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

, his eldest son, was born at Basil in 1541, took his doctor’s degree in 1562, and afterwards became principal physician to Frederick duke of Wirtemberg. In 1561 he attached himself to the celebrated Gessner, under whom he studied botany with great perseverance and success. The principal works by which he gained a lasting name in the annals of that and other sciences, were his 1. “Memorabilis historia luporum aliquot rabidorum,” 1591, 8 vo. 2. “De plantis a divis, sanctisque nomen habentibus,” Basil, 1591, 8vo. 3. “Vivitur ingenio, caetera mortis erunt,” the inscription of a work on insects and plants, but which has no other title, 1592, oblong form. 4. “. De plantis absynthii nomen habentibus,” Montbelliard, 1593, 1599, 8vo. 5. Historia novi et admirabilis fontis, balneique Bollensis,“ib. 1598, 4to. 6.” Historian plantarum prodromus,“Ebroduni (Brinn) 1619, 4to. 7.” Historia plantarum universalis,“3 vols. folio, 1650, 1651. This edition is enriched with the notes of Dominic Chabrans, a physician of Geneva, and the remarks of Robert Moryson, which he first published in his” Hortus Blesensis,“and which, it is now allowed, were unreasonably severe. 8.” De Aquis medicatis, nova methodus, quatuor libris comprehensa," Montbeliarcf, 1605, 1607, 1612, 4to. Bauhin, after being physician to the duke of Wirtemberg for forty years, during which he resided at Montbeliard, died there in 1613.

, brother of the preceding, was born at Basil, Jan. 17, 1.560, and at the early age of sixteen began to study medicine. In 1577 he went to Padua, where he was instructed in botany and anatomy, and afterwards visited the university of Montpellier, and the most celebrated schools of Germany. On his return to Basil in 1580, he took his doctor’s degree, and was appointed by the faculty to lecture on anatomy and botany. In 1582 he was elected professor of Greek; and in 1588 professor of anatomy and botany. In 1596, Frederick duke of Wirtemberg gave him the title of his physician, which he had before conferred on his brother. He was also, in 1614, principal city physician, and in the course of his life four times rector of the university, and eight times dean of the faculty of medicine. He died Dec. 5, 1624, after establishing a very high reputation for his knowledge in botany and anatomy, in both which he published some valuable works. The principal were his representations of plants, and especially what he called the exhibition of the botanical theatre “Phytopinax,” Basil, 1596, 4to, and “Pinax Theatri Botanici,” ib. 1623, 4to), a work which was the fruit of fourteen years collections and labours, and served much to facilitate the study of botany, and to promote its knowledge. Bauhin was not the creator of a system, but he reformed many abuses and defects, especially the confusion of names. He collected the synonymous terms of six thousand plants, which various authors had capriciously assigned to them. This prevented the many mistakes which till then had been made by botanists, who took several descript plants for non-descripts, and gave them few names, only because they had been described too much and too variously. Bauhin himself made several mistakes in this new method, which, however, considering the whole extent of his merit, candour would overlook. After his time botany stood still for some years, the learned thinking it sufficient if they knew and called the plants by the names which Bauhin had given them. Manget and other writers have given a large list of Bauhin’s other works, which we suspect is not quite oprrect, some being attributed to Gaspar which belong to John, and vice versa. Other branches of this family were physicians of eminence in their time, but did not arrive to the same fame as authors.

