“It will not be much out of the way, to insert a diverting passage between Sir Godfrey Kneller, the King’s chief painter, and the doctor, since it happened near this time; and though not altogether so advantageous to the doctor’s memory as the generality of his sarcastical replies, yet will be of use to bring in a very happy turn of wit from him that speaks in rejoindre to it. The doctor’s dwelling-house, as has been said before, was in Bow-street, Covent Garden, whereunto belonged a very convenient garden, that was contiguous to another, on the back of it, appertaining to Sir Godfrey, which was extremely curious and inviting, from the many exotic plants, and the variety of flowers and greens, which it abounded with. Now, as one wall divided both inclosures, and the doctor had some reason, from his intimacy with the knight, to think he would not give a denial to any reasonable request, so he took the freedom when he was one day in company with the latter, after extolling his fine parterres and choice collection of herbs, flowers, &c. to desire the liberty of having a door made, for a free intercourse with both gardens, but in such a manner as should not be inconvenient to either family. “Sir Godfrey, who was and is a gentleman of extraordinary courtesy and humanity, very readily gave his consent; but the doctor’s servants, instead of being strict observers of the terms of agreement, made such a havock amongst his hortulanary curiosities, that Sir Godfrey was out of all patience, and found himself obliged, in a very becoming manner, to advertise their master of it, with his desires to him, to admonish them for the forbearance of such insolencies; yet notwithstanding this complaint, the grievance continued unredressed; so that the person aggrieved found himself under the necessity of letting him that ought to make things easy know, by one of his servants, that he should be obliged to brick up the door, in case of his complaints proving ineffectual. To this the doctor, who was very often in a cholerick temper, and from the success of his practice imagined every one under an obligation of bearing with him, returned answer, ‘That Sir Godfrey might do even what he pleased with the door, so that he did not paint it:’ alluding to his employment, in which none was a more exquisite master. Hereupon a footman, after some hesitation in the delivery of his message, and several commands from his master, to give it him word for word, told him as above. ‘Did my very good friend, Dr. Radcliffe, say so?’ cried Sir Godfrey: ‘go you back to him, and, after presenting my service to him, tell him that I can take anything from him but physic.’”—(The Editor.) £5,000 for the enlargement of the building of University College, where he himself had been educated. £40,000 for the building of a library at Oxford. £500 yearly for ever, towards mending the diet of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital. After the payment of these bequests, and some legacies to various individuals mentioned in the will, he gave to his executors, in trust, all his estates in Buckinghamshire, Yorkshire, Northamptonshire, and Surrey, to be applied to such charitable purposes as they in their discretion should think best; but no part thereof to their own use or benefit. The Radcliffe Library, which is perhaps the most beautiful building in Oxford, was finished in 1749, when it was opened in a public ceremony: it has been appropriated, by a late resolution of the Trustees, to the reception of books in medicine and natural history. But that classical city has to boast of two other edifices which bear the name of the same munificent benefactor, and in their building the Trustees have been equally attentive to the interests of science and humanity. The Observatory and Public Infirmary were both erected out of the funds of Dr. Radcliffe, by the Trustees of his will. The first of these edifices consists of a dwelling-house for the Observer, and is amply supplied with astronomical instruments: it is one of the buildings first asked for by foreigners who visit the University, and is remarkable for its beautiful staircase. The Radcliffe Infirmary was opened for the reception of patients, 1770. From time to time, according to their means and as opportunities present themselves, the faithful and enlightened guardians of these funds have ever been found ready (in the exercise of the discretionary power with which they are entrusted) to contribute to every charitable and useful purpose.
“In this Vault Lies ye Body of ye Lady Garth, Late Wife of Sir Samuel Garth, Kt. Who Dyed ye 14th of May, In ye year 1717. Sir Samuel Garth, Obijt jane: the 18th, 1718.” Since the time of Harvey, the method of preserving different parts of the body has undergone many changes, and much improvement; and the history of the art would be a subject of curious investigation. In the Philosophical Transactions for May 7, 1666, Mr. Boyle mentions a method he had invented of preserving or embalming the embryo of a chick in a glass filled with spirit of wine, to which he sometimes added a little sal armoniack, as he observed it never coagulated the spirit of wine. Ruysch, the professor at Amsterdam, if not the discoverer of the use of injections, for the display of vascular and other structure, contributed, together with the suggestions of De Graaf and Swammerdam, by his own ingenuity and industry, to introduce that important practice among anatomists. His museum became ultimately the most magnificent that any private individual had ever, at that time, accumulated, and was the resort of visitors of every description. Generals, ambassadors, princes, and even kings, were happy in the opportunity of visiting it. It was purchased in 1717, by the Czar Peter the Great, for thirty thousand florins, and sent to Petersburg. Dr. Frank Nicholls, who married a daughter of Mead’s, was the inventor of corroded anatomical preparations. He was at one time professor of anatomy at Oxford, and author of a treatise De Anim MedicÂ. “Johannes Seldenus J. C. Qui res a memori remotissimas revocare mortalibus in memoriam semper studuit; Ipsus omnium oblivisci morte coactus est.”—1 Dec. 1654. This may serve as a specimen of the epigrammatic style of this curious work, which is generally characterized by great good nature, though occasionally the author indulges in a vein of sarcasm; as, for example, when speaking of one of his contemporaries, he describes him as— “Syphar hominis; nec facie minus quam arte Hippocraticus.” Translated by Sir William Jones. ?a??ad?? ?? p?te de?d???, ep ’????ss??? ?ee????? ?a?pf a?a???e??? ?a???pa?? ?e?ad?. ?e?e ’a’? ? ???pt?? ?a? ap??ese, ???de ?ea???? ?a?da?e? ?a??a? ??d??a f???a fe??. ?a??’, ? ?e???p?? a?a’ t? ?? e?e?; ??? ep???? S???at???? t’?????, ??a???f???? te ?ea?. By Jacob Bryant, Esq. Hospes ego in terras nuper delata Britannas, Arbor eram ÆgiferÆ maxima cura DeÆ. Exul ab Ilisso Thamesina ad littora sistor, Hei mihi! dulce solum, patria terra, vale! Non tamen in fines cupio remeare priores; Omnia, quÆ amisi, reddidit una domus. HÎc MusÆ atque artes, hÎc dignus Socrate sermo, Et, pro Pallade, me Pallade nata fovet. Hic |