tion of the critic. "The Cruscans," says Lord Byron, "from Merry to Jerningham, were annihilated (if nothing can be said to be annihilated) by Gifford, the last of the wholesome satirists." The same school, too, had corrupted dramatic poetry, and accordingly they received a merited castigation from Gifford in the "Mæviad," imitated from Horace, which, like the "Baviad," was everywhere read and admired. In 1797 the memorable and brilliant paper, the Antijacobin, was started, under the auspices of Canning, Pitt, Frere, and others, and of this Gifford was given the editorship. Though short-lived, it brought him into connection with men of high political position. Amongst his satirical poems at this time, must not be omitted his "Epistle to Peter Pindar" (the witty Dr. Wolcott), an acrimonious and personal attack which was responded to by Wolcott in a Cut at a Cobbler. Gilford's next important work, a translation of Juvenal, upon which he had been long engaged, appeared in 1802. Upon its merits there has been a diversity of opinion. Scott has pronounced it the best poetical version of a classic in the English language; while Hazlitt, a prejudiced judge, speaks of it in terms of unqualified condemnation. The truth lies, where it usually does, between the extremes. The contemporary strictures were some of them severe enough, and Gifford defended himself by criticising the criticisms. He next devoted himself to editing some of the British dramatists, publishing in 1805 an admirable edition of Massinger, and preparing those of Ben Jonson, Ford, and Shirley, the former of which alone appeared in his lifetime. Meantime an opposition to the Edinburgh Review was organized by Scott and others, and the Quarterly was started in 1809 with Gifford as its editor. It is in connection with this periodical, both as editor and contributor, that Gifford is best known, and will be longest remembered. To his editing, in a great measure, may . be attributed the high influence, political and literary, which this review exercised. His contributions, critical, satirical, and political, are always vigorous, bold, acute, and uncompromising, though often unjustifiably acrimonious, personal, and prejudiced. He tolerated no one who dissented from his dogmas, whether in politics or letters, and so assailed with merciless severity men of undeniable talent and learning. Gifford continued to discharge the functions of editor till within a short period of his death, which occurred on the last day of the year 1826. He had been appointed, through his political friends, paymaster of the gentlemen pensioners, and was also a commissioner of the lottery, both offices being worth about £900 a year. As might be expected, a man of Gifford's temperament, occupying the position that he did, made many enemies in his public capacity, and we have various estimates of the man and his abilities that are irreconcilable. Hazlitt writes of him with the sensitive bitterness of a wounded nature that disentitles his estimate to much credit, assailing him, for what is his glory, as being "a low-bred, self-taught man;" denying him the qualities of wit or spirit, but attributing to him as a satirist "mere peevishness and spleen, or, something worse, personal antipathy and rancour;" as a critic, unable to throw light on the character or spirit of his authors, without the power of analysis or original illustration. Scott, who knew him well, declares he was a man of rare attainments and many excellent qualities, and praises him as a commentator, while he condemns him for undue severity; and Cunningham says "he almost rivalled Jeffrey in wit, and he surpassed him in scorching sarcasm and crucifying irony." Byron, too, on various occasions, accords him high praise, and always held his opinions in the greatest estimation. "I always," he writes to Murray, "considered him as my literary father, and myself as his prodigal son." But whatever were his defects in temper, or judgment as a writer, all who knew him concur in bearing testimony to his many amiable qualities in private life. If he was a good hater, he was a good lover too—ever grateful to those who sensed him, kind, sincere, and unaffected in his social intercourse. "He had a heart," writes Southey, "full of kindness for all living creatures except authors; them he regarded as a fishmonger regards eels, or as Isaak Walton did slugs, worms, and frogs." Let it be remembered, too, when forming an estimate of the man, that the friends he made never forsook him. He was independent in spirit, unsordid in relation to wealth, and while ready at any time to help others by his own bounty, he was slow to ask favours for them from those in power, slower still to seek them for himself. To question the great learning, knowledge, acuteness, and wit of Gilford is unjust; to deny that he was often violent, personal, and bitter, beyond what the occasion required or justified, would be futile. But how many of his defects may be fairly attributable to the trials and necessities of an early life of poverty, ill-treatment, and neglect? How many of his merits are intensified from the same circumstances? Taking the man upon the whole as we find him, Gifford is one whom the English biographer may be proud to enrol amongst the literature of his country.—J. F. W.