, who was born at Basil, Dec. 27, 1654. After he had studied polite literature, he learned the old philosophy of the schools and, having taken his degrees in the university of Basil, applied himself to divinity, not so much from inclination, as complaisance to his father. He gave very early proofs of his genius for mathematics, and soon became a geometrician, without any assistance from masters, and at first almost without books for he was not allowed to have any books of this kind and if one fell by chance into his hands, he was obliged to conceal it, that he might not incur the displeasure of his father, who designed him for other studies. This severity made him choose for his device, Phaeton driving the chariot of the sun, with these words, “Invito patre sidera verso,” “I traverse the stars against my father’s inclination” it had a particular reference to astronomy, the part of mathematics to which he at first applied himself. But these precautions did not avail, for he pursued his favourite study with great application. In 1676 he began his travels. When he was at Geneva, he fell upon a method to teach a young girl to write, though she had lost her sight when she was but two months old. At Bourdeaux he composed universal gnomonic tables, but they were never published. He returned from France to his own country in 1680. About this time there appeared a comet, the return of which he foretold, and wrote a small treatise upon it, which he afterwards translated into Latin. He went soon after to Holland, where he applied himself to the new philosophy, and particularly to that part of the mathematics which consists in resolving problems and demonstrations. After having visited Flanders and Brabant, he went to Calais, and passed over to England. At London he contracted an acquaintance with all the most eminent men in the several sciences and had the honour of being frequently present at the philosophical societies held at the house of Mr. Boyle. He returned to his native country in 1682; and exhibited at Basil a course of experiments in natural philosophy and mechanics, which consisted of a variety of new discoveries. The same year he published his “Essay on a new system of Comets” and the year following, his “Dissertation on the weight of the Air.” About this time Leibnitz having published, in the Acta Eruditorum at Leipsic, some essays on his new “Caiulus Differentialis,” but concealing the art and method of it, Mr. Bernoulli and his brother John discovered, by the little which they saw, the beauty and extent of it: this induced them to endeavour to unravel the secret; which they did with such success, that Leibnitz declared that the invention belonged to them as much as to himself.

, the brother of the preceding, and a celebrated mathematician, was born at Basil the 7th of August 1667. His father intended him for trade; but his own inclination was at first for the belles-lettres, which however, like his brother, he left for mathematics. He laboured with his brother to discover the method used by Leibnitz, in his essays on the Differential Calculus, and gave the first principles of the Integral Calculus. Our author, with messieurs Huygens and Leibnitz, was the first who gave the solution of the problem proposed by James Bernoulli, concerning the catenary, or curve formed by a chain suspended by its two extremities.

, the grandson of the preceding John, was born at Basil Nov. 4, 1744, and died at Berlin July 13, 1807. He studied at Basil and Neufchatel, attaching himself chiefly to philosophy, mathematics, and astronomy. At the age of nineteen, he was invited to the place of astronomer in the academy of Berlin, and some years after, having obtained permission to travel, he visited Germany, England, and France, and in his subsequent travels, Italy, Russia, Poland, &c. From the year 1779, he resided at Berlin, where he was appointed head of the mathematical class of the academy. He was also a member of the academies of Petersburg^ and Stockholm, and of the royal society of London. Like all the other branches of his family, he was a laborious writer. The following are the principal productions of his pen, 1. “Recueil pour les Astronomes,” 1772 76, 3 vols. 8vo. 2. “Lettres sur diflPerents sujets, ecrites pendant le cours d‘un voyage par PAllemagne, la Suisse, la France meridionale, et I’ltalie,in 1774 and 1775,” 3 vols. 8vo. 1777—79. 3. “Description d'un Voyage en Prusse, en Russie, et en Pologne, en 1777 et 1778,” first published in German, 1779, 6 vols. but afterwards in French, Warsaw, 1782. 4. “Lettres Astronomiques,” 1781, according to our authority but he published a work under this title about 1772, after he had made a literary excursion in 1768 to England, France, and Germany, containing his observations on the actual state of practical astronomy at Gottingen, Cassel, and other parts of Germany, and at Greenwich, Oxford, Cambridge, London, and Paris. 5. “A collection of voyages,” in German, 16 vols. 1781—1785. 6. “The Archives, or records of History and Geography,” in German, 8 vols. 1783 1788. 7. “De la reforme politique des Juifs,” translated from the German of Dohm, 1782, 12mo. 8. “Elemens d‘Algebre d’Euler,” from the German, Lyons, 1785, 2 vols. 8vo. 9. “Nouvelles litteraires de divers pais,” Berlin, 1776 79, 8vo. He edited also, in conjunction with professor Hindenburg, for three years, the “Mathematical Magazine,” and wrote many papers in the Memoirs of the Berlin Academy, and the Astronomical Ephemerides, published in Berlin.

, considered in the Helvetic school as an artist of the first rank, was born at Basil, in 1661. He acquired the knowledge of design by studying and copying some good punis which were in the possession of his father; and from the appearapce of his having a strong natural talent, he was placed as a disciple with Caspar Meyer. When he quitted Basil, he went to Paris, and had the good fortune to be received into the school of Le Brun and the variety of works in which that eminent master was employed, proved an excellent means of instruction to the young artist. He so pleased Le Brun by the progress he made, that he was intrusted with several designs, under the immediate inspection of that great painter; but the particular respect and preference shewn by the master to the disciple, excited the envy and jealousy of others to such a degree, as might have been attended with unhappy consequences, if Brandmulier had not retired to his own country; though not before he had obtained the prize in the royal academy at Paris. He excelled in history and portrait, and his genius resembled that of Le Brun; his subjects being full of fire, and treated with elevation and grandeur. His design is correct, and his expression animated and just. He had a good method of colouring, laying on each mass in so proper a manner as to avoid breaking or torturing his tints; which made his colours retain their original beauty and strength without fading. He was fond of painting portraits in an historical style, and was generally commended for the resemblance of the persons who were his mpdels, and the agreeable taste in his compositions. He died in 1691, aged only thirty.

, grandson of James, the subject of the last article, followed the profession of the law, in which he became very eminent. He was born at Basil, Sept. 1617, and was educated partly in that city, and partly at Montbeliard. After taking his master’s degree, in 1634, he applied particularly to the study of civil law, but without neglecting philology and philosophy. According to the custom of his countrymen, he travelled fot some time in France, England, Holland, and Germany, where he became acquainted, and established a correspondence with the literati of those countries, particularly with Salmasius. In 1649 he was made doctor of laws, and in 1652 professor of the institutes at Basil: and fourteen years afterwards professor of the Pandects. He was also twice rector of the university. His reputation brought a great concourse of students thither, particularly foreigners, and his agreeable conversation and temper not a little contributed to increase the number of his pupils. Besides his fame as a lawyer, he was not less esteemed for his acquaintance with Roman antiquities and polite literature in general. It is said he wrote verse with as great facility as prose, but his talents in versification have probably been over- rated. He had more reputation from his success as a teacher, and the perspicuous manner in which he lectured on subjects of law. He died Sept. 1677, leaving several professional works “Dispntationes de lege” “Manuductio ad jus canonicum et civile” “Dubia Juridica,” &c.

, the son of the preceding, was born at Basil, in 1599, and became professor of the Oriental language there, with no less taste and skill in the Hebrew and the Rabbins, than his father. He translated some Rabbins, and among others, the “Moreh Nevochim” of Maimonides, and the book entitled Cosri. He also writ upon the Hebrew, Chaldaic, and Syriac grammars. His Hebrew Concordance is much esteemed; and being heir of his father’s opinion as well as Jewish literature, he has defended the antiquity of the points and vowels of the Hebrew text against Lewis Capellus, in a book entitled “Tractatus de punctorum vocalium & accentuum in libris Veteris Testamenti Hebraicis origine, antiquitate, & auctoritate,” Basil, 1648. There is a great number of passages of the Rabbins cited in this book. He has also written another book, much more valuable, against the critiques of the said Ludovicus Capellus, with this title: “Anticritica; seu vindiciæ veritatis Hebraicæ adversus Ludovici Capelli criticam, quam vocat sacram,” Basil, 1653. He composed several dissertations upon different matters relating to the Jewish literature, in which he excelled; and died in 1664.

