, his natural cheerfulness and vivacity. In the second parliament of king Charles, which met at Westminster, February 1625-6, he obtained a seat in the house of commons, as he also did in two succeeding parliaments; but made no figure till 1636, when he became universally known, by a solemn trial at the king’s bench, on his refusing to pay the ship-money. He carried himself, as Clarendon tells us, through this whole suit with such singular temper and modesty, that he obtained more credit and advantage by losing it, than the king did service by gaining it. From this time he soon grew to be one of the most popular men in the nation, and a leading member in the long parliament. “The eyes of all men,” says the same writer, “were fixed upon him as their pater patrite, and the pilot that must steer the vessel through the tempests and rocks which threatened it.” After he had held the chief direction of his party in the house of commons against the king, he took up arms in the same cause, and was one of the first who opened the war by an action at a place called Brill, a garrison of the king’s, on the edge of Buckinghamshire, about five miles from Oxford. He took the command of a regiment of foot under the earl of Essex, and shewed such skill and bravery, that, had he lived, he would; probably, soon have been raised to the post of a general. But he was cut off early by a mortal wound, which he received in a skirmish with prince Rupert, at Chalgrove-field, in Oxfordshire, where, it is generally reported, he was shot in the shoulder with a brace of bullets, which broke the bone, June 18, 1643; and, after suffering much pain and misery, he died the 24th, an event which affected his party nearly as much as if their whole army had been defeated . “Many men observed,” says Clarendon, “that the field in which this skirmish was, and upon which Hampden received his deathwound, namely, Chalgrove-field, was the same place in which he had first executed the ordinance of the militia, and engaged that county, in which his reputation was very great, in this rebellion: and it was confessed by the prisoners that were taken that day, and acknowledged by all, that upon the alarm that morning, after their quarters were beaten up, he was exceeding solicitous to draw forces together to pursue the enemy; and, being a colonel of foot, put himself amongst those horse as a volunteer, who were first ready, and that, when the prince made a stand, all the officers were of opinion to stay till their body came up, and he alone persuaded and prevailed with them to advance: so violently did his fate carry him to pay the mulct in the place where he had committed the transgression about a year before. This was an observation made at that time;” but lord Clarendon does not adopt it as an opinion of his own.