GIGGEO or GIGGEI, Antonio, an Italian orientalist, was born at Milan towards the end of the sixteenth century. He was the intimate friend of Cardinal F. Borromeo, under whose auspices he published his "Thesaurus Linguas Arabicæ," a dictionary considered the best then extant. Having been called to Rome by Pope Urban VIII. to fill the chair of oriental languages in the college of the Propaganda, he was preparing for the journey when he died in 1632.—A. C. M.
GIGLI, Girolamo, born at Siena on the 14th October, 1660. His real name was Nenci, but having been adopted by an old gentleman, he took the name of his benefactor. Gigli successfully occupied himself with astronomy, architecture, philosophy, poetry, and agriculture. In his leisure hours he wrote many plays for the stage, and, amongst others, a comedy entitled "Don Pilone," nearly a translation of Moliere's Tartuffe, which was highly successful. He became a member of the Academy of La Crusca. His reiterated scurrilous attacks on Crescimbeni, his rival in literature, brought on him the anger of the Roman court, and he was exiled to Viterbo. Having, however, retracted the injurious language which had proved so offensive to the court, he was permitted to return to Rome. But shortly after his restoration to freedom, he died of a dropsical disorder, on the 4th of January, 1722.—A C. M.
GIGOT D'ELBÉE. See Elbée.
* GIL Y ZARATE, Antonio, a Spanish poet, born 1st December, 1793, his parents being members of a theatrical company. Educated in France, he returned in 1811 to Madrid, where he studied at the college of S. Isidoro, and at this period showed a marked predilection for the physical sciences. He returned to Paris to complete his studies; and in 1814 was again in Madrid. He looked forward to becoming a professor of physical science at Granada, but the revolution of 1820 destroyed these hopes. He obtained, however, a subordinate post in the ministry of the interior. In 1823 he was an officer in the national militia, and took part in the events of that year at Cadiz. On the re-establishment of absolutism, he was compelled to remain in Cadiz, and here it was that he first devoted himself to dramatic composition, though he had previously studied and translated most of the French tragedians. His plays, "El Entro-metido" (The Busy-body); "Cuidado con las Novias" (Take care of your Brides); and "Un Año despues de la Boda" (A Year after the Wedding), were acted in Madrid in 1825 and 1826; and in the latter year he obtained permission to return to the capital. In 1828 he accepted the chair of French literature in the school of the consulate at a modest salary of £80 per annum. In 1832 he became the editor of the Boletin del Comercio, and wrote many political and scientific articles. In 1835 he obtained a post in the ministry of the interior. His favourite object in this situation was the promotion of education by means of normal and other schools. At the same time he wrote political and social articles in the Revista de Madrid, and valuable biographies in the Seminario Pintoresco; he also delivered lectures on history at the Lyceum, which have been published, and a drama entitled "Rosamunda," which is by some esteemed the finest of his works. Driven from office in 1840, he applied himself to literature, and published several dramas, of which "Guzman el Bueno" is considered the finest. The drama founded on the history of Doña Blanca of Castile, and that entitled "Charles II., the Bewitched," are also amongst the happiest of his dramatic productions, although in some points historical truth has been disregarded. Not less important was his "Manual of Literature," three volumes of which are occupied with that of his own country. Besides various other plays, we have from his pen odes "To the Amnesty," "To Liberty," and one on the siege of Bilboa. He likewise contributed some amusing and able sketches to a series entitled the Spaniards Painted by Themselves. In 1843 he again took office in the ministry of the interior, under the ministry of Firmin Caballero, and became director of public instruction. The result of his labours in this department is contained in three volumes pub-