, a very eminent mathematician, was born at Basil, on the 14th of April, 1707: he was the son of Paul Euler and of Margaret Brucker (of a family illustrious in literature), and spent the first year of his life at the village of Richen, of which place his father was protestant minister. Being intended for the church, his father, who had himself studied under James Bernoulli!, taught him mathematics, as a ground-work of his other studies, or at least a noble and useful secondary occupation. But Euler, assisted and perhaps secretly encouraged by John Bernoulli, who easily discovered that he would be the greatest scholar he should ever educate, soon declared his intention of devoting his life to that pursuit. This intention the wise father did not thwart, but the son did not so blindly adhere to it, as not to connect with it a more than common improvement in every other kind of useful learn-, ing, insomuch that in his latter days men often wondered how with such a superiority in one branch, he could have been so near to eminence in all the rest. Upon the foundation of the academy of sciences at St. Petersburgh, in, 1723, by Catherine I. the two younger Bernouillis, NichoJas and Daniel, had gone thither, promising, when they set out, to endeavour to procure Euler a place in it: they accordingly wrote to him soon after, to apply his mathetics to physiology, which he did, and studied under the best naturalists at Basil, but at the same time, i. e. in 1727, published a dissertation on the nature and propagation of sound; and an answer to the question on the masting of ships, which the academy of sciences at Paris judged worthy of the accessit. Soon after this, he was called to St. Petersburgh, and declared adjutant to the mathematical class in the academy, a class, in which, from the circumstances of the times (Newton, Leibnitz, and so many other eminent scholars being just dead), no easy laurels were to be gathered. Nature, however, who had organized so many mathematical heads at one time, was not yet tired of her miracles and she added Euler to the number. He indeed was much wanted the science of the calculus integralis, hardly come out of the hands of its creators, was still too near the stage of its infancy not to want to be made more perfect. Mechanics, dynamics, and especially hydrodynamics, and the science of the motion of the heavenly bodies, felt the imperfection. The application of the differential calculus, to them, had been sufficiently successful; but there were difficulties whenever it was necessary to go from the fluxional quantity to the fluent. With regard to the nature and properties of numbers, the writings of Fermat (who had been so successful in them), and together with these all his profound researches, were lost. Engineering and navigation were reduced to vague principles, and were founded on a heap of often contradictory observations, rather than a regular theory. The irregularities in the motions of the celestial bodies, and especially the complication of forces whitfh influence that of the moon, were still the disgrace of geometers. Practical astronomy had jet to wrestle with the imperfection of telescopes, insomuch, that it could hardly be said that any rule for making them existed. Euler turned his eyes to all these objects he perfected the calculus integralis he was the inventor of a new kind of calculus, that of sines he simplified analytical operations and, aided by these powerful help-mates, and the astonishing facility with which he knew how to subdue expressions the most intractable, he threw a new light on all the branches of the mathematics. But at Catherine’s death the academy was threatened with extinction, by men who knew not the connection which arts and sciences have with the happiness of a people. Euler was offered and accepted a lieutenancy on board one of the empress’s ships, with the promise of speedy advancement. Luckily things changed, and the learned captain again found his own element, and was named Professor of Natural Philosophy in 1733, in the room of his friend John Bernouilli. The number of memoirs which Euler produced, prior to this period, is astonishing, but what he did in 1735 is almost incredible, An important calculation was to be made, without loss of time; the other academicians had demanded some months to do it. Euler asked three days—in three days he did it; but the fatigne threw him into a fever, and the fever left him not without the loss of an eye, an admonition which would have made an ordinary man more sparing of the other. The great revolution, produced by the discovery of fluxions, had entirely changed the face of mechanics; still, however, there was no complete work on the science of motion, two or three only excepted, of which Euler felt the insufficiency. He saw, with pain, that the best works on the subject, viz. “Newton’s Principia,” and “Herman’s Phoronomia,” concealed the method by which these great men had come at so many wonderful discoveries, under a synthetic veil. In order to lift this up, Euler employed all the resources of that analysis which had served him so well on so many other occasions; and thus uniting his own discoveries to those of other geometers, had them published by the academy in 1736. To say that clearness, precision, and order, are the characters of this work, would be barely to say, that it is, what without these qualities no work can be, classical of its kind. It placed Euler in the rank of the first geometricians then existing, and this at a time when John Bernouilli was still living. Such labours demanded some relaxation; the only one which Euler admitted was music, but even to this he could not go without the spirit of geometry with him. They produced together the essay on a new theory of music, which was published in 1739, but not very well received, probably, because it contains too much geometry for a musician, and too much music for a geometrician. Independently, however, of the theory, which is built on Pythagorean principles, there are many things in it which may be of service, both to composers, and to makers of instruments. The doctrine, likewise, of the genera and the modes of music is here cleared up with all the clearness and precision which mark the works of Euler. Dr. Burney remarks, that upon the whole, Euler seems not to have invented much in this treatise; and to have done little more than arrange and methodize former discoveries in a scientific and geometric manner. He may, indeed, not have known what antecedent writers had discovered before; and though not the first, yet to have imagined himself an inventor. In 1740, his genius was again called forth by the academy of Paris (who, in 1738, had adjudged the prize to his paper on the nature and properties of fire) to discuss the nature of the tides, an important question, which demanded a prodigious extent of calculations, aud an entire new system of the world. This prize Euler did not gain alone; but he divided it with Maclaurin and D. Bernouilli, forming with them a triumvirate of candidates, which the realms of science had not often beheld. The agreement of the several memoirs of Euler and Bernouilli, on this occasion, is very remarkable. Though the one philosopher had set out on the principle of admitting vortices, which the other rejected, they not only arrived at the same end of the journey, but met several times on the road; for instance, in the determination of the tides under the frozen zone. Philosophy, indeed, led these two great men by different paths; Bernouilli, who had more patience than his friend, sanctioned every physical hypothesis he was obliged to make, by painful and laborious experiment. These Euler’s impetuous genius scorned; and, though his natural sagacity did not always supply the loss, he made amends by his superiority in analysis, as often as there was any occasion to simplify expressions, to adapt them to practice, and to recognize, by final formulae, the nature of the result. In 1741, Euler received some very advantageous propositions from Frederic the Second (who had just ascended the Prussian throne), to go and assist him in forming an academy of sciences, out of the wrecks of the Royal Society founded by Leibnitz. With these offers the tottering state of the St. Petersburgh academy, under the regency, made it necessary for the philosopher to comply. He accordingly illumined the last volume of the “Melanges de Berlin,” with five essays, which are, perhaps, the best things in it, and contributed largely to the academical volumes, the first of which was published in 1744. No part of his multifarious labours is, perhaps, a more wonderful proof of the extensiveness and facility of his genius, than what he executed at Berlin, at a time when he contrived also that the Petersburgh acts should not suffer from the loss of him. In 1744, Euler published a complete treatise of isoperimetrical curves. The same year beheld the theory of the motions of tb.e planets and comets; the well-known theory of magnetism, which gained the Paris prize; and the much-amended translation of Robins’ s “Treatise on Gunnery.” In 1746, his “Theory of Light and Colours” overturned Newton’s “System of Emanations;” as did another work, at that time triumphant, the “Monads of Wolfe and Leibnitz.” Navigation was now the only branch of useful knowledge, for which the labours of analysis and geometry had done nothing. The hydrographical part alone, and that which relates to the direction of the course of ships, had been treated by geometricians conjointly with nautical astronomy. Euler was the first who conceived and executed the project of making this a complete science. A memoir on the motion of floating bodies, communicated to the academy of St. Petersburgh, in 1735, by M. le Croix, first gave him this idea. His researches on the equilibrium of ships furnished him with the means of bringing the stability to a determined measure. His success encouraged him to go on, and produced the great work which the academy published in 1749, in which we find, in systematic order, the most sublime notions on the theory of the equilibrium and mo. tion of floating bodies, and on the resistance of fluids. This was followed by a second part, which left nothing to be desired on the subject, except the turning it into a language easy of access, and divesting it of the calculations which prevented its being of general use. Accordingly in 1773, from a conversation with admiral Knowles, and other assistance, out of the “Scientia Navalis,” 2 vols. 4to, was produced, the “Theorie complette de la Construction et de la Manoeuvre des Vaisseaux.” This work was instantly translated into all languages, and the author received a present of 6000 livres from the French king: he had before had 300l. from the English parliament, for the theorems, by the assistance of which Meyer made his lunar tables . And now it was time to collect into one systematical and continued work, all the important discoveries on the infinitesimal analysis, which Euler had been making for thirty years, and which lay dispersed in the memoirs of the different academies. This, accordingly, the professor undertook; but he prepared the way by an elementary work, containing all the previous requisites for this study. This is called “An Introduction to the analysis of Infinitesimals,” and is a work in which the author has exhausted all the doctrine of fractions, whether algebraical or transcendental, by shewing their transformation, their resolution, and their developernent. This introduction was soon, followed by the author’s several lessons on the “calculus integralis, and differentialis.” Having engaged himself to count Orlow, to furnish the academy with papers sufficient to fill their volumes for twenty years after his death, the philosopher is likely to keep his word, having presented seventy papers, through Mr. Golofkin, in the course of his life, and left two hundred and fifty more behind him; nor is there one of these that does not contain a discovery, or something that may lead to one. The most ancient of these memoirs form the collection then published, under the title of “Opuscula Analytica.” Such were Euler’s labours, and these his titles to immortality His memory shall endure till science herself is no more! Few men of letters have written so much as Euler no geometrician, has ever embraced so many objects at one time or has equalled him, either in the variety or magnitude of his discoveries. When we reflect on the good such men do their fellow-creatures, we cannot help indulging a wish (vain, alas as it is) for their illustrious course to be prolonged beyond the term allotted to mankind. Euler’s, though it has had an end, was very long and very honourable; and it affords us some consolation for his loss, to think that he enjoyed it exempt from the ordinary consequences of extraordinary application, and that his last labours abounded in proofs of that vigour of understanding which marked his early days, and which he preserved to his end. Some swimmings in the head, which seized him on the first days of September, 1783, did not prevent his laying hold of a few facts, which reached him through the channel of the public papers, to calculate the motions of the aerostatical globes; and he even compassed a very difficult integration, in which the calculation had engaged him . But the decree was gone forth: on the 7th of September he talked with Mr. Lexell, who had come to dine with him, of the new planet, and discoursed with him upon other subjects, with his usual penetration. He was playing with one of his grand-children at tea-time, when he was seized with an apoplectic fit. “I am dying,” said he, before he lost his senses; and he ended his glorious life a few hours after, aged seventy-six years, five months, and three days. His latter days were tranquil and serene. A few infirmities excepted, which are the inevitable lot of an advanced age, he enjoyed a share of health which allowed him to give little time to repose. Euler possessed to a great degree what is commonly called erudition he had read all the Latin classics was perfect master of ancient mathematical literature and had the history of all ages, and all nations, even to the minutest facts, ever present to his mind. Besides this, he knew much more of physic, botany, and chemistry, than could be expected from any man who had not made these sciences his peculiar occupation. “I have seen,” says his biographer, Mr. Fuss, “strangers go from him with a kind of surprise mixed with admiration; they could not conceive how a man, who for half a century had seemed taken up in making and publishing discoveries in natural philosophy and mathematics, could have found means to preserve so much knowledge that seemed useless to himself, and foreign to the studies in which he was engaged. This was the effect of a happy memory, that lost nothing of what had ever been entrusted to it nor was it a wonder that the man who was able to repeat the whole Æneis, and to point out to his hearers the first and last verses of every page of his own edition of it, should not have lost what he had learned, at an age when the impressions made upon us are the strongest. Nothing can equal the ease with which, without expressing the least degree of ill-humour, he could quit his abstruse meditations, and give himself up to the general amusements of society. The art of not appearing wise above one’s fellows, of descending to the level of those with whom one lives, is too rare in these days not to make it a merit in Euler to have possessed it. A temper ever equal, a natural and easy chearfulness, a species of satirical wit, tempered with urbane humanity, the art of telling a story archly, and with simplicity, made his conversation generally sought. The great fund of vivacity which he had at all times possessed, and without which, indeed, the activity we have just been admiring could not have existed, carried him sometimes away, and he was apt to grow warm, but his anger left him as quickly as it came on, and there never has existed a man to whom he bore malice. He possessed a precious fund of rectitude and probity. The sworn enemy of injustice, whenever or by whomsoever committed, he used to censure and attack it, without the least attention to the rank or riches of the offender. Recent examples of this are in the recollection of all who hear me.” As he was filled with respect for religion, his piety was sincere, and his devotion full of fervour. He went through all his Christian duties with the greatest attention. Euler loved all mankind, and if he ever felt a motion of indignation, it was against the enemy of religion, particularly against the declared apostles of infidelity. He was of a very religious turn of mind. He published a New Demonstration of the Existence of God, and of the Spirituality of the Soul, which last has been admitted into several divinity schools as a standard book. With scrupulous exactness he adhered to the religion of his country, that of Calvinism, and, fortified by its principles, he was a good husband, a good father, a good friend, a good citizen, a good member of private society.

, a learned protestant divine, was born at Basil, Dec. 8, 1654, where his father was a merchant. Until the fourteenth year of his age, he was instructed by private tutors, and profited so much as to be then fit for the university of Basil, where, after studying languages, philosophy, mathematics, and history, for three or four years, he was on July 2, 1672, admitted to the degrees of master of arts and doctor in philosophy. He tnen studied divinity, and had for one of his masters Peter Werenfels, father of the celebrated Samuel VVerenfels. In about two years, he was appointed to lecture on theology during the vacations, and acquitted himself with great credit. In March 1676, he was admitted a preacher, and the following year passed six months at Geneva, whence he went into France, and visited the university of Saumur, where he heard the lectures of Henry Philiponeau de Hautecour, who was afterwards his colleague in the university of Franeker. His reputation having by this time extended to Germany, he was invited to Heilborn to be professor of philosophy and rhetoric, and rector of the classes, of which office he took possession in 1685, with a public harangue, “de fato philosophico in ecclesia Christiana.” As divinity was still his favourite study, he continued improving his knowledge of it; and having visited Heidelberg during the third jubilee of that university, he received his degree of D. D. with every mark of distinction, even from the learned catholics who heard him maintain a thesis on this occasion, the subject of which was “Christ’s kingly office.” After he had remained about two years at Heilborn, he was requested to accept the theological chair at Hanau, with which he complied. In 1696 he was again removed to Bremen as professor in ordinary of divinity, moderator of the schools, and perpetual rector magrdficus. To this place he drew a great concourse of students; but the fatigues attending his occupations here made him willing to accept the less laborious professorship of divinity at Deventer in 1699. In 1705 the curators of the university of Franeker offered him their theological chair, which he at first refused, but accepted it, on a second and more pressing invitation, in 1707. His constitution was now, however, so much worn down by repeated attacks of the gout, that he did not enjoy this office above four years, dying Sept. 28, 1711. Gurtler was a man of genuine piety, modesty, and candour, and of extensive knowledge in every branch of science, but especially in those connected with his profession. His works, which have generally received the approbation of catholics as well as protestants, are, 1. A Latin, German, Greek, and French Dictionary, published in 1682. 2. “Historia Templariorum observationibus ecclesiasticis aucta,” Amst. 1691, 8vo, and 1702, with additions. 3. “Institutiones Theologies,” ibid. 1794, 4to. 4. “Voces Typico-propheticiT,” Bremen, 1698, 4to, and Utrecht, 1715, considerably enlarged. 5. “Dialogi Eucharistici,” Bremen, 1699, 4to. 6. “SystemaTheologise propbeticse,” Amst. 1702, 4to, considered as one of the best works of the kind. 7. “Origines mundi, et in eo regnorum,” &c. Amst. 1708, 4to. 8. “Dissertationes de Jesu Christo in gloriam evecto,” Franeker, 1711. 9. “Forma sanorum verborum,” a short abridgment of divinity, which he used as a text-book, 1709, 12mo. Gurtler wrote also a “History of the Churches of France,” in German.

, a learned mathematician of the academy of Berlin, and member of the academy of sciences at Paris, was born at Basil in 1678. He was a great traveller; and for six years was professor of mathematics at Padua. He afterwards went to Russia, being iovited thither by the Czar Peter I. in 1724, as well as his compatriot Daniel Bernoulli. On his return to his native country he was appointed professor of morality and natural law at Basil, where he died in 1733, at fifty-five years of age. He wrote several mathematical and philosophical pieces, in the Memoirs of different academies, and elsewhere; but his principal work is the “Phoronomia, or two books oh the forces and motions of both solid and fluid bodies,” 1716, 4to a very learned work on the new mathematical physics.

, in Latin Iselius, a learned antiquary, was born at Basil, in 1681. He was made professor of history and eloquence at Marpurg, in 1704; but was recalled to Basil, to teach history and antiquity, in 1707, where he was also promoted to the divinity-chair in 1711. He went to Paris in 1717, intending to visit Holland and England but, being nominated rector of the university of Basil, was obliged to return into his own country. Shortly after, the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres at Paris made him an honorary foreign member, in the room of M. Cuper. Iselin was also librarian at Basil, where he died in 1737. He published a great number of books, of which the principal are, 1. “De Gailis Rhenum transeuntibus Carmen Heroicum/ 7 2.” De Historicis Latinis melioris aevi dissertatio." 3. Dissertations and orations upon various subjects.

, a famous German printer, was born at Basil, Jan. 25, 1507. His father, John Herbst, was a painter; who had been deserted by his father for attachment to his art, and had settled at Basil in very indifferent circumstances. He contrived, however, to give his son some education at home, and afterwards sent him to Strasbourg, where he received the provision allotted to poor students. Here he studied Latin and Greek, and spoke and wrote the former with purity and fluency. With these accomplishments he would have returned home, but having no prospect of employment there, he went to the abbey of St. Urban, in the Canton of Lucerne, and was appointed master of the school. In this house, he formed an intimacy with the canon Xylotectus, who afterwards quitted his preferment, became a protestant, and married. Oporinus, also disliking a monastic life, followed his friend to Basil, and gained a livelihood by transcribing the works of the Greek authors published by Frobenius. On the death of his friend Xylotectus, he married his widow in 1527, a woman of a capricious temper, who rendered his life very uneasy. He had been for some time appointed schoolmaster here, but exchanged an employment of much drudgery and little reward for the study of medicine, which he hoped would be more profitable. The noted Paracelsus was at this time at Basil, and engaged to teach him all the secrets of his art within the space of a year. Oporinus, rejoiced at the prospect of becoming as wise as his master, willingly submitted to be his pupil, his servant, his amanuensis, and bore with all his eccentricities with great patience, accompanying him even to Alsace, until finding that he was egregiously duped by this quack, he returned to Basil, to encounter another disappointment. His wife died, from whom he expected great riches, but she left him only debts.

, a learned physician and historian, was born at Basil June 13, 1522. In his early education he made very considerable proficiency, but it ap pears that his friends differed in their opinions as to his profession, some intending him for a learned profession, and some for a printer, which they conceived to be connected with it. At length after a due course of the languages and polite literature, he studied divinity according to the principles of the reformed religion, but changing that design, he taught dialectics and natural philosophy at Basil for about forty years. He then, at an advanced age, studied medicine, took the degree of doctor in that faculty, and practised with much reputation until his death, March 3, 1595, in the seventy-third year of his age. He composed various works both in medicine and history, some in Latin and some in German, and translated certain authors into the latter language. His most useful work, nowscarce, was an account of the eminent men of Germany, published at Basil in 1565, fol. under the title of “Posographia heroum et illustrium virorum Germanise,” dedicated to the emperor Maximilian II. who honoured him with the title of Count Palatin. He published also a Latin history of the order of St. John of Jerusalem, 1581, folio. ' Historia Militaris ordinis Johannitarum, Rhodiorum aut Melitensium Equitum;“” Chronographia Ecclesiae Christi,“ibid, 1568;” Diarium Historicum,“1572; and, in his youth,” Comoedia de Zaccheo publicanorum principe," 1546, 8vo